Posted on 05/23/2007 12:25:00 PM PDT by Freeport
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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at flightglobal.com ...
The problem with C-17s as commercial aircraft is they cruise at .74 mach. Too slow for the Nat tracks, really. So is the C-5.
Ain't that the truth. I guess 0.82 or better is "standard" on the NATs now - and they cringe when you ask for a coast out clearance at 0.74. Then you get the NAT track via the equator or the north pole.
We do need the lift - but AMC and TRANSCOM are also pushing for the KC-X at the same time. The RFP went out in December 2006. Here is another few Billion the Air Force needs. Oh, and a few more F-22s.....and a few more.....
Going to be interesting if we ever get in a shooting war with Iran, or the Chinese decide the time is ripe to invade Taiwan. I guess the boneyard will be trying to bring aircraft back as soon as yesterday.
I bet whoever buys these would make a fortune leasing them back during the “next conflict”
Boeing has already sold the site to real estate developers.
Don't think that's true. Boeing sold all the plants across the runway (Long Beach) where the MD commercials were built, but the C-17 plant south of the runway is still owned. Could be wrong but don't think so. Further more, I don't think Boeing is interested in not needing the plants where F/A 18's or Delta rockets are built. Oh and there's that small plant there in St. Louis where they make that JDAM kit.
“I’m not at liberty to discuss...”
A lllllooonnnggg unprepared runway??"
USAF has always claimed unprepared capability and demanded those llllloooonnnggg strips of pavement to protect their investment.
C-5 is physically out of the question and never was 'as advertised' in operation.
I wasn't aware of the center LG proposal...so much for contacts. But, it would change the basic airlifter-to-cargo and airlifter-to-ground relationships and possibly require revisions to ramp, loaders, etc.
When asked for his thoughts on the ideal bomber escort, a B-17 pilot answered, "A formation of B-24s. Because the Luftwaffe will concentrate on them first."
That's the minimum target. Lockheed thinks they can get it over 85%.
I once read that Cheney also orderded the destruction of the F-14 tooling...
OK hattend, Now your’e just being silly! :)
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.