C-17B In the future?

[Griff13]

I was thinking what some major upgrades could be for this. I was also wondering if they could "stretch" the C-17A like they did with the C-141A. Any comments?

[drhornii]

I was thinking what some major upgrades could be for this. I was also wondering if they could "stretch" the C-17A like they did with the C-141A. Any comments?

I bet the stretch may affect the short field performance. Now if the stretch the C-17, it could be a long range version for prepared fields only and could possibly replace the C-5. The C-5 is getting a life extension as the C-5M galaxy with CF6-80C2 engines.

[PBoilermaker]

I was thinking what some major upgrades could be for this. I was also wondering if they could "stretch" the C-17A like they did with the C-141A. Any comments?

To my knowledge, the C-17 doesn't reach its volumetric payload limit before it reaches its gross weight limit, so a stretch wouldn't be necessary like on the C-141. The only changes I could think of would be perhaps a re-engining down the road or a SLEP program of sorts, but that would be -years- down the road.

The C-17 is a fine airlifter in its present form.

-Mike

Edited September 4, 2007 by PBoilermaker

[Griff13]

It is definitely a fine airlifter as it is, I was just trying to think of some options for upgrades.

[Jeff_C]

Probably new wings, engines, and avionics outfit.

[Jeff_C]

I bet the stretch may affect the short field performance. Now if the stretch the C-17, it could be a long range version for prepared fields only and could possibly replace the C-5. The C-5 is getting a life extension as the C-5M galaxy with CF6-80C2 engines.

They ought to reopen the C-5 line, retool it and use modern technology to build new C-5's.

Same goes for the A-10 and B-52

Edited September 5, 2007 by Jeff_C

[BlackLion213]

Im still waiting for C-17 1/72 kit to do as a Gunship, now thay would be a great real world upgrade so to speak

[Will7813]

I read in Australian Aero that they are considering a civil version minus the very short take off. They might find a market in the US for a heavy airlift hire type thing, like the Russinas with their antonovs. I believe serious work was aimed to start in about 2009/10.

Will

[Tomcat Fanatic]

Actually, the C-17's STOL preformance would make it an even more valuable civvie trash hauler than the Antonovs. Why waste a couple weeks assembling a 150,000 pound bulldozer on site when you can fly it in on a BC-17X and have it up and running in three or four days? Mining companies and construction projects in the Third World would absolutely LOVE the C-17's combination of enormous payload and STOL performance. You could fly your new heavy equipment into a 3000 foot rough airstrip that you cleared last week, drive the equipment to wherever you need it, and start making money with it by the end of it's first day on site.

[Julien (UK)]

I am sure th Oil boys would love the STOL performance as well. When I worked logistics it was always a paint getting equipment to where they worked it.

Once had to charter one of those antonovs with the over the wing engines for its STOL performance.

Julien

[Will7813]

I was just thinking that the performance would have to be a little degraded, as you don't then want certain groups having that capability.

Will

[Rapier01]

You only sell it to those people we're ok with...

[phantom]

You only sell it to those people we're ok with...

Yah, but they sold 4 of them to CANADA!!!! You know everyone up there is nuts eh?

[jai5w4]

Did a quick search...couldn't find a picture of t*ts on a boar. That was going to be my contribution to this thread. :D

-John

[ross blackford]

:D We're even madder than the Canadians and they sold four of them to us. We even had some local comedians here yesterday poze as a Canadian motorcade at the APEC meeting and got within 10 metres of President Bush's hotel before some cops realized it was a ruse. Canada isn't even attending APEC, that's how on the ball all the security organizations here for APEC are, including our own. Just a Question on 150,000 lb bulldozers, would a D10 or larger fit in a C-17 complete? And let's not forget that the Antonovs were designed to operate in the wilds of Siberia into and out of rough unprepared strips and across soft ground. The C-17 is a great aircraft but can it lift 150 tonnes as can an An-124 or 250 tonnes as can the An-225? I think it will be a while before these Ukrainian airlifters are outdone by anything, simply becasue of where they were designed to operate.

Ross.

[vvac201]

New video entertainment systems in the seats and fold down beds for first class passengers!!!

[Rapier01]

The An-124s can only access a small number of fields snce it does require a long runway and support facilities. The C-17 has the advantage of being able to use extremely short fields that are semi-prepared. So they can get that kind of cargo closer to the desitination the company shipping the said bulldozer would like...

[GreyGhost]

Comparing the C-17 and An-124 is the apples to oranges deal ...

To different roles ... An-124 can carry more but can't carry loads to where there are sometimes needed ...

Gregg

[Will7813]

Ross, gotta love the Chaser! They have spent over 100 on the APEC security and they get through to Bush's hotel Then the police commisioner siad he wasn't embarissed, but congratulated his police officers on the arrest. THey only found out when Chas stepped out dressed as Osama.

Will

[ross blackford]

Just wondering what support facilities the An-124 needs. No more than a C-17. It has 2 (yes, that's 2 250 hp APU's, one in the rear of each undercarriage fairing. It can carry all the spares it needs to anywhere it needs to carry them. It has 2 auxilliary electromechanical hydraulic pumps for operating the floor cargo handling winches and running tests on the hydraulics after repairs or off field maintenance and each APU has a 40KvA generator fitted to run the electrical overhead cranes. As with any other aircraft if more elecrical power is needed an engine can be started.

As to the long runways supposedly required, I have witnessed an An-124 touch down at Richmond and pull up in 1000ft at a landing weight of 195 tonnes. He put her down right on the piano keys and I was standing parallel with the 6,000 ft marker when he stopped. Richmond's runway is only 7,000 ft long. I have also seen the An-124 take off like some pics I have seen of the C-17 and over which people here raved. In fact after the first day's display at the Bicentennial Airshow the captain was called into the air show Director's office and told to tone it down. I still think the Antonovs are very underrated by many American posters in this and a number of other forums.

With a lower landing weight than maximum, I'm sure an Antonov could get into and out of short unprepared strips where it is supposedly not capable of going. Just my opinion, but what I've seen an An-124 do caused quite a few jaws to drop, including those on a number of visiting Americans (and mine) at the Bicentenary Airshow in 1988. The only support equipment I saw was a tow bar, a few extra wheels and a servicing stand. The APU's can start the engines, no need for external power or air and every day during the show I watched them start without external power or air. So much for needing a lot of ground support equipment.

,

Ross.

[GreyGhost]

Ross, it's a matter of whether or not the landing gear is meant to land on unimproved runways, if it was designed for that, I wasn't aware, I know the USAF tested the C-5 in that capacity and then dropped it ... I, for one, have not knocked the An-124, I also seen it perform at an airshow in 1988 and it was an enjoyable and impressive demo, first actual Soviet aircraft I ever seen in person ... It was at Air & Space America ...

Gregg

Edited September 7, 2007 by GreyGhost

[ross blackford]

:D Hello Gregg,

I wasn't angling my comments towards anyone in particular, it's just that I feel that many Americans can't see anything positive in anything Russian and I'm getting a little tired of it all, although I'm sure you're not one of them. It's a bit like us Aussies. We can't see anything good about Australian products hence many of our inventors have to sell their inventions overseas for a pittance only to have some foreign company make all the profit out of their efforts. I'm glad you liked the An-124. No matter what it is an impressive bird for sure. If you're happy to I'll drop you an email with my reasons for believing the An-124 is capable of rough field operations.

,

Ross.

[PBoilermaker]

:D Hello Gregg,

I wasn't angling my comments towards anyone in particular, it's just that I feel that many Americans can't see anything positive in anything Russian and I'm getting a little tired of it all, although I'm sure you're not one of them. It's a bit like us Aussies. We can't see anything good about Australian products hence many of our inventors have to sell their inventions overseas for a pittance only to have some foreign company make all the profit out of their efforts. I'm glad you liked the An-124. No matter what it is an impressive bird for sure. If you're happy to I'll drop you an email with my reasons for believing the An-124 is capable of rough field operations.

,

Ross.

Say, that's a nice chip you have on your shoulder. You do realize how absurd you sound when using knee-jerk absolutes and sweeping, anti-American generalizations? Using your rationalization, one could ask, "why is it that certain Australians and many Russians -can't- see -anything- positive in -anything- American?"

This was a thread about the C-17 until you came along with your anti-American spew in post 15. Are you still that mad that your country purchased C-17's over the Antonov? Does this fact really consume you that much? If so, contact your government to complain or seek some help.

If you want to extol the virtues of Russian airlifters, why not start a new thread and leave the focus on the aircraft? Better yet, if you are that upset with Americans, show some fortitude and just start an anti-American thread where you can get on your soapbox without having to pretend you are actually trying to contribute. Either would be better than the childish jabs, flanked disingenuously by smiling emoticons, that you regularly post in otherwise innocent threads.

-Mike

Edited September 7, 2007 by PBoilermaker

[ross blackford]

Strewth. And I have a chip on my shoulder. Let's see now. It was actually young Will who mentioned the Antonovs first in post #8. Tomcat Fanatic continued the theme in post # 9 and Julian followed up in post # 10. I didn't even weigh into this discussion until post # 15, and then to ask a genuine question. No one else took offense at it and the rest of post # 15 actually got a humorous response from young Will himself.

Post #20 was an explanation of some of the Antonovs capabilities which a lot of people don't appear to know about in response to Rapier 01's post # 17 and in post # 22 I was addressing Grey Ghost and no one else, that's why I called him by his real name and offered to further discuss the subject by pm. I did that specially to try to avoid a flame war. As to the disingenuous use of smileys, if I am dead serious there are none in a post that I make. I don't feel the need to go flaming anyone these days and I was very careful not to do that in my posts in this thread. I believe that when we point the finger, it is wise to remember that there are three pointing back at us. No more need be said.

Ross.

[vvac201]