Originally posted by iskander
Hello everybody, I bring reality;
Your 'reality' is a bit confusing - people use the An-124 and An-225 because it is both available, cheaper and quicker than alternatives, not
because any alternative doesn't exist.
Canada only had one C-17 at the time of the first article, and it was already deployed on missions - the An-124 was probably available sooner than
either a USAF C-17, a USAF C-5 or the Canadian C-17, and that is probably why it was used.
The USAF could have shifted their rocket by C-5, but they do not have the experience doing that - the various operators of the An-124 have shifted
rocket parts before, and thus have the experience to carry out the move.
The shuttle part was delivered by whatever means the sender sent it by, hardly the recipients problem - and also it was not a military load, so why
would the USAF get involved in moving it?
As for the EU countries leasing the An-124 - have you tried getting short term leases on C-17's or C-5's recently? Boeing won't do it for terms of
only 3 or 4 years. the RAF got a lot of resistance for leasing for 8 years. Again, the An-124 is available and ready.
The reason for *all* of the above is that the An-124 is privately operated, its not a military aircraft any more unlike both the C-17 and C-5 - that
is why you see the above happening. The An-124 is available, its relatively cheap and the leasing companies have lots of experience with handling
large, bulky loads.
Here's something else to add to your list as well - Boeing has its GE engines delivered by An-124.