C-17B Globemaster

[masqqqq]

I'm looking for information, technical data, 3-line drawings, pictures etc about projects based on C-17 Globemaster III ( for example C-17B ).

 

[circle-5]

McDonnell Douglas EC-17 tanker, flying command post and electronic warfare platform:

 

[fightingirish]

Re: C-17 Globemaster projects

In 1992, McDonnell Douglas Corp. was talking with British jet-engine builder Rolls-Royce plc about putting Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan engines on the Douglas-built C-17


Source: Luftwaffen-Forum, 01-1993, pages 44-45

 

[bobbymike]

From AFA:

Two C-17s drop-launched a pair of ballistic target missiles near Wake Island in the Pacific Ocean, supporting a recent Missile Defense Agency test. "High-altitude, heavy weight airdrop is something we're doing a lot of here at Edwards, supporting not only MDA, but NASA with the Orion capsule drops that we've been doing," 418th Flight Test Squadron pilot Capt. Stephen Koether from Edwards AFB, Calif., said in a Dec. 7 release. Edwards pilots initially deployed a Short-Range Air-Launch Target (SRALT) from the C-17's cargo bay, which was detected, tracked, and intercepted by a ground-launched Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile. The second Globemaster launched a larger Extended Medium-Range Ballistic Missile (EMRBM) minutes later, testing defensive systems' ability to discriminate targets through debris from the first shot. The THAAD system on Wake successfully intercepted the first shot, and although the AEGIS destroyer USS John Paul Jones was able to track the EMRBM, its SM-3 missile failed to engage, according to an MDA release. The Oct. 31 test evaluated both land- and sea-based US missile defense. MDA is investigating the missile interceptor failure.

 

[Triton]

Model of Boeing C-17B

Another potential derivative was the Boeing C-17B. If you ever attended an airlift convention or airshow, you might have even seen a model of the upgraded Globemaster III. The C-17B was pitched as a way to allow landings at truly austere fields in locations where the “A” model couldn’t go. The C-17B featured a center-truck gear, self-deflating tires and double-slotted flaps to allow landing on even shorter distances. This variant was proposed a few times by Boeing in an attempt to extend the production line, the last time publicly in 2008. The “B” model never caught on though. The C-17 was already an expensive plane to operate and by 2008, congress started to reign in the massive defense budget that would have been necessary to fund this new variant. The War on Terror showed off the capabilities of the C-17 but it also exemplified that performance beyond its current capabilities were not required. Most missions did not require landing on a short or unimproved field. Even in poor nations like Afghanistan, most of the cargo could be delivered to a few established fields and transloaded to smaller aircraft like C-130s and/or convoyed to the final destination.

Source:
http://www.avgeekery.com/2015314three-c-17-derivatives-that-never-took-off/
http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/gallery/view.html?b_bbs_id=10040&pn=5&num=45696

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/us-air-force-arsenal-plane-revival-sparks-intense-debate

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

Model of Boeing C-17B

Another potential derivative was the Boeing C-17B. If you ever attended an airlift convention or airshow, you might have even seen a model of the upgraded Globemaster III. The C-17B was pitched as a way to allow landings at truly austere fields in locations where the “A” model couldn’t go. The C-17B featured a center-truck gear, self-deflating tires and double-slotted flaps to allow landing on even shorter distances. This variant was proposed a few times by Boeing in an attempt to extend the production line, the last time publicly in 2008. The “B” model never caught on though. The C-17 was already an expensive plane to operate and by 2008, congress started to reign in the massive defense budget that would have been necessary to fund this new variant. The War on Terror showed off the capabilities of the C-17 but it also exemplified that performance beyond its current capabilities were not required. Most missions did not require landing on a short or unimproved field. Even in poor nations like Afghanistan, most of the cargo could be delivered to a few established fields and transloaded to smaller aircraft like C-130s and/or convoyed to the final destination.

Source:

Three types of C-17 That Never Made It Off The Drawing Board

The C-17 was a successful design. Here are 3 modifications to the C-17 that never made it off the drawing board.

www.avgeekery.com

¹Ì À°±ºÀ» »ó´ë·Î Á¦¾ÈµÇ°í ÀÖ´Â C-17B ¼ö¼Û±â

¹Ì À°±ºÀ» »ó´ë·Î Á¦¾ÈµÇ°í ÀÖ´Â C-17B ¼ö¼Û±â

bemil.chosun.com

How would the C-17B differed from the C-17A?

 

[flateric]

How would the C-17B differed from the C-17A?

 

[Fluff]

How would the C-17B differed from the C-17A?

Makes you wonder if they modded say 3 airframes, the tyres and engines would be straightforward to do, the flaps etc a little harder. Handy for those places you never go, if you see what I mean. And would look pretty much like regular C17....

 

[Hobbes]

The excellent 'American Secret Projects 3' covers the C-17 variants.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

Thanks! I still need to order the book though, I've been needing to do so for some time. I will order it as soon as possible.

 

[Adventurer104]

How would the C-17B differed from the C-17A?

4 in narrower fuselage?
to lighten or some other purpose?

 

[TomcatViP]

Weight and range.

 

[TomS]

How would the C-17B differed from the C-17A?

4 in narrower fuselage?
to lighten or some other purpose?

Not 4 inches, 4 feet (~1.2 meters). That's a pretty dramatic shrink, which would eliminate the ability to haul heavy tanks, but I guess would still accomodate Stryker (and maybe Bradley?). Would certainly be quite a weight and fuel savings, though. Combined with the higher flotation landing gear, it could make the C-17B C-17FE more capable in unprepared runways.

Edit: Realized that those slides likely refer to the FE, not the B.

 

[kitnut617]

That would make it the same diameter as an A400M Tom, was it intended to compete with it ---

 

[TomS]

That would make it the same diameter as an A400M Tom, was it intended to compete with it ---

Presumably. Turned out to be a very small market indeed.

 

[yasotay]

Given the damage to C-130's operating out of "austere" landing locations, I suspect the USAF was loathe to risk a capitol asset to an unseen rock. I would like to poke them in the eye for that, but I can understand the rational.

 

[brownt62]

Question....Could the C-17A be stretched like the C-141A was stretched to make the C-141B? Seems like a cheap way to gain some capability at a more reasonable cost than new builds. I dont know if the C-17 cubes out before exceeding weight lifting limits...

 

[isayyo2]

How would the C-17B differed from the C-17A?

4 in narrower fuselage?
to lighten or some other purpose?

Not 4 inches, 4 feet (~1.2 meters). That's a pretty dramatic shrink, which would eliminate the ability to haul heavy tanks, but I guess would still accomodate Stryker (and maybe Bradley?). Would certainly be quite a weight and fuel savings, though. Combined with the higher flotation landing gear, it could make the C-17B C-17FE more capable in unprepared runways.

Edit: Realized that those slides likely refer to the FE, not the B.

It’s all very Future Combat System vibe-y, the Army and Shinseki really believed they could move a light-mech Brigade in 96 hours and they needed all the lift assets possible. There are some FCS slides floating around showing the need for intra-theater planes.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

McDonnell Douglas EC-17 tanker, flying command post and electronic warfare platform:

never saw it
I like the tanker version.
No pods for Navy planes

 

[alejandrogrossi]

McDonnell Douglas EC-17 tanker, flying command post and electronic warfare platform:

circle-5
Question
If any wants the EC-17 tanker (with boom an with pods in the wing) MCD can build it?

 

[Mark Nankivil]

McDonnell Douglas EC-17 tanker, flying command post and electronic warfare platform:

circle-5
Question
If any wants the EC-17 tanker (with boom an with pods in the wing) MCD can build it?

Sad to say, Circle-5 passed away a few years ago.....

As to your question, don't see Boeing offering that option. They'll try to sell you converted 767s instead.

Mark

 

[TomS]

McDonnell Douglas EC-17 tanker, flying command post and electronic warfare platform:

circle-5
Question
If any wants the EC-17 tanker (with boom an with pods in the wing) MCD can build it?

So, obviously, McDonnell Douglas hasn't existed as a separate company in ages and I think the name hasn't even been used since ~2001 or so (I've lost track). It's all Boeing now. Also, Boeing stopped making C-17s in 2015 and then sold the plant to real estate developers in 2019. So not only has the horse left the barn, the barn is being torn down and turned into condos.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

McDonnell Douglas EC-17 tanker, flying command post and electronic warfare platform:

circle-5
Question
If any wants the EC-17 tanker (with boom an with pods in the wing) MCD can build it?

Sad to say, Circle-5 passed away a few years ago.....

As to your question, don't see Boeing offering that option. They'll try to sell you converted 767s instead.

Mark

My bad
Thanks for you ansewer

 

[Pioneer]

Question....Could the C-17A be stretched like the C-141A was stretched to make the C-141B? Seems like a cheap way to gain some capability at a more reasonable cost than new builds. I dont know if the C-17 cubes out before exceeding weight lifting limits...

brownt62, I just found this article in relation to your question:

"The USAF has not expressed any interest in a stretch version, which we have said is possible. The USAF has said to us, 'Why would you want to do that? The C-17 can carry now virtually everything the C-5 can'," says the company.
MDC "-has plans on the drawing board", for various stretched C-17s with fuselage plugs ranging from 3.6m to just over 12m long. Studies have indicated that a C-17 stretched by up to 6.1m could still have its current austere field performance.
A larger fuselage plug would require a longer take-off length and a wider runway (for turning and reversing) and possibly new powerplants in the 200-222kN (45,000-50,000lb)-thrust range.

Source: Flight International, 1996

Globemaster stretch fails to find favour with US Air Force

Guy Norris/LOS ANGELES THE US Air Force favours the "baseline" McDonnell Douglas (MDC) C-17 Globemaster III rather than a stretched derivative as its new-build option to replace the Lockheed Martin C-5A/B Galaxy, according to the US manufacturer. MDC claims that the USAF is interested in...

www.flightglobal.com

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Scott Kenny]

Makes you wonder if they modded say 3 airframes, the tyres and engines would be straightforward to do, the flaps etc a little harder. Handy for those places you never go, if you see what I mean. And would look pretty much like regular C17....

Sounds like a Dale Brown "Dreamland Special" for sure!

especially if you skip the winglet change and don't lower the flaps all the way to not show off the double-slotted flaps where people are looking.