Editing Boeing C-17 Globemaster III (section)

==Development==
[[File:Yc15-1 072.jpg|thumb|The [[McDonnell Douglas YC-15]] design was used as the basis for the C-17.|alt=Top view of cargo aircraft in-flight, trailed by a fighter chase aircraft. Under each un-swept wing are two engines suspended forward ahead the leading edge.]]

===Background and design phase===
In the 1970s, the U.S. Air Force began looking for a replacement for its [[Lockheed C-130 Hercules]] tactical cargo aircraft.<ref>[https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/djreprints/access/72923084.html?dids=72923084:72923084&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Nov+13%2C+1972&author=&pub=Wall+Street+Journal&desc=Air+Force+Lets+Advanced+STOL+Prototype+Work&pqatl=google "Air Force Lets Advanced STOL Prototype Work."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121107202542/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/djreprints/access/72923084.html?dids=72923084:72923084&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Nov+13%2C+1972&author=&pub=Wall+Street+Journal&desc=Air+Force+Lets+Advanced+STOL+Prototype+Work&pqatl=google |date=7 November 2012}} ''The Wall Street Journal'', 13 November 1972.</ref> The [[Advanced Medium STOL Transport]] (AMST) competition was held, with [[Boeing Integrated Defense Systems|Boeing]] proposing the [[Boeing YC-14|YC-14]], and [[McDonnell Douglas]] proposing the [[McDonnell Douglas YC-15|YC-15]].<ref>Miles, Marvin. [https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/660687842.html?dids=660687842:660687842&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Nov+11%2C+1972&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=McDonnell%2C+Boeing+to+Compete+for+Lockheed+C-130+Successor&pqatl=google "McDonnell, Boeing to Compete for Lockheed C-130 Successor."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121107202454/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/660687842.html?dids=660687842:660687842&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Nov+11%2C+1972&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=McDonnell%2C+Boeing+to+Compete+for+Lockheed+C-130+Successor&pqatl=google |date=7 November 2012}} ''Los Angeles Times'', 11 November 1972.</ref> Though both entrants exceeded specified requirements, the AMST competition was canceled before a winner was selected. The USAF started the C-X program in November 1979 to develop a larger AMST with longer range to augment its strategic airlift.<ref name=kennedy_part1>Kennedy 2004, pp. 3–20, 24.</ref>

By 1980, the USAF had a large fleet of aging [[Lockheed C-141 Starlifter|C-141 Starlifter]] cargo aircraft. Compounding matters, increased strategic airlift capabilities were needed to fulfill its rapid-deployment airlift requirements. The USAF set mission requirements and released a request for proposals (RFP) for C-X in October 1980. McDonnell Douglas chose to develop a new aircraft based on the YC-15. Boeing bid an enlarged three-engine version of its AMST YC-14. Lockheed submitted both a C-5-based design and an enlarged C-141 design. On 28 August 1981, McDonnell Douglas was chosen to build its proposal, then designated ''C-17''. Compared to the YC-15, the new aircraft differed in having swept wings, increased size, and more powerful engines.<ref name=norton_p12-3>Norton 2001, pp. 12–13.</ref> This would allow it to perform the work done by the C-141, and to fulfill some of the duties of the [[Lockheed C-5 Galaxy]], freeing the C-5 fleet for [[outsize cargo]].<ref name=norton_p12-3/>

Alternative proposals were pursued to fill airlift needs after the C-X contest. These were lengthening of C-141As into C-141Bs, ordering more C-5s, continued purchases of [[McDonnell Douglas KC-10 Extender|KC-10]]s, and expansion of the [[Civil Reserve Air Fleet]]. Limited budgets reduced program funding, requiring a delay of four years. During this time contracts were awarded for preliminary design work and for the completion of engine certification.<ref name=norton_p13-5/> In December 1985, a full-scale development contract was awarded, under Program Manager Bob Clepper.<ref>[https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/newsday/access/98482212.html?dids=98482212:98482212&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+03%2C+1986&author=The+Los+Angeles+Times&pub=Newsday+(Combined+editions)&desc=Douglas+Wins+%243.4B+Pact+to+Build+C-17&pqatl=google "Douglas Wins $3.4B Pact to Build C-17."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121107202522/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/newsday/access/98482212.html?dids=98482212:98482212&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+03%2C+1986&author=The+Los+Angeles+Times&pub=Newsday+(Combined+editions)&desc=Douglas+Wins+%243.4B+Pact+to+Build+C-17&pqatl=google |date=7 November 2012}} ''Los Angeles Times'', 3 January 1986.</ref> At this time, first flight was planned for 1990.<ref name=norton_p13-5>Norton 2001, pp. 13, 15.</ref> The USAF had formed a requirement for 210 aircraft.<ref name=kennedy_p70>Kennedy 2004, pp. 70, 81–83.</ref>

Development problems and limited funding caused delays in the late 1980s.<ref>Kennedy, Betty Raab. [http://rtoc.ida.org/rtoc/open/briefings_articles/kennednd.pdf "Historical Realities of C-17 Program Pose Challenge for Future Acquisitions."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061229165750/http://rtoc.ida.org/rtoc/open/briefings_articles/kennednd.pdf |date=29 December 2006}} ''Institute for Defense Analyses'', December 1999.</ref> Criticisms were made of the developing aircraft and questions were raised about more cost-effective alternatives during this time.<ref>Fuller, Richard L. [https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/24563333.html?dids=24563333:24563333&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Sep+09%2C+1989&author=Col.+Richard+L.+Fuller%2C+Director+of+public+affairs%2C+United+States+Air+Force.&pub=Chicago+Tribune+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=More+load+for+the+buck+with+C-17&pqatl=google "More load for the buck with C-17."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121107202443/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/24563333.html?dids=24563333:24563333&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Sep+09%2C+1989&author=Col.+Richard+L.+Fuller%2C+Director+of+public+affairs%2C+United+States+Air+Force.&pub=Chicago+Tribune+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=More+load+for+the+buck+with+C-17&pqatl=google |date=7 November 2012}} ''Chicago Tribune'', 9 September 1989.</ref><ref>Sanford, Robert. [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SL&p_theme=sl&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB04C1540E361A8&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM "McDonnell Plugs Away on C-17."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110609065724/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SL&p_theme=sl&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB04C1540E361A8&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM |date=9 June 2011}} ''St. Louis Post-Dispatch'', 3 April 1989.</ref> In April 1990, Secretary of Defense [[Dick Cheney]] reduced the order from 210 to 120 aircraft.<ref>Brenner, Eliot. [https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=799&dat=19900426&id=GJVTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FogDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6880,2683844 "Cheney cuts back on Air Force programs."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170320131636/https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=799&dat=19900426&id=GJVTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FogDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6880,2683844 |date=20 March 2017}} ''Bryan Times'', 26 April 1990.</ref> The maiden flight of the C-17 took place on 15 September 1991 from the McDonnell Douglas's plant in [[Long Beach, California|Long Beach]], California, about a year behind schedule.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/17/us/c-17-s-first-flight-smoother-than-debate.html "C-17's First Flight Smoother Than Debate."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170224220847/http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/17/us/c-17-s-first-flight-smoother-than-debate.html |date=24 February 2017}} ''The New York Times'', 17 September 1991.</ref><ref name=norton_p25-8/> The first aircraft (T-1) and five more production models (P1-P5) participated in extensive flight testing and evaluation at [[Edwards Air Force Base]].<ref name=RL30685>[http://opencrs.com/document/RL30685 "RL30685, Military Airlift: C-17 Aircraft Program."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090210075144/http://www.opencrs.com/document/RL30685 |date=10 February 2009}} ''Congressional Research Service'', 5 June 2007.</ref> Two complete airframes were built for static and repeated load testing.<ref name=norton_p25-8>Norton 2001, pp. 25–26, 28.</ref>

===Development difficulties===
A static test of the C-17 wing in October 1992 resulted in its failure at 128% of design limit load, below the 150% requirement. Both wings buckled rear to the front and failures occurred in stringers, spars, and ribs.<ref>[http://www.dodig.mil/Audit/Audit2/93-159.pdf "Technical Assessment Report; C-17 Wing Structural Integrity."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120328005836/http://www.dodig.mil/Audit/Audit2/93-159.pdf |date=28 March 2012}} ''Department of Defense'', 24 August 1993. Retrieved: 23 August 2011.</ref> Some $100 million was spent to redesign the wing structure; the wing failed at 145% during a second test in September 1993.<ref>[https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/19930914/1721000/c-17-wing-fails-again-probe-is-sought "C-17 Wing Fails Again; Probe Is Sought."] ''Seattle Times'', 14 September 1993.</ref> A review of the test data, however, showed that the wing was not loaded correctly and did indeed meet the requirement.<ref>[http://documents.blackvault.com/documents/dod/readingroom/5/767.pdf "Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Executive Independent Review Team."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120310080544/http://documents.blackvault.com/documents/dod/readingroom/5/767.pdf |date=10 March 2012}} ''US Government Executive Independent Review Team'' via ''blackvault.com'', 12 December 1993.</ref> The C-17 received the "Globemaster III" name in early 1993.<ref name=norton_p12-3/> In late 1993, the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] (DoD) gave the contractor two years to solve production issues and cost overruns or face the contract's termination after the delivery of the 40th aircraft.<ref>Evans, David. [https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/24383613.html?dids=24383613:24383613&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+29%2C+1993&author=David+Evans%2C+Chicago+Tribune.&pub=Chicago+Tribune+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=Pentagon+to+Air+Force%3A+C-17+flunks&pqatl=google "Pentagon to Air Force: C-17 flunks."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121107202533/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/24383613.html?dids=24383613:24383613&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+29%2C+1993&author=David+Evans%2C+Chicago+Tribune.&pub=Chicago+Tribune+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=Pentagon+to+Air+Force%3A+C-17+flunks&pqatl=google |date=7 November 2012}} ''Chicago Tribune'', 29 March 1993.</ref> By accepting the 1993 terms, McDonnell Douglas incurred a loss of nearly US$1.5 billion on the program's development phase.<ref name=RL30685/>

In March 1994, the Non-Developmental Airlift Aircraft program was established to procure a transport aircraft using commercial practices as a possible alternative or supplement to the C-17. Initial material solutions considered included: buy a modified Boeing 747-400 NDAA, restart the C-5 production line, extend the C-141 service life, and continue C-17 production.<ref name="gao-nsiad-94-209">{{cite web |url=https://www.gao.gov/products/nsiad-94-209 |title=NSIAD-94-209 Airlift Requirements: Commercial Freighters Can Help Meet Requirements at Greatly Reduced Costs |publisher=United States General Accounting Office}}</ref><ref name="gao-nsiad-97-38" /> The field eventually narrowed to: the Boeing 747-400 (provisionally named the [[Boeing 747-400#Government, military and other variants|C-33]]), the [[Lockheed C-5 Galaxy#C-5D|Lockheed Martin C-5D]], and the McDonnell Douglas C-17.<ref name=gao-nsiad-97-38>{{cite web |title=NSIAD-97-38 Military Airlift: Options Exist for Meeting Requirements While Acquiring Fewer C-17s |url=https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-97-38.pdf |publisher=United States General Accounting Office}}</ref> The NDAA program was initiated after the C-17 program was temporarily capped at a 40-aircraft buy (in December 1993) pending further evaluation of C-17 cost and performance and an assessment of commercial airlift alternatives.<ref name="gao-nsiad-97-38" />

In April 1994, the program remained over budget and did not meet weight, fuel burn, payload, and range specifications. It failed several key criteria during airworthiness evaluation tests.<ref>[https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/19910528/1285732/air-force-letter-to-douglas-spells-out-75-defects-for-c-17 "Air Force Letter To Douglas Spells Out 75 Defects For C-17."] ''Los Angeles Times'', 28 May 1991.</ref><ref>[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LB&p_theme=lb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAE8F93D6E54ED8&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM "C-17 fails engine start test."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110609070008/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LB&p_theme=lb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAE8F93D6E54ED8&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM |date=9 June 2011}} ''Press-Telegram'', 12 April 1994.</ref><ref>[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CO&s_site=charlotte&p_multi=CO&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB6CC1343F2E14F&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM "Parts Orders for C-17 far too high, GAO says."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110609070228/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CO&s_site=charlotte&p_multi=CO&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB6CC1343F2E14F&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM |date=9 June 2011}} ''Charlotte Observer'', 16 March 1994.</ref> Problems were found with the mission software, landing gear, and other areas.<ref>[http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/151473.pdf "The C-17 Proposed Settlement and Program Update."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090906113020/http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/151473.pdf |date=6 September 2009}} ''United States General Accounting Office'', 28 April 1994.</ref> In May 1994, it was proposed to cut production to as few as 32 aircraft; these cuts were later rescinded.<ref>Kreisher, Otto. [https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sandiego/access/1242506621.html?dids=1242506621:1242506621&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=May+25%2C+1994&author=OTTO+KREISHER&pub=The+San+Diego+Union+-+Tribune&desc=House+rescinds+cuts+in+C-17+program+%7C+Vote+may+help+thousands+retain+jobs+in+Long+Beach&pqatl=google "House rescinds cuts in C-17 program."]{{dead link|date=July 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} ''San Diego Union'', 25 May 1994.</ref> A July 1994 [[Government Accountability Office]] (GAO) report revealed that USAF and DoD studies from 1986 and 1991 stated the C-17 could use 6,400 more runways outside the U.S. than the C-5, but these studies had only considered runway dimensions, but not runway strength or load classification numbers (LCN). The C-5 has a lower LCN, but the USAF classifies both in the same broad load classification group. When considering runway dimensions and load ratings, the C-17's worldwide runway advantage over the C-5 shrank from 6,400 to 911 airfields. The report also stated "current military doctrine that does not reflect the use of small, austere airfields", thus the C-17's short field capability was not considered.<ref name=airfields>[http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/152088.pdf "Comparison of C-5 and C-17 Airfield Availability."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927183044/http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/152088.pdf |date=27 September 2007}} ''United States General Accounting Office'', July 1994.</ref>

A January 1995 GAO report stated that the USAF originally planned to order 210 C-17s at a cost of $41.8 billion, and that the 120 aircraft on order were to cost $39.5 billion based on a 1992 estimate.<ref name=gao>[http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ns95026.pdf "C-17 Aircraft – Cost and Performance Issues."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184250/http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ns95026.pdf |date=30 September 2007}} United States General Accounting Office, January 1995.</ref> In March 1994, the U.S. Army decided it did not need the {{convert|60000|lb|abbr=on}} [[low-altitude parachute-extraction system]] delivery with the C-17 and that the C-130's {{convert|42000|lb|abbr=on}} capability was sufficient.<ref name=gao/> C-17 testing was limited to this lower weight. Airflow issues prevented the C-17 from meeting airdrop requirements. A February 1997 GAO report revealed that a C-17 with a full payload could not land on {{convert|3000|ft|m|sigfig=3|abbr=on}} wet runways; simulations suggested a distance of {{convert|5000|ft|abbr=on}} was required.<ref name=GAO_Joint_Endevour>[http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97050.pdf "C-17 Globemaster – Support of Operation Joint Endeavor."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184336/http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97050.pdf |date=30 September 2007}} ''United States General Accounting Office'', February 1997.</ref> The YC-15 was transferred to [[309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group|AMARC]] to be made flightworthy again for further flight tests for the C-17 program in March 1997.<ref name=BFS>Bonny et al. 2006, p. 65.</ref>

By September 1995, most of the prior issues were reportedly resolved and the C-17 was meeting all performance and reliability targets.<ref>[http://www.afa.org/media/press/windall.asp "Air Force Secretary Says Modernization, C-17 on Track."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070914103934/http://www.afa.org/media/press/windall.asp |date=14 September 2007}} ''Air Force magazine'', 19 September 1995.</ref><ref>[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LB&p_theme=lb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAE901FCF584869&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM "Future Brightens for C-17 Program."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110609070312/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LB&p_theme=lb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAE901FCF584869&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM |date=9 June 2011}} ''Press-Telegram'', 31 March 1995.</ref> The first USAF squadron was declared operational in January 1995.<ref>[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SL&p_theme=sl&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB082E680DBFA28&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM "Air Force fills Squadron of C-17s ."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110609070320/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SL&p_theme=sl&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB082E680DBFA28&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM |date=9 June 2011}} Associated Press, 18 January 1995.</ref>

===Production and deliveries===
[[File:8th Airlift Squadron C-17A Globemaster III 90-0535.jpg|thumb|[[Paratrooper]]s dropping from a C-17 during a training exercise in 2010|alt=Two paratroopers dropping from a C-17 during an exercise]]

In 1996, the DoD ordered another 80 aircraft for a total of 120.<ref>Kilian, Michael. [https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/17166359.html?dids=17166359:17166359&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jun+01%2C+1996&author=Michael+Kilian%2C+Washington+Bureau.&pub=Chicago+Tribune+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=IN+RECORD+PROCUREMENT+U.S.+ORDERS+80+C-17S+PLANE+DEAL+GOOD+FOR+2%2C000+JOBS+IN+CALIFORNIA&pqatl=google "In Record Procurement U.S. Orders 80 C17s – Plane Good Deal for 2,000 jobs in California."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121107202432/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/17166359.html?dids=17166359:17166359&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jun+01%2C+1996&author=Michael+Kilian%2C+Washington+Bureau.&pub=Chicago+Tribune+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=IN+RECORD+PROCUREMENT+U.S.+ORDERS+80+C-17S+PLANE+DEAL+GOOD+FOR+2%2C000+JOBS+IN+CALIFORNIA&pqatl=google |date=7 November 2012}} ''Chicago Tribune'', 1 July 1996.</ref> In 1997, McDonnell Douglas merged with domestic competitor Boeing. In April 1999, Boeing offered to cut the C-17's unit price if the USAF bought 60 more;<ref>Wallace, James. [https://web.archive.org/web/20081122153258/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-64094695.html "Boeing to cut price of C-17 if Air Force buys 60 more."] ''Seattle Post'', 2 April 1999.</ref> in August 2002, the order was increased to 180 aircraft.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/16/business/9.7-billion-us-deal-for-boeing-c-17-s.html "$9.7 Billion U.S. Deal for Boeing C-17's."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170224215147/http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/16/business/9.7-billion-us-deal-for-boeing-c-17-s.html |date=24 February 2017}} ''The New York Times'', 16 August 2002.</ref> In 2007, 190 C-17s were on order for the USAF.<ref>[http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/c17news.html "Boeing Company Funds Extension."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080907015006/http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/c17news.html |date=7 September 2008}} ''Boeing'', 9 July 2008.</ref> On 6 February 2009, Boeing was awarded a $2.95 billion contract for 15 additional C-17s, increasing the total USAF fleet to 205 and extending production from August 2009 to August 2010.<ref name=Feb2009_contract>Trimble, Stephen. [http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/10/322315/usaf-signs-deals-for-15-more-c-17s-upgraded-c-5ms.html "Boeing in $3bn air force contract."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090221001509/http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/10/322315/usaf-signs-deals-for-15-more-c-17s-upgraded-c-5ms.html |date=21 February 2009}} ''Flight International'', 10 February 2009.</ref> On 6 April 2009, U.S. Secretary of Defense [[Robert Gates]] stated that there would be no more C-17s ordered beyond the 205 planned.<ref>Cole, August and [[Yochi Dreazen|Yochi J. Dreazen]]. "Pentagon Pushes Weapon Cuts." ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', 7 April 2009, p. 1.</ref> However, on 12 June 2009, the [[United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces|House Armed Services Air and Land Forces Subcommittee]] added a further 17 C-17s.<ref>Kreisher, Otto. [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0609/061209cdpm1.htm "House panel reverses cuts in aircraft programs."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110606134322/http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0609/061209cdpm1.htm |date=6 June 2011}} ''Congress Daily'', 12 June 2009.</ref>

Debate arose over follow-on C-17 orders, the USAF requested line shutdown while [[United States Congress|Congress]] called for further production. In [[Fiscal year|FY]]2007, the USAF requested $1.6 billion (~${{Format price|{{Inflation|index=US-GDP|value=1600000000|start_year=2007}}}} in {{Inflation/year|US-GDP}}) in response to "excessive combat use" on the C-17 fleet.<ref name=avweek_20060313>Fulghum, D., A. Butler and D. Barrie. [http://awin.aviationweek.com/ArticlesStory.aspx?id=b9a164fd-807b-4404-8224-f386cc54691f"Boeing's C-17 wins against EADS' A400."] {{dead link|date=July 2019|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} ''[[Aviation Week & Space Technology]]'', 13 March 2006, p. 43.</ref> In 2008, USAF General [[Arthur Lichte]], Commander of [[Air Mobility Command]], indicated before a House of Representatives subcommittee on air and land forces a need to extend production to another 15 aircraft to increase the total to 205, and that C-17 production may continue to satisfy airlift requirements.<ref>Trimble, Stephen. [http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/04/222723/usaf-reveals-c-17-cracks-and-dispute-on-production-future.html "USAF reveals C-17 cracks and dispute on production future."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080406082347/http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/04/222723/usaf-reveals-c-17-cracks-and-dispute-on-production-future.html |date=6 April 2008}} ''Flightglobal.com'', 4 April 2008.</ref> The USAF finally decided to cap its C-17 fleet at 223 aircraft; the final delivery was on 12 September 2013.<ref>Mai, Pat. [http://www.ocregister.com/articles/boeing-524848-force-air.html "Air Force to receive its last C-17 today"] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130914024815/http://www.ocregister.com/articles/boeing-524848-force-air.html |date=14 September 2013}} "OrangeCountRegister.com",12 September 2013.</ref>

In 2010, Boeing reduced the production rate to 10 aircraft per year from a high of 16 per year, due to dwindling orders and to extend the production line's life while additional orders were sought. The workforce was reduced by about 1,100 through 2012, a second shift at the Long Beach plant was also eliminated.<ref>Vivanco, Fernando and Jerry Drelling. [http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1588 "Boeing C-17 Program Enters 2nd Phase of Production Rate and Work Force Reductions."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110401160926/http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1588 |date=1 April 2011}} ''Boeing Press Release'', 20 January 2011.</ref> By April 2011, 230 production C-17s had been delivered, including 210 to the USAF.<ref>Hoyle, Craig. [http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/04/19/355726/australia-to-get-fifth-c-17-in-august.html "Australia to get fifth C-17 in August."] ''Flightglobal'', 19 April 2011.</ref> The C-17 prototype "T-1" was retired in 2012 after use as a testbed by the USAF.<ref>Sanchez, Senior Airman Stacy. [https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/story/id/123090905/ "Edwards T-1 reaches 1,000 flight milestone."]  ''95th Air Base Wing Public Affairs'', 20 March 2008.</ref> In January 2010, the USAF announced the end of Boeing's performance-based logistics contracts to maintain the type.<ref>[http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/18/341939/why-is-usaf-bringing-maintenance-in-house.html "Why is USAF bringing maintenance in-house?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100524004441/http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/18/341939/why-is-usaf-bringing-maintenance-in-house.html |date=24 May 2010}} ''flightglobal.com'', 18 May 2005.</ref> On 19 June 2012, the USAF ordered its 224th and final C-17 to replace one that crashed in Alaska in July 2010.<ref>Miller, Seth and Michael C. Sirak. {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20121120160859/http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2012/June%202012/June%2020%202012/EndoftheLine.aspx "Likely End of the Line for The Air Force C-17 Production."]}} ''Air Force Magazine'', 20 June 2012.</ref>

In September 2013, Boeing announced that C-17 production was starting to close down. In October 2014, the main wing spar of the 279th and last aircraft was completed; this C-17 was delivered in 2015, after which Boeing closed the Long Beach plant.<ref>The World, Aviation Week and Space Technology, 4 August 2014, p. 10.</ref><ref>{{Citation |last= Meeks |first= Karen Robes |title= Long Beach's Boeing workers assemble final C-17, plan for an uncertain future |newspaper= [[Long Beach Press-Telegram]] |date= 24 February 2015 |url= http://www.presstelegram.com/business/20150224/long-beachs-boeing-workers-assemble-final-c-17-plan-for-an-uncertain-future |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150301105706/http://www.presstelegram.com/business/20150224/long-beachs-boeing-workers-assemble-final-c-17-plan-for-an-uncertain-future |archive-date= 1 March 2015 |url-status= live}}</ref> Production of spare components was to continue until at least 2017. The C-17 is projected to be in service for several decades.<ref>[http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/la-fi-boeing-long-beach-20130919-story.html#page=1 "Boeing to shut C-17 plant in Long Beach"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006100456/http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/la-fi-boeing-long-beach-20130919-story.html#page=1 |date=6 October 2014}} ''Chicago Tribune'', 18 September 2013.</ref><ref>[http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20130918/NEWS04/309180036/Boeing-end-C-17-production-2015 "Boeing to end C-17 production in 2015"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181118230950/https://www.militarytimes.com/article/20130918/NEWS04/309180036/Boeing-end-C-17-production-2015/ |date=18 November 2018}}. Militarytimes.com, 18 September 2013.</ref> In February 2014, Boeing was engaged in sales talks with "five or six" countries for the remaining 15 C-17s;<ref>[http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/singapore-boeing-confident-of-placing-unsold-c-17s-395826/ "Boeing confident of placing unsold C-17s"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140222045950/http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/singapore-boeing-confident-of-placing-unsold-c-17s-395826/ |date=22 February 2014}}. Flightglobal.com, 22 February 2014.</ref> thus Boeing decided to build ten aircraft without confirmed buyers in anticipation of future purchases.<ref name=gw2015/>

In May 2015, ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' reported that Boeing expected to book a charge of under $100 million and cut 3,000 positions associated with the C-17 program, and also suggested that Airbus' lower cost [[Airbus A400M Atlas|A400M Atlas]] took international sales away from the C-17.<ref>Shukla, Tarun. "A forlorn end to California's aviation glory". ''The Wall Street Journal'', 6 May 2015, pp. B1-2.</ref>

{|style="text-align: center; font-size:95%;" class="wikitable"
|+ C-17 yearly deliveries<ref>"C-17 Globemaster III Pocket Guide", The Boeing Company, Long Beach, CA, June 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.boeing.com/bds/deliveries.html "BDS Major Deliveries (current year)."] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100311045032/http://www.boeing.com/bds/deliveries.html |date=11 March 2010}} ''Boeing'', March 2014. Retrieved: 5 April 2014.</ref>
|-
! 1991!! 1992!! 1993!! 1994!! 1995!! 1996!! 1997!! 1998!! 1999!! 2000!! 2001!! 2002!! 2003!! 2004!! 2005!! 2006!! 2007!! 2008!! 2009!! 2010!! 2011!! 2012!! 2013!! 2014!! 2015!! 2016!! 2017!! 2018!! 2019
|-
| 1|| 4|| 5|| 8|| 6|| 6|| 7|| 10|| 11|| 13|| 14|| 16|| 16|| 16|| 16|| 16|| 16|| 16|| 16|| 14|| 12|| 10|| 10|| 7|| 5|| 4|| 0|| 0|| 1
|}