Ukrainian An-124 vs. С-5А Galaxy. - Page 2

canoe · 03-24-2006, 13:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy

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 · 03-24-2006, 13:36 PM

Quote:

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.

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 · 03-27-2006, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by canoe

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 · 03-28-2006, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy

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 · 04-25-2007, 10:21 AM

Again..... C-5 Galaxy is not used for dirty job... while good old Ruslan takes this

Quote:

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 · 04-25-2007, 19:39 PM

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 · 04-25-2007, 22:45 PM

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 · 04-26-2007, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akita

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 · 04-26-2007, 15:35 PM

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.

braindead · 04-26-2007, 16:52 PM

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 · 04-27-2007, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by braindead

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 · 04-27-2007, 15:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry

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.

Garry · 04-28-2007, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy

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

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 · 04-28-2007, 14:12 PM

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 · 05-02-2007, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy

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.

04-26-2007, 16:52 PM	#25 (permalink)
braindead Lost in Translation *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-30-06 Location: estonia Posts: 1,260 Country:	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 . __________________ ....

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-25-2007, 19:39 PM	#21 (permalink)
Jimmy *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-16-05 Posts: 930 Country:	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.

04-25-2007, 22:45 PM	#22 (permalink)
Akita Regular Join Date: 04-25-07 Posts: 34	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.

04-26-2007, 15:35 PM	#24 (permalink)
Akita Regular Join Date: 04-25-07 Posts: 34	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.

04-28-2007, 14:12 PM	#29 (permalink)
Jimmy *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-16-05 Posts: 930 Country:	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.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)