PDA

View Full Version : Ukrainian An-124 vs. С-5А Galaxy.



Garry
23 Jun 04,, 11:40
Can anybody explain why american troops used An-124 for deployment of troops in Iraq if US has more than 50 operational C-5 Galaxy with capacity of around 135tons? The difference is around 15tons more payload with An-124 and 6,000km longer range, does not explain it.

Praxus
23 Jun 04,, 15:17
Perhaps they were Canadian troops?

The Canadians are renting a few AN-124's I believe.

lurker
23 Jun 04,, 15:55
All those An-124 are belongs to some commercial enterprise that moves big things across the globe.
I believe not only canadians but also S. koreans used them to get to Iraq.

ZFBoxcar
23 Jun 04,, 16:26
since when are Canadians in Iraq?

Garry
23 Jun 04,, 16:37
Perhaps they were Canadian troops?

The Canadians are renting a few AN-124's I believe.

Volga-Dnepr has transported US Apach by AN-124 to Afghanistan .... it is quite strage as Apach perfectly fits even smaller than C-5 transporters..... as for Iraq i think US used AN-124 as well , not sure though....

lurker
23 Jun 04,, 17:14
since when are Canadians in Iraq?
Yeah, mea culpa. Sclerosis probably ;)

Praxus
23 Jun 04,, 18:10
I was thinking he saw pics of Afghanistan or something.

The US wouldn't use AN-94's if they needed more transports, they could rent civilian aircraft.

Garry
04 Jul 04,, 19:30
I was thinking he saw pics of Afghanistan or something.

The US wouldn't use AN-94's if they needed more transports, they could rent civilian aircraft.

Just talked with Volga-Dnepr the Russian commercial cargo company which operates 10 of AN-194. They DID TRANSPORT US millitary cargo to Kuwait and earlier to Afghanistan..... His oppion was that AN-194 is more than 50% cheaper in opertion than GALAXY and US Army preferred using them to reduce the overly inflated budget of Iraqi compaign...... he also said that cooperation with US millitary started from Afghanistan when US did not want to risk their pilots and planes in the territory where much of the Stingers were still on hands and no support of Radars was available, while Russian pilots knew the territory quite well and required less navigation... during that operations they learned about better economics of using AN-194, so choise of AN-194 for Iraq was predetermined

Garry
23 Mar 06,, 07:25
Today Volga-Dnepr reported that they won the tender to be the main airlift facility for NATO before 2009 when first A-400 are supposed to be fielded. However the contract may be prolonged if A-400 programs would see delays

The contract assumes that Volga-Dnepr will station two most modern An-124-100 Ruslan aircraft in LEIPSIG and would provide four more in a week notice. NATO will pay Euro 650mln annually for this service.

An-124-100 is the most recent upgrade of basic An-124, the largest aircraft ever mass produced. The new upgraded Ruslan is capable of 150 tons for 9,000 km - 50% advantage over its major rival C-17 Galaxy. Ruslan can cary cargo units of up to 6.7 meters in diameter - slightly larger than Galaxy can. Moreover, upgraded An-124-100 has better fuel efficiency than Galaxy, which did not see any major engine upgrades for the last 10 years.

The major short-comming of Ruslan and Galaxy is that it requires special airstips capable withstand landing of these 200 ton giants.

http://www.voldn.ru/eng/comp/fleet/an124/lth.php

canoe
23 Mar 06,, 08:33
Perhaps they were Canadian troops?

The Canadians are renting a few AN-124's I believe.

I can definately confirm there are NO Canadian troops in Iraq. Its possible there maybe a few officers on exchange or something but no troop presence is there given Canada was technically against the Iraq war.

Canadian troops are operating in Afganistian however.

troung
24 Mar 06,, 02:33
Victor Bout works cheaper then the USAF...

gunnut
24 Mar 06,, 03:24
If I were to guess then economics would be the factor for why we rent An-124 rather than fly C-5, and Garry confirmed it.

Why not hire someone else to do the same job if they can do it just as well and for cheaper? :confused:

Garry
24 Mar 06,, 07:17
One reported told me details of the contract - the contract assumes that two An-124-100, which are stationed in Germany, would be operated by 5 civil crews hired from NATO membered countries.... who would personaly pass approval of NATO officials. The delivery assimes six to eight month

NATO plans constant and active use of An-124 from Europe to Bagram base in Afghanistan, which has first class air strip capable of accepting these giants. The payment would be done per each flight and hours as if these aircrafts were simply freighted + some amount for them being idle in Germany. All operations must be done by personnel which passes NATO approval and by citizens of NATO member countries...... must be very expensive to hire them!!!

canoe
24 Mar 06,, 15:39
Related: sorta self explanitory.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-airlift-il76-2.htm

It comes down to buy an American C-17 for $250 million, or buy a IL-76MF for $40 million and just replace the avionics and engines with western equipment for an additional $15 million.

Short version of relivent stats:
*C-17*
Max payload: 77 tons
Range: 5185km (unrefuelled, with 72t payload)
Cost: $250 million (US).

*IL-76MF*
Max payload: 52 tons
Range: 5800km (40t payload)
Cost: $55 million (US) after purchase and upgrades.

Jimmy
24 Mar 06,, 17:16
Related: sorta self explanitory.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-airlift-il76-2.htm

It comes down to buy an American C-17 for $250 million, or buy a IL-76MF for $40 million and just replace the avionics and engines with western equipment for an additional $15 million.

Short version of relivent stats:
*C-17*
Max payload: 77 tons
Range: 5185km (unrefuelled, with 72t payload)
Cost: $250 million (US).

*IL-76MF*
Max payload: 52 tons
Range: 5800km (40t payload)
Cost: $55 million (US) after purchase and upgrades.

The C-17 is more useful for tactical airlift, and it's certified to drop US paratroops. Plus the whole refueling thing, etc. There are capabilities the C-17 has that the IL-76 just cant do. That doesnt mean the 76 isnt a great aircraft, it just isnt the right one for the USAF to have in mass quantities.

canoe
24 Mar 06,, 17:26
The C-17 is more useful for tactical airlift, and it's certified to drop US paratroops. Plus the whole refueling thing, etc. There are capabilities the C-17 has that the IL-76 just cant do. That doesnt mean the 76 isnt a great aircraft, it just isnt the right one for the USAF to have in mass quantities.

Just to clarify, the IL-76 carries air-drop equipment which is intended to air drop paratroopers, materiel and cargo.

The only issue I'm uncertain of is if its capable of aerial refueling from NATO tankers.

Other then that the C-17 can carry slightly more cargo but not enough to justify countries spending 4X as much for it.

Garry
24 Mar 06,, 17:36
Related: sorta self explanitory.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-airlift-il76-2.htm

It comes down to buy an American C-17 for $250 million, or buy a IL-76MF for $40 million and just replace the avionics and engines with western equipment for an additional $15 million.

Short version of relivent stats:
*C-17*
Max payload: 77 tons
Range: 5185km (unrefuelled, with 72t payload)
Cost: $250 million (US).

*IL-76MF*
Max payload: 52 tons
Range: 5800km (40t payload)
Cost: $55 million (US) after purchase and upgrades.

That was very interesting! I did not know that Canadians may take these!

The only problem with both An-124 and IL-76MF is that their engines have less resource than western alternatives. PS-90A is better engine than usual but still can not fly 15,000 hours to first overhaul like its Rolls Roys prototype. In general Russian jet engines have resource of 7,000-10,000 hours to first overhaul while recent western products may up to 20,000!!!

Still improved fuel efficiency of the recent IL-76MF make it a "Candid" alternative! Especially taking into consideration its capability landing on very bad strips.

Jimmy
27 Mar 06,, 14:46
Just to clarify, the IL-76 carries air-drop equipment which is intended to air drop paratroopers, materiel and cargo.

The US wont drop troops out of a plane until they've completed their own test program, regardless of who else has done it.

canoe
28 Mar 06,, 05:46
The US wont drop troops out of a plane until they've completed their own test program, regardless of who else has done it.

Which is fine but I don't understand what that has to do with this? I'd expect every country to test and clear an aircraft they've never used before.

Hell countries that buy C-17's probably test and clear them before they drop anyone out of them.

Both aircraft can drop cargo and if the U.S honestly tested the IL-76MF it would clear. They'd likely modify equipment on it but I'm sure it would work just fine. Infact given the eastern european countries in NATO now it wouldn't surprise me if U.S troops have been on an IL-76.

Garry
25 Apr 07,, 15:21
Again..... C-5 Galaxy is not used for dirty job... while good old Ruslan takes this


Russian aircraft transports ANG rescue helicopters
US Air Force | Apr 25, 2007

MOFFETT AIR FIELD, Calif.: Air National Guardsmen here worked with an aircraft that was vastly different from the MC-130P Combat Shadow tankers, HH-60G Pave Hawk rescue helicopters and other Air Force aircraft they are accustomed to.

Airmen from the 129th Rescue Wing were deploying to Afghanistan and needed aircraft to transport HH-60G Pave Hawk rescue helicopters. Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom have kept C-17 Globemaster III and C-5 Galaxy aircraft extremely busy, and the high operations tempo of these aircraft led to the scheduling of contracted cargo airlift, said Senior Master Sgt. Anthony Przymus, the Logistics Readiness Squadron Contingency Plans superintendent and Deployment Control Center logistics representative.

Enter the Russian Volga-Dnepr AN-124 long-range heavy transport aircraft.

The enormous white fuselage splashed with blue paint and Russian writing provided a rare sight for 129th Airmen.

"This was the first time the AN-124 hauled 129th cargo," Sergeant Przymus said.

Volga-Dnepr Airlines is a civilian company based out of Russia and has the world's largest fleet of AN-124 aircraft, according to its Web site. The AN-124's unique capabilities and loading equipment make it possible to transport out-sized and bulk cargo, like heavy engines, satellites and helicopters. In January 2002, Volga-Dnepr became the first civil aviation company to operate flights to Afghanistan.

Volga-Dnepr Airlines transports military aircraft, cargo and servicemembers all over the world, said Sergey Menashev, a radio operator for the AN-124 who has flown on the aircraft for more than 20 years.

"We airlift the military quite a bit and fly in to combat zones in Afghanistan," he said. "It's nice to be here in California."

Click to Enlarge

Airmen from the 129th Rescue Wing load a HH-60G Pave Hawk rescue helicopter onto a Russian Volga-Dnepr AN-124 long-range heavy transport aircraft April 20 at Moffett Federal Airfield, Calif. The contracted AN-124 transported 129th Rescue Wing deployment cargo to Afghanistan because the high operations tempos of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom have kept C-17 Globemaster III and C-5 Galaxy aircraft fully engaged. (U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Master Sgt. Christopher Hartman)
More Military Pictures
After the aircraft landed and the air crew disembarked, the load crew got down to business. The nose of the plane opened up and the Russian and 129th load crews worked through a language barrier to solidify the load plan for the three Pave Hawk helicopters.

"Once they landed the crew wanted to load the cargo right away, which helped facilitate schedules," said 1st Lt. Mario Montero, the logistics readiness squadron installation deployment officer. "The crew was really friendly and timely."

With the nose cone up and the front end open, the Russian crew operated the winching equipment and 129th Airmen steered the helicopters up the ramp and in to the aircraft. The process required swift communication and coordination between the two crews.

While the crews loaded the helicopters, Tech. Sgt. John Szelog, a 129th Maintenance Squadron electronic countermeasures maintainer, curiously inspected the AN-124. He was one of the two 129th Airmen scheduled to fly on the aircraft.

"I'm looking forward to the flight -- it should be interesting," he said.

Three hours after the AN-124 landed, the helicopters were loaded and secured for the long journey to Afghanistan. But there was more work to be done.

A C-17, flown and operated by Air Force Reservists from McChord Air Force Base, Wash., was loaded with deploying 129th Air National Guardsmen during the helicopter loading. The AN-124 was parked near the C-17 on the tarmac.

Adding to the total force mix was an active duty tanker airlift control element from Travis AFB. The TALCE team provided necessary equipment to load the cargo aircraft. They also provided additional expertise preparing the cargo for proper air shipment.

In the end, the deployment of 129th Rescue Wing equipment and Air National Guardsmen was a resounding success because of the cooperation between Air National Guardsmen, Air Force Reservists, active Airmen and Russian civilians.

"This is a great example of our total Air Force at work," said Col. Wayne Albright, the 129th Rescue Wing vice commander. "The active duty, Guard and Reserve train to and work with the same standards making even the novelty of loading an AN-124 go effortlessly."

Jimmy
26 Apr 07,, 00:39
C-5s have been famous for their talent at breaking down. I think they have the lowest mission-ready rate in the entire AF, beating even the B-2.

The Galaxy is also being used a LOT. There flat out arent many of them, and they're often deployed. A former roommate of mine joined up to be a Galaxy pilot...he's pretty much never home anymore. It doesnt surprise me the AF came up with a shortage of airlift capabillity.

Akita
26 Apr 07,, 03:45
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.

Garry
26 Apr 07,, 08:07
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?

Akita
26 Apr 07,, 20:35
Sure it's political: C-17 is built by an Ally. The older, smaller, shorter ranged, smaller load carrying Il-76 is built by a nation that still considers itself unloved and alone.
The fact of the matter is, the Candid is a great tactical airlifter--sort've a C-141 that thinks it's a Hercules. But it's not in the load lifting class of the C-17, who's cargo hold diameter is closer to that of the C-5: or the range class...and it requires a bigger crew.

BD1
26 Apr 07,, 21:52
One simple reason to me is that Il-76 , a great airplane as it is most probably could not lift a western MBT for example .

Garry
27 Apr 07,, 08:24
One simple reason to me is that Il-76 , a great airplane as it is most probably could not lift a western MBT for example .

But you may buy An-124 for less than a price of a C-17....

Jimmy
27 Apr 07,, 20:12
But you may buy An-124 for less than a price of a C-17....

So we have a fleet of aircraft that cant lift the cargo we bought them to lift. :confused:

Garry
28 Apr 07,, 08:12
So we have a fleet of aircraft that cant lift the cargo we bought them to lift. :confused:

Look. Globemaster costs more than 200mln.... new An-124 costs 100mln.... new IL-76 costs around 60mln. If you need to transport Abrams it is better to do with An-124.... everything else can be transported much cheaper by IL-76MF...

Hence for one Globemaster you have one Antonov + almost two IL-76. Don't feel that decision towards one Globemaster was somewhat political?

Jimmy
28 Apr 07,, 19:12
Since the AN-124 is no longer in production, you're gonna have a hard time finding a new one. If you're asking why the US went with the C-5 instead, think about how things were in the 1970s. If you're asking why we went with the C-17 instead of the IL-76, there are a host of reasons. Including politics, but also avionics, military testing and certification for several employment options (such as paratroop drops), and the ability to be a tactical airlifter. There's also the added benefit to not using the exact same equipment as a potential adversary.

Garry
02 May 07,, 06:32
Since the AN-124 is no longer in production, you're gonna have a hard time finding a new one. If you're asking why the US went with the C-5 instead, think about how things were in the 1970s. If you're asking why we went with the C-17 instead of the IL-76, there are a host of reasons. Including politics, but also avionics, military testing and certification for several employment options (such as paratroop drops), and the ability to be a tactical airlifter. There's also the added benefit to not using the exact same equipment as a potential adversary.

Hi Jimmy, UAC has resumed collecting orders for An-124 with list price of $80mln. I am not asking why C-17 was chosen over one An-124 and two IL-76.... I just state that was a political decision.... Just like why Russia will NEVER buy C-17 even if it was priced THE SAME or cheaper. This industry is very political

ps. Potential adversary.... it will take many years before western peoples and Russians stop considering potential adversary.... or may be never.

Jimmy
02 May 07,, 18:10
I wasnt actually referring to Russia, but yeah.

Akita
03 Jun 07,, 22:56
USAF bought the C-5 instead of the AN-124 because the AN-124 did not exist, and Antonov was the enemy. Design of the C-17 began in the 1980s, when Ilyushin were the enemies.
Of course it's political! Russians didn't buy Hercules or Galaxy btw. And, for the record, C-17 is a much larger, more capable aircraft than the Candid.

Garry
05 Jun 07,, 12:45
USAF bought the C-5 instead of the AN-124 because the AN-124 did not exist, and Antonov was the enemy. Design of the C-17 began in the 1980s, when Ilyushin were the enemies.
Of course it's political! Russians didn't buy Hercules or Galaxy btw. And, for the record, C-17 is a much larger, more capable aircraft than the Candid.

Hi Akita, you are right that Candid and C-17 are in different weight class. C-17 role is fulfilled by An-22.
Antonov An-22 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-22)

What I pointed that C-17 costs as two candids and one Ruslan..... and Ruslan is MUCH more than C-17

ZOOMAN
05 Jun 07,, 18:01
USAF bought the C-5 instead of the AN-124 because the AN-124 did not exist, and Antonov was the enemy. Design of the C-17 began in the 1980s, when Ilyushin were the enemies.
Of course it's political! Russians didn't buy Hercules or Galaxy btw. And, for the record, C-17 is a much larger, more capable aircraft than the Candid.

If your saying the C-17 is more capable than the AN-22 you better take another look, 1. C-17 Globemaster III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-17_Globemaster_III) 2. Antonov An-22 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-22)

Sandman
05 Jun 07,, 22:24
I once saw a C-5 and An-124 parked next to eachother at Oshkosh about 15 or so years ago. Both were huge, and indistinguishable as to which was bigger, but obviously the Russian carries more.

I had a couple other observations as well; First of all, the Russian main wheels are all in a straight line, one bogie directly in back of the previous. The C-5 had a more staggered main wheel arrangement. The reason was that the C-5 could carry more load over a soft ground/snow. If you think about it, that straight line arrangement of the An-124 will dig a trench before that last set of wheels pass over the ground, whereas the C-5 would be making more tracks, but would float more weight over unstable surface.

The other observation was the cockpit. I actually got into the cockpit of the 124 after waiting a half hour in line. Employed as a pilot by a regional airline, and was transitioning from a Shorts SD-360 to an ATR, I was shocked as to how antique the russian avionics looked. God they didn't even have paint on the attitude indicator brihghter than grey. (as I remember) And the Radar looked like a single color, monochrome giant tv tube. Seriously, the SD-360 looked modern by comparison, and the ATR avionics looked spaceage. My impression is that you could not make avionics/electronics more bland looking than Russians do.

Jimmy
05 Jun 07,, 23:59
If your saying the C-17 is more capable than the AN-22 you better take another look, 1. C-17 Globemaster III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-17_Globemaster_III) 2. Antonov An-22 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-22)

If you think "capabilty" means "raw lifting ability" you need to reassess what the C-17 was designed for.

The AN-22 has a SLIGHT advantage in GTOW, and a couple hundred km. The C-17 can do things that AN-22 simply cant, or at least do them better.

ZOOMAN
06 Jun 07,, 07:35
If you think "capabilty" means "raw lifting ability" you need to reassess what the C-17 was designed for.

The AN-22 has a SLIGHT advantage in GTOW, and a couple hundred km. The C-17 can do things that AN-22 simply cant, or at least do them better.

Post the things it can do that the AN-22 can't.

Garry
06 Jun 07,, 07:56
If you think "capabilty" means "raw lifting ability" you need to reassess what the C-17 was designed for.

The AN-22 has a SLIGHT advantage in GTOW, and a couple hundred km. The C-17 can do things that AN-22 simply cant, or at least do them better.

I can think of only one - cruise speed?.... there should be something much more for $200mln price tag.... probably 4 times the An-22 probable procurement cost (it is no longer produced)

the question was that Candid does not carry Abrams... and I just stated that this kind of role was reserved to ****, which can land and take off from unpaved strips (just like Candid), and it did in Afghanistan

ZOOMAN
06 Jun 07,, 08:32
I can think of only one - cruise speed?.... there should be something much more for $200mln price tag.... probably 4 times the An-22 probable procurement cost (it is no longer produced)

the question was that Candid does not carry Abrams... and I just stated that this kind of role was reserved to ****, which can land and take off from unpaved strips (just like Candid), and it did in Afghanistan

I don't want (PROBALY answers) I would like documented facts.

glyn
06 Jun 07,, 09:26
ZOOMAN you have yet to introduce yourself, and here you are with a growing number of posts.:frown: The usual method of making yourself known is to complete the public profile and tell us about yourself in Introductions.

ZOOMAN
06 Jun 07,, 09:56
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaa

ZOOMAN
06 Jun 07,, 09:57
Never Mind I Found The Place.

Garry
06 Jun 07,, 13:46
I don't want (PROBALY answers) I would like documented facts.

I made this up using a comparison of IL-76, AN-124 with An-22.... Using information that An-124 new list price is $80mln I can estimate that resumed manufacturing price of An-22 would not exceed $50mln.....

If you don't like my estimate then you can lift that to $80mln - a list price for An-124... it is still more than twice below the C-17...

I mean my point holds - C-17 is WAY MORE EXPENSIVE

Sandman
06 Jun 07,, 16:16
I am not sure, but I have read how there are still An-124s still "on order" , which might imply that they are still being built. I think someone above mentioned that they were out of production. Anyone have more info?

omon
06 Jun 07,, 16:22
that straight line arrangement of the An-124 will dig a trench before that last set of wheels pass over the ground,

it has never been the case, i,ve never seen it happend, and never heard either.

Garry
06 Jun 07,, 16:48
I am not sure, but I have read how there are still An-124s still "on order" , which might imply that they are still being built. I think someone above mentioned that they were out of production. Anyone have more info?

An-124 went out of production in 2004. Now, United Aircraft Corporation is collecting orders to resume its manufacturing from 2008. I heard that they have order for the first batch of 8 hulls.... the list price is $80mln for "plain" version and upgrades would be charged separatedly.... There would be 3 versions proposed - standard, expanded load, and with western avionics

joey
07 Jun 07,, 00:13
Russian transport planes sometimes may lack the special suits that comes with US transports, but they are very ruggedigised and very very bang for buck.

The MTA which India and Russia are designing with 40:60 work share, is going to have the traditional Russian ruggedisation with finer "packages" :)

Jimmy
07 Jun 07,, 00:15
Post the things it can do that the AN-22 can't.

For starters it would be incompatible with several US systems without serious modifications that would basically call for the tear down/rebuilding of each airframe. For another the C-17 has a much longer range due to its aerial refueling capability. The numbers you see on wikipedia are on one tank of gas. Its also a more reliable airframe.

Again, I'm not going to say it sucks. The Soviets took a different approach to things, but to proclaim that its better because it can haul a couple of extra tons for a lower purchase price is disenginuous.

ZOOMAN
07 Jun 07,, 04:27
For starters it would be incompatible with several US systems without serious modifications that would basically call for the tear down/rebuilding of each airframe. For another the C-17 has a much longer range due to its aerial refueling capability. The numbers you see on wikipedia are on one tank of gas. Its also a more reliable airframe.

Again, I'm not going to say it sucks. The Soviets took a different approach to things, but to proclaim that its better because it can haul a couple of extra tons for a lower purchase price is disenginuous.

Then you don't understand "LOGISTICS" because that IS what it takes to make it a better Plane, and btw, if the AN-22 has refueling capabilities, it would have and even longer range, than it would generaly have, so that IS what helps make it a better plane than the C-17.

Officer of Engineers
07 Jun 07,, 04:49
That's it. I've had it with you idiot not looking through the threads and read what we, the uniformed membership, have posted and pretending to know more than we do ... which you obviously don't. Good bye.

gf0012-aust
07 Jun 07,, 07:56
it has never been the case, i,ve never seen it happend, and never heard either.

The advantage of staggered wheels though is in weight distribution and absolute load bearing.

distributed load bearing weight, weight means (usually) greater flexibility. it gives broader options for the loaders when packing. Its an issue of ground pressure.

Akita
07 Jun 07,, 22:31
1. C-17 costs more than An-124 because American systems cost more money.
BTW, they are worth it.

2. Antei has been out of production since Fred Flintstone. Maybe America could put the equivilant, the C-133 cargomaster back in production.

3. C-17 drinks a lot less fuel than Russian equivs, or C-5 for that matter. Her engines are quieter. Her engines can back her up a reverse slope while doing turnaround on improvised, dirt strips.

4.Her nav and defensive systems are Mil.Std 1553 bussed and entirely LRUs. (The shocky parts can all be unplugged and replaced, when defective, in moments.)

5. Onboard FBW flight control/auto-fly systems can automatically maintain station/trim and pitch while dropping whale-sized objects out rear ramp at night and in adverse weather at low altitude in unknown airspace. (According to rumor, loadmaster is only poor sap working during this amazing feat: drivers are up front popping corn in microwave while watching 'Diehard 9' on TV in crew rest area).

6. C-17 is ONLY equivilant load carrier not currently manufactured by a country threatening to re-target it's atomic warheads on European and North American cities.

You Russian fellas seem like real nice guys--and smarter than some. Do you really believe USAF and the US government are going to compromise national security by allowing a potential adversary to manufacture cargo planes, (or crop dusters fwiw), for OUR flyboys?

Come on now.

omon
08 Jun 07,, 00:03
The advantage of staggered wheels though is in weight distribution and absolute load bearing.

distributed load bearing weight, weight means (usually) greater flexibility. it gives broader options for the loaders when packing. Its an issue of ground pressure.

yes, i agree, more and farther positioned tires will decrease load on runway, and increase stability, c5has 12 wheels per side, an has 10, but size of the tires makes a difference, i don,t know sizes of each one, nor i ever seen 2 next to each other, i know from experience, an lands just fine, i'd suspect if it has been an issue russians would adress it, now im curious what size of the tires on each one, i found no dementions so far, lots of pic. but i cant tell the size from them.

omon
08 Jun 07,, 00:16
You Russian fellas seem like real nice guys--and smarter than some. Do you really believe USAF and the US government are going to compromise national security by allowing a potential adversary to manufacture cargo planes, (or crop dusters fwiw), for OUR flyboys?

Come on now.

i wouldn,t belive it for a second, and why would us even need russian transport, i think us has pretty good cargo planes itself. as far as i know russian jets aren,t even allowed in us(usually) due to noisy engines. at least that what russian pilot who flys aeroflot said a few yeas ago, the same reason why all russian airlines fly not russian planes to us.

Jimmy
08 Jun 07,, 01:47
Then you don't understand "LOGISTICS" because that IS what it takes to make it a better Plane, and btw, if the AN-22 has refueling capabilities, it would have and even longer range, than it would generaly have, so that IS what helps make it a better plane than the C-17.

Part of me thinks its a shame he got banned, because this post makes no sense whatsoever.

However mostly I'm not all that disappointed that he's gone.