Air Force reportedly won't buy C-17s, a blow to Boeing

[question everything]

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 12:00 AM

Air Force reportedly won't buy C-17s, a blow to Boeing

By Peter Pae
Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES — The Air Force has scrapped plans to order additional C-17 cargo planes, a decision that could bring Boeing a step closer to shuttering California's last major airplane-manufacturing plant in 2008, Pentagon and defense-industry sources said Thursday.

Boeing has about 6,500 employees at the Long Beach plant where the four-engine jet — a workhorse in transporting military personnel and heavy equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan war zones — is assembled.

But with the Pentagon facing a budget crunch, the Air Force recently told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that it cannot afford to buy any more C-17s beyond the 180 it has ordered, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition they not be identified because the discussions are classified.

(snip)

The Air Force recommendation came after a confidential report concluded that a fleet of 180 C-17s would be sufficient to support military operations, according to Christopher Bolkcom, defense analyst for the Congressional Research Service, who read an unclassified version of the study. The review "says we got what we need," he said.

(snip)


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002605295_boecargo05.html

[dcfirefighter]

1. C-17 is incredibly expensive for what it does

It has a lot of unused capability, namely the ability to land and offload in 'austere' environments - but, because it's so expensive, the USAF won't risk putting it anywhere near the front lines. The C-5 (no longer produced) and cargo versions of the 747 are a better buy.

[wakeme2008]

2. And just think

the cargo version of the Airbus 380 will be a bargain.

[Jara sang]

3. I thought it read "Air Force reportedly won't buy C-17s a blow to Beijing"

And thought "damn, the Air Force is buying aircraft from China now." I'm shocked at just how unamazed I was at the notion we would be buying munitions from China. Just woke up.

[Solon]

7. LOL, you subject line was funny!!!!

Also, if you note in the article, they said it may close there LAST freaking airplane plant in the country, I imagine we'll be buying aircraft, tanks, and munitions from China by 2010 at the earliest.

[MetsMatt]

8. Aircraft plants

They said it was the last aircraft plant in California, not in the country. Boeing still has plants in Seattle and St. Louis.

[Solon]

9. Actually St. Charles...

I know, I live here, but it is mostly a munitions plant, not an aircraft plant, we make parts, mostly.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Looks like moving their headquarters to Texas did not help Boeing

as they hoped.

[question everything]

5. Didn't they move their HQ to Chicago? (nt)

[IndianaGreen]

6. Yes, you are right!

I was thinking of the engineering jobs that were moved to Texas from California. Boeing's headquarters is in Chicago as you said.

[goforit]

10. Hey....Hugo Chavez may buy a few.

[Stella_Artois]

11. As usual, there is more to this than meets the eye.

The Air Farce NEEDS more C17's. The ones they have budgeted for are enough to meet demand, but they are being used at a tempo that was not budgeted for when the orders were placed. This due to them supporting more people deployed in overseas war zones. They will wear out YEARS in advance of what was originally anticipated.

This is the Air Farce saying to its masters "hey, your decisions got us into this situation, did you really think it would be without its consequences ?"

They'll get more C17's, either from an increased budget, or by cutting something else.

[BrotherBuzz]

12. Rumsfeld, you want agile military units, you need the SST

SST = short stubby thing= C17

<snip>
Rumsfeld has not made a final decision on the C-17 program. But several defense industry analysts think he is likely to go along with the recommendation. Rumsfeld has called for cutting traditional weapon systems to make the military more agile.

<more>

He can't have it both ways. He's calling for the military to become more agile, yet he fails to acknowledge the C17 inherited the job of transporting the Army Striker units because they grew too heavy to be transported on the C130. Or, is he quietly signaling that the Striker Brigades are a bust, something we have been talking about for years.