Posted on 09/09/2013 3:04:05 PM PDT by BenLurkin
LONG BEACH (CBSLA.com) — It’s 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.
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 Cod?
“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.”
Not exactly.
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.”
(http://www.heavyairliftwing.org/library/c-17-aircraft).
(http://www.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123344265).
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.
Thanks!
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 Obama’s 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.
http://youtu.be/XTmQ6j3y6Es
“No, it was a big fail of Congress to order more and more C-17s. US Air Force didn’t 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-17’s 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 can’t 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.
Cheers.
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.