The end is in sight for the C-17

The end is in sight for the C-17

FARNBOROUGH, England – The C-17 Globemaster III, the cargo plane that the Air Force literally could not stop buying, may at last be nearing the end of its run.

Boeing Mobility vice president Tommy Dunehew told reporters at the air show here Wednesday that the current order book of 24 airplanes takes its production of C-17s to “fall of 2014,” and then the line goes dark.

Naturally, he exuded the standard air show optimism and confidence that Big B would be able to keep this party going for longer: “We’re still very positive for future sales of C-17,” he said.


As soon as new prospective international clients get a taste of this sweet, sweet airlifter, Dunehew said, they’ll be hooked.

“Once a customer gets the airplane, they tend to come back and get more because of the performance of the airplane,” he said.

C-17 is “a model program,” Dunehew boasted; “there’s no risk with it.” Boeing has delivered its last 200 airplanes on time and on cost, he said.

The sound bite: All these international air forces would be fools not to buy them!

Problem is, Boeing doesn’t necessarily have the kind of pull with their legislatures the way it did with Congress, which stuffed C-17s into the Air Force like a Thanksgiving turkey. The other problem is the new kid in town – EADS’ A400M, which is also on display at the air show here.

EADS has built its four-engine turboprop airlifter to fit into the niche between the C-17 and Lockheed Martin’s C-130 Hercules, and it could well peel away some of sales that Dunehew and his colleagues are hoping for.

Who knows? If the much-discussed international prospects don’t materialize, the C-17 battles of the Secretary Gates era could reignite in Washington – if there’s even still a Defense Department budget then.

Join the Conversation

IMO the A400M taking C-130J orders away from LM is the more likely outcome.

It is always easier to sell the “almost same capability but cheaper” version of something. Several countries have signed up for C-17s, such as India, but with the eternal economic uncertainty…
Certainly the oil producing states can still afford the best, but who else can???

Rise of Europe and the A400M.

Europes rising? Hey whats that at the edge of the ship? Oh its greece about to fall into the water.…good thing its tied a rope to the rest of the eurozone.

Can the A400M even carry a full sized MBT like the C-17A can?

Keep your day job if you have one!

not likely.

“Rise of Europe”… I was three words into the comment and I was already laughing.

in the beginning the C-17 wasn’t the God send it seems to be today. the first one from MDC (McDonnell Douglas Corporation) was an over weight, 5,000 hr wing TBO (Time Before Overhaul) pig that nobody wanted. it took a lot of work from Air Force personell at Edwards to make it worth putting fuel into let alone cargo. as good as it is now that aircraft never met its original SOW (Statement of Work) standards. i know this for a fact because i was there for the first rollout and knew many of the Air Force people that fixed waht MDC ignored. i really do hope that this aircraft finds new life in other countries because America can use the shot in the arm for our aerospace industry’s economy.

The US Air Force claims to have an excess capacity of strategic heavy lift cargo aircraft at their disposal in the C-17 and C-5 fleets.

The US is the major supporter of NATO. Yet in FY2006-FY2012, the NATO Maintenance and Support Agency leased two Antonov AN-124–100 heavy lift cargo aircraft for the “Strategic Airlift Interim Solution” from Ruslan SALIS GmbH, which is essentially a partnership between Russian Volga-Dnepr group and Ukranian Antonov ASTC.

The US has excess capacity in strategic airlift if they cook the demand in the analysis, but actual recent demand seems to have shown otherwise.

I still miss the C-141 Starlifter. That will always be the best cargo plane ever. I rode on them quite a bit. Absolutely reliable. My son lives in Tucson AZ and I live in Phoenix. Every time I visit Tucson I see the
old reliable C-141-s (from the highway) at Davis Monthan AFB. So sad. Chief Alves (Ret)

Ya know, one of the things that gave the US an edge in the “cold war” was that we would use what was developed for the military in the civilian world.
So, ummm what is the “civilian” use of this aircraft?

Spain needs a lifeline as well!

Yeah,Bill. Rode in a few 141’s in my day. Not fancy but it got the job done!

FEDx, UPS, DHL will be in line to get this airplane when the military is done

I doubt the A400 will kill off the C-17 may take some sales from smaller nations away but the UK and other NATO nations may buy them since they have a larger budget to buy them.

How is NATO leasing Antonov’s related to excess strat lift?

The C-17 is a WAY overpriced failure at around $380 million a copy. This aircraft cannot make it from europe the the east coast fully loaded. The engineers knew that before the first plane was built — what a waste of tax payer dollars.

Well, I kind of agree with you there. I spent 21 years in the Air Force (Active duty and Reserves) and I worked loading and downloading aircraft in the Ramp Section. I remember in Vietnam how the C141 Starlifter was an awesome looking aircraft for its time. I was also the aircraft that flew our POWS back home for Hanoi. I flew on the aircraft many times and the last was about 4 years ago to Ramstein Germany to pick up wounded soldiers from Iraqi. The C141 was taken our of service shortly thereafter. Now, I also worked on the C17 and flew on the aircraft once in Charleston, South Carolina. I sat in the jumpe seat behind the pilot and the aircraft was amazing to see from the cockpit how easy it was to handle. Good Aircraft but the C141 lives in my heart.

I’m with you Bill — I still can’t believe that the C-141s are retired. Lots of good memories working in the jet shop and test cell in the early to mid-1980s at McGuire. I remember all of the talk back then about the C17 coming on line in 10 years — now we are getting ready to close down production.

As a retired aerospace engineer with a major missile systems company, I know just how the international sales work. The US tax payer pays all the development costs and the foreign customers get the cream afterwards. All foreign sales need to go through the US government so that us tax payers can get some of our money back!

Uhhhh.…I’ve got about 1500 hours in the 17.…..and I’ve taken off from Frankfurt on multiple occasions ay 585K and landed in Charleston.…..the “non-ER” jets (the first 80) would typically land in the NE for gas when going westbound (against the wind) when heavy, but the ERs had no trouble at all.…..

CT — Your cost estimate is way too high. And neither could the C-141, in regards to flying fully loaded. I flew both aircraft back and forth from Europe many times.

I spent many an hour camped out on pallets during my Air Force career being hauled all over the world.. You knew it was going to be a long day when the crew chief would tell us we were getting ready to refuel. Fortunately I never had to jump from one. The C130 was my preffered aircraft for that even though is was a “bit” noisier.

Impossible. They are inefficient compared to A330F , B 777F and B747F versions. The military keep them too long for starters. And the rear ramp and rough field capability add weight that isnt required.

Would be nice to see them all “ER’-ed.

C-17 WAY OVERPRICED

anyone ever thought of a 2 engine version? DOD needs to rethink the 4 engine configuration, seems reliability of engines is now such that it could be a possible cost savings.

when the C-17 line goes dark, the –130s will still be rolling out. too bad they hobbled the –130J with too many electronics

That’s a bizarre, myopic point of view. Military tech isn’t a one-for-one swap into the civillian market. Do you see civil M1 Abrams or B-1B’s laying around? It’s the advancement in material tech, avionics, and engine design that finds its way into commercial products. Beyond that… what, exactly, is your point? That we shouldn’t buy heavy lift cargo aircraft because there is no practical civillian use?

Strange… I’ve flown from Fairford to CONUS multiple times on a C-17 loaded and without refueling. Must have been a magic C-17.

But, there was a lot learned with this aircraft. All C-17s after shipset 51 have hybrid Horizontal Stabilizers, very large composite tape layed skins, and composite spars with high-speed machined aluminum ribs. This technology helped reduce weight of the horizontal by 500lbs and saved over 20,000 fasteners alone.….and was half the price of the baseline tail.……the amortization of these improvements were realized when the production passed 140 units. I think it is a shame that Fed Ex and UPS have not looked into this, perhaps Boeing needs to sell a stripped down civilian version with minimum avionics sans military systems, to get the price affordable for the commercial variant.

Hate to see this go, as many jobs will go with it.……

The USAF hates the heavy-life/transport mission almost as much as they hate ground support. Both of those mission should be returned to the army.

Engine reliability isnt the driving factor. You need the extra power for heavier lift capacity. I dare say no twin engine aircraft will ever be able to lift 170,000 pounds of cargo and still flirt with 500mph+.

Yeah, let’s just scrap the whole AF and go back to the Army Air Corps. Great idea, idea man! The C-17 is nowhere near 300 million a copy and can make it from the west to east coast fully loaded. Just fyi.

Nope, the C-17 can carry more than double the weight capacity of the A400M. A M1 Abrams or Leopard 2 both weigh around 124,000lbs, thats almost 40,000lbs over the limit of the 400M.

But the real story for folks who did work on the aircraft in Flight Test for the USAF at Edwards AFB. There were alot of the issues were paper targets that no airlifter ever met, needed to meet or ever will meet. Airflow issues were bogus…the C-141 problems were worse. The C-5 caused Lockheed to go bankrupt twice and still is a ramp queen and an ancient aircraft to boot with poor reliability. Streach the C-17 and replace the C-5A, B, M. All versions of the C-5 are the same airframe which is unreliable and old. Remember the 747 was the looser to the C-5 and Hmmm which one has been a success and which one only exists in the USAF thanks to Sam Nun and the Georgia lobby back in the day. Also how did that C-130J work out fine after 15 years of test. Hmmm. An not to leave out our A400M want to be…it’s still almost a paper aircraft but in time it will be ok.

DGR… You say that, “…no twin engine aircraft will ever be able to lift 170,000 pounds of cargo and still flirt with 500mph+.”

While it is not optimized for military heavy cargo use, and has no provision for mid-air refueling, the twin engine Boeing 777 freighter would be adequate for transoceanic transport of palleted cargo, is capable of flying 4,900 nautical miles (9,070 km) with a revenue payload of 112 tons (224,000 pounds, 102 metric tons) at a cruise speed of Mach 0.84 (560 mph, 905 km/h, 490 knots) at a cruise altitude of 35,000 ft (11,000 m).

That 135 in (3.429 m) diameter GE90-115B high bypass turbofan under each wing of the Boeing 777 freighter is rated at 115,300 lbf (514 kN), which is nearly triple the thrust of the C-17’s Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 turbofan, at 40,440 lbf (180 kN) each. Consider that the C-17’s 4x F117-PW-100 turbofans deliver only 70% of the rated thrust of the Boeing 777 freighter’s 2x GE90-115B high bypass turbofans.

In this I am merely refuting your claim, not advocating procurement of the Boeing 777 freighter.

This isn’t a news article– it’s an opinion and should be treated as such.

Yup your right, I should have left off the last sentence. The extra power is more inportant than redundancy on a strategic lift aircraft, but your right the advances in engine design have come a long way. Now if they upgraded the C-17 engines we would be cooking with peanut oil.

I understand where the AF is coming from in terms of dollars and cents, but performance wise especially when conducting airborne operations, I wouldn’t trade the C-17 for all the AF aircraft in the world. I’m a retired Army jumpmaster and I’ve exited from the C-130 and C-141, and neither can compare to the comfort allowed for all concerned: the aircrafts crew, the jumpers and the jumpmaster team. Once the problems with paratroopers exiting both doors simultaneously were ironed out, we accepted it with open arms. As far as I’m concerned, the C-17 is a Cadillac with wings compared to the others.

Only drawback for the 777, their engine are huge, I mean really huge, it can be a problem in harsh condition where they would tend to suck up debris.

The A-400 would be definitely more versatile if it could carry a tank, but the fact that they went for turboprop engine hint that they made a trade-off, after all it’s based on an airbus 300/340; a commercial airbus 340–200 can carry up to 330,000lbs of fuel and equipment.

typo: based on an airbus 330/340 airframe.

The C-17 is well worth the money. I’ve flown on them several times in Iraq and they are great planes. One of my cousins used to fly C-141’s and C-5’s out of Charleston AFB. I’ve flown on both.

AN-124s have been used throughout the war on terror. They help with the oversized loads. C-5s are usually reserved for that but are usually unreliable and it’s usually a 50/50 chance it seems that if they kneel they are going to break. Commercial airliners bare a huge burden of the airlift. The fact of the matter is AMC cannot sustain its role in the GWOT without contracts.

The C-17 was a great plane for its time but I am beginning to wonder if its time is passing. Other then the ER version, I don’t know of any design/engineering improvements that have happened to the plane. Since we are all concerned about fuel use, why have they not put new or improved engines on this plane. Gas prices have gone up significantly over the past 20 years.

That being said, I have definitely enjoyed flying in C-17’s.

Based upon a strictly aesthetic approach, the C-17 beats the A400M hands down. With all those prop blades, the A440M has more of the appearance of a food processor.

Mr. Ewing and Team — nice work on your coverage of the air show and related events and policy decisions. The comments from the DoDBuzz pros and your readers provide valuable insight into many issues! Thnx! TE

OUR NATION IS BROKE! WE ARE LIVING OFF A CREDIT CARD! POLITICS IN THE EURO-AVI COUNTRIES WILL SUPPORT THEIR AVIATION INDUSTRIES. OURS CAN NOT! WE HAVE NO MONEY TO DEVELOPE OR MANUFACTOR A TOY LET ALONE AN AIRPLANE. (RIGHT, I CAN NOT SPELL, HAD A STROKE)

Lets keep the C17. Jobs and money and taxes are better then unemployment.

should not contracts be only used on an interim basis until a long term solution happens. The GWOT has been going on over 10 years. Improving the C-17 and increasing its numbers should happen. I would prefer to see us have another 50 C-17’s and retire an equivalent number of C-130’s.

Can fly an Abrams anywhere. Nuff said.

Give Europe 1–2 years… the harsh and painful restructuring and reforms currently starting to be hammered out and forced into implementation there will actually most likely put Europe on a stronger footing than say, US, which has not yet even begun to reveal to the public the real restructuring, fiscal consolidation and reforms as being necessary.

Regardless… the future of Defense/fence is about consolidation, pooling, downsizing and efficiencies… e.g., retaining optimal muscle while cutting fat.

Interesting point. Why not consider buying/leasing an upgraded commercial 747-cargo hauler, if anything, instead of going through an expensive and risky ‘stretch’ development w/ your C-17?

Hey Saltire, the RAF groundcrew already have a nickname for the A440M– Edward Scissorhands!

Yup. And you don’t have to partially dismantle the tank.

IF IT“S NOT BOEING I“AM NOT GOING !

We as a nation should never rely on another nation for our military equipment (lease). That lease might be the nation you’re war with. We need to design, plan and build our own equipment. I know it cost but it’s ours.

The 747 would require duplicate ground support equipment, etc. It is a great airplane but just is not close to the ground (think roll on, roll off) like the C-130, C-5, C-17, etc.

A big cargo plane with easy loading and unloading will always have a place in the market. Witness the Lockheed civilian versions of the C-130.

Easy and rapid unloading and loading would mean shorter turnaround times for cargo. Unlike the C-5, the C-17 has the potential of being affordable and available in numbers that cargo airlines could attain. The C-5 is a good aircraft but costs too much to acquire and to operate and was never produced as a civilian aircraft, nor was it ever exported to other air forces.

Another issue with the 747 (or any other civilian aircraft) would be to reinforce the frame, the floor and the landing gear. AFAIK those aircraft are not designed to carry a hundred ton tank, that mean that all the weight is on a very limited space. But such modified aircraft could very well end up being more affordable and cost effective. The A380F will make a nice contender too, apparently airbus had for objective to beat the max landing weight of the Antonov (590Tons).

These Antonov’s belong to a private Russian company, leasing their plane for moving oversize equipment.

Yep! When the last C-17 rolls into D.M. for mothballing there will be a C-130 waiting there to take the crew home.

Interesting that Russia is thinking of reviving the AN-124(see http://​www​.aviationweek​.com/​A​r​t​i​c​l​e​.​a​s​p​x​?​i​d​=​/​a​rti… while Boeing is having difficulty finding additional orders for the C-17 Globemaster III

Make the improvements on th C-17, the aircraft is still one of the best in the sky..

The thing is that no countries actually *buys* AN-124s. They contract them out to haul large stuff into Afghanistan/wherever. The companies that got them were able to buy them dirt cheap. But would new-build AN-124s be so cheap? Unlikely if the Russians intend on actually paying their workers a decent wage.

The USAF as a whole does huh?

You need to stop making generalizations as a whole to what you believe.

I directly support ground operations in an AC-130.

I LOVE my job. Damn shame you do not…

Firefighting

Whomever they are sold to, they software needs a backdoor disable feature should they ever become a threat. I site IRAN, once our allies. Or the Japanese Zero (US designed)

Funny to me that when my program needed C-17s for testing 2 years ago there were none to be had, they were all in use on “high priority efforts.” So where the heck is all that “excess capacity”?

The Congress won’t let that happen,

That simply won’t happen. As good a plane as the C-17 is, it simply can not do some of the things the C-130 can. The C-130 still remains a mission essential piece of military equipment that will be around for years to come.

Actually this is a comment forum and should be treated as such. I am free to make any comment I care to make. I’m sorry my comment included some sarcasm and facts. Next time I’ll let you proofread it first.

Bruce, thanks for what you do but you’re supporting SOCOM 90% of the time. There are ground ops besides SOCOM.

IMO opinion anyone putting forth the idea of purchasing hardware for the US Military outside the US should get a stretch in a nice Federal pen. IMO.…

Seems there’s an ample amount of nostalgic airframes here. But the C-17 is a state-of-the-art functional airframe that can do just about any lift requirement and take it anywhere. It’s really the first-besides the C-130 upgraded J, that was built to accommodate its mission requirements. Unlike all its predecessors, building a plane and then seeing what can be jammed inside, the C-17 was built around its payload and get this, it was made user friendly. No more strapping down rollers on the rails when not in use. No more arduous seat configurations and having to dig seats out of the cargo door or ramp. Comparing the C-17 to a 141, or even a 123 is apples and oranges.

Wow, so much for freedom of speech. Merely SUGGEST (Put forth) the idea of buying a competing product and get hauled off to jail.

GREAT IDEA

Outsourcing more jobs to Europe.

C-17 is due for redesign anyway. Might as well start now.

I guess you are a professional military aircraft broker and have determine through critical analysis that it’s overpriced, or are you just being a jack hole?

Bill, I’m also retired from Air Force having served during the time of C-141. I agree, it was retired prematurely in my honest opinion. We have B-52s still flying that were in inventory long before the Starlifter. I only rode one once, going from Clinton-Sherman AFB, OK to Kadena AB, Okinawa. (This was before Okinawa reverted back to Japanese prefecture.

i flew the c141s for years you can not beat it over all make a new verson of it

YC-14

That composite horizontal tail was developed under an $ 86 million project. The fact is that most of the money actully went to solving other engineering problems of the C-17. Lockheed was forced by USAF to design the original tail for Boeing. Northrop helped with the composites.

Try $ 280 million a copy according to Boeing

A C-5 can take two Abrams tanks plus their crews.

The problem with the C-17 is that it is a wide body jet, like the C-5, that flys mostly empty, in cubic size. Many flights, like the South America embassy runs, are in this category. Which means they are not cost effective. The C-141 when it was stretched into the B model, increased the cubic dimensions. This jet would be stuffed full but not get near its weight carrying limit. The C-17 fills up its floor space first but not its cubic space. So a whole lot of metal is flying around using only half of its cargo bay. And the jet is flying what used to be the C-141 runs around the world. But the USAF sold Congress the lie that the –17 was not the replacement of the –141. Let’s see: 241 Starlifters versus 200 Globemaster III’s. At what price?

The only problem with that statement is that the C-17 is not made in the US so I do not know what jobs you are talking about. Do not get me wrong the C-17 is a good aircraft and is better for cretin missions than the C-130s however with the budget constraints the ease of only one type of A/C for training for crew and ground personnel and parts flow, it has to be the C-130. If the Air Force could get all the money it wanted sure the C-17 would be a good buy, but the days of blank checks are over.

C-17 is built in Long Beach California and that is still part of the US

Hey! Where are the “external FUEL tanks”! The C-17 was a political flop. What a piece of junk. I flew C-5 airplanes and yes, even though the C-5 has it’s problems, how could you screw up an airplane in the 21st century!

Design a follow on Tanker Version of the C-17. This will keep costs down and keep it simple. Maybe a roll on roll off refueling pod system and plumbing.

I’m a USAF Veteran, 1976–1980. Stationed at Norton AFB, San Bernardino, CA. I worked in the Jet Shop on the C141 P&W TF33 engines. The Hanoi Taxi, Tail Number 66–0177 was a Norton bird. My son has 18 years plus in AMC (used to be MAC when I was in). He’s worked on the AWACS at Kadena (Okinawa), C5s and C17s at Dover AFB, DE, and now the KC135s at McConnell in Wichita, KS. Although I’ve never had the opportunity to actually fly in any of those aircraft, my son has given me “tours” of each of them (except the AWACS, of course). Two retired C141s at the Dover AFB Museum. The 141 is and will always be my favorite military aircraft. 63RD FMS, 63 MAW. MAC all the way.

We musta been there in Long Beach together as I installed the wing hydraulics on T-1. Good times…good times

ISALUTE THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH FLYING THE BEST AIRCRAFT ON EARTH.

Annette, saw ur post I was at Norton from 1974 to 1992 in the 15th MAS as a Loadmaster. Your right about the 141 sure miss that great airplane. I retired in 95 after 26 years

All the C-141B’s were chopped up and melted down over three years ago. There haven’t been any of them at DM since before 2009.

The last C-141B flew in 2005 at the Wright-Pat AFB retirement show. There haven’t been any flying to Europe for over eight years.

C-17’s are much closer to $215 M a copy. Check out the price tag of a single F-22

Agreed. GREAT A/C to jump. Although it was a little crowded in the air before they figured out how to keep the two sticks from comingling after exit!

Paul, we could have more money if Citibank (paid no taxes), oil compines paid 3 to 4 percent in taxes and many more. Me, I paid 25 percent. I guess you could say that the 800 billion tax break for the big boys come from a portion of my/your 25 percent or the percentage that you paid. I would like to get something back from them with interest (compound interst or not). SMSgt USAF.

Just observed a C-141 on approach.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.