View Single Post
Old 04-26-2007, 03:07 AM   #23 (permalink)
Garry
Defense Professional
 
Join Date: 06-18-04
Posts: 1,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akita View Post
The C-5 is an excellent transport, which is why the Antonov bureau improved on it with it An-124 and An-225, both larger aircraft. The galaxy, both the C-5A and the C-5B are being modernised with new cockpits, modern engines, skin re-working, etc... under a multi-billion dollar program precisley because they are indispensable to the U.S. military effort. BTW, we have over a hundred of them, not fifty.
The U.S. military leases An-124s only when it runs out of available capacity in C-5s and C-17s. The An-124 is a good aircraft but USAF does not like to employ them for the simple reason that they are not familier with thier Russian/Ukrainian technolagy.
Also, BTW: Canada is buying 4 C-17s, Australia is buying 4 C-17s and UK is planning to add 2 more. All these countries were offered IL-76 Candids as well as An-124 Ruslans. Each of them chose the "over priced" American lifter.
The reason being...The C-17 Globemaster 3 is the best damned hauler on the planet. USAF is up to 180 on order and congress wants to buy more.
Don't you think that there are some other issues rather than technology why "overpriced" C-17 is preferred over IL-76? So far I did not hear any spec where IL-76 was inferior.... and it is cheaper. Maybe their decision was somewhat political?
Garry is offline   Reply With Quote