Talk:Boeing C-17 Globemaster III/Archive 1

message: Is it just me or does this article sound like it was written by the manufacturer? Not a single downside, disadvantage, failure or anything... I dunno, maybe it is just that good... anyone care to look into this --83.67.99.89 22:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Soft information" about "rumors and speculation?" Nothing that isn't in the mainstream press. Some of the "rumors and speculation" are based upon direct quotes from the parties who would make such decisions. Can you give some specific examples, rather than levying charges hit-and-run style? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It was part of the 173rd airborne, see 173rd_Airborne page at the bottom, or official history at the bottom. Ah, here's a full story from the Army here. Identity0 11:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, absolutely, be bold.  Welcome to the project.  I have left some links on your talk page that will help you get started.  --rogerd 14:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Dover into the list of C-17 squadrons. The Spirit Of The Constitution flew its first flight on the fifth of June. I was picked to ride in it (it was a total PR flight), and man, that thing was nice. Straight from the factory, I've never smelled 'New Car Scent' in an aircraft before.
I think we need to regard criticism of the program separately from criticism of the aircraft. The cost overruns and missed deadlines of the program are problems that plague the US procurment system in general, and don't really affect the plane.
The plane itself is more expensive on a per-unit basis as well as for the program, though. That's the only real problem that has come up with the plane so far. As I noted earlier, it has a bigger 'wake' behind it so it required parachute static lines to be lengthened, but that only required an 'extension cord' for existing lines.
The only real way that a transport like this can have problems apart from cost/manufacturing is in reliability and maintenence issues, and it's too early to tell if the C-17 will have problems there. None have been lost in combat or accident AFAIK, but it also hasn't seen the kind of use the C-130 has.
It outperforms the transports it was designed to replace (the C-141), and does the tactical and stratiegic airlift well enough to take some of the jobs formerly assigned to the C-130 and C-5. Performance-wise, there have been no problems thus far. I'm not sure what you mean when you want to look more at its shortcomings. Identity0 19:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of negatives

message: It looks like the Modern USAF Series table on this page should be replaced with the Template:Active military aircraft of the United States. I'm not familiar with the style of aircraft pages though. Qutezuce 06:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern USAF Series table

message: I think that this article could use an image of an RAF C-17.  I realize that the Crown Copyright is more restrictive than the U.S. gov policy, but if someone could get a free image, I think that would enhance the article.  --rogerd 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of an RAF Globemaster 

message: Normally I find myself arguing for articles to be rebalanced because the United States isn't the only nation on the planet.  In this one for once, I'm heading in the other direction - There is more about the RAF and RCAF than the USAF in this article, and about the same amount about the RAAF and Sweden.  The RAAF doesn't operate it yet, and Canada and Sweden haven't even ordered it! Anyone care to write a bit more about American use?...
Also, while by all accounts, the present production aircraft is a fine plane, there are negatives - in a politically protracted development, and in particular, in the high price and consequent poor value for money, (perhaps not as visible as it is endemic in new millenium US military aircraft),  that has lead to the production being curtailled. If C-17s were availlable for a cost proportional to 1960s aircraft purchases, there would be no A400.Winstonwolfe 07:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the Proportionality is the timing, if Wikipedia was a going concern when the USAF was taking the A/C into service there would probably be more to write about. That is a little harder now. I am concerned about the German, Sweden, Canadian and Danish sections being a little large compared to their relative importance as operators. I've change the Danish one to be NATO because they are now part of a larger deal - but still not an order. RAF is a current operator, Australia and Canada have roughly equal orders, and Sweden is more a rumour at this point. I don't really want to delete valid content to balance it out though. --Wakemp 15:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree absolutely - I was a pleading for more about the USAF, NOT trying to encourage deletions :-). Winstonwolfe 04:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  balance between users 

message: I've resection the article, previously the countries were subheadings of the background. I have broke it into nations that have taken delivery (largest number to smallest number) and nations that have expressed an intent to purchase (largest to smallest order, then alphabetically). Since Canada and Australia have both ordered 4 I listed Australia for both alphabetic and chronological reasons (they ordered first). Once a country takes delivery they should move to the Operator section. --Wakemp 19:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections and Order of Precedent 

message: Combat Aircraft Magazine Vol. 7 No. 7 July 2006, has an article called "Frontline", written by columnist Robert F. Dorr, which states that "Even with an extra internal fuel tank (that was) not part of the original design, the C-17 has disappointing range and is a drain on air refueling assets" I think it valid to put this into the article if no one objects? Dervish6 06:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, if you can demonstrate purpose. However, hops (landing/refuelling/takeoffs) are pretty common with cargo hauling, so I am dubious that the point has merit. Furthermore, you came into this situation displaying anti-C-17 bias right off the bat. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You knock me but not the article. Have you even bothered to check it out? Have you even bothered to contact Mr Dorr himself to please explain his position? Where in here do I say that I hate the C-17? Actually I love the C-17, but you can't have a wikipedia (C-17) article here that basically implies its all good and perfect, when there are detractors/concerned individuals out there that have valid points or concerns to raise about the actual utility and capability of this aircraft. To not include negative points in this article would seem to indicate that people like you are not interested in NPOV. Furthermore, the flight profile you allude to assumes that the destination (the airfield) has been secured and has facilities to refuel the C-17 and send it on its merry way back to where it came from. What if it were not the case? What if you had to conduct airborne forced-entry or airdrop resupply at range? Mr Dorr's comments reflect on U.S. operational experience with this airplane in training and actual combat missions. Do we want a good quality wiki article here or an advertisement for Boeing?Dervish6 09:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I hate ambiguous comparisons.  Disappointing range compared to what?  -Fnlayson 15:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would have to contact Mr Dorr for the specifics. He maybe refering to perhaps the original requirements for what the plane was supposed to do as opposed to actual experience with the airplane in exercises and war operations. Dervish6 09:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: * Maybe, or he was comparing to some unreal expection..  -Fnlayson 21:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the biggest clue to Dorr's statement lies with what information this Wiki C-17 Article already has. I point to the extended range provided by the additional fuel tank. A 400 nautical mile range increase is not what you can consider an improvement when we are talking about Strategic Airlift, as opposed to Tactical Airlift. The United States Air Force wanted 222 C-17's as a MINIMUM. That number makes sense if you take Mr Dorr's statement to account. You would not have the likelihood of packing each and every C-17 to the hilt but rather share the load, which on the surface would mean you would be actually able to deliver more cargo at longer range, if you understand what I mean. Dervish6 09:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Another thing I noticed with this article was the failure to mention the delays and cost blowout of the C-17 program when the tail section had to be reengineered because of a fault with it's original design. Also the program fell under intense scruitiny in the 1990's with production of this airplane originally capped at 40 examples while the U.S. Government pondered on alternatives such as reopening the production lines for the C-5, and even purchase of militarised 747's. I believe the designation of the military transport 747 variant was, or was to have been the C-33A. Currently the USAF operates the E-4 and VC-25 variants of the 747 and wants to have the Airborne Laser 747 in its inventory as well. Dervish6 09:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone has sourced critism of the C-17 then please add it to the main article. No use arguing about it here. Keshma 12:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That is by no means a viable source. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-17's Vice must appear in the Article

message: I have removed the following lengthy section from the article:
:Specific requirements are that the aircraft must carry 39,000 kg (86,000 lbs) a distance of 6,500 km (3,500 nm) and operate from runways of 4,000 ft.  Although the C-17 is capable of achieving these parameters, there is logistics concerns regarding cruising distance with maximum load: The C-17 can carry at maximum only one Main Battle Tank at a time, due to the maximum weight, and fuel/distance limitations of the C-17.  However, the much larger Russian built AN-124, the acknowledged largest military cargo plane available, can carry atleast two Main Battle Tanks, has a considerably larger cruising distance with Full load, and whose price is comparably less than the C-17 (although has perceived deficiencies related to Russian aerospace technology) would be a far superior value purchase, with upgraded avionics and engines supplied by other notable manufacturers.  However, there may still be disagreement in the aerospace community regarding reliability, and maintainabity of the An-124 versus the C-17.  However, these concerns should be more than off-set by the lower acquisition costs, and still yet, likely lower maintenance, and parts-replacement costs of the An-124.  Although not intended to endorse acquisitions of brand new An-124s, the Canadian Armed Forces already currently leases on a temporary basis these Heavy Lift Aircraft.  There should be options for the Canadian Tax-payer to consider.
:As officially stated, the first delivery of the heavy airlifter would be required within eighteen months and the last no later than 48 months. Boeing has stated it would be able to achieve this by arranging for the U.S. Air Force to defer delivery slots, (allowing for foreign allied-nation purchases) similar to the arrangement governing the Australian C-17 order to intercede American placed orders.
:On September 9, 2006, Boeing said they would likely secure both the equipment and maintenance contract, largely because no other company can meet the contract requirement. Naturally, a lack of market competition for maintenance & equipment repair/parts-replacement contracts will result in higher related costs associated with maintaining the C-17, to the Canadian taxpayer.
Absolutely none of this was sourced, but there were other reasons for its deletion as well. Please read the following links before attempting to re-add any of this or similar material.
::*Wikipedia:No original research
::**Wikipedia:Cite
::*Wikipedia:Verifiability
::*Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
::**Wikipedia:Criticism
::*Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
It's important that "facts" are backed up by published reliable sources. Unless one can find and cite such sources, such edits will have to be deleted. 
Thanks. - BillCJ 13:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The middle paragraph is mostly mine, I believe. I am pretty sure the data for that is in one of the attached links. In any case, you can tell by CAF's delivery dates that USAF would have had give them delivery slots. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent CAF additions

message: * Now that Sweden has signed a letter of intent to join the NATO C-17 pool and that the previously stated reference to Sweden's order is no longer on the Ministry's Web page, shouln't that whole Sweden paragraph be deleted, up to the part I just added?  It is highly unlikely that Sweden will buy 2 C-17s and join the NATO C-17 pool Hudicourt 04:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't delete it. Amend it such that it reflects the fact that the efforts were combined. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweden

message: Can we please use more descriptive refs titles than "Strategic Airlift Capability?" Or at least stick to something close to the standard? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: I had forgetten about the MD-17/BC-17.  Just seems like this content should go in the History section though.   I mean it went nowhere (no future/potential operatirs) besides getting some FAA certification.  Anybody got a problem with this move?  Or a better idea?  Thanks. -Fnlayson 04:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, the BC-17 is still on offer. The WSJ even made mention of it at some point last year. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, that settles it.  I hadn't heard anything about it in years.  Nevermind then. -Fnlayson 04:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, they even reference it as late as Sep. 2005.  —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commerical version 

message: "To reduce costs, the Canadian government is purchasing the airframes from Boeing, while purchasing all the Pratt & Whitney engines from a USAF supply. This emulates the USAF approach developed in recent years to split the purchase in order to reduce costs from integrating the engines with the airframe."
I don't understand this, and given that I am fairly familiar with the defence industry, surely it will confuse someone unfamiliar with the subject? "reduce costs from integrating the engines with the airframe" - as in the actual bolting, wiring and plumbing of the engines? And how is that cheaper than letting Boeing do it on the production line? Mark83 00:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or is the point that it's non-FMS? and hence no commission payment? Mark83 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: -Good question.  I tried to reword what was there a bit better.  I'm not sure I beleive that the way it is explained.  How does Canada get the aircraft to add the engines without them flying in? -Fnlayson 00:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is better the way you have reworded it though. It makes me think maybe the cost saving is from the fact that the USAF has already bought them in bulk and therefore at a much lower price than Canada could alone? Mark83 19:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could it also mean that these aren't brand-spanking new engines, but maybe low-time ones used a few times already? - BillCJ 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  From the pictures I have seen posted on a military forum , they have engines. So, I don't think we are getting birds without engines. ThePointblank 09:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * The confusion was about the engine deal. -Fnlayson 14:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: I was wonder where did they get information about Canadian Armed Forces' 437 squadron that will become home of C-17? What about 436 squadron? This both squadrons is base in CFB Trenton.
:436 is a tac squad, I don't think they'd move to the C-17. Maury 21:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of Maury's disputation, I've removed the squadron assignment from the text. The correct squadron can be listed when it's announced, and the source cited. We might also note that they don't actually operate the plane yet either. - BillCJ 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CF Squadron

message: So they started development in '81, signed the contract in '85, and didn't deliver an airframe until '91? What gives? I'm assuming there was some story to be told to explain a six-year build! Maury 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing history? 

message: Info on the paint and logo are being removed on purpose as extraneous. Please refrain from denigrating regular editors by calling this vandalism. The Canadian seciton is large enough in comparison to the rest of the article as it is, without filling it up with minor details. Forums are generally not allowed per WP:EL. Please find a verifiable souce according to WP:ATTR policies, such as a news website report, that contains the details and add that. Finally, WP:3RR limits the amout of reversions an editor can make, and users violating this can be blocked. - BillCJ 17:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point about the logo and people opposed to the purchase.  Having said that, we'll just leave it as it is.  As for the photos, I had no intention of posting work without permission on wikipedia.  My comment was more to do with getting them off the forum, not uploading them to wikipedia. Snickerdo 19:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just seen pictures posted on a forum showing the C-17 rolled out of the paint shop. Looks like it will be going for flight testing before the August 9 delivery. Man, I am so excited. ThePointblank 21:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Over-detailed CC-177 info

message: Now that Sweden has joined NSAC and is no longer going to buy its own C-17s, I think that whole section should be eliminated and the major facts integrated into the NATO section. Hudicourt 12:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish Armed Forces 

message: I'm going to remove the middle paragraph below and shorten and combine the other two.  
:The Canadian Forces Future Strategic Airlifter Project has studied alternatives since 2002, including long-term leasing arrangements."Strategic lift capacity for Canada", The Ploughshares Monitor, 2005.   The assumption was that the military was pushing for the C-17 even though the outright purchase of even a small number was considered beyond the reach of the current defence budget.The Defence Review and General Rick Hillier.Canadian American Strategic Review 2005. The current Conservative Government promised during the January 2006 federal election campaign to purchase three or four strategic airlifters, which was thought to be thinly veiled reference to the C-17."Stephen Harper announces the new defence policy put forward by the Conservative Party of Canada – Pt 7."Canadian American Strategic Review December 22,2005.
:Minister of National Defence Gordon O'Connor announced on June 29, 2006, that the CF would acquire four strategic lift aircraft at a cost of C$1.8 billion (US$1.6 billion). "Canada First" Defence Procurement - New Strategic & Tactical Airlift Fleets Ministry of National Defence Press Release June 29, 2006  On July 5 the Government issued a notice on the MERX purchasing system that it intended to negotiate directly with Boeing for the purchase of four aircraft.  Airlift Capability Project - Strategic ACP-S - ACAN MERX Website - Government of Canada This supply notice declared the government's intention to purchase the C-17 unless another supplier could demonstrate that it met the mandatory requirements prior to August 4, 2006.  
:On February 1, 2007 the Canadian government awarded the contract for four C-17s for delivery beginning in August 2007. Like Australia, Canada will be granted airframes originally slated for the U.S. Air Force, to accelerate delivery."Canada gets USAF slots for August delivery after signing for four Boeing C-17 in 20-year C$4bn deal, settles provincial workshare quabble." Wastnage, J. Flight International. February 5, 2007.
I wanted to copy it all here in case the procurement info is needed for another article.  -Fnlayson 17:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Forces section cut back 

message: If you want to present the C-17 deliveries in a table, try deliveries by year.  See Boeing 767 for an example. -Fnlayson 20:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just removed the delivery table before user Daniel list all 158 aircraft. I think we need a consensus before adding a long list into this article. Nothing wrong with the deliveries by year table. MilborneOne 21:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * Highly unlikely.  The B-2's list of 21 is about as long as has been generally allowed in an aircraft article.  More than that is just excessive, imo. -Fnlayson 21:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * I agree, but it does not mean that new contributors cant test the water on the talk page. MilborneOne 21:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: ** Sure.  Just wondering, where did you get the tail number for the C-17 that was hit by a SAM? -Fnlayson 22:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: ** Aviation-Safety.net - Aviation Safety net information on incident to 98-0057 MilborneOne 22:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *** Thanks.  Didn't expect that site to have military incidents.  That page didn't show up in any internet searches I did. :( -Fnlayson 22:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deliveries table 

message: * This page has potential to be really great, how can I help improve it? Thanks, Dhpage 04:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is needed to improve this page?