Talk:Boeing C-17 Globemaster III/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Unimproved runways

The USAF fact sheet states all this below except for the damage part.

The C-17 is designed to operate from runways as short as 3,500 ft (1,064 m) and as narrow as 90 ft (27 m). In addition, the C-17 can operate out of unpaved, unimproved runways (although there is the increased possibility of damage to the aircraft).C-17 fact sheet, US Air Force

None of the other sources mentions that either. I think that's too obvious for them to bother mentioning. -Fnlayson 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you might want to take a look at the proposed specs for the C-17B, designed to land in sand and take off in mud owing to enhanced proprietary lift technology, increased engine power and strengthened center undercarriage. As regards current model performance, a fully laden C17 (87 tons) can take off and land in under 4,000 feet. In AF tests, it has taken off and landed with 22 tons aboard in 1305'. Talk about a high lift/high sink rate...

Boeing's Dave Bowman is one of the point people on the "B" project, fyi.ASIMOV51 (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifications

I tried to update the specs using more recent data (USAF fact sheet & Boeing backgrounder), then used the Aerospaceweb page. I'm not sure about the Empty and Zero fuel weights though. Anybody got any other recent sources? Thanks. -Fnlayson 21:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Some figures are provided in this Sept 2005 Report: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-09-Mobility_Final.pdf It does not give the zero fuel weight by name, but gives the max payload of 164,900 lbs and the operating empty weight of 282,500 lbs. The Zero Fuel Weight in most aircraft is the Empty Weight plus the max payload (in reality, the max payload is the zero fuel weight minus the empty weight), which would give a zero fuel weight of 447,400 lbs which would leave 137,600 lbs for fuel. It burns about 18,000 lbs an hour in cruise, so that would give the C-17ER with a full payload about 7 hours fuel, no reserves. The same documents claims the C-17ER has a full payload range of 2250 NM with standard reserves and an alternate, so it checks out. Hudicourt 18:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. The zero fuel weight (277 klb) listed was wrong then. So I hid it. And thanks for the Mobility link. -Fnlayson 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have this book called, "The Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft". It was published in 2005. I'm doing a paper for school, and the book says that the crew is 4, and the maximum weight is 580,000 lbs. Also, the max speed is 515 according to this reference. It's by Robert Jackson. Which do I believe? Ork Rule (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Must be a typo or something on the crew. Every source I have plus the Air Force fact sheet says three. There's not a dedicated station/seat for a 4th crew person also. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Roundel

I have to apologize for not realizing to document my edits, I am very new here.

But, I was until recently a former member of the Canadian Forces and the roundel that is on the Canadian C-17 is commonly known as the RCAF roundel. The current roundel was introduced in 1965, simplifying the former roundel to match the maple leaf on the new Canadian flag. It has to my knowledge, training, and experience and in several references been referred to as the RCAF roundel, more of a tribute than anything else. This policy is in keeping with recognizing pre-unification items, such as the RCAF tartan and the RCAF March Past, as official 'issue'. Yes, the RCAF has been gone 40 years now, since 1968, but something’s do remain! ;-)

Oh and yes, most of us do agree the overzealous use of the maple leaf and 'Canada' are annoying. I commented when they first started doing it, that it was like we were advertising used cars. Thank the Liberal government for that silliness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsim22 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I was going this the ensign image here (Image:Ensign of the Royal Canadian Air Force.svg) which is different from the Image:RCAF-Roundel.svg image. This could have been resolved much faster by adding some explanation in the edit summary box... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• It is also correct (maybe less so) to call it the Canadian Forces Air Command's roundel since they adopted it and are current user of it. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• They are the current user, but they kept the former names, as I pointed out, of the items they continued to use, such as the official march, 'The RCAF March Past' and the tartan of the air force, the RCAF Tartan. Even the official website is back to the "Air Force". The whole unification was forced on everyone, nobody wanted it, it was a huge and expensive failure. But I have seen the RCAF ensign flying at many air bases, the troops have always wanted the return of the 'old ways'. At the very least you can recognize the history of this great force. I know it may be hard to understand to someone from outside the country or even someone without a military background, but at the very least we try to continue with our remaining traditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.21.68 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry! by jimsim22

I do note that the only source for that sentence is a photo on a forum site. If we can finde a published source that calls it the "RCAF Roundel", then fine; otherwise we should take that part out and just say something about Canadian military or air force insignia. SOry to be testy about this, but anyone can claim anything - published sources are much harder to make up. - BillCJ (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I may have not made the point clear enough sorry about that, BUT! being until recently a serving member and having spent most of my life in the Canadian Forces what do I know right? ;-) Here is the Air Force site that describes the history of the RCAF roundel: http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/hist/tradn_e.asp Please note the date of it's last change, 1965, hence, like the march, tartan and several other traditional items, it retains it's original title. God forbid people try to change our history any more, the former government did enough damage. Cheers! Jimsim22 (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That website doen't call it the RCAF roundel. As the RCAF no longer exists, using the term in this context seems to be an anachronism. The Air Command's website refers to itself as the 'air force' and I've changed the article's wording to be consistent with this. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just getting stupid, the site does say "RCAF was authorized to replace the inner circle with the red maple leaf" and then says "In 1965 the eleven point, stylized maple leaf of the new national flag became the centre-piece of Canada's roundel" The term RCAF is used constantly in the Forces and is a recognized tradition. You are really grasping at straws to fulfill whatever agenda you have. I especially take exception at people who read something somewhere and are instant experts. Serve in the Forces and then maybe you might have some idea of what is being discussed here. And Air Command? Who calls it that? Even back when I first started it was the air force. The nice catchy terms politicians throw around never caught on with those of us serving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsim22 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Jimsim22 (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm Australian and don't have an agenda. Whatever serving members of the air force call the institution, it's been the air command since 1975 and claiming that the RCAF roundel is being painted on new aircraft is confusing. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Good God Nick, if you don't want anything confusing stay well away from the Canadian Forces!  ;-) Seriously though the RCAF term still applies to many traditions and items, it is applied to the majority of items that were not changed during the unification in 1968. As I wrote above, the air force march, tartan and a slew of other traditions and issue items still retain the RCAF label. And for good reason, it is one of the only ways we can keep the RCAF traditions alive in the 'new' air force. I think it would be similar to referring to all the RAAF aircraft as ADF aircraft, etc. I hope maybe that makes a bit more sense to you, it is confusing, but the air force leadership has tried hard to retain at least the spirit of the RCAF, hence the more recent changes to 'Wings' instead of 'Bases' and the reintroduction of Air Force, over Air Command, not that that term was really used outside of Ottawa. Cheers, Jimsim22 (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Royal Australian Air Force still exists as an independent organisation and has not been renamed and restructured like the RCAF was. The ADF is the combination of the three services, so that's not an accurate comparison. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just reverted you again. The reference you provided refers only to 'The Roundel', not the RCAF roundel. I believe that the three revert rule now applies and you or I will be blocked if we change this again. You need to provide an reliable reference which states that the correct name of the roundel is still the RCAF roundel - as per Wikipedia:Verifiability all claims "must be attributed to a reliable, published source", and you cannot rely only on your personal experiances. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the last revert two reverts were by me, so you are in the clear Nick. Sunray (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Nick Dowling, BillCJ, and Fnlayson have said: "Air Force Roundel" makes the most sense in this article. A Google search shows that Air Force Roundel gets 7,420 hits and RCAF Roundel 1,230. Since there no longer is an RCAF, we have to go with usage. To what Nick has said, above, I would add that editorial decisions are made by consensus. We have a consensus that it's Air Force Roundel. Sunray (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A consensus? So if I get together a number of serving members who know the correct terms we will the trump you? So the RCAF march past has been renamed by you as well? The RCAF Tartan is no longer because you and a couple of other decided so? So we are now basing our history on how many hits we get on google? So whom do I show the rest of my reference to? And are any of you former members? Even Canadian? Seriously where do I go from here, because this is a total joke. --Jimsim22 (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As Nick has said, if you can produce a reliable source that says it is still properly referred to as the "RCAF Roundel," we will accept that. As to you getting some additional former members to comment, that would be fine. If they are established editors of Wikipedia (as opposed to sockpuppets or Meatpuppets) and they think that it should be "RCAF Roundel," the consensus might change. However, that is not the case right now. And, by the way, I am ex-RCAF. Sunray (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the scoop that should clear this up. I did some digging and consulted an expert on air force insignia (Mr. Bill Burns in London Ont. http://www.canmilair.com) and here's what I found out. All incarnations of the current 11-point-leaf roundel , including those used in the transition period 1965-67, are known as the CAF roundel to distinguish it from the "RCAF roundel" which has a different leaf pattern (the silver maple leaf). The current roundel (with the 11-pointed leaf) was standardized in May 1967 because after 1965, there were so many versions of it. This standard (current) design (purists refer to it as the "CAF revision E" roundel) has changes made to various internal spacing and has a comparatively wider blue circle and larger leaf than the 1965-67 version used in the transition era, and is certainly a different design from the silver maple roundel (the true "RCAF" roundel). There are also subtle color differences. There may indeed be some in the CAF/Air Command who call the roundel the RCAF roundel, but this is probably because it was inherited as a 'blue circle and red leaf" design and is a traditional moniker rather than a formal one. BTW, the RCAF roundel is copyrighted by the Air Force Association of Canada. The following links have more information: http://www.canmilair.com/prints.htm and http://www.canmilair.com/products.asp?cat=77. If anyone wants further contact information for Mr. Burns, please leave a message on my talk page. -BC (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to Brian for his work on this. Sound research makes for better editorial decisions, IMO. Sunray (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Books on C-17?

Could only find two books on Amazon which seems odd. Any clues? Royzee (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

More books are written about fighter and attack aircraft, not transports unfortunately. The 2 books listed at the bottom of the references section are good ones. Maybe out of print now though. abebooks.com seems to have more used books. Ignore government reports, since those can probably be found online for free. Another option is to look for aircraft encyclopedias. They will have less detail on a particular aircraft though. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal experience and notes on C-17 development

I was working in MDD since nearly the beginning of the program and have some documentation and notes on the project, as well as a personal experiences and even some parts. I know that Wiki frowns on unpublished (but verifiable) reports, but if that is the only source for information... I do have a couple of friends that worked with me and can verify what I write. SO, question is, how can I author what I know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flightsoffancy (talk • contribs)

May be a problem as it is treated as original research and is not allowed even if it is the only source. You really need published or third party verifiable sources to back up edits. It does no harm to list any problems or additions required on this talk page and let other editors help with sources. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Any data from solid, public sources (per WP:RS) can be added. I have a book called Globemaster III: Acquiring the C-17 by Kennedy that covers a lot of the early history back to the AMST. We may be able to use that to reference some of your info. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I was asked about what I can offer. Currently the article has one paragraph on early design, and that scant info omits a huge amount of the early deve problems, the 2 other airframes, building, where built, layoffs, etc, etc. Should I just write away and refer from Kennedy? Or read from Kennedy's work and go from their? What about my friends who worked on the program, could they be a source for verification? I know I already asked this somewhat.--Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is added needs to be covered by a reference. Writing something and putting the Kennedy book as a reference when it does not cover it would not be good. The only individuals that qualify as reliable sources are established experts in their fields. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but the irony is if a person who actually worked on the design, the project manager, involved with testing or even production (and test fly) would be a much better source then a 3ed party who may not have even touched one. If I can see the Kennedy article I will use it as a guide. Yes, it needs to be corroborated/verified to be reliable. Almost a Catch-22.  :^)

WHAT if I write it here, in the discussion page, and have it go from here? --Flightsoffancy (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• The people that worked will surely know better, but they might not remember everything or might embellish things some. ;) It would be better to work on elsewhere like user space. You can set-up a sandbox in your user space (User:Flightsoffancy/C-17 sandbox) or put one on mine (User:Fnlayson/C-17 sandbox). -Fnlayson (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Qatar C-17" :
  • [http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7cVfHgwi2y-33rzT8MENYsZ4LKA "Boeing wins Qatar order for C-17 military aircraft"]
  • <ref>[http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q3/080721a_nr.html "Boeing, Qatar Announce C-17 Globemaster III Order"], Boeing, [[21 July]] [[2008]].

DumZiBoT (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Ref labels are not the same now. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What is Block 16 Upgrade?75.66.178.179 (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

See C-17 Block 16 upgrades. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Commercial interest

Original long post to "Commercial Interest" section of C-17 Globemaster III

Colleagues: The following data encapsulates over a decade of developmental work, and includes data never before available to the public regarding the commercial C-17 (BC-17) program as originally expressed post McDonnell-Douglas takeover through the CAMAA (Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft) program. All data is relevant, if not critical, to understanding what is at work here, as well as current status of program.

To reiterate: THE BC-17 PROGRAM IS NOT DEAD, and until you hear the SECDEF, Congress as a whole, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) staffers, and the POTUS declaring the program non-existent, it remains viable. And, consider this information first hand. That being said, I would appreciate everyone's input in whipping this lonnnnnng presentation into proper Wiki-form, and consider it as a matter of national security (smile).'ASIMOV51 (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Just got a note from MK saying I didn't respond relative to the C-17/BC-17 long post of mine. I did indeed. Am I missing something in terms of how to use the talk page? The data provided on C-17/BC-17 is based on direct knowledge as should be obvious; along with the references. Can you help with this revert misunderstanding? It is critical to correct erroneous data about this project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASIMOV51 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors who have noted that the section you added is too long. A two or three paragraph description of the attempt to market a commercial variant of the C-17 would be more suitable. The material you added was interesting, but it drowns out the other material, which seems inappropriate given that there have been no commercial sales. The way that the material is written and presented is also presently unsuitable for an encyclopedia as it involves multi-paragraph quotes and draws on mainly primary sources. - Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Commercial sales is not the litmus test here. The process leading to the launch of a US/NATO controlled heavylift industry -- currently in the hands of Russian and the Ukraine with AN-124s -- using commercial variants is.

Bear in mind the C-17 is on the weapons list, and it's just no available for sale in the manner of a 747 or other commercial craft. In order to accomplish this mission, it was and is necessary to create a whole new blueprint involving the public and private sector to launch an industry; something not typically within the knowledge, purview or experience of most.

I strongly suggest you read the Roche paper before making comments about a project that few on the planet have relevant knowledge or comprehension. I do agree with you, however about the form, and it will be reformatted. Would appreciate your help in getting this in shape, but no, 2 or 3 paragraphs about a project involving hundreds of people and at least 200M in expenditures over a decade would be no more appropriate than describing Tolstoy's War and Peace in one sentence: "There was a civil war; people died..." ASIMOV51 (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nick wanted to add that the issue never was sales, it was availability which required Congressional approval in critical areas as outlined in Roche paper and the 2005 Reports to the Congressional Defense Committees. As you may know, Global HeavyLift submitted an RFP to Boeing for 30 aircraft, and which is a matter of record. Other entities submitted RFPs as well, although for fewer aircraft.ASIMOV51 (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

At Nick's suggestion, posting this draft revision for the "Commercial Interest" section.

What I need everyone to understand is that the BC-17 program is NOT dead. It is NOT Boeing's decision as to whether it continues. It is NOT the FAA's decision as to whether it continues. It is NOT even the USAF's (the used aircraft aspect of the initiative takes Boeing out of the influence loop save for maintaining of the aircraft functioning in a dual Commercial/Military role) decision. That power rests with Congress and the SECDEF, and even that's not absolute owing to the national and economic security issues involved in C-17 line continuance and the task of the BC-17 to be the core of a US/NATO controlled heavy and outsized industry subset of Air cargo. The Russians and Ukrainians control this, as you know with their AN-124s. requiring the US military to compensate for airlift shortfalls through the use of the Ruslans on a fairly regular basis.

If any of our august colleagues in the Wiki-sphere are going to weigh with comments, I strongly suggest that you review the Roche paper developed by Ronis and Stokes at the SECAF's request in 2001. It would also work well to review the linked presentation to the SpeedNews Aerospace and Defense Conference presentation from 2007. This way, we're all on the same page.

One last thing: Consider the data contained within these documents as all but absolute in their accuracy -- really... ASIMOV51 (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)ASIMOV51 (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Original long post to "Commercial Interest" section of C-17 Globemaster III

Colleagues: The following data encapsulates over a decade of developmental work, and includes data never before available to the public regarding the commercial C-17 (BC-17) program as originally expressed post McDonnell-Douglas takeover through the CAMAA (Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft) program. All data is relevant, if not critical, to understanding what is at work here, as well as current status of program.

To reiterate: THE BC-17 PROGRAM IS NOT DEAD, and until you hear the SECDEF, Congress as a whole, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) staffers, and the POTUS declaring the program non-existent, it remains viable. And, consider this information first hand. That being said, I would appreciate everyone's input in whipping this lonnnnnng presentation into proper Wiki-form, and consider it as a matter of national security (smile).'

---

Commercial interest

In the mid-1990s, McDonnell Douglas began to market the C-17 to commercial civilian operators, under the name MD-17. After McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing, the program was renamed BC-17. Strong impetus was provided to advance this initiative through a collaborative effort between the USAF and Boeing in 2000, designated CAMAA (Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft) as a means to mitigate Congressionally ordered force reduction through directives such as the Base Reduction and Closure Act(BRAC).

History of CAMAA Program Experiment

According to a recently released internal document "The Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft (CAMAA) Program: Observations and Recommendations" which was prepared at the direction of former Secretary of The Air Force Dr. James G. Roche in August 2001 by national security strategist Dr. Sheila Ronis, Director, MBA/MSM Programs Associate Professor, Management, Walsh College (also a visioning group leader for the Project On National Security Reform) and industry analyst Myron D. Stokes, currently Managing Member of Global HeavyLift Holdings, LLC, an entity formed in 2002 to bring together the intellectual resources to craft architecture for global infrastructure of a new US/NATO-controlled Heavy and Outsized subset of the air cargo industry utilizing new and used commercial variants of the C-17 Globemaster III designated BC-17, the initiative is described as "an experiment in acquisition reform."

Notably, the Ronis/Stokes paper to SECAF Roche pointed out the limitations of the CAMAA program, as originally conceived, and made recommendations to the Secretary to help ensure the program's success. These recommendations and changes were directed by the Secretary to be implemented within a revamped framework co-crafted by Ronis and Stokes in strong collaboration with USAF and Boeing personnel.

Continued Evolution of HeavyLift Strategy

CAMAA modification strategies recommended to Secretary Roche led to the development of 17 case studies of actual let projects -- conducted by the Air Force and Boeing with some of the world’s largest corporations including Exxon-Mobil, Dupont, Conoco-Philips and Halliburton -- to demonstrate the ability of the BC-17 to significantly reduce costs associated with global exploration, extraction and exploiting of oil, gas, gold and diamond resources. A 25 year business plan proving the viability of the heavylift initiative was also produced. The value of projects around the world involved in the development of these studies, exceeded USD 400 billion, according to the Air Force and Boeing document BC-17X Risk Reduction Study, MDC 04K1712 19 Dec 2004 and Risk Reduction Report on the Short Austere Market, Council for Logistics Research, Inc 8 September 2003.

The Roche paper authors also recommended in 2004 that used C-17s –- acquired directly from the Air Force -- be considered as a means to reduce costs, create earlier profitability and compress the program implementation timeframe. The strategy was encapsulated in a process known as Transformational Recapitalization and presented in the November 2004 issue of Defense AT&L by Dr. Ronis.

Business Case for Commercial C-17 (BC-17)

Again referencing the Report to the Congressional Defense Committees on Expanding the Civil Reserve Air Fleet with Outsize Cargo Capacity In Response to: FY05 Defense Appropriations Conference Report (108-622; pg 216), specific concerns about business case viability which have been raised since program inception, are addressed through the answering of model questions presented in the report as follows:

7.5 "What level of risk will be borne by the U.S. government, the commercial carriers and by the C-17 contractor?"

US Gov; The largest risk is loss of access to the capacity if the commercail operator declares bankruptcy after aircraft have bee placed in commercial service. To reduce the risk, Air Mobility Commands' (AMC) position requires the organic fleet to be at least 180 C-17s. There is is also the possibility that the government might be unable to the sell the aircraft at the expected fair and quitable price (as outlined in the Transformational Recapitalization Strategy) subsequent to ordering new C-17s, thus resulting in a funding deficit for the purchase of new aircraft.

Commercial Carrier: The owner takes the most risk, as is normal in commercial ventures. That risk is quantified in the business case and is reflected in interest rates and bond ratings. the used aircraft option reduces the capital risk and eliminates the need for government investments or buy-backs.

C-17 Manufacturer: Assuming the operator can fly for revenue while any outstanding certification issues are addressed, then the Boeing Company has almost no financial risk.

7.6 "What is the business case for the commercial carriers?"

A custom 25-year operator business case model was developed for this aircraft. Careful consideration was given to the services BC-17 would provide to the project market and the heavy and outsize market (air transport of goods to large or outsize fit in any door of any 747 or similar size freighter). The project market report (Council on Logistics Research study previously noted) demonstrated a premium revenue yield for the short field capability of the aircraft and when combined with a competitive heavy and outsized market revenue rate at a 60%/40% market split, it was demonstrated that the aircraft had the ability to generate revenue of $50M per aircraft per year. Careful analysis was done on the cost of operating the aircraft, the corporate and overhead structure the business would best operate under and a reasonable financing structure acceptable to Wall Street firms. These assumptions were placed into the operator business case model, which generates income and cash flow streams over the 25 year period, and demonstrated a 15% Internal Rate of Return (IRR) with a $120m aircraft notional price. The model also demonstrated an excellent 35% operating profit and an NPV of $790M (11% discount rate.) The $120M aircraft price results in $30M being available for FAA certification and modification cost to yield the USAF's expected $90M stated in the previous discussion. At the time of this writing, the FAA appears open to a minimum change configuraton. If approved, the costs would be considerably less than the $30M increasing the potential return for the USAF for the used C-17.

7.7 "What is the business case for the U.S. government?"

The USAF may spend $230M to purchase a new C-17 and should get $90M in credit for each C-17 it sells without giving up access to the capability when CRAF (Civil Reserve Air Fleet)is activated. To date, there has been extensive analysis to determine the fiar and reasonable value of the used C-17. Independent (OSD (Office of The Secretary of Defense) assessment of the analysis should be complete by late 2005. (Assessment was completed). The USAF will avoid $11M in modifications and $10M per year in operations and maintenance cost for each C-17 it sell without giving up access to the capability during war. If a sale takes place in FY07, fewer C-17s would be delayed approximately 6 months to the end of FY08. In addition, this provides a basis for a recapitalization plan that helps with aging aircraft (refer to Transformational Recapitalization document) by replacing 10-15 year old C-17s, provides industrial base support, and enables Fly America. Although CRAF BC-17s would experience operating limitations when compared with military aircraft and crews, the CRAF portion of the airlift system would be more capable. Also, due to the expense of operating BC-17s, annual payments to CRAF carriers could increase."

Status of BC-17 Initiative: 2006-2009

Congressional Testimony on the National and Economic Security Role of C-17/BC-17 Testimony has been given to the Congressionally mandated United States China Security Commission (USCC.gov) by Dr. Sheila Ronis and Myron D. Stokes relative to the critical role that C-17 and BC-17 production and operation have played and will play in matters of national security (pp 174-176)

Congressional Authorization for Sale of of C-17As to Private Sector; FAA Exemption to 14 CFR 21.27 Requirement

In FY06, FY07, FY08 and FY09 Defense budgets, and if necessary, FY10, language was submitted and will be submitted again through Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) staffers directing the Secretary of Defense to authorize the USAF to sell first generation C-17s (there is precedent for military equipment resale activity in FY98 and FY00) to the private sector for the purpose of expanding the Civil Reserve Air Fleet to include Heavy and Outsize capacity -- thus removing current dependence on Russian/Ukrainian AN-124 aircraft (operating in the US on daily FAA waivers) to fulfil US military airlift shortfalls for Iraq and Afghanistan operations. Furthermore, the FAA is instructed through this mechanism to consider exemption to FAA 14 CFR 21.27, which requires that aircraft declared "military surplus" be go through recertification; a time consuming and costly undertaking as noted previously. The rationale, according to USAF documents, is "The language also allows the FAA Administrator to use an existing FAR to certify the aircraft. Under 14 CFR 21.27 the FAA Administrator can grant a Part 25 type certification in the trasport category using military experience to demonstrate air worthiness. However, 14 CFR 21.27 applies to surplus aircraft, therefore, a legislative exemption is required because these aircraft fulfill part of the military airlift requirement and are not surplus. Since this exception does not change the intent of 14 CFR 21.27, the FAA has coordinated on the use of this language."

"The language also clearly maintains State Department oversight of the commercial operation through the International Traffic in Arms Regualtions (ITAR), 22 CFR Part 121, US Munitions List. An advisory opinion from the DoS has been obtained for this operation, and commercial industry has reluctantly accepted the methodology."

Presentation of Blueprint for Global BC-17 based Heavy and Outsized Air Cargo Operations During SpeedNews Aerospace and Defense Conference; The Jonathan Club, Los Angeles, CA 9 May 2007

Global HeavyLift Holdings, LLC Managing Member Myron D. Stokes provided attendees, which included financial sector representatives, a detailed strategy for implementing a US/NATO-controlled Heavy and Outsized air cargo industry operating from four main bases designated as "epicenters" in the US. Europe, Middle-East and Asia.

Significant Interest by Potential Operators

Contrary to oft stated opinions to the effect there has been minimal interest in the BC-17, the facts belie the assertion: In a May 2007 Flight Global Article "Boeing Close to Launching BC-17", Boeing acknowledged signficant interest in the BC-17 with Program Manager and Vice-President Dave Bowman stating: "We have several customers with money that have given us requests for proposals. I've never received RFPS before."

Response to Flight Global Blog on Presumed Demise of BC-17 owing to FAA Denial of Exemption to 14 CFR 21.27

Responding to comments by noted aviation writer Stephen Trimble of Flight Global alluding to a final demise of the BC-17, Global HeavyLift Holdings, LLC management maintained that the program was far from dead and well past the "idea" stage.

According to industry sources, Global HeavyLift management has stated that it envisions the global heavy and outsize fleet as incorporating BC-17, AN-124 and A400M (despite delays in this EADS airlifter, Global Heavylift is prepared to issue an RFP for up to 20 A400Ms in a commercial configuration as announced by AIRBUS EADS in 2007) in a symbiotic relationship that will play to the strengths of each aircraft in pursuit of the HOM (Heavy and Outsize Market) and SAM (Short Austere Market)opportunities.

Status of BC-17 Initiative: 2006-2009

Congressional Authorization for Sale of of C-17As to Private Sector; FAA Exemption to 14 CFR 21.27 Requirement

In FY06, FY07, FY08 and FY09 Defense budgets, and if necessary, FY10, language was submitted and will be submitted again through Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) staffers directing the Secretary of Defense to authorize the USAF to sell first generation C-17s (there is precedent for military equipment resale activity in FY98 and FY00) to the private sector for the purpose of expanding the Civil Reserve Air Fleet to include Heavy and Outsize capacity -- thus removing current dependence on Russian/Ukrainian AN-124 aircraft (operating in the US on daily FAA waivers) to fulfil US military airlift shortfalls for Iraq and Afghanistan operations. Furthermore, the FAA is instructed through this mechanism to consider exemption to FAA 14 CFR 21.27, which requires that aircraft declared "military surplus" be go through recertification; a time consuming and costly undertaking as noted previously.

Presentation of Blueprint for Global BC-17 based Heavy and Outsized Air Cargo Operations During SpeedNews Aerospace and Defense Conference

Global HeavyLift Holdings, LLC, personnel provided attendees, which included financial sector representatives, a detailed strategy for implementing a US/NATO-controlled Heavy and Outsized air cargo industry operating from four main bases designated as "epicenters" in the US. Europe, Middle-East and Asia.

Significant Interest by Potential Operators

Contrary to oft stated opinions to the effect there has been minimal interest in the BC-17, the facts belie the assertion: In a May 2007 Flight Global Article "Boeing Close to Launching BC-17", Boeing acknowledged signficant interest in the BC-17. Global HeavyLift, it is worth noting, provided a Request For Pricing (RFP) involving 30 new aircraft. Boeing senior management was also presented with a strategy by a designated lead financial entity representing a consortium of banks to structure an USD18.4 billion quadruple and simultaneous raise (30 new and 60 used aircraft) in four geographic locales: US, Europe, Asia and Middle-East This approach allowed the lead bank to tap into multiple funding resources globally.

BC-17 Issues Political, Not Financial

The real issues with BC-17 therefore have not been financial, but political, as the intense Capitol Hill debates about the future of this aircraft have indicated.

By design, the final arbiter of success or failure of the BC-17 initiative is neither Boeing or the USAF, but Congress. And even that, according to insiders, is not absolute. ASIMOV51 (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ASIMOV51 (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Suggestion

ASIMOV51: May I suggest that you start a new article on this topic and refer readers to it from the C-17 article? We are trying to get too much information into the basic C-17 piece, in my opinion. That's one reason why you are getting reverted.

Regards, Dhpage (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Call it "Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft program" or something covering the program, not just BC-17. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Colleagues. That is a great suggestion. Question: Should thsi be started as a new section of C-17, or an entirely new page that refers back to the existing C-17 page? ASIMOV51 (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A separate article/page like Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft program, Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft or other. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Creating page now. Will be back with you ASIMOV51 (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the page created and for your review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Application_of_Military_Airlift_Aircraft_(CAMAA)ASIMOV51 (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

C-17 Seating?

I examined the link given to justify adding '134' to the seating section but cannot find justification for the 134 number? Believe 102 is the maximum (54 sidewall + 48 centerline = 102). Additional seating is possible if you add palletized seats but that is not the basic aircraft specification.

(→Specifications (C-17): ** 102 - 134 troops or per http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/c17spec.htm - someone might want to compare other parts of the spec.)

Dhpage (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to clarify that. The full aeromedical equipment (beyond 3 litters) appears to be non-standard also. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fnlayson, that is a good clarification. My concern is that, unlike the 102 seats that are part of every aircraft, the palletized seats are not. Only a few sets exist and they are stored at the bases. Aircraft must go to those bases to fitted with them. You are also correct about the litter stanchions...each aircraft carries less than a full set. Reference for this the C-17 Pocket Guide.

Dhpage (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Has the Indian Air Force really shortlisted the C-17?

I'm a bit sceptical about the reliability of the source which is being used to reference the claim that the IAF hopes to buy 10 C-17s. A Google News search ([1]) of 'India C-17' only returns a single source for this claim, and it's an online newspaper for the Indian population in Thailand: [2], which seems an odd place for such a story to break. There's nothing about this in the online versions of the Times of India ([3]) or Hindustan Times [4], which the Media in India article lists as being two of India's main newspapers. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Boeing also hasn't put out a media release about this - there's nothing on it's online mediaroom: [5] Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The story in 'Thaindian' was sourced from the Indo-Asian News Service, which looks to be a reliable source: [6]. Has anyone seen this reported in other sources? Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we have a wiki-link for every source we link to, especially when single sourced? Indo-Asian News Service Hcobb (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no a problem with a single, valid source. Just seems like this would be reported elsewhere. However, India requesting info on the C-17 was reported last Feb.[7] -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Map

Should the map of operators include NATO? I think it should, and all of NATO should be filled in. --Conor Fallon (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Not all members of NATO are part of the Strategic Airlift Capability Program and some countries outside of NATO are part of the program. So actually the aircraft are not NATO operated and carry Hungarian Air Force and Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) markings not NATO markings (although they are managed by the NATO Airlift Management Agency (NAMA). MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

File:C-17 Canberra (RAAF).jpg

This is a non-free image but it doesn't seem to add much, if anything, to the article. There are pictures of C-17s doing all sorts of things, but they only unusual feature of this pic is that, if you look really hard, the plane has Australian markings on it. Is it really necessary to have it here? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Under normal fair-use rules, I'd agree with you. But some governments, such as Austrailia and Canada, copytight their images, but have fairly liberal usage rules. The key question is whether or not WP qualifies as a commercial site or not. On Wiki commons, it is usually treated as a commetrcial site. There should be something somewhere on WP which states one way or another whether WP is legally considered a commercial site or not. If it is, then this image needs to be removed. - BilCat (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As the person who uploaded this photo, I've got no problem with removing it now that free images of Australian C-17s are available (eg, File:RAAFC17A41207.JPG). At the time the photo was taken and uploaded there were no free images of Australian C-17s as they'd only just entered service. Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for swapping the images over Bill. I've deleted the fair use photo. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! - BilCat (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Haiti

Ummm, im new to the discussion but i wanted to add that in the earthquake in Haiti 2010, 2 or 3 C-17s were used to bring suvivors over in Operation Pirre Pan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.154.159.157 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing really notable in that it is just what the C-17 does for a job. MilborneOne (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

do Mexico have c-17

C-17 Globemaster III Operators image is not correct.do Mexico have c-17???????\ plz correct image "C-17 Globemaster III Operators"--59.94.128.6 (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Mexico does not have C-17s. Operators section is correct.Dhpage (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Split

Seeing as the recent crash in Alaska has received a lot of press attention and there are things that can be said of it that are not germane to a general article on the C-17, I have split it off into the article Alaska C-17 plane crash. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Good move. You might try posting at WT:WikiProject Aircraft and maybe WT:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force seeking help. -fnlayson (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wording

Hiya, fnlayson. Saw you reverted my edits in the first graf of the Design section. Why do you prefer "approximately" to "about"? What do you think "significantly" adds to its sentence? (If it's not significant, after all, it wouldn't bear mentioning.) Why do you think "outsize" is not redundant when it falls two words after "large"? PRRfan (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not really revert your edit. I must have added that back without noticing. Outsize means non-palletized cargo and is not necessarily large. -fnlayson (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool; I'll retweak, then. And hey, filed under you-learn-something-every-day, I didn't know "outsize" meant "non-palletized"; I'll stick that in the text for other readers. PRRfan (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Outsize cargo is non-palletized, but does seem to be large per this article. Oversize cargo is similar but smaller items. -fnlayson (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd join this discussion. USTRANSCOM defines oversize cargo as cargo exceeding 108 x 88 x 96 inches, the limitations for palletized air cargo secured with cargo nets (palletized cargo restrained with non-net tie down can exceed those dimensions). By contrast, outsize cargo exceeds 1000 x 117 x 105 inches, and may only be airlifted via C-17 or C-5. Orion27 27 (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Political questioning of India acquisition

A several-line summary of an opinion piece by Arundhati Roy which questioned both Indians and Americans about possible political tradeoffs in the Indian purchase of the 10 C-17s was deleted wholesale from the India section of this article. The explanation given for the deletion was it "does not seem that relevant here. The Indian Air Force article or other related Indian article is a better place."

Are not the manufacture and sale and acquisition of these planes political, in part? I don't accept the assertion of irrelevance. A political decision is being made and Roy is expressing a political position, articulately and forcefully. Are there other political views on the acquisition? Of course. They are well represented already in the section, with President Obama now apparently part of the consensus to one degree or another, leading with his export- salesperson hat on it would seem. Roy's is a voice of dissent, questioning and challenge. That was clearly discussed in the summary. I ask us not to forget, please, the "good faith" assumption, before assessing relevancy so narrowly, one-sidedly and sweepingly.

Wouldn't more elaboration on different political opinions be a more useful way for us to spend our time, here, if we feel they've been underrepresented? Meanwhile, how about a separate sub-section on political considerations surrounding the sale/acquisition, to incorporate the Roy summary? Can we can work something like that out? I hope so. Thanks. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:RS#Statements of opinion: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author." - BilCat (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Arundhati Roy text removed was not a summary and gives undue weight. This does not seem to be notable To the C-17. The text could apply to any aircraft, such as the Lockheed Martin C-130J recently ordered by India. -fnlayson (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Roy's opinion is that of a lone vocal activist, not that of a major political group within India such as an oppostion party, even a major politician. It's just not notable. Further, the requrgitation of her piece is not understandable to the average international user who's not informed about the nuances of her political views, or the specifics of what she's referring to in her piece. This article isn't the place to explain it either, and without such an explanation, it's really meaningless to the majority of our readers. - BilCat (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Australia

Looks like Australia intends to purchase a 5th aircraft.[8] Not unsurprisingly only a week after finding out they have practically zero operational sealift capability. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding/updating that. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)