I blame this on short-sighted budgeteers who want to keep the C-130 Hercules. I have a ton of respect for that aircraft, but it should be the one cancelled.

Boeing Co. said Friday it will begin shutting down production of its C-17 cargo plane, the last to be built in Southern California, because Congress has not funded new purchases.

The Chicago-based company said it has told its suppliers and subcontractors to stop work on planes beyond those already on order. Boeing said it has enough orders to continue production through the middle of 2009.

The company has spent millions to keep its supply line active, in hopes Congress would authorize new purchases. But Friday, Boeing said it could no longer afford to keep the program going.

If force projection is truly the goal, we need this aircraft. The A-10 Thunderbolt II program was also cancelled, and like that fantastic weapons system I predict the C-17 Globemaster III will be valued in hindsight. I’ll bet someone in the Air Force curses every day wishing we still made the Thunderbolt II.



  1. ECA says:

    As a few persons have said about the C-130…
    If we carried that LIGHT of a load, we could land almost anywhere, ALSO..

  2. Smartalix says:

    Like I said, the C-130 is a venerable aircraft. But we need the next generation. How many other propeller-based systems does the Air force field in that weight category?

  3. RonD says:

    C-17 vs C-130 is comparing apples and oranges. Different capacity, different mission. Should be comparing the C-17 to the C-5B.

  4. Smartalix says:

    The C-17 was intended to be the next-gen C-130. An extended mission covering the C-130’s target applications and going beyond to intercontinental transport (yes the C-130 can go intercontinental, but how long does it take?) of small loads. Concerning the other comparison, the C-17 is a midsize carrier, while the C-5B is a heavy airlift platform.

  5. JSFORBES says:

    I guess Lockhead has better lobbyists.

  6. Mike Nash says:

    The Air Force should switch to a cargo version of the 747. There is international airport support and this aircraft has proven itself over the years for cargo transporting. Remaining C-17 and 130’s can be used for special missions that require those aircraft types.

  7. @$tr0Gh0$t says:

    A C-17 can land on dirt roads, the same cannot be said about the 747. The C-17 has a special feature which deflects the exhaust gases from the turbines to make them go over the wing, which facilitates not only the offloading of the aircraft from the back, but also enables the plane to takeoff again more rapidly since it does not need to shut off the engines.

  8. Smartalix says:

    Actually, it was Newt Gingrich who locked in a long-term contract for the C-130 for his district.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 4355 access attempts in the last 7 days.