It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boeing "Close" to Launching BC-17

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Boeing says they're closer than ever to launching the commercial version of the C-17. They say they have received requests for proposals from several groups. If they build the BC-17, that will extend the line long enough for a possible C-17B for the USAF.

Initial orders for the BC-17 would be between 30 and 60 aircraft with a potential market for over 100.


Boeing claims it is closer than ever to launching the long-awaited BC-17 commercial derivative of its C-17 strategic transport, but says the growing gap in guaranteed production beyond delivery of the final contracted aircraft in 2009 makes this, and any further potential study derivatives, increasingly expensive to develop.

“We have several customers with money that have given us requests for proposals,” says C-17 vice president and programme manager Dave Bowman, who adds: “I’ve never received RFPs before.”

Although the company declines to identify the interested groups, Bowman says “this is the closest we’ve ever been to launching this programme, and we have got actual proposals in hand from customers.

“We’re looking forward to launching the programme, which could initially be for between 30 and 60 aircraft,” says Bowman, who adds the potential market “could be upwards of 100 aircraft.”

BC-17



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Awesome news for Boeing! I hope they pull off the BC-17 as the longer they can keep the line open the better. Seeing as the goverment doesn't purchase the planes needed to keep lines open anymore its a good thing that Bowing is seriously considering this new option.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
This would be great, because then Boeing would be able to put the C-17B into the competition for the new transport they're developing for the 2012 time frame. They'd be able to get the C-17B for roughly 1/10th the cost of an entirely new airframe.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
This would be great, because then Boeing would be able to put the C-17B into the competition for the new transport they're developing for the 2012 time frame. They'd be able to get the C-17B for roughly 1/10th the cost of an entirely new airframe.


Plus it would be building on an already extrodinary airframe thats been battle proven. When I mention that it makes me wonder what the actual battle stories are about how the plane has preformed in Iraq and if there have been any close calls. I feel like I remeber hearing about one C-17 that had to turn back to the airport after being hit by something. Its sorta a blur. On the point of building on the airframe here is what Boeing is saying it is envisioning.


To be equipped with a centre body gear to help it operate from semi-unprepared strips, the C-17B would have its maximum take-off weight increased from 265,000kg (585,000lb) to 279,000kg, while take-off distance would be reduced at gross weight from 7,040ft (2,150m) to around 6,880ft.
It would also feature upgraded, higher thrust Pratt & Whitney PW2000 engines, an engine-out compensation system, stability and augmentation system and advanced situational awareness and defensive systems countermeasures suite.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I heard about a C-5 that got hit, but not a C-17. But I'll dig and see what I can find on it. I know there was one that had a gear collapse, or slid off the runway, but I'm not sure if that was a result of ground fire or an accident.

Spoke too soon. Here are some details about it. From Jan 04.


Last month, a C-17 US transport plane was hit by a missile shortly after take off from Baghdad. An engine exploded, but the plane returned safely with only one of its 16 people aboard slightly injured.

edition.cnn.com...






[edit on 5/23/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Lol
Don't doubt me so quickly Zaph. Honestly though I do remebr all 3 accidents that you mentioned. Funny about how I don't hear that stuff in the news that much. Much like how they where having problems with protecting Apaches in Iraq and the shortage of information on what exactly was going on. Maybe I just like details to much other wise I feel ripped off.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I was so in awe of the C-5 pics that I found, that I forgot all about the C-17 hit.
That C-5 took a big hit, and still landed. I'll see if I can dig up anything on the C-17 as far as pictures go.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Not that I would ever want to get hit in any aircraft by a missile but damn, being in a C5 or C 17 would be even freakier!! I mean what do you do?? Any way to get out??? Do those heavies even have ejection of any sort??

Peace y'all.....Mondo



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
the russians should have got this market sown up years ago with there big bird - the market is there but they just didn`t build them.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I wonder how the economics will work out. Typicaly large military cargo aircraft while offering impressive lift capacities, do not have the cost per ton average to compete even in the large cargo market.

Unless the US government is willing to offer subsadies to the purchasers it may work out.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
Not that I would ever want to get hit in any aircraft by a missile but damn, being in a C5 or C 17 would be even freakier!! I mean what do you do?? Any way to get out??? Do those heavies even have ejection of any sort??

Peace y'all.....Mondo


You pray REALLY hard. The -135s used to have a sort of ejection system. They had a really big steel bar that hung on the side of the cockpit. In an emergency you pull the handle, and the bar drops and rips the crew entry door off giving you a way to jump.

With the C-130/5/17 you have a sideways opening crew door, so you lose that option.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I wonder how the economics will work out. Typicaly large military cargo aircraft while offering impressive lift capacities, do not have the cost per ton average to compete even in the large cargo market.

Unless the US government is willing to offer subsadies to the purchasers it may work out.


That's exactly what they were talking about doing in 2001 FredT. The companies would "own" them, and the military would use them to supplement their airlift, kind of like the Reserve Air Fleet.


A "fractional ownership" plan that could make a commercial C-17 a possibility will be kicked off any day by the Pentagon.

The proposed partnership between the USAF and civilian charter and freight companies could generate demand for up to 30 BC-17X aircraft, an FAA-approved version of the Globemaster III heavy lifter with a price tag of around $140 million each, manufacturer Boeing believes.

After earlier studies, the Pentagon will now ask for bids to get the program rolling.

www.aviationnow.com...



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Maybe one more nail in the coffin of the A380F? Even in civil markings the C-17 still looks mean and purposeful, I love that shape.

This project must have been kicking around within Boeing for a very long time if the livery in the picture is anything to go by, this hasn't been Boeing's house livery for ages.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Originally it was going to be the MD-17 waynos, but it disappeared for awhile when Boeing took over McDonnell Douglas. Everyone thought it was pretty much dead until recently when some folks came forward and expressed interest in it. Boeing received the ODAR in 1997 shortly after the merger.

[edit on 5/23/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Ah yes, thanks for the reminder Zaphod, I do rememebr the 'MD-17' now you mention it. With Boeing sticking their name all over the old MCAir back catalogue I forgot about the planes roots



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
A380F is completely different class. C-17 can carry 80 ton, compared to 150 ton Airbus. New 747F and 777F are much bigger threats to 380F. It is also more costly to operate and IMO it will compete mainly with Antonov cargo planes.

I wonder how the economics will work out. Typicaly large military cargo aircraft while offering impressive lift capacities, do not have the cost per ton average to compete even in the large cargo market.

Economics works, otherwise there would not be that many Antonovs still flying
. Sometimes you need more rugged plane that can land on remote airfields in bad conditions and doesn't need that much logistic support as civilian passenger derived frighter.


[edit on 23-5-2007 by longbow]



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
I wonder how the economics will work out. Typicaly large military cargo aircraft while offering impressive lift capacities,

Economics works, otherwise there would not be that many Antonovs still flying
.


Exactly. without support, most carriers would say no except in a few cases. Pan Am operated a large number of CRAF aircraft before it folded. In fact the Lockerbie aircraft that crashed was one. The added weight penalty of the additional CRAF requirements did impact thier cost per seat mile if I recall so goverment subsadies will be needed. Its not a bad way to get more lift capacity into the fleet however.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
You are quite right Longbow, the 777F has already stolen the A380F's girlfriend, as it were.

I just thought that another level and capability of freighter from Boeing might just be the final nail.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
May I point out the greater load capacity of the A-380 and Boeing 777 is also a weakness. They can only land at certain airports. These airports are rapidly being swamped by current level of air traffic. The BC-17 will be able to land at smaller airports with less logistical support. Even with the opening of several new cargo only airports in the US, the FAA is very concerned about how it will handle air traffic growth beyond 2015.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
It is really cool to hear about this, but with the a380 having a higher pay load I just don't see why any one would want a four engine plane with a lighter pay load. The fuel cost being the reason.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join