Boeing C 17 Globemaster III

Boeing has delivered the first C-17 under NATO's Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) programme, with aircraft 01 scheduled to arrive at Hungary's Papa air base ahead of a formal introduction ceremony to be held on 27 July.

A delivery event at Boeing's Long Beach production facility in California on 14 July saw the C-17 accepted for the SAC's 12-nation Heavy Airlift Wing.
The partnership includes NATO members Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and the USA, plus Partnership for Peace nations Finland and Sweden.

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

The [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] has signed deals to extend production of its [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] and upgraded [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] strategic transports for at least one more year.

Boeing will deliver 15 more C-17s under a $2.95 billion deal announced on 6 February. The long-awaited contract raises the USAF's overall order to 205 C-17s. Congress inserted the funds last year in a war spending bill after the USAF declined to request funds to extend production of the type.
The order extends Boeing's airlifter production up to August 2010, but the earliest portions of its supply chain will soon face shutdown again in the absence of new sales.

"We will continue to work with Congress and the US Air Force to provide an affordable option for meeting current and future airlift needs," says Boeing.

Boeing is offering the [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] to India, following the country's request for information for strategic lift transport aircraft.
The C-17, which is on flying and static display at the [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] show in Bangalore this week, has been in India's radar for some time. Boeing briefed the country's air force in October 2007.

However, New Delhi had not been expected to move ahead with the requirement, as it had concluded a deal for six Lockheed Martin C-130Js in early 2008.

sevrien a écrit: -- "The Survival of the Fittest" !
-- En "fittest", il ne s'agit pas de la signification de "strongest, ... most on form" / 'le plus en forme', ... non !
-- Il s'agit de "fittest" au sens "the most apt / adapted / suited ", soit le plus 'apte' ou 'adapté' !
-- Se rappeler l'expression "Fit for purpose" / 'adapté à la mission' !

Eh bien, ... pas disponible = 'pas adapté à la mission' !
Le premier point en l'aptitude, "in theatre", .... = la disponibilité !
Cela ne relève point de la "doctrine" : mais du bon sens, du réalisme & du pragmatisme !

Reuben a écrit: .....
La France va aussi avoir besoin de moyens de transport disponibles pour ses opérations extérieures.

M. Morin avait déclaré en début d'année que toutes les options étaient ouvertes.
........
Les propositions, en compensation, d'EADS sur produits EADS, vont de l'A 330 ( même éloignement des zones de contact ) aux CN 235 et 295 ( modules trop étroits ).

Reuben a écrit: La location ( avec option d'achat )
de LM C 130 J ( C 130 et 130-30 déjà en dotation dan l'AAF et donnant satisfaction )
de B C 17

Reuben a écrit:Tout cela payé, en tout ou partie, suivant montant des compensations négociées, par EADS.

La rentrée de la France dans le commandement intégré OTAN est une ouverture dont B saura profiter si l'opportunité lui est donnée.

Oui, du business pour nos alliés americains. Parions sur la réciprocité.
Quelle est la marge de négociation de la France dans ce genre de deals, s'il y a lieu ?

alain57 a écrit:
[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

Replacing Worn Out C-17s February 12, 2009: The U.S. Air Force has ordered another fifteen C-17 transports, paying $194 million for each of them. This purchase was prompted by the fact that the current C-17 fleet is being worked to death. The problem is that the C-17 is more in demand during the war on terror than are air force combat aircraft. Only the two dozen AC-130 gunships, and a hundred or so A-10 ground attack aircraft and F-16 fighter-bombers are getting steady work these days. But their workload is nothing compared to the C-17s, which are in constant demand to deliver personnel and material to American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places where the war on terror is being fought. The C-17 entered service 14 years ago, and those first few aircraft quickly compiled 3,000 flight hours supporting peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. Each C-17 has a useful life of 30,000 flight hours, but the current force is flying such long, and hard (landing on rough fields) flights that many of the early model C-17s will be worn out within 5-10 years. This attrition is accelerated by the fact that the early model C-17s are structurally different, and weaker, than the later model C-17s. The wing box in the center of the fuselage, on early models, was insufficiently strong for the loads placed on it. This was corrected later in the production run, but those early planes are going to wear out faster than later model planes of the same flight hours. Adding to this problem is the fact that many C-17s are landing on rough fields with heavy loads and are taking life time shortening structural damage. We have flown a lot of C-17s into northern Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a bunch of other stans with rough/short strips in 2001 and 2003. The C-17 was built for this sort of thing, but lots of these landing come at the price of shorter useful life. It's always been an uphill fight getting new air transports built. There were so many delays in the C-17 program that, when the 1991 Gulf War came along, the C-17 was not available and the C-141 transports, that was supposed to keep flying until 2010, were basically worn out by heavy use, and had to be retired early. Now the C-17s are doing more work, to make up for the missing C-141s. Originally, there were to be 120 C-17s (at $135 million each), with production ending in 2004. After September 11, 2001, it was realized that more air transports would be needed, and the production run of the C-17 was increased to 180. It was then proposed to increase it again to 222 aircraft. But logistics planners insist that 300 will be needed, if wartime needs are to be met. Moreover, the rapid deterioration of the early model C-17s means that eventually 350, or more, will have to be built to maintain a fleet of 300 transports. So far, 190 have been ordered, including 14 sold to foreign customers. The major problem is that the air force is run by combat pilots. Although they recognize the importance of the C-17, they tend to focus on getting warplanes built. Additional C-17 construction comes at the expense of building new combat aircraft, and that's a hard sell inside the air force. Usually, it lobbying by the army, and other branches of the government, that compels Congress to strong arm the air force generals to build the needed C-17s. It's an ugly, messy and time consuming way to get aircraft built, but it works.

sevrien a écrit:Bonjour, chers tous ! Salut, Alain57 !
Oui, il y a eu divers articles a ce sujet du C-17 !

alain57 a écrit:article intéressant concernant le C17........

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

chez les décideurs & / ou 'intéressés' dans d'autres pays !

Ces autres pays, qui considèrent qu'ils ont besoin de ce type d'appareil, ne veulent pas se limiter dans l'état actuel des choses à l'Antonov (problème de disponibilité et de montée en puissance, indépendamment du besoin d'adapter des moteurs occidentaux).

En faisant un RFP ("Request for Proposal"), avant d'entrer dans une véritable appel d'offres international, ces pays montrent qu'il y a du potentiel encore, à l'exportation, pour les produits américains en général, et le C-17 en particulier.

Ainsi, il est difficile pour les 'opposants' de déclarer l'avion "techniquement & stratégiquement mort" !

Cela relance la vie active de l'appareil, et l'USAF s'engouffre dans la faille, demandant à Boeing de faire un effort, en jetant un regard plus qu'attentif sur l'aspect des prix de vente tirés sur la base d'un coût de revient 'marginal' ("marginal cost basis") plutôt que sur celle d'un prix de revient dit 'total' ("full / total cost cost base" ).

forumiste a écrit:Abou Dhabi commande pour 2,9 mds USD des avions de transport américains

ABOU DHABI (AFP) — Les Emirats arabes unis ont annoncé mardi des commandes de 16 avions de transport militaire aux constructeurs américains Boeing et Lockheed Martin pour un montant global de 2,9 milliards de dollars.
Boeing va fournir aux forces aériennes des Emirats quatre C-17, un avion de transport géant, dans le cadre d'un contrat d'une valeur globale de 4,8 milliards de dirhams (1,3 milliard de dollars), a annoncé le général Obeid al-Ketbi, porte-parole du salon de l'armement IDEX 2009 à Abou Dhabi.
Pour sa part, Lockheed Martin va fournir aux mêmes forces 12 avions de transport de type C-130J, pour 5,9 milliards de dirhams (1,6 milliard de dollars), a ajouté le porte-parole devant la presse.

forumiste a écrit:Abou Dhabi commande pour 2,9 mds USD des avions de transport américains

ABOU DHABI (AFP) — Les Emirats arabes unis ont annoncé mardi des commandes de 16 avions de transport militaire aux constructeurs américains Boeing et Lockheed Martin pour un montant global de 2,9 milliards de dollars.
Boeing va fournir aux forces aériennes des Emirats quatre C-17, un avion de transport géant, dans le cadre d'un contrat d'une valeur globale de 4,8 milliards de dirhams (1,3 milliard de dollars), a annoncé le général Obeid al-Ketbi, porte-parole du salon de l'armement IDEX 2009 à Abou Dhabi.
Pour sa part, Lockheed Martin va fournir aux mêmes forces 12 avions de transport de type C-130J, pour 5,9 milliards de dirhams (1,6 milliard de dollars), a ajouté le porte-parole devant la presse.

forumiste a écrit:
[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

La france serait en pourparler avec B pour l'achat de 3 C17...

alain57 a écrit:Qatar confirms plans to buy two more C-17s

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

Qatar has confirmed plans to order two more [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]by the end of the year. The move would double its planned fleet of the strategic transport.

Military officials publicly disclosed plans for the new order after witnessing a ceremonial wing-body join event for Qatar's
first C-17 at [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]'s Long Beach production facility in California on 26 March. Boeing and Qatar signed an initial agreement on 21 July 2008 for two C-17s, which are scheduled for delivery in the third quarter of this year.

The additional order offers another international boost to the threatened C-17 production line. Australia (Royal Australian Air Force example pictured below), Canada, Qatar, the UK and a consortium of NATO and Partnership for Peace nations have ordered 18 C-17s so far, while the United Arab
Emirates also recently committed plans to buy four.
Other Gulf states, including Kuwait, Oman and Saudi Arabia, are also considered potential C-17 buyers, with interest in the region seemingly driven as much by humanitarian causes as military concerns, says Tommy Dunehew, Boeing international C-17 programme manager.

The wealthy Arab states wanted to airlift relief supplies to Indonesia after the 2004 tsunami and Pakistan after the 2005 earthquake, but lacked the resources for the mission. Instead, the states had to rely on US airlifters and helicopters, as well as leased Russian cargo aircraft, Dunehew adds.

Ultimately, the future of the C-17 production line depends on a new order from the US Air Force. A follow-on deal for more C-17s could be included in the next request for the fiscal year 2009 supplemental war-spending budget, or the money could be added by Congress.

In November, a top Boeing executive floated the option of slashing annual C-17 production by half, but the company has since backed away from that potential offer, instead suggesting cost reduction improvements to sustain the current rate of about 15 aircraft a year.

France is believed to have officially requested pricing and availability data on [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]'s [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] to bridge a capability gap caused by development delays to the [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien].

Defence ministry officials wrote to the US Air Force on 25 March enquiring about a possible future acquisition of three C-17s, says an industry source. It is unclear whether Paris could be interested in options on an interim lease agreement or a direct purchase.

"There is an operational gap for military transport and the French defence ministry is looking forward and studying all the transitional solutions," says a statement released to Flight International by the nation's DGA procurement agency on 2 April.

"The C-17 is one of them, but there are several other options and nothing is decided at the moment." It declines to confirm whether formal requests have been submitted for the C-17 (below) or other types.

sevrien a écrit:Bonjour.

Et si les leaders britanniques & français, et ceux d'autres pays de l'UE, décidaient de montrer qu'il serait opportun, pour 'passer un cap', de moderniser leurs flottes respectives de transport militaire (à aile fixe), avec quelques investissements ciblés dans les C-130J de Lockheed Martin (moteurs RR ! ) et C-17 de Boeing, en attendant l'arrivée des A400M ?

Ne pourraient-ils pas optimiser les conditions d'achat, qu'il s'agisse d'achat direct ou d'opérations en "leasing" ?

"Quelle catastrophe", nous dit-on ! Quel manque de solidarité européenne (quelle Europe ? La Norvège ne fait pas partie de l'UE) ! La Norvège venait de commander de nouveaux Hercules Lockheed Martin C-130J !

Question de disponibilité, comme nous l'avons écrit si souvent ! On prend 4 x C-130J disponibles 'de suite', plutôt que d'attendre le 'nec plus ultra' non encore disponible, soit 3 x 'A400M !

Ici, on n'est pas dans les renouvellements de flottes des Cies. Aériennes !

SINTEX a écrit: Soit sevrien, mais ce n'est pas une raison pour abandonner le marché, ou par ailleurs, on a une (toute petite) légitimité (noratlas, transall pour ne parler que des français).

SINTEX a écrit:S'il n'y avait pas cet historique, on pourrait juger la démarche innoportune, démesurée, hors de propos au regard de l'offre disponible.

SINTEX a écrit:Mais l'europe a déjà démontré un savoir-faire, et dans une moindre mesure certes, un savoir-vendre dans le domaine.

SINTEX a écrit:Ce que l'on propose ici n'est ni plus ni moins que de renoncer à occuper un segment du marché.

SINTEX a écrit: Si le point d'équilibre est à 350 ex par exemple (je n'en sais f... rien, c'est un cas de figure), avec 192 avant le premier vol, la cible n'est pas irréaliste.

SINTEX a écrit:Pourquoi mettre des barrières alors que, mis à part les moteurs ou il y a des soucis, le projet n'est pas en soi démesuré?

SINTEX a écrit:Par contre, le bon shéma eut été de faire comme les anglais, un mix de C17 et d'A400.

Aux participants de réagir ! Voilà un échange d'il y a plus d'un an ! Et je remercie SINTEX encore pour ses questions !

alain57 a écrit:Heureusement pour les Français que nos amis d'outre manche ont des C-17.......!!!!!!!
[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]
La flotte de C-17 de la Royal Air Force (six appareils) a franchi les 50.000 heures lors d'un vol d'un de ces appareils vers l'Afghanistan, indique le constructeur du Globemaster, Boeing. C'est surtout l'Irak
qui a boosté l'activité de cette flotte, uniquement louée à l'origine.
Le premier appareil avait été livré en 2001.

Comme je le révélais dans un récent article pour Air & Cosmos, la France profite régulièrement de vols de C-17 britanniques pour y déposer une partie de son fret partant pour l'Afghanistan....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

La flotte de C-17 compte 200 C-17 dont 186 rien que pour les États-Unis.

sevrien a écrit:AIA dailyLead <[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]>

Senators urge committee to fund 15 additional C-17s

Nineteen U.S. senators have signed a letter urging the Appropriations Committee to include funding for 15 additional C-17 cargo lifters when it takes up the $85 billion supplemental spending bill to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Obama administration is seeking to limit the C-17 program to those aircraft already in production and wants to begin shutting down assembly lines in fiscal 2010. Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Il se vend toujours !

sevrien a écrit:Bonjour, chers tous. Certains de nos participants s'inquiètent des points d'interrogation qui semblent se dresser au-dessus du C-17.

J'espère que ce qui suit leur sera utile.
Lien :
[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

Boeing Presses Its Case for Maintaining C-17 Production
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Arrival Time: 2009-05-24
By Ken Leiser, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

May 25--Boeing Co. leaders say that the U.S. military's airlift needs are growing and that a Pentagon proposal to halt future orders for the C-17 Globemaster III cargo plane is premature.

On se demande, en effet, pourquoi on ferait fermer la ligne de production de cet avion, pour lequel il semble y avoir encore une modeste demande soutenue sur la planète.

Boeing, whose defense unit is headquartered in St. Louis, is trying to rally support for the C-17 on multiple fronts -- arguing that ceasing production would erode the U.S. industrial base, costing thousands of jobs at Boeing plants and those of its main suppliers.

.
Oui, le maintien en activité semblerait être plus en harmonie avec les impératifs économiques et industriels pendant cette époque de crise !

But Boeing officials also emphasize the plane's strategic value.
"Right now, since 9/11, the airplane has been flying at about a 15 percent higher rate than was anticipated," said Donald A. Anderson, Boeing's C-17 program manager in St. Louis.

Exact.

"In addition, they're talking about rebasing troops in the United States. They're talking about an increase in the size of the Marines Corps and the Army.
"So it seems like the airlift requirements are growing. And you need airlifters to meet those needs."

Oui ! Il y a un besoin ! Il semblerati que logique et bon sens soit réunis ! C'est déjà pas mal ! On ne voit pas toujours ça en Politique !

Starting with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' announcement in early April and continuing through last week, the Pentagon has said it can get by with the 205 C-17s that are either in service or on order. The Air Force also uses the Lockheed Martin C-5 Galaxy to transport weapon systems, cargo and personnel to overseas locations.

Pas très sérieux ! Il faudrait avancer des arguments plus détaillés, tout de même ! Et penser aux partenaires d'OTAN des USA !

Republican Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond and Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, both of Missouri, have written letters supporting more orders of the C-17, and Machinists Union officials have traveled to Washington to show their support for a program that supports 900 jobs in St. Louis.

Pas étonnant !

"This is high political theater," said analyst Richard Aboulafia of The Teal Group in Fairfax, Va. "The bottom line is I don't think the line is threatened. But it is up to everybody from Department of Defense to Congress to Boeing to the unions to make it look as though it were."

Comme si souvent, Richard ABOULAFIA pourrait avoir raison! Il n'y a pas forcément de menace qui pèse sur la ligne en ce moment ! Mais il faut que Boeing et les autres "supporters" soient convaincants !

The Defense Department has not sought funding for the C-17 in the last three years. But Congress has stepped in to add funding for more of the $202 million planes through supplemental defense appropriations bills.

Oui ! Il n'y a pas eu de financement budgétaire classique pandant les 3 derières années ! Le financement a été assuré par un genre de perfusion prévu par le système américain pour les "cas méritants".

Bond and Boeing officials have asked why Gates would halt C-17 orders while there is a study under way into the military's future air-mobility needs. The results are expected this fall.
"But yet we're making that decision now to stop the airplane," Anderson said. "So it seems somewhat premature."

Son analyse tient la route !

Bond said shutting down production of the C-17 is a "dangerous gamble" and warned that the U.S. can't afford to "lose the capability to transport safely our troops and equipment to anywhere in the world."

Oui ! La fermeture de cette ligne exposerait les USA à des risques ! Regardez les risques qui pèsent sur l'Europe (surtout la France), en raison des seuls retards sur l'A400M

In a letter to President Barack Obama, McCaskill said the U.S. is "literally flying the wings off these planes," and added "this is not the time to end its production, especially in light of projected global mission sets for the U.S. military."

L'affaire mérite débat sérieux, tout de même !

Both legislators also have gone to bat for Boeing's St. Louis-built F/A-18 Super Hornet, whose future was placed in limbo under the latest Pentagon spending plan.
The C-17 is assembled at a plant in Long Beach, Calif. But the cargo door, cargo ramp, landing-gear pods, nose and engine pylons are built in St. Louis.

Les Européens comprennent ce genre de 'lobby' ! Ils le font tout le temps, ... à tout bout de champ, ....surtout la France et l'Allemagne !

A November 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office recommended "careful planning to avoid shutting down the C-17 line prematurely." Both Boeing and the Air Force believe shutting down and restarting production "would not be feasible or cost effective," the report found.

L'affaire mérite attention et débat !

The GAO cited the high costs of hiring and training a new work force, reinstalling equipment to proper working condition and re-establishing a supplier base.

Simple base de bon sens ! Pas besoin d'intellectualiser le problème !

Boeing has delivered the C-17 to other countries, including Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. The United Arab Emirates has announced its intent to buy four of the planes, and Qatar has ordered two and exercised an option on two additional C-17s.
But Anderson said international sales alone are not enough to sustain the C-17 line. Boeing officials say maintaining C-17 sales to the U.S. Air Force is necessary to keep the price of the planes competitive in the international market.

Sans doute vrai !

Defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said the C-17 is the best strategic airlifter ever built and "a very cogent case" can be made that terminating production at 205 planes would be too early. At the moment, he said, its future will be dictated by Congress.
"Here's the bottom line to C-17," Thompson said. "If Congress doesn't add money, there won't be any more."

Et au Congrès, ... il y aurait un 'lobby' favorable au maintien de la ligne des C-17 ! A voir..... sa puissance effective !

Bonne journée !

LONG BEACH - The way George Burden sees it, the effort to save the Boeing C-17 is not just about those fighting to stay employed.
"We're concerned about our state, Long Beach and the impact it would have on us," said Burden, political director of the United Auto Workers Local 148, which represents C-17 line workers. "With me, it's not about jobs, jobs, jobs. Everybody's looking for a job these days. It's about why would we cede the airplane we build to a foreign country?"

The UAW plans to stage a rally in support of the threatened cargo plane program at 2:45 p.m. Thursday in front of the Boeing Fitness Center, 2019 E. Wardlow Road. The event, which will take place during a shift change to maximize attendance, is expected to draw 700 to 1,000 people.
Rep. Laura Richardson, D-Long Beach, members of the City Council, the Teamsters Union and business people that depend on Boeing employees are expected to attend.

Though the event is being organized by the Lakewood-based union local, Boeing management also plans to participate.

Jean Chamberlin, Boeing's vice president and manager of global mobility programs, the head of the C-17 program, accepted an invitation to address the workers.
"She's very appreciative of the effort by the union and the employees," said Boeing Co. spokesman Jerry Drelling.

The goal is to call attention to the federal budgetary threats to the C-17 and the effect it could have on Long Beach, Lakewood and surrounding areas, as well as communities nationwide dependent on the program.
Boeing employs about 5,800 workers in the Long Beach-based C-17 program. About 1,700 workers are represented by the UAW.
"We're really in kind of a predicament with sales," Burden said.
Boeing has said it needs 15 U.S. Air Force orders next year to keep the program going.

The House of Representatives included only three orders for the airlifter in its 2010 budget.
"The Senate reconvenes next month, so we're hoping they will add 15 C-17s to the budget when all is said and done," Drelling said.
Foreign orders alone cannot keep the program running because costs rise when fewer C-17s are built, he added.

A key Senate committee Wednesday approved a $2.5 billion order for 10 more C-17 cargo planes, which, if approved by President Barack Obama this fall, would keep the Long Beach plant open through at least spring 2012.
The order comes after weeks of negotiation on Capitol Hill and months of anxiety among Boeing's nearly 5,000 local workers, who had been preparing for the plant to close in July 2011.
The request also comes despite U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates' insistence earlier this year that no more C-17s - which cost about $200 million each - be ordered in an effort to reign in military spending.

The deal still needs approval in a meeting with House officials next week - which is expected - and a signature by the president, likely to happen in October, sources said.
But while the 10 new planes are a significant increase from the three C-17 orders considered by Congress earlier in the year, Boeing continues seeking additional orders to keep the Long Beach plant and its suppliers in 42 states in business for years to come.
"While the process is not over, we greatly appreciate the (Senate committee) adding additional funding for the C-17 in the FY10 budget," said Boeing C-17 spokesman Jerry Drelling. "We look forward to continuing to work with both our customers and Congress to ensure that the capabilities of this tremendous airlifter remain as an affordable option to meet the nation's future airlift requirements."

In addition, India's Air Force recently expressed a desire to purchase 10 C-17s, but those purchases wouldn't likely occur until the 2013 production year, leaving the C-17 plant in limbo for up to a year unless more orders roll in.
Since the massive cargo plane made its debut in the early 1990s, Boeing has built 189 C-17s for the U.S. Air Force and 17 for countries that include Great Britain, Australia, Qatar and Canada. Boeing is also set to build four C-17s in the next year for the United Arab Emirates, a tiny, oil-rich nation on the Arabian Peninsula.
Qatar, another small emirate on the Arabian Peninsula, is considering buying two more, which it plans to use for defense purposes and humanitarian missions in the Middle East.

In addition to use as a military troop and cargo transporter, the C-17 has been used extensively to deliver medicine, food and water in the aftermath of natural disasters, including Hurricane Katrina and the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004.
Its ability to land on rugged, short runways in some of the world's most remote regions makes it unique among the globe's cargo planes, and it has survived missile attacks, belly landings and other near-disasters only to be repaired and placed back into service.
Still, its existence in recent years has depended on a string of small orders that typically come in the waning days of Congressional budget negotiations.

Boeing says the plant needs to turn out between 12-15 aircne raft annually to justify its high production and labor costs, and the government estimates that restarting the line after closure would cost $1 billion.
[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien], 562-499-1466
Originally published by By Kristopher Hanson Staff Writer.

Boeing's [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] production line faces another pivotal decision in upcoming budget negotiations between the two houses of the US Congress.
The survival of the C-17 line after mid-2011 depends on a compromise with at least eight aircraft in the final fiscal year 2010 defence spending bill, says Tom Dunehew, Boeing's vice-president for business development for global mobility.
Since 2007, Boeing has counted on both Congress and foreign customers placing orders in the absence of new funding requests by the US Air Force.
In 2009, for example, Congress added funds to buy eight C-17s in the FY2009 war supplemental bill. NATO is buying two more. Meanwhile, Boeing is in negotiations with other foreign governments to purchase five more, with the United Arab Emirates identified as a potential buyer of four. The source of the possible fifth order has not been revealed.
But foreign sales for the C-17 could dry up in FY2010, which begins on 1 October.
Qatar received its last of two aircraft on 10 September, and has not yet exercised an option for a further two. India, meanwhile, has downselected the C-17 for a requirement to buy 10 airlifters, but moving to contract award remains a distant objective.

That situation leaves the US government as Boeing's only likely C-17 buyer in FY2010.
Boeing needs a minimum order of eight aircraft to justify its business case for extending C-17 production by another full year, Dunehew says. To keep aircraft costs affordable, any order smaller than eight aircraft would have be tacked on to an accelerated production plan for FY2009, he adds.

A conference committee composed of members of both houses of Congress are meeting over the next few weeks to decide the final number.
The Senate version of the FY2010 defence spending bill proposes to add funds for 10 C-17s, but a different version of the bill approved by the House of Representatives proposes to add only three.

If the final bill "has only three, that would creaate a real problem for us", Dunehew says. Boeing would simply add the three aircraft to the FY2009 production lot, then shut down the production line, he adds.

Oct 02, 2009 (Grunion Gazette - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- Despite an effort to kill the program by a prominent Senator, the C-17 program got money to go on for another year last week.
The full U.S. Senate approved a defense spending bill last week that includes an order for 10 more C-17 cargo planes. Back in September, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended ordering more planes, keeping the program going through 2012. But when the larger bill came to the floor of the Senate, Arizona Sen. John McCain introduced an amendment to stop that order and end the C-17 program.