Boeing may stop production of C-17

[Garry]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...c17s/index.php

USAF: $2B for 10 More C-17s
Posted 19-Dec-2006 14:37
Related stories: Americas - USA, Boeing, Contracts - Awards, Lobbying, Power Projection, Transport & Utility
Also on this day: 19-Dec-2006 »

More on the way
(click to view full)In our September 2006 article "C-17 Adds Orders on Talent, Not Luck," DID noted that "Senator Talent [R-MO] announced that he has secured funding for a total of 10 more C-17s in the Senate-House Defense Appropriations Conference Report for FY 2007." The USAF was already asking for 8 aircraft, and Sen. Talent's moves tacked 7 more C-17s onto the 3 added by Congress in order to address the C-17 fleet's accelerated wear.

Now comes the contract. Boeing subsidiary McDonnell Douglas Corp. in Long Beach, CA has received a $2 billion firm-fixed-price contract. This undefinitized contract action covers ten (10) C-17 Block 18 aircraft, as a follow-on acquisition to the original total of 180 C-17 Globemaster IIIs. At this time, $980 million have been obligated. This work will be complete October 2009. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH issued the contract (FA8614-06-D-2006-0002).

[SnowLeopard]

Not that this would ever happen but if put the 4 Kiev's and a Nimitz in a bubble with no escorts and let em go at it I'd have to agree at range (requiring them to engage with their airwings first) the Nimitz would likely win.
.............
Generally though the Nimitz advantage is its significantly larger volume of better aircraft.

Never underestimate the value of desperation. Granted, I would probably rather be on the Nimitz, but consider this: in the above scenario, what is the Nimitz's greatest limiting factor? Fuel for the air wing (remember, no escorts so it is assumed, no oilers either). How long can it continue air operations ESPECIALLY if the other guy is not concerned with going home but just killing him?

Ie, he's got 4 carriers. So what if he decoys one or two or three to eat up that fuel, sacrifices aircraft to lure the AEW into a killing zone. Goes nuke to kill those AEW's, either with hard or soft, such as frying electronics.

All he needs is one launcher (carrier) for the SS-N-14 and there are 16 of those on each ship. If one gets thru and it's a nuke, game's over.

Once the air wing's fuel (or spare parts on the longer run) is gone, Nimitz is pretty useless as a fighting platform. But Kiev is like a tank; even immobile, it can fight on to a degree.

Btw, check the autocensor software. It just censored the word defen*e.
--------------------------------------------------
("If Pursuit 2 continues firing, it won't have enough energy to raise its defen*e shield."--Pursuit 1 pilot
"Let Blake destroy Pursuit 2. Let him destroy both (Pursuit 3) of them. They'll drain his energy down to nothing and we'll still have full power. Then we can close in for the kill."--Travis, (w,stte), Blake's 7 "Duel")

[canoe]

Never underestimate the value of desperation. Granted, I would probably rather be on the Nimitz, but consider this: in the above scenario, what is the Nimitz's greatest limiting factor? Fuel for the air wing (remember, no escorts so it is assumed, no oilers either). How long can it continue air operations ESPECIALLY if the other guy is not concerned with going home but just killing him?

Ie, he's got 4 carriers. So what if he decoys one or two or three to eat up that fuel, sacrifices aircraft to lure the AEW into a killing zone. Goes nuke to kill those AEW's, either with hard or soft, such as frying electronics.

All he needs is one launcher (carrier) for the SS-N-14 and there are 16 of those on each ship. If one gets thru and it's a nuke, game's over.

Once the air wing's fuel (or spare parts on the longer run) is gone, Nimitz is pretty useless as a fighting platform. But Kiev is like a tank; even immobile, it can fight on to a degree.

Btw, check the autocensor software. It just censored the word defen*e.
--------------------------------------------------
("If Pursuit 2 continues firing, it won't have enough energy to raise its defen*e shield."--Pursuit 1 pilot
"Let Blake destroy Pursuit 2. Let him destroy both (Pursuit 3) of them. They'll drain his energy down to nothing and we'll still have full power. Then we can close in for the kill."--Travis, (w,stte), Blake's 7 "Duel")

How many sorties can you roughly generate with 3 million gallons of aircraft fuel?

[SnowLeopard]

>how many sorties on 3 million gallons of fuel?

BASICALLY

3 mil * 6lbs/gal=18 M lbs

Capacity of F/A-18C on internal: 4926 kg (convert to lbs by *2.2)

Assuming that all aircraft are the same on internal fuel (they aren't), figuring having a minimal up of 4 F/A-18C, 1 Tanker, 1 AEW, and 1 rescue helo:

234 sorties

Or say 4 as fighter cover, 4 as bombers, 2 Tankers, 1 AEW, 1 rescue helo:

136 sorties

And one can play with the numbers from there.

He's got 4 carriers somewhere out there with 300 mile missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead (and a nice SAM arsenal, too). How serious is the Nimitz going to be in trying to find and sink those ships? Probably very serious and that drives the number of aircraft up up and the number of sorties down.

Nimitz is designed to project air war; Kiev isn't. So why expect Kiev to fight like an American carrier?
---------------------------------------
(The Midway's Captain looked down at the two S-3 Vikings returning, their torpedos unused. Four flights and still they hadn't found that Soviet sub lurking out there somewhere. "Fuel them up and send them out again.", (w,stte), book "Trinity's Child")

[canoe]

>how many sorties on 3 million gallons of fuel?

BASICALLY

3 mil * 6lbs/gal=18 M lbs

Capacity of F/A-18C on internal: 4926 kg (convert to lbs by *2.2)

Assuming that all aircraft are the same on internal fuel (they aren't), figuring having a minimal up of 4 F/A-18C, 1 Tanker, 1 AEW, and 1 rescue helo:

234 sorties

Or say 4 as fighter cover, 4 as bombers, 2 Tankers, 1 AEW, 1 rescue helo:

136 sorties

And one can play with the numbers from there.

He's got 4 carriers somewhere out there with 300 mile missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead (and a nice SAM arsenal, too). How serious is the Nimitz going to be in trying to find and sink those ships? Probably very serious and that drives the number of aircraft up up and the number of sorties down.

Nimitz is designed to project air war; Kiev isn't. So why expect Kiev to fight like an American carrier?
---------------------------------------
(The Midway's Captain looked down at the two S-3 Vikings returning, their torpedos unused. Four flights and still they hadn't found that Soviet sub lurking out there somewhere. "Fuel them up and send them out again.", (w,stte), book "Trinity's Child")

I'm not expecting them to fight like an American carrier, I'd expect them to do whatever they could that would result in winning. If that means having half my ships pack their bows full of ordinance and fuel then make a run at her full out and spear her then I'd damn well do it if I'm know I'm going to slowly get picked to peices and lose anyway.

I'm no Naval expert but I understand from history (WW2) aircraft and carriers that carry large numbers of aircraft have a significant capacity to engage and destroy fairly large numbers of ships.

And the moment you start introducing nuclear weapons to the game it changes completely. The U.S Navy and Airforce both have nuclear capable cruise missiles they just don't carry them due to agreements with the Russians. The capability to switch out the warheads is still there however.

[SnowLeopard]

......I understand from history (WW2) aircraft and carriers that carry large numbers of aircraft have a significant capacity to engage and destroy fairly large numbers of ships.

True, to a point. But this is a little bit different than WW II.

For one thing, he's got 32 + another 32 of those 300 mile range missiles he can use. For another thing, in this scenario, we've allowed him to keep both his offensi*e and defensi*e capabilities ........ but we've stripped Nimitz of most of its defensi*e systems by taking away the escorts.

So, say, there's the sacrifice Forger, providing over horizon targetting. Now there are 32 missiles coming in at over Mach 1, probably at least some of them nuclear. How many will be neutralized by Sea Sparrow, Phalanx, ECM? If there are any nukes, are any of them set to detonate close to the ship but out of range of Sea Sparrow?

If Nimitz finds all the Kievs first, then between air launched missiles and bombs, the Kievs are probably out of the issue. But if two of those Kievs find Nimitz first, it's not going to be pretty.
-----------------------------------------------
("As long as we can keep this thing on the defensi*e, the better off we are."--Captain Dallas referring to the alien
"There's just one thing; we don't know that it has ever been on the defensi*e."--Ripley and their eyes met steadly, (w,stte), Alien by Alan Dean Foster)

[canoe]

True, to a point. But this is a little bit different than WW II.

For one thing, he's got 32 + another 32 of those 300 mile range missiles he can use. For another thing, in this scenario, we've allowed him to keep both his offensi*e and defensi*e capabilities ........ but we've stripped Nimitz of most of its defensi*e systems by taking away the escorts.

So, say, there's the sacrifice Forger, providing over horizon targetting. Now there are 32 missiles coming in at over Mach 1, probably at least some of them nuclear. How many will be neutralized by Sea Sparrow, Phalanx, ECM? If there are any nukes, are any of them set to detonate close to the ship but out of range of Sea Sparrow?

If Nimitz finds all the Kievs first, then between air launched missiles and bombs, the Kievs are probably out of the issue. But if two of those Kievs find Nimitz first, it's not going to be pretty.
-----------------------------------------------
("As long as we can keep this thing on the defensi*e, the better off we are."--Captain Dallas referring to the alien
"There's just one thing; we don't know that it has ever been on the defensi*e."--Ripley and their eyes met steadly, (w,stte), Alien by Alan Dean Foster)

Well if your equipping the Kiev's with nuclear weapons and stripping the Nimitz of them its obviously going to be in the Kiev's favor. In that senario anything that could see the Nimitz and launch a nuke should be able to kill it or at least mission kill it.

That by definition is a mismatch however.

[SnowLeopard]

...........And the moment you start introducing nuclear weapons to the game it changes completely. The U.S Navy and Airforce both have nuclear capable cruise missiles they just don't carry them due to agreements with the Russians. The capability to switch out the warheads is still there however.

As to the first part of this, we are not talking Air Force. We are talking Navy. Secondly, the cruise missile hence referred to? Well, there are two problems to this. First of all, most of the Tomahawks that might have that ........ aren't on the carriers. They are on the escorts in the Land Attack Version, as noted by Polmar during the Cold War.

Secondly, it would depend on when we are talking about this scenario. Sometime around either 1985 or 1987, one of the SALT talks took the tactical nuclear weapons off US ships. Sort of, in a way, was affected by that decision. Incidently, I only know of the US part for that treaty; don't know what the Soviets were required to do.

So, are we saying that the US makes treaties that it has no intention of carrying out? Well, we might indeed be saying that but remember, it is a lot harder in a free country to keep it a secret that one is breaking the treaty than it is in a police state.

But for purpose of arguement here, let's say that SALT treaty is not in effect. So the carrier in question has, perhaps, nuclear bombs and nuclear depth bombs ........ but no nuclear missiles because the missiles that can carry such.... were left on the esorts.

Having read Soviet military history, however, I believe that in any war battle, they could have and would have gone nuclear in a heartbeat. So it is not a point on introducing nuclear weapons that changes the game. The point is that that game has always been there.
--------------------------------------------
("After talking to Hawke and Santini, I'm convinced that they will fly Airwolf regardless. Heaven only knows what Moffet has programmed it to do. If you can cleanse it of the virus, do so, but if there is even a slightest doubt .. at the back of this computer is a charge and homing device. You are to place the charge on the tail rotar and should they try to takeoff, detonate it."--ArchAngel in a recorded message to Dr. Karen Hanson, (w,stte), Airwolf, "Moffet's Ghost")

[SnowLeopard]

Well if your equipping the Kiev's with nuclear weapons and stripping the Nimitz of them its obviously going to be in the Kiev's favor. In that senario anything that could see the Nimitz and launch a nuke should be able to kill it or at least mission kill it.

That by definition is a mismatch however.

I didn't set up the match. It's a mismatch when someone else set it up by taking away the escorts. I'm not taking away Nimitz's nukes.......just pointing out that despite what one may think, it doesn't have that many to begin with.
---------------------------------
("Your one bullet against my six?"--007
"I only need one bullet."--Scaramanga, (wtte), "The Man With The Golden Gun")

[canoe]

As to the first part of this, we are not talking Air Force. We are talking Navy. Secondly, the cruise missile hence referred to? Well, there are two problems to this. First of all, most of the Tomahawks that might have that ........ aren't on the carriers. They are on the escorts in the Land Attack Version, as noted by Polmar during the Cold War.

Secondly, it would depend on when we are talking about this scenario. Sometime around either 1985 or 1987, one of the SALT talks took the tactical nuclear weapons off US ships. Sort of, in a way, was affected by that decision. Incidently, I only know of the US part for that treaty; don't know what the Soviets were required to do.

So, are we saying that the US makes treaties that it has no intention of carrying out? Well, we might indeed be saying that but remember, it is a lot harder in a free country to keep it a secret that one is breaking the treaty than it is in a police state.

But for purpose of arguement here, let's say that SALT treaty is not in effect. So the carrier in question has, perhaps, nuclear bombs and nuclear depth bombs ........ but no nuclear missiles because the missiles that can carry such.... were left on the esorts.

Having read Soviet military history, however, I believe that in any war battle, they could have and would have gone nuclear in a heartbeat. So it is not a point on introducing nuclear weapons that changes the game. The point is that that game has always been there.
--------------------------------------------
("After talking to Hawke and Santini, I'm convinced that they will fly Airwolf regardless. Heaven only knows what Moffet has programmed it to do. If you can cleanse it of the virus, do so, but if there is even a slightest doubt .. at the back of this computer is a charge and homing device. You are to place the charge on the tail rotar and should they try to takeoff, detonate it."--ArchAngel in a recorded message to Dr. Karen Hanson, (w,stte), Airwolf, "Moffet's Ghost")

Russian nuclear anti-ship missiles (example: SS-N-19 Shipwreck) have been withdrawn from service and placed in central storage. The Russian ships should not have nuclear anti-ship weaponary anymore then their American counterparts.

[canoe]

I didn't set up the match. It's a mismatch when someone else set it up by taking away the escorts. I'm not taking away Nimitz's nukes.......just pointing out that despite what one may think, it doesn't have that many to begin with.
---------------------------------
("Your one bullet against my six?"--007
"I only need one bullet."--Scaramanga, (wtte), "The Man With The Golden Gun")

It is a mismatch your suggesting the Russians are carrying naval weaponary in treaty violation and your saying the American ships can't be similarly equipped.

[canoe]

As to the first part of this, we are not talking Air Force. We are talking Navy. Secondly, the cruise missile hence referred to? Well, there are two problems to this. First of all, most of the Tomahawks that might have that ........ aren't on the carriers. They are on the escorts in the Land Attack Version, as noted by Polmar during the Cold War.

Secondly, it would depend on when we are talking about this scenario. Sometime around either 1985 or 1987, one of the SALT talks took the tactical nuclear weapons off US ships. Sort of, in a way, was affected by that decision. Incidently, I only know of the US part for that treaty; don't know what the Soviets were required to do.

So, are we saying that the US makes treaties that it has no intention of carrying out? Well, we might indeed be saying that but remember, it is a lot harder in a free country to keep it a secret that one is breaking the treaty than it is in a police state.

But for purpose of arguement here, let's say that SALT treaty is not in effect. So the carrier in question has, perhaps, nuclear bombs and nuclear depth bombs ........ but no nuclear missiles because the missiles that can carry such.... were left on the esorts.

Having read Soviet military history, however, I believe that in any war battle, they could have and would have gone nuclear in a heartbeat. So it is not a point on introducing nuclear weapons that changes the game. The point is that that game has always been there.
--------------------------------------------
("After talking to Hawke and Santini, I'm convinced that they will fly Airwolf regardless. Heaven only knows what Moffet has programmed it to do. If you can cleanse it of the virus, do so, but if there is even a slightest doubt .. at the back of this computer is a charge and homing device. You are to place the charge on the tail rotar and should they try to takeoff, detonate it."--ArchAngel in a recorded message to Dr. Karen Hanson, (w,stte), Airwolf, "Moffet's Ghost")

Ok fair enough the Nimitz can't carry Tomahawks. It can carry B61 thermals though which can be deployed via the F-18's.

[SnowLeopard]

It is a mismatch your suggesting the Russians are carrying weaponary in treaty violation and your saying the American ships can't be similarly equipped.

Two things but since I can only quote one, I'll hit the other thing first.

You're talking Russian. I'm talking Soviet. Now, Joey originally just said 4 Kiev class and didn't say either, so we don't have a time line for this match. Others have taken it as Russian but seeing how, according to FAS, that all the Kievs are out of service with the Russians, then to have four around would suggest a Soviet time line.

Now, to the above. I said for arguement's purpose, assume that it is before the mentioned SALT treaty, so tactical nuclear weapons can be on US ships.

The problem still is that for a US carrier, according to Polmar, there aren't that many tactical nuclear weapons around for it to used. It doesn't have land attack cruise missiles; those are launched directly from ships and any ships with those would have been the escorts. There aren't any missiles in inventory, then, to be carried by aircraft that have nuclear warheads. The best they have, then, are nuclear bombs and depth bombs.

It's not a treaty problem; it's a point that there isn't the capabilty because the US put that on other ships and they were written out for this scenario.
-------------------------------------------------
("Now, now, Moneypenny, stop looking out the window. See, there goes a squadron of our jets to catch that flying saucer."--Sir James Bond. Phone rings, he picks it up. "What, it got away? Well, surely you have an aircraft that can catch it. Oh, I see." Puts down the phone. "They retired those last week.", (w,stte), "Casino Royale" (60's version))

[canoe]

Two things but since I can only quote one, I'll hit the other thing first.

You're talking Russian. I'm talking Soviet. Now, Joey originally just said 4 Kiev class and didn't say either, so we don't have a time line for this match. Others have taken it as Russian but seeing how, according to FAS, that all the Kievs are out of service with the Russians, then to have four around would suggest a Soviet time line.

Now, to the above. I said for arguement's purpose, assume that it is before the mentioned SALT treaty, so tactical nuclear weapons can be on US ships.

The problem still is that for a US carrier, according to Polmar, there aren't that many tactical nuclear weapons around for it to used. It doesn't have land attack cruise missiles; those are launched directly from ships and any ships with those would have been the escorts. There aren't any missiles in inventory, then, to be carried by aircraft that have nuclear warheads. The best they have, then, are nuclear bombs and depth bombs.

It's not a treaty problem; it's a point that there isn't the capabilty because the US put that on other ships and they were written out for this scenario.
-------------------------------------------------
("Now, now, Moneypenny, stop looking out the window. See, there goes a squadron of our jets to catch that flying saucer."--Sir James Bond. Phone rings, he picks it up. "What, it got away? Well, surely you have an aircraft that can catch it. Oh, I see." Puts down the phone. "They retired those last week.", (w,stte), "Casino Royale" (60's version))

I'm sure the U.S carriers had nuclear weaponary for their aircraft during the Soviet days. It would depend what year we are talking about to determine what they'd in theory be carrying. It is however assured that if the Russian ships were armed with nuclear weaponary so where the Americans.

Secondly the entire comparison up to now would be void anyway given half of what has been discussed may no longer relevent depending on the time period where talking about.

I was discussing present day with Joey so I was expecting they've be meeting with present day armaments.

Worst case the carrier could carry B61's and deploy it with their F-18's. Actually the S-3 Vikings can carry 2 B57's as well. So in theory the carrier could launch a large fully nuclear armed airwing.