C-17 Variants in the future?

[Griff13]

I would love to see an AC-17 and any other variants possible.

[11bee]

I would love to see an AC-17 and any other variants possible.

Assuming that the C-17 stays in production (no guarantee on this), I think a stretched version would be probable. Similar to what they did to the old C-141's, except in this case, they need more space for fuel instead of room for payload. It sounds like with the current config, they have to choose either full range or full payload.

May also see something like an MC-17 version with a flir, ECM and radar. Again, they did something like this to the C-141 so that it could do special ops missions at a longer range than what the MC-130's could offer.

I don't think we'll ever see an AC-17 unless they need the cargo volume to stuff in a laser.

John

[Vesper]

But wouldnt the additional weight of the extra fuel of a stretched C-17 increase the MTOW & gross weight, thus needing more powerful engines?

Ves

[Griff13]

I just read somewhere that they are looking into building MC-17s in the future. Neat idea too.

[GCA333]

I'd like to see a civilian one, MD-17.

[Cobrahistorian]

If they stay in production I can definitely agree on the stretched version. An AC-17 won't happen, but there is already talk of an AC-27K.

Might have to go fixed wing for that!

[GCA333]

AC-17 would be a good what-if.

[Griff13]

If they stay in production I can definitely agree on the stretched version. An AC-17 won't happen, but there is already talk of an AC-27K.

Might have to go fixed wing for that!

How come thy could not make an AC-17?

[Vesper]

economics, especially when the C-130 is still in production.

Ves :D

[umgriz]

I would love to see an AC-17 and any other variants possible.

AC-17 would be a good what-if.

How come thy could not make an AC-17?

I can't count how many times I've heard this brought up, even among my co-workers (who should know better.)

The idea of the gunship mission is to have an aircraft of a certain size (not too big, not too small), with certain capabilities, able to loiter overhead of friendly forces at sufficient altitudes....and reign death and destruction down on anything that might cause harm to those forces. There are other facets of the gunship mission, but that is one of the main, if not THE main, priorities.

The problem with the C-17 is the size and speed. There is such a thing as too big and too fast. Bigger is not always better, sure you could put a ton of guns out the side, but the law of diminishing returns would come into effect, and it just would not be worth it.

Not to mention the angle of the wings, and position of the engines presents a huge problem with targeting.

While the idea would make for an impressive what-if model, there really is no practical application in the real world.

Edited November 20, 2008 by umgriz

[GCA333]

I agree, but one must wonder if there was an An-225 like it.

[Cobrahistorian]

As said above, while an AC-17C would be cool, it is totally impractical both from a fiscal and a tactical point of view. Arming one would double the cost of an already expensive platform. Plus, putting one over hostile airspace gives a significantly larger target than a C-130 with the resultant easier time hitting it. You could arm two to three of the new C-27J Spartan Joint Cargo Aircraft and have a significantly more capable platform.

[GCA333]

But it would be cool!

Imagine an AC-5!

[klawrence]

I sometimes wondered if the Marine Corps and Navy would support a KC-17 for deployments and fleet support (if they atually had the money they needed).

[F106A]

How about a C-17 with a flight engineer as part of the crew like they should have included to begin with? Actually, the same can be said about C-130J's. If you want to go farther back, include the B-52 and KC-135.

Mark

[Iranian F-14A]

At one time I read that Boeing was pushing an EC-17 Looking Glass to replace the EC-135s in that role.Now,obviously,the short take off run of the C-17 would have been useful in a role where getting airborne quick is the key to staying alive.In the end though,the USAF and USN decided to share the E-6s for the role of Looking Glass and TACAMO.

[Vesper]

Getting back on target here . . . Would the MC-17s be used for tanker support for the CSAR-X / CV-22s? What about the Fulton system?

Ves

[GreyGhost]

What about a civilian C-17 like Boeing has considered in the past ?

Or, an E-17 AWACS ?

Gregg

[Griff13]

I know a C-17B is also in the works. It will be capable of taking off and landing on beaches, and have an even shorter take off. It also has a center landing gear as well.

[umgriz]

Getting back on target here . . . Would the MC-17s be used for tanker support for the CSAR-X / CV-22s? What about the Fulton system?

Ves

Doubt it. The MC-130H and upcoming MC-130J already fill that roll.

The fulton system? I cannot imagine the trauma on the body caused by using fulton on an aircraft as fast as a C-17. It was bad enough on the MC-130Es and Ps.

[Mark S.]

Gents:

The C-17 is already being used as a special operations aircraft as were the C-141B and the C-5.

http://www.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123015235

Mark

[Dave Fleming]

I'd like to see a civilian one, MD-17.

Would that not be a B17 now? (Old joke, but I still like it!!)

[BAM'n'IVM]

But it would be cool!

Imagine an AC-5!

I toyed with that idea once - imagine an AC-5 with GAU-8's mounted in the cargo bay...

[Cobrahistorian]

I toyed with that idea once - imagine an AC-5 with GAU-8's mounted in the cargo bay...

There was a series of military sci-fi books called the "Wingman" series by Mack Maloney that was out in the 80s and 90s. Ended up like 17 books long and wasn't bad until the last few. They had 2 AC-5s in the storyline at a couple points and utilized the GAU-8 pretty well. I think I might need to start reading again!

Jon

[Will7813]

I read something about a civilian version being under consideration when the military production line winds down in the near future. There is a market to replace the ageing Antonovs, I guess.

Will