Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ukrainian An-124 vs. С-5А Galaxy.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ukrainian An-124 vs. С-5А Galaxy.

    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.

  • #2
    Perhaps they were Canadian troops?

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

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        since when are Canadians in Iraq?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Praxus
          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....

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
            since when are Canadians in Iraq?
            Yeah, mea culpa. Sclerosis probably ;)

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Praxus
                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  NATO preferred An-124 RUSLAN to C-17 Galaxy as a main airlift asset

                  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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Praxus
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Victor Bout works cheaper then the USAF...
                      To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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?
                        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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!!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.
                            Last edited by canoe; 24 Mar 06,, 16:43.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by canoe
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X