What are the chances Boeing restart C-17 production?
Posted by IntelligentClam@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 39 comments
I always thought once the tooling and special machinery were destroyed restarting a line would be too expensive or impossible. Isn't this why the F-22s can't be restarted even if they wanted to?
Boeing doesn't own the old factory/land it was built at correct?
Big-Resident-7851@reddit
Bldg 54 the final line and subassembly line was shut down in 2015 and has was sold to a company that has leased it to 3D printing Company that makes rockets.
Ill-School1456@reddit
the facility that the C17 was built in is gone, no longer exists, all the tooling and Jigs to make it have been cut up and destroyed everything would need to be started form scratch again.
Fox2_Fox2@reddit
It was understood that the C17 tooling was destroyed but I came up with this article recently that Boeing might restart the production again but not sure how credible this source is.
https://www.zona-militar.com/en/2025/06/19/more-than-10-years-after-delivering-the-last-aircraft-to-the-u-s-air-force-boeing-is-considering-restarting-production-of-the-c-17-globemaster-iii/
More than 10 years after delivering the last aircraft to the U.S. Air Force, Boeing is considering restarting production of the C-17 Globemaster III
19 June, 2025
In the context of a new edition of the Paris Air Show, the U.S. company Boeing has announced that it is evaluating the possibility of restarting production of its C-17 Globemaster III aircraft, reflecting growing interest from potential customers in the platform. Although discussions between the manufacturer and potential buyers are still at a very early stage, the development would represent a significant boost for the company more than ten years after delivering the last of these aircraft to the U.S. Air Force—aircraft for which no direct successor has been developed by the company.
Specialized media report that Boeing is particularly interested in opportunities presented by the European market, where various rearmament plans in response to the Russian threat could lead to new acquisitions of the U.S. aircraft. Without specifying the country involved, Boeing confirmed that negotiations are already underway with at least one potential buyer, underscoring this renewed interest.
Among the official statements on the matter, Torbjorn Sjogren, current Vice President and General Manager of Boeing Global Services – Government Services, said: “It’s an extraordinary effort (referring to restarting aircraft production), but as a reflection of the aircraft’s utility, it’s something we’re currently considering with one particular country that has raised the possibility.”
In the absence of further confirmation, and even though there is mention of growing interest among European clients, it is reasonable to assume that one of the potential buyers could be Japan. It is worth noting that the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is currently evaluating options to replace its problematic C-130R aircraft, which are responsible for transporting supplies to its most remote islands, such as Iwo Jima and Minamitorishima. As reported last April, the Ministry of Defense was already assessing the feasibility of such a purchase at the request of the Prime Minister, prompting various concerns about the costs and the need to adapt many Japanese airstrips for C-17 operations.
For now, despite Boeing having discontinued C-17 production, it is important to highlight that a large number of units remain in service with various armed forces around the world—especially with the U.S. Air Force, but also in countries like Australia, Canada, India, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom. In concrete figures, the company estimates that there are 267 aircraft in total, which continue to be supported under the Globemaster III Integrated Sustainment Program (GISP), dedicated to providing long-term maintenance and support for users of this heavy strategic airlift platform.
*Images used for illustrative purposes.
You may also like: The re-engining of the U.S. Air Force’s B-52 strategic bombers is facing new delays
Human_Emu5529@reddit
Boring absolutely does not own the building it built the C-17 in anymore. Its a Goodman facility now that Relativity Space occupies
aerohk@reddit
I think the confusion comes from the fact that the C-17 program office is still in Long Beach today, but it is relocated to a different building. Absolutely no factory or hanger remains though.
454k30@reddit
And that's just the building in which they were physically built. All of the supporting facilities are long gone having been turned into a business and retail park.
Some_Distant_Memory@reddit
Yeah, I raised an eyebrow to OP’s remark over that because I was pretty sure it was wrong.
454k30@reddit
Preliminary discussions is all that there is at this point. This isn't just restarting the line as the line on which they were built no longer exists. The building in which they were built doesn't belong to Boeing (relativity is in there) and all of the former support entities were turned into a business and retail park. The tooling for the most part was recycled when production stopped. While re-starting production on a C-17 wouldn't necessarily be a clean sheet, the investment in infrastructure would be very close to it.
The closest thing that Boeing has right now to a facility that could handle a C-17 would be the Everett factory on the former 747 line. Any future sales of C-17 would likely be exclusively to foreign nations (Saudi, UAE, Australia, etc) and those countries might demand that the aircraft be built on their soil since they would be footing the production bill.
In the end, it all comes down to money and cost per unit. The original C-17 run wasn't even fully sold when production stopped. Restarting would need to be profitable to the company or they just wont bother. And if the production demand is low, the cost per aircraft would be astronomical. But could it happen? Sure, if the purchasing country has enough billions to throw at it.
isellJetparts@reddit
Boeing is in preliminary discussions right now. It is a definite possibility l.
https://www.flyingmag.com/boeing-could-restart-c-17-production/
ViolinistEmpty7073@reddit
Agree - it can’t be more expensive than a clean sheet.
Ill_Squirrel_9400@reddit
It won't be more expensive, but you spend all that money to produce an airplane that has been developed 40 years ago. You know of a lot of flaws that you'd fix next time around and technology has progressed. If you were to make a big overhaul you'd basically end up with a new plane but with a lot of constraints from the old design.
QuestionMean1943@reddit
Manufacturing tools and technology has moved with time. Some airframes are like the VW bug. Works great. Upgraded to keep up with time.
C-130 has been in production for 71 years this August. VW Beetle was in production for 65 years, 1938 - 2003
Funny thing, the F-22 was cheaper to make per unit than the F-35. Maybe there is error in that math.
Assumeweknow@reddit
The F-22 was a single purpose airframe design for air superiority. F-35 was supposed to be a do it all airframe. It's going to be more expensive just based on that. The savings should come from the mechanical side as maintenance should be more common across the branches and training more uniform. But I don't think it ended up that way.
Ill_Squirrel_9400@reddit
Valid point. I guess that's fixing the biggest pain points and introducing new technologies over time in a live production environment vs rebuilding the whole thing in one go. But also, I'm not an expert.
QuestionMean1943@reddit
Rethought your comment. Very good point. A good example of what you said is the F- 18 Hornet vs F- 18 Super Hornet.
gththrowaway@reddit
And then you get the compromises (and dangers) of the 737 Max
ThrowTheSky4way@reddit
I doubt they destroyed the tooling for the C-17 like they did for the F-22, they didn’t destroy the F-22s because they wanted to, they did it because they had to in order to preserve the security of the program.
Mike__O@reddit
Those idiots destroyed the tooling for the 757 with no security concerns. I bet they wish they could un-do that.
New-IncognitoWindow@reddit
Why when it’s easier to retrofit airframes already in production? Unless it’s a blank check thing then maybe.
Independent-Mix-5796@reddit
Wayyy different mission profiles. The C-17 is ruggedly built far beyond the standards expected of civilian airliners to quickly deliver cargo to less-than-ideal, even short, fields.
Not only are modern airliners not designed for this spec, but IIRC they are also far less adaptable due to properties of their modern composite materials—which is at least partly why programs to convert 737s and 767s to AWACS and Tanker roles are particularly time-consuming and not-as-easy as converting older all-metal airframes.
Note: I don’t have a source to back up my last claim, take with a pinch of salt.
DBond2062@reddit
How much composite is there on a 767 or 737?
abn1304@reddit
Retrofitting any current-production airframes to do what the C-17 does would be extremely difficult. The only comparable aircraft in production right now are the Russian IL-76 and the Chinese Y-20. Retrofitting civilian airliners to carry tanks would be difficult, if it’s possible at all.
IntelligentClam@reddit (OP)
Other countries might want them? I'm not sure how much of an order would be needed to justify a restart.
Captainrexcody@reddit
They are in talks to restart it
ChaoPope@reddit
TWZ covered this in depth a couple of weeks ago: https://www.twz.com/air/boeing-in-talks-to-restart-c-17-production
CharlieH_@reddit
What are the limitations of C17 that would require a clean-sheet design? This is the question that Boeing are probably asking right now.
Sure the engines are probably not very efficient and outdated compared to newer models. You can probably make a bigger airframe with newer composite materials.
But from a pure operational requirement is there anything that modern militaries need that C17 design didn't offer?
FZ_Milkshake@reddit
The C-17 has better chances than any other aircraft where a question like this is asked.
The largest western military cargo aircraft in production are the A-400M and the Kawasaki C-2 at roughly half the cargo capacity. Russia is still building the Il-76 and China the Y-20, both are just slightly smaller than a C-17, but large enough for Russian/Chinese tanks.
If your western military needs to transport tanks sized vehicles, there is at the moment nothing you can buy on the market.
MaleficentCoconut594@reddit
Highly unlikely. Also the C-17 is 1980s design technology, probably better off (cost wise) with a clean sheet design or at least a complete remodel of the current one. As a current crew-member I could think of a few improvements without changing too much….
That being said I love my moose, and the idea of an upgraded version is enticing
Rolex_throwaway@reddit
If we want it in the next 40 years it’s better not to go clean sheet.
GreenSubstantial@reddit
When DoD and Boeing can get a the E-7 and the KC-46 programs that were essentially minimum effort projects to get a known, certified and in use airframe to USAF specs, imagine what can become of a clean sheet design.
Get the plane you have, replace any component that is out of production and recertify the -B version.
IntelligentClam@reddit (OP)
I'm jealous. I only worked on the C-130, F-16, and Kc-135.
I always wanted to work on the C-17 engines, but got sent to Fairchild AFB 😭😭
BeachHut9@reddit
Buy a lottery ticket and wait for the results
ThatHellacopterGuy@reddit
The cost to restart Barney production would be hundreds of millions of dollars. Possibly even a billion or more, depending on how much an appropriately-sized facility would cost to procure/build.
Boeing would need several dozen confirmed orders (probably closer to 100) to even come close to breaking even financially, and without a USAF buy, I don’t think there’s enough global interest for several dozen airframes.
RadicalCandle@reddit
Japan has already shown enough interest in it,, with how things are shaping up in the Pacific, for talks with Boeing to already be underway re: retooling for C-17s
IntelligentClam@reddit (OP)
They might need more order than just Japan to justify right?
RadicalCandle@reddit
Yeah, still small potatoes for Boeing in the face of the F-47 being absolutely blasted through all the red tape, but renewed interest in logistics and a shifting focus to the Pacific theatre may see other nations in the region join in.
Essentially all of SEA is against what's about to go down in the "South China Sea", so expect more moves like this in the future
BrewCityChaserV2@reddit
The last C-17 airframe rolled off the assembly line a decade ago and everything that was used to manufacturer the plane has long since been dismantled. It would cost billions to restart a new one, billions that Boeing does not have to spend right now.
TheREALJGO2024@reddit
Everything is in storage. Some of it is used for product support contracts at depos like WR.
Weird_Alki@reddit
Sure, its Boeing. Nothing is too expensive for them to do with taxpayer money.