C-17 Globemaster replacement?

[Mr.V]

In light of the recent final orders from C-17 production line, I'm wondering if anyone has any insight into long-term replacement projects for this mighty aircraft?

It still seems as though there is a strong need for such a machine on a global scale, I just can't seem to find much on any future replacement ideas.

(I cannot link yet- but an article entitled "Last of the Globemasters: The Final C-17 Orders" from defense industry daily is what piqued my interest)

 

[pkcasimir]

In light of the recent final orders from C-17 production line, I'm wondering if anyone has any insight into long-term replacement projects for this mighty aircraft? [/B]


The USAF expects the C-17 fleet to serve well into the 2030s. There are no plans for any follow-on aircraft as of yet, primarily because of funding. The USAF has other higher airlift priorities to include replacement of the C-130J fleet, which is a higher priority than a replacement for the C-17. Given the expected long service life of the C-17 and the fact that there is no emerging engine technology or lift design that could drastically alter its thinking, the USAF will wait until it has the funding and there is a clear concept of where they want to go and if the technology/design will be there to take it.

 

[Trackmaster]

New engines have already been discussed along with a fuselage plug to increase capacity.
Combine that with zero-timing the airframe and I believe a clean-sheet replacement is a long way off.

 

[t68]

New engines have already been discussed along with a fuselage plug to increase capacity.
Combine that with zero-timing the airframe and I believe a clean-sheet replacement is a long way off.

Interesting, is that for only the original aircraft or for the ER as well as I haven't seen anything along those lines exept for the proposed C17B, but I haven't heard anymore on this either.

Boeing offers C-17B as piecemeal upgrade - 8/19/2008 - Flight Global

 

[John Fedup]

The C-17 and the C-5M will continue to provide strategic for the the next 2-3 decades as there is no money for developing a new strategic lifter nor are there any emerging technologies that would offer significant advantages over the existing fleet.

The ground effect Pelican by Boeing and various blended body-wing designs look interesting but the money just isn't available for proof of concept and there are more pressing needs.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Pentagon have contracted Boeing to retain the jigs, tooling, documentation, instructions etc., for the manufacturing process of the C17. So if needed the production line could be reestablished in the future.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

The C-17 and the C-5M will continue to provide strategic for the the next 2-3 decades as there is no money for developing a new strategic lifter nor are there any emerging technologies that would offer significant advantages over the existing fleet.

The ground effect Pelican by Boeing and various blended body-wing designs look interesting but the money just isn't available for proof of concept and there are more pressing needs.

Or Lockheed Martins' Very Large Subsonic Transport concept from about 20 years ago

 

[John Fedup]

Or Lockheed Martins' Very Large Subsonic Transport concept from about 20 years ago

The low wing concept seems to be the most interesting concept. The VLST was a concept that would have to prove the 200 ton payload and the stated range. IMO, the huge cost to develop this jet would wouldn't provide enough performance gain.

The Pelican's proposed 500 ton lift certainly seems attractive in view of the ever increasing weight for military kit but as this design was never advanced very far it likely was not viable. A 80,000 hp turboprop is a stretch when one considers all the development problems with the A400's far less powerful engines.

 

[pkcasimir]

[New engines have already been discussed along with a fuselage plug to increase capacity.

Please cite a reference for this. I have seen absolutely nothing indicating that the USAF is contemplating new engines for the C-17 or a fuselage plug. I do not see any engines currently in production or planned that could replace the P&W F117 with its unique thrust reverser.

 

[pkcasimir]

[]The Pentagon have contracted Boeing to retain the jigs, tooling, documentation, instructions etc., for the manufacturing process of the C17. So if needed the production line could be reestablished in the future.

Boeing currently is requesting sealed bids for the industrial machinery and support equipment used in the manufacture of the C-17. There will be no more C-17s built, ever.

 

[barney41]

Here‘s another piece to the future heavy airlift challenge. Not as fast but cheaper to buy and operate and only needs a relatively flat piece of land to operate from.


Commercial crossover makes Aeroscraft military airship dream come true - Army Technology


Dragon Dream was funded by the Pentagon through a programme called Project Pelican to the tune of $35m in R&D funds. It was a half-sized prototype of the future Aeroscraft, a massive rigid-hulled hybrid airship destined to deliver tons of cargo to even the most remote of military outposts.

Fleet development

Aeros is now moving forward on the development of an initial fleet of two full-scale Aeroscraft models, this time mainly for the commercial market but with one eye still focussed on military deployment. The ML866 variant will carry a 66 ton payload, and the ML868 250 tons - the equivalent of three Abrams tanks and their crew - both at speeds of up to 120 knots and an altitude ceiling of 12,000 feet.

Military advantages

While travelling slower than fixed-wing aircraft, the Aeroscraft could deliver logistics solutions that are faster overall than rail, truck and maritime delivery, as the cargo can be delivered directly to its destination, rather than via intermediate transfer points. Industrial sectors most likely to benefit from Aeroscraft include traditional and alternative energy - for instance delivering turbines to a remote wind farm - aerospace, mining, agriculture and cold-chain logistics, as well as high-value consumer goods in numerous sectors.
On the military cargo side the Aeroscraft offers a mission flexibility existing modes of transport cannot provide, falling between sealift and airlift in terms of speed and cost. Completely independent of infrastructure, it could be deployed virtually anywhere, not just for delivering heavy cargo but also supporting humanitarian missions and disaster relief response, providing medical logistics support and supporting the US Army's environmental stewardship programme.
If Aeroscraft gets off the ground - both physically and metaphorically - the US military could be entering a new era of the blimp.

 

[Trackmaster]

[New engines have already been discussed along with a fuselage plug to increase capacity.

Please cite a reference for this. I have seen absolutely nothing indicating that the USAF is contemplating new engines for the C-17 or a fuselage plug. I do not see any engines currently in production or planned that could replace the P&W F117 with its unique thrust reverser.

The Flight Global story backs up the engine reference. Upgraded engines and new powerplants have been discussed.
Fuselage plug?
I have seen it referred to, but sadly I don't file and reference every article I read and my RAM hasn't come up with the answer yet.

 

[pkcasimir]

The Flight Global story backs up the engine reference. Upgraded engines and new powerplants have been discussed.
Fuselage plug?

What Fight Global story? There has been no discussion by the USAF and that's who counts. Given the funding constraints facing the USAF and given the fact that the C-17 has decades of service left, any such discussion is a non-starter. The USAF has identified no need for a "stretch" C-17 and even if it did, there is no way it would plan such a stretch as far out as 20 years from now when the state of the art for airlifters will, presumably, be totally different.

There is a lot of uninformed discussion in this forum about the C-17. The production line is closed and no more will be built. Any re-engine is a discussion that is at least 15 years in the future.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

The Flight Global story backs up the engine reference. Upgraded engines and new powerplants have been discussed.
Fuselage plug?

What Fight Global story? There has been no discussion by the USAF and that's who counts. Given the funding constraints facing the USAF and given the fact that the C-17 has decades of service left, any such discussion is a non-starter. The USAF has identified no need for a "stretch" C-17 and even if it did, there is no way it would plan such a stretch as far out as 20 years from now when the state of the art for airlifters will, presumably, be totally different.

There is a lot of uninformed discussion in this forum about the C-17. The production line is closed and no more will be built. Any re-engine is a discussion that is at least 15 years in the future.

Flight Global article discussing stretched C-17, from 1996:
Globemaster stretch fails to find favour with US Air Force - 10/2/1996 - Flight Global

You may carry on scolding people if you wish

 

[ngatimozart]

What Fight Global story? There has been no discussion by the USAF and that's who counts. Given the funding constraints facing the USAF and given the fact that the C-17 has decades of service left, any such discussion is a non-starter. The USAF has identified no need for a "stretch" C-17 and even if it did, there is no way it would plan such a stretch as far out as 20 years from now when the state of the art for airlifters will, presumably, be totally different.

There is a lot of uninformed discussion in this forum about the C-17. The production line is closed and no more will be built. Any re-engine is a discussion that is at least 15 years in the future.

How about you post some sources for you claims then. You stated that:

Boeing currently is requesting sealed bids for the industrial machinery and support equipment used in the manufacture of the C-17. There will be no more C-17s built, ever.

so please supply a valid verifiable source for that because this is the item I was alluding to when I posted about the storage of the manufacturing equipment.

In July 2012, Boeing in Long Beach, CA received a $500 million contract for the orderly transfer of the manufacturing assets and data used to produce the C-17A Globemaster III heavy transport, once production ends. Work will be performed in Long Beach, CA by July 5/22. The ASC/WLMK at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (FA8614-12-D-2049, Order 0001).
C-17 Post-Production: The Long Goodbye

The USG has nothing to replace the C17 nor anything planned. They have just started the process for replacing the C130 Hercules. So it does make sense for them to store the C17 manufacturing kit just in case. It saves them a lot of money if they have to restart production against a completely new aircraft.

Addition: pkcasimir - a note about forum decorum. Please don't bold the posts you are replying to. In internet terms that is shouting. Also you are finishing the BB Coding incorrectly and it creates issues for people replying to your posts. Some of us may bold words or a phrase but that is usually as a heading in a complicated post or to emphasis a particular point with a paragraph.

 

[John Fedup]

@ng...I recall seeing an article about Boeing planning to auction off some machinery used for C-17 production within the last month but I'll damned if I can remember where. If the tooling and jigs are being stored I assume this type of machinery can be replaced fairly easily should production need to be restarted.

 

[Humming Drone]

They do plan to sell off some equipment and tooling. Some will be left, perhaps, but looks like they do intend to sell some important pieces.

Boeing Auction Marks End of Southern California’s Jet Age - WSJ

 

[John Fedup]

They do plan to sell off some equipment and tooling. Some will be left, perhaps, but looks like they do intend to sell some important pieces.

Boeing Auction Marks End of Southern California’s Jet Age - WSJ

I guess only the unique tooling and jigs were required to be saved. As the article states, the machinery can be re-tasked to produce other aircraft and for Boeing to put this expensive machinery into storage would not be cost effective. In the unlikely event C-17 production is resumed, Boeing would take the unique stuff out of storage and would either have to re-task other machinery needed or buy new machinery. I assume something similar was done for the F-22 line. Some the big expensive machinery was probably re-tasked for F-35 production.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

I stumbled onto a Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, that seems very pertinent to this discussion. As the title states, it addresses a number of directions in potential future mobility solutions.

One, is the C-17 Spiral Development (Payload & Range Expansion Program) , a long-range plan to modernize the aircraft, increasing the aircraft’s payload and extend its range. Part of that would include "...the fuselage would need to be
strengthened and extended to allow more payload...".

Strategic Mobility Innovation: Options and Oversight Issues
April 29, 2005
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32887.pdf

 

[pkcasimir]

How about you post some sources for you claims then. You stated that:

so please supply a valid verifiable source for that because this is the item I was alluding to when I posted about the storage of the manufacturing equipment.

Boeing Initiates Sealed Bid Sale of C-17 Assets