[Normalguy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Normalguy Normalguy:

Never been to Russia or the Ukraine have you? Nor have you ever been in or flown in their junk have you? If you had, you would not be spouting the purile nonsense you are.

They can't be all that bad.

We used them to airlift DART to Sri Lanka and Pakistan, tanks and other heavy equipment into Afghanistan and NATO uses them (look up SALIS if you don't believe me).

The nonsense you spout is that you imply we would get some Cold War era piece of shit, not the AN-124-100 that first flew in the 1990s (yes, after the collapse of the USSR AND after the first C-17) and is used all over the world in a civil air freight capacity, as well as in a military capacity by Russia.

As for this tired argument that we might run out of spare parts that is BS. These planes cost 1/3 what the C-17s do. If we spent even HALF of the difference on spare parts, we'd have had enough to build another 6 planes! And we could have 10-12 of these planes instead of 4 C-17s. That sounds like a helluva lot more capability to me.

Really?, I rest my case.

[Streaker]

After having lost it, it would seem.

[Normalguy]

Streaker Streaker:

After having lost it, it would seem.

I am blinded by Liberal brilliance and foresight that put us in the sh*t and now trying to find a cheap way out......."Oh", "sarcasm off

The Liberal view of war, Ala Balck adder the iv:

Crikey, sir. I'm looking forward to today. Up diddly up, down diddly down, whoops, poop, twiddly dee - decent scrap with the fiendish Red Baron - bit of a jolly old crash landing behind enemy lines - capture, torture, escape, and then back home in time for tea and medals.

...nuff said

[Loader]

Streaker Streaker:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Streaker Streaker:

Those all seem like very marginal advantages in relation to the massively higher cost of the C-17.

Marginal? Those seem to be excellent advantages. The training and language barriers especially, and if we need parts, I'd rather not beg Russia to do it....

Civilians already operate Antonovs. There wouldn't be any significant language issues.

As for spares, we could simply have bought a massive quantity of them up front. Considering the reasonable cost of Antonovs or Ilyushins compared to the C-17, we could have easily afforded to do this.

Nobody, except maybe the Russians, require users to hold massive quanities of spares anymore, and frankly building, operating and manning the warehouses and logistics systems to support aircraft spares would quickly eat up the bulk of any savings incurred by buying cheaper airframes. The Boeing deal is just in time delivery using the Boeing logistics system. If we had a 17 lose an engine in Afstan, Boeing locates where the closest engine is in the world, and delivers it into theatre, looking after all customs requirements.

The crewing for an An124 is six, (2 pilots, 2 FEs, 1 navigator and 1 comms operator), the crew for a C-17 is three (2 pilots, 1 loadmaster). You would have just doubled the size of your crews and the training, recruiting etc required for the same number of planes.

The An is designed for oversize and bulky equipment and has no rollerized pallet capabilities. The 17, uses a 463L cargo handling system that accepts the same pallets as is used in the C130 hercules. 80% of cargo hauled by the CF is palletized for ease of handling and quick turn around. This system also allows for an airdrop capability, which I don't think the 124 has.

Finally, just so you know, when we move a palletized load on a 124, its done by placing loaded aircraft pallets on steel tubes to position it because there is no cargo system, basically using the same system the Egyptians used to build the pyramids. Rolling the pallet on steel tubes wrecks the bottom of pallets which run about 3K per.

[Normalguy]

Loader Loader:

Streaker Streaker:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Streaker Streaker:

Those all seem like very marginal advantages in relation to the massively higher cost of the C-17.

Marginal? Those seem to be excellent advantages. The training and language barriers especially, and if we need parts, I'd rather not beg Russia to do it....

Civilians already operate Antonovs. There wouldn't be any significant language issues.

As for spares, we could simply have bought a massive quantity of them up front. Considering the reasonable cost of Antonovs or Ilyushins compared to the C-17, we could have easily afforded to do this.

Nobody, except maybe the Russians, require users to hold massive quanities of spares anymore, and frankly building, operating and manning the warehouses and logistics systems to support aircraft spares would quickly eat up the bulk of any savings incurred by buying cheaper airframes. The Boeing deal is just in time delivery using the Boeing logistics system. If we had a 17 lose an engine in Afstan, Boeing locates where the closest engine is in the world, and delivers it into theatre, looking after all customs requirements.

The crewing for an An124 is six, (2 pilots, 2 FEs, 1 navigator and 1 comms operator), the crew for a C-17 is three (2 pilots, 1 loadmaster). You would have just doubled the size of your crews and the training, recruiting etc required for the same number of planes.

The An is designed for oversize and bulky equipment and has no rollerized pallet capabilities. The 17, uses a 463L cargo handling system that accepts the same pallets as is used in the C130 hercules. 80% of cargo hauled by the CF is palletized for ease of handling and quick turn around. This system also allows for an airdrop capability, which I don't think the 124 has.

Finally, just so you know, when we move a palletized load on a 124, its done by placing loaded aircraft pallets on steel tubes to position it because there is no cargo system, basically using the same system the Egyptians used to build the pyramids. Rolling the pallet on steel tubes wrecks the bottom of pallets which run about 3K per.

Thanks for common sense 101...