Skip to comments.Long Beach Boeing Plant To Roll Out Last C-17 Cargo Plane For U.S. Military
Posted on 09/09/2013 3:04:05 PM PDT by BenLurkin
LONG BEACH (CBSLA.com) Its the end of an era for a Boeing assembly plant in Long Beach.
KNX 1070′s Bob Brill reports the military contractor is set to roll out its final C-17 Globemaster transport plane for the U.S. military in the coming days.
The C-17, which first rolled off the assembly line in 1991, can carry a tank or up to 800 soldiers into combat and has been sold to nations all over the globe.
Initially, only 40 of the oversized transports were to be built following some early issues that threatened to ground the aircraft, but since then, 250 of the giant aircraft have been manufactured at the Long Beach facility.
The Indian government is expected to receive the final ten C-17s before construction on the aircraft is discontinued.
Boeing is expected to keep the plant open in the hopes of securing international orders for aircraft and has made plans to relocate some of its Seattle staff to Long Beach.
We saw the C 17 go though its paces at the Chino air Show a year or two ago amazing aircraft
Surprised production is being stopped now. I would think this plane would have a similar run of production to the C130
What will replace it? Anyone know?
Are C-130s still being build?
Pilots in the AF get their training, and hours up in those things flying around over my chimney here in Glen Valley all day, and often into the nights. Sometimes they come over so low I can see the rivets in the wings/fuselage, etc.
They are attention getters at almost any altitude around here.
Driving down Van Buren Blvd. towards Arlington Cemetary in Riverside one can often see these huge aircraft dominating the sky.
Are C-130s still being build?
The C-130 J model is probably still being built. It started coming on line about 15 years ago, displacing navigators (like me).
Faster, stronger, better — the C-130 is a cool machine.
But if their GPS/INS goes out, I have lost my sextant and can’t help them.
Carrying 800 Soldiers??? No, I don’t think so. Only a A380 can carry over 800 passengers.
The C-130J (the latest version) is still being built.
The spokesman went on to say the plant would be converted over to a cell phone factory to keep up with demand for the free obama phones.
There will be no end to C130 production.
Gonna have to come up with the next big lift plane if the C17 is done.
No worries. They can always stop and ask the Navy for directions.
As long as there is a country whose air force require mobility, the will be C-130s built.
Name another cargo aircraft that has landed and taken off from an aircraft carriers deck.
Has long standing and proven STOL/Bare Base capability.
Has retrieved packages from satellites in orbit with Skyhook capabilities.
Has proven itself to be a superior gunship platform for troops on the ground.
As well as an excellent candidate for Special Operations with Helicopter refueling packages. RF information/intelligence gathering and jamming capabilities.
Forward and Side Looking Radar and Infra Red.
Still has JATO racks still built into their fuselage and air deflector doors for military operations.
Has had an amphibious seaplane modification variant for more than four decades.
If there is a need. The C-130 can handle it.
The C-17? Not so much. Too big and too heavy for short field operations. Too expensive to even be considered being put in harms way.
Modern receivers can operate in either GPS or Glonass, or both, so if one goes down, you’re not necessarily dead.
Would. . .if people bought it at the numbers of the C-130.
Upgrades and mods are done at a different location.
LB is for initial build and airworthiness.
>> “Gonna have to come up with the next big lift plane if the C17 is done.” <<
I think Obama’s plan is Big Fail.
End of a (McDonnell Douglas) era.
I know a C-17 pilot. At the airshow, he let me sit in the pilot’s seat and play with the radio. I tuned all the way through AM to the amateur 10 meter band (28000 - 29700 kc). I’d love to have fired up 10 meters or even go down on the CB radio band. B-)
We’ve had C-130’s stationed here in Pittsburgh since the mid 1970’s. I remember before that, we had C-124 Globemaster II’s, a pistoned engined cargo plane as well as C-123’s. Ironically, the C-17 is called the Globemaster III.
What happens to the tooling, probably scrapped and all personell that know now to do these things will leave the business and drift away just like with NASA. Another white and nerdy culture destroyed by Fundemental Transformation.... Destruction of American Exceptionalism proceeds on course...
“Name another cargo aircraft that has landed and taken off from an aircraft carriers deck.”
“The C-17? Not so much. Too big and too heavy for short field operations. Too expensive to even be considered being put in harms way.”
Capable of direct delivery. . .C-130 is not.
Can carry outsized loads. . .C-130 cannot.
Can land on short/unimproved airfields, like dirt, and those can be as short as 3,500 feet. (”With a payload of 170,000 pounds, the C-17 can take off from a 7,600-foot airfield, fly 2,400 nautical miles, and land on a small, austere airfield in 3,000 feet or less.”
Not in harms way? Tell that to the hundreds of aircrew that have flown into Iraq/Afghanistan. They will have much to tell you.
No FLOT/FEBA demarcation line there.
Yeah, C-130 has all sorts of missions. . .but to be clear to those that may not be aware, a SINGEL C-130 does not do all those missions. Those missions require specially modified aircraft. The C-17 is being evaluated for roles outside airlift and if R&D funding goes ahead, you will find the C-17 taking over many of those C-130 mission.
Cool looking for a cargo plane
I had my first C-130 flight in 1966 from Tachikawa to Hue/Phu Bai and my last in Dec 1989 from Homestead AFB to Howard AFB, Panama. They are not built for PAX comfort.
I saw the same in Pitt a few yrs. ago.
Land, stop, roll backwards in 10 sec. Really a neat plane.
The C-130 has been in production since 1954. As of 2013, approximately 2,400 of all variants have been delivered. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130_Hercules. The C-130 is operated by 72 air forces worldwide plus numerous civilian users.
Wait......there’s a C-17 in that picture?
Has retrieved packages from satellites returning to Earth FROM orbit with Skyhook capabilities.
There, fixed it.
link to this version, please. I am not aware of a seaplane version. The following is all I could find concerning one.
BTW, I am a great fan of the Hercules!
"In the lead image you see a 1/6 scale radio controlled model built for the US Navy in 1968. But the market for amphibious aircraft just sort of dried up, and the C-130 Flying Boat was never built."
“I think Obamas plan is Big Fail.”
No, it was a big fail of Congress to order more and more C-17s. US Air Force didn’t want more of it. Same number of B767-300F would have been much better to support the troops in Afghanistan. A 767 or an A330 can go unrefueled from CONUS to Afghanistan and faster. Most cargo is not outsized and fits on a pallet.
The next tanker aircraft will be more a freighter than a tanker - KC-46.
C-130 is to small for Stryker ICV(APC). So I guess the M113 APC will stay with the C-130 for a long time.
“No, it was a big fail of Congress to order more and more C-17s. US Air Force didnt want more of it.”
Actually, the USAF wanted more C-17’s but were told by the Sec Def to shut-up in color. Actually, the Sec Def and the SAF didn’t want more and told the AF/CC not to push for more. . .and being a good little politico, he didn’t. However, the A3/5 and A8 air mobility planners wanted more, as do the guys in the fieled, the users. Problem is budgets. The Sec Def had priorities that did not allow for additional C-17s.
The KC-46 tanker is a tanker that happens to carry troops and gear. The KC-46 is highly capable and can access fields that larger aircraft (Airbus version for example) cannot.
The USAF charters aircraft for movement of troops and such things, when needed. Troops take up room inside the aircraft and that means less/no room for larger gear, or just critical gear that need to be there right away. We simply do not arrive troops only. We send what is needed and that includes gear as well as troops.
Lifters are generally slower because they are wider and have more drag. That is a fact if you are going to haul around large gear. Can’t get around that.
Getting tanks and helicopters and other large pieces of kit quickly to a war-zone is critical. Airlift does that.
“Carrying 800 Soldiers??? “
Yup, no way. Max pax load is 80.
Actually, now that is look at it. . .it appears the max pax load is 134: 10-passenger pallets that can carry 10 troops each, plus 54 passengers on sidewall seats: http://www.heavyairliftwing.org/library/c-17-aircraft/boeing-c-17-aircraft-fact-sheet
I’m not sure why there’s all this competitiveness between C-130 and C-17 proponants.
They’re very different aircraft designed and optimized for operations in different ranges within the airlift spectrum. The Herk is optimized for tactical airlift while the C-17 is designed to occupy space between tactical and strategic (C-5 Galaxy).
The funny thing is that the Euros see the C-17 as a strategic airlifted and are building their own gap-bridging airlifter with the A400M.
I agree. Man was not made to fly sideways on lawn furniture.
“Actually, the USAF wanted more C-17s but were told by the Sec Def to shut-up in color.”
Do you have any prove for that? Just try to show how many outsized cargo vs. palletized cargo US Air Force moves or has to move.
“The KC-46 is highly capable and can access fields that larger aircraft (Airbus version for example) cannot.”
The KC-46 can’t take as much fuel from a short runway as a KC-45 can do. The A330-200 has a far better short runway performance than the B767-200. Btw. A330-MRTT is already operational for RAAF.
The KC-46 was chosen over KC-45 because on a average flight profile with more than 7 touch&go maneuvers the smaller aircraft burns less fuel. A C-17 guzzles twice as much fuel as a B767.
“The USAF charters aircraft for movement of troops and such things, when needed.”
Why doesn’t the US Air Force charter some big Russian An-124 when needed?
“Troops take up room inside the aircraft and that means less/no room for larger gear, or just critical gear that need to be there right away.”
You can’t fly with a chartered civil airliner in a threatened environment.
“Getting tanks and helicopters and other large pieces of kit quickly to a war-zone is critical. Airlift does that.”
Outsized gear is a small part of an airlift operation. During Operation Desert Storm 20 KC-10 were reserved for airlift only. It’s a shame on how many occasions C-17s were misused to carry corn flakes.
“You cant fly with a chartered civil airliner in a threatened environment.”
Tell that to the guys that were airlifted under CRAF during Gulf War I.
RAAF is not all that pleased with Airbus.
But what do I know. . .anyone can be anything on the internet so d*ck-measuring on who works where doesn’t get anyone anywhere. So, I defer to your personal knowledge of the inside workings of the Air Staff and mobility. . .I defer to your inside technical background with the A3/5 and A8 staffs, as well as your time working source-selection on the SAF/AQ staff, and working AMC planning.
Could get involved in more details but simply haven’t the time, and yes, Russia is contracted for some airlift support.
Quite right. The C-130 and C-17 are two designs for different missions. The Airbus A400M reminds me of a mini C-17 with turboprops.
is it possible the c-30 outlives the c-17?
“Tell that to the guys that were airlifted under CRAF during Gulf War I.”
Did any CRAF aircraft land at Kuwait International Airport or somewhere close? They landed in Saudi Arabia before the war started without any threat.
“RAAF is not all that pleased with Airbus.”
Source? - I know KC-30 is on the Australian government’s list as a project of concern but the refueling pods are operational. How pleased was Italy with KC-767? KC-46 will use the same refueling pods some days and an all new boom...
“So, I defer to your personal knowledge ...”
So it seems, you have no more real arguments left.
“Given the reality that the C-17 inventory is flying more than anticipated and that the KC-X will have exceptional potential to reduce the workload on the Globemaster, the time is right to embrace innovative concepts of operation and a fresh culture.”
You may have noticed that US Air Force has to few C-17 but that is due to the fact that other more appropriate cheaper freighters are missing. Yes, cheap because for every Dollar saved you can buy better equipment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.