Boeing Considers Restarting C-17 Globemaster III Production Amidst India's Fast-Tracked Policy to Replace Aging IL-76

Aerospace giant Boeing is contemplating the significant step of restarting its C-17 Globemaster III production line, a move that aligns closely with India's urgent military modernisation goals and recent reforms to its defence procurement process.

The potential revival comes nearly a decade after the assembly line was closed in 2015 and is fueled by renewed global interest, particularly from key operators like India who are seeking to replace their aging transport fleets.

On June 18, 2025, India's Ministry of Defence (MoD) announced a major policy shift aimed at accelerating military acquisitions. The new guidelines prioritise the use of advanced simulations over time-consuming and lengthy physical field trials to expedite the procurement of critical platforms.

This reform is seen as a direct enabler for a potential order of additional C-17s, as the Indian Air Force (IAF) urgently needs a modern replacement for its Soviet-era Ilyushin Il-76 aircraft.

Speaking at the Paris Air Show 2025, Boeing’s Vice President of Global Services-Government Services, Turbo Sjogren, confirmed the company is in "very early" discussions with an undisclosed nation about reviving the C-17 line.

He also noted significant interest from several other countries, including India, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, all of which currently operate the strategic airlifter.

The C-17 is a cornerstone of the IAF's strategic airlift capability. The fleet of 11 aircraft, based at Hindon Air Force Station, has been indispensable in a variety of high-stakes missions.

Its ability to carry a payload of 77.5 tons over 8,700 kilometers and operate from short, unprepared runways gives it unparalleled tactical flexibility. This was demonstrated during the 2023 earthquake relief efforts in Turkey and Syria and in critical military operations, including deployments during the 2025 India-Pakistan clash and support for the MV Ruen rescue.

In contrast, the IAF's approximately 20 IL-76 aircraft, acquired in the 1980s, are increasingly hampered by age, lower reliability, and limited payload capacity.

The IAF has formally projected a need for 12 to 15 additional heavy-lift aircraft to replace this fleet and bolster its ability to rapidly deploy troops and heavy equipment, such as tanks and helicopters, to contested border regions with China and Pakistan.

India's ambition to expand its C-17 fleet is not new. A 2011 deal for 10 aircraft included an option for six more, but only one additional unit was acquired in 2019 due to budgetary constraints and procedural delays.

A subsequent proposal in 2015 for three more C-17s stalled, leading to a missed opportunity before Boeing ceased production.

The MoD's new simulation-based acquisition framework, however, could prevent a repeat of these past delays.

Despite the renewed interest, restarting the C-17 production line presents a formidable challenge for Boeing. The original manufacturing facility in Long Beach, California, has been decommissioned, meaning a new site would need to be established.

A 2013 study by the RAND Corporation estimated that producing 150 new aircraft at a new facility could cost as much as $8 billion. This figure does not account for the complexities of reactivating a global supply chain, training a skilled workforce, and potentially integrating modern upgrades like advanced avionics or more fuel-efficient engines.

Sjogren has emphasised that firm, committed orders are essential to justify such a massive investment.

For India, challenges also remain. The nation's defence procurement system has historically been plagued by bureaucratic delays.

While the new simulation-based approach is designed to be faster, some experts and defence observers have raised concerns about its reliability, suggesting that completely replacing physical trials is a "risky shortcut."

Furthermore, fiscal discipline, such as the reported slow capital expenditure in the first month of the financial year, could constrain a large-scale order unless funding is specifically prioritised for this critical need.

Although, a successful C-17 production restart would offer substantial strategic benefits.

For India, it would significantly enhance its military airlift capacity, reinforcing deterrence along its borders and boosting its role as a leading provider of humanitarian aid and disaster relief globally.

For Boeing, it would revitalise a key product in its defence portfolio, reaffirming the C-17's position as a strategic airlifter with capabilities in range and payload that competitors like the Airbus A400M cannot match.

 

Rolls-Royce Sweetens 120kN AMCA Engine Offer with Turbofan Variant for India's Future Transport and Civilian Aircraft Needs

'Social media is the new form of terrorism': Experts call for societal awakening

[AJS]

India must seize the opportunity to acquire more of these excellent aircraft. It was a shortsighted decision to forgo further acquisitions in 2011-15. It is the only aircraft that can carry a main battle tank (45-60 tons) to rough airstrips, a capability that is indispensable to the sort of military campaigns that India may be called upon to undertake in future, be it countering Chinese aggression in Ladakh or retaking parts of PoK.

Instead of looking at this as an exercise to replace the ageing IL76, or based only on experience of operations past, which have been very limited, entirely reactive and defensive in nature, the Indian armed forces ought to determine numbers based on the needs of future operations they may be called upon to undertake, which may have to be proactive and offensive in nature, waged on multiple fronts in order to secure our national security objectives. It calls for scenario based planning integrated across 3 services, including not just the aircraft but also the equipment to be lifted and the systems needed to mount a large scale offensive campaign fundamentally delivered from the air, exploiting the ability to mobilize large, highly capable forces rapidly taking the enemy by surprise, and to sustain it over a long period till the underlying national goal has been achieved.

For example we must be able to deploy 2 integrated brigade combat groups within 24 hours, one each on the eastern and western borders to counter a combined China-Pak collusive attack or to exploit an opportunity, and repeating this over several days to build up a corps-sized offensive. Which means lifting ~100 tanks every 24 hours, and the corresponding number of IFVs, attack and utility helicopters, artillery, air defence radar and weapons, troops, fuel, ammunition, supplies, engineering, logistical and medical support etc. This would require a mix of aircraft such as C17, C130 and C295. Based on required sortie rates and distances over which the deployments may need to be made, possibly 60-80 C17s may be needed.

With these sorts of numbers, especially considering that the supply chain would need to be established afresh, there would be opportunities for India to secure large orders for components and systems. So we should not look at it just as a cost burden but as an opportunity to grow our own industrial base as well.

 

[abhinav srivastava]

USA is flirting with Pakistan and Bangladesh. We should not depend on the USA for military platforms. Although the C-17 is good and proven, we should look for a platform which has fewer geopolitical risks. Any denial of spare parts or maintenance support will be catastrophic.

 

[Shafted mohammed]

Buy 10-15 of these planes, as they should be the last foreign-built planes. Build everything in India.

 

[Chinese eater]

USA is flirting with Pakistan and Bangladesh. We should not depend on the USA for military platforms. Although the C-17 is good and proven, we should look for a platform which has fewer geopolitical risks. Any denial of spare parts or maintenance support will be catastrophic.

They have always been. All governments in the USA have always been pro-Pakistan and Bangladesh. CIA is the one who toppled Hasina's government. India needs to act fast in Bangladesh, or else India will see LoC at the Indo-Bangla border.

 

[Chinese eater]

India should avoid any further defence orders from USA at least 2-3 years into Trump government.

 

[India20XX]

USA is flirting with Pakistan and Bangladesh. We should not depend on the USA for military platforms. Although the C-17 is good and proven, we should look for a platform which has fewer geopolitical risks. Any denial of spare parts or maintenance support will be catastrophic.

You are right, but there is no substitute available on par with the C-17. I would love to include any other platform if it provides Make in India and capabilities on par with the C-17. If not, then order 15 with an option for 10 more.

 

[sanjiv]

India should avoid any further defence orders from USA at least 2-3 years into Trump government.

Agree. Let US first start fulfilling and regularizing pending orders like F-404 engine orders and Apache helicopter spares, etc. And then we can think of going to US for arms.
C-17 may be the best in the world, but if US accepts advances and later backs out for whatever small reason and delays the delivery, then we will have our money blocked and time wasted.

 

[Anant]

USA is flirting with Pakistan and Bangladesh. We should not depend on the USA for military platforms. Although the C-17 is good and proven, we should look for a platform which has fewer geopolitical risks. Any denial of spare parts or maintenance support will be catastrophic.

There is no viable alternative aside from maybe an Il-76 variant. However, those aren't getting built for Russia, let alone others.

 

[Anant]

We have 17 aging Il-76s, all of which are due for replacement. Moreover, given the recent focus on heavier equipment being needed in the Hinalayas, we might need a more than one-for-one replacement.

Assuming the C-17 is re-entering production, it might be a better idea to get a further 19-24 C-17s, which will give us a fleet of 30-35 C-17s. That will allow for long-term viability of use as well as give us a nice strategic airlifter fleet into the 2060s.

 

[Kira]

USA is flirting with Pakistan and Bangladesh. We should not depend on the USA for military platforms. Although the C-17 is good and proven, we should look for a platform which has fewer geopolitical risks. Any denial of spare parts or maintenance support will be catastrophic.

Let them flirt. India should instead focus on enhancing its strategic position rather than trust always being an issue. Besides, India is already deeply dependent on the US in many military projects via third countries, and the fact is that the Indian economy depends on US exports, which will only rise.

Let's not miss the forest for the trees.

C-17s are desperately needed; at least 20 units would be required to replace the aging and maintenance-intensive IL-76 cargo planes.

 

[Python]

USA is flirting with Pakistan and Bangladesh. We should not depend on the USA for military platforms. Although the C-17 is good and proven, we should look for a platform which has fewer geopolitical risks. Any denial of spare parts or maintenance support will be catastrophic.

Yes. We should buy from companies like Embraer.

 

[Rinku Pandey]

USA is flirting with Pakistan and Bangladesh. We should not depend on the USA for military platforms. Although the C-17 is good and proven, we should look for a platform which has fewer geopolitical risks. Any denial of spare parts or maintenance support will be catastrophic.

India should build it's own version of C17. We must be Atmanirbhar. Private companies should be given this project. Im sure in 5 years time we will have a flying prototype.

 

[IndiJoe]

Please hand over one of these "ageing" IL-76s to GTRE so that they have their engine testbed to carry out high-altitude testing.

 

[Powwow]

C-17 and the new Il-76-MD-90A should be ordered. Different types no doubt, but importantly not all eggs in one basket. Maybe Japanese C-2 (baby C-17) as well. A400M if gearbox engine issues resolved.

 

[Anant]

Yes. We should buy from companies like Embraer.

There is no viable alternative from Embraer in that kind of weight category. Do remember that the C-17 has a payload capacity of 77.5 tons. The Il-76MD (which we operate) has a payload capacity of 48 tons, which goes up to 60 tons with the Il-76MD-90A.

The C-390 has a payload capacity of 26 tons, which is an entire weight class lower.

In fact, the aircraft that come closer to the C-17 and the Il-76 in terms of payload are the An-70 (47 tons), A400M (37 tons) and the C-2 (37.6 tons). The C-390 is more of a competitor to aircraft like the C-130J-30, which has a 20 ton payload capacity.

 

[Anant]

C-17 and the new Il-76-MD-90A should be ordered. Different types no doubt, but importantly not all eggs in one basket. Maybe Japanese C-2 (baby C-17) as well. A400M if gearbox engine issues resolved.

You do realise that there is such a thing as logistics, right? Why on Earth would you want four entirely different kinds of airlifters for the medium and strategic airlift role?

No, we need to rationalise this. Get more C-17s if the line reopens as replacements for the Il-76, and for the medium airlifters, go for either the C-390 or the C-130J-30 or the A400M, as the IAF sees fit. I would personally prefer one of the first two for that, since the A400M is arguably too large for a medium transport aircraft.

 

[Enforcer]

There is no viable alternative from Embraer in that kind of weight category. Do remember that the C-17 has a payload capacity of 77.5 tons. The Il-76MD (which we operate) has a payload capacity of 48 tons, which goes up to 60 tons with the Il-76MD-90A.

The C-390 has a payload capacity of 26 tons, which is an entire weight class lower.

In fact, the aircraft that come closer to the C-17 and the Il-76 in terms of payload are the An-70 (47 tons), A400M (37 tons) and the C-2 (37.6 tons). The C-390 is more of a competitor to aircraft like the C-130J-30, which has a 20 ton payload capacity.

It's not just payload, its the size of the storage too. C-17 is much bigger than rest of those planes including Il76. Even if IL76 can carry the payload, some of the equipment does not fit inside properly because if more narrow.

Buy 20-30 more C-17. Japan initially didn't want it but they too want C-17 now because of cargo bay size requirement.

 

[Hegde Deepak]

The idea is a non starter right from the word go. As per an earlier study, it would take at least 8 billion USD, to restart the line, not even including land for the facility. Other than this a minimum order of 50 aircrafts would be needed, even for this idea to be feasible. For all the noise from India regarding restarting production, the numbers being talked about by the IAF is an order for 3-4 aircraft. For the rest of the world put together, excluding the USAF, the numbers would not even touch 35 ! Only if the USAF steps in, would the idea be workable ! The US is sitting pretty on an inventory of 232 aircraft, so they would not fund the revival and it would depend only on the foreign customers. So however attractive, the concept of revival of production of C-a7's might look, the economics will just not work out !!

 

[Mc Addy]

hercules and Globemaster are battle proven platforms, Russia is grappling with uncertain heavy aircraft future, where it like Germany in WW2 , had to divert resources to build war planes instead of logistics at one point, Russia has lost many heavy bombers so it's likely that heavy machinery may shift to replace them .So good

 

[Sparkle Studio]

Another order for 12 to 18 C-17s would be a welcome addition to the IAF fleet. The MoD should make special provisions for urgent acquisitions such as strategic transports and MRFA.

 

[Mc Addy]

Buy the production line and make it here so we also get idea of heavy aircraft making and we got the schedule . US is not keeping Schedule ,Apache for Army is nowhere, when orders were in 2016 ,no signs .