Should we buy some AN-225s, the largest transport plane in the world?

www.vectorsite.net...

ANTONOV AN-225 MRIYA ("COSSACK"):
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

wingspan 88.4 meters 290 feet
wing area 905 sq_meters 9,742 sq_feet
length 84 meters 275 feet 7 inches
height 18.2 meters 59 feet 9 inches

empty weight 175,000 kilograms 385,800 pounds
max takeoff weight 600,000 kilograms 1,322,275 pounds

max speed at altitude 850 KPH 530 MPH / 460 KT
cruising altitude 10,000 meters 33,000 feet
range, max payload 4,500 kilometers 2,795 MI / 2,430 NMI
range, max fuel 15,400 kilometers 9,570 MI / 8,310 NMI
_____________________ _________________ _______________________


The An-225 is the world's biggest aircraft by far. Since it is a specialized machine, it is unlikely that there would have been reason to build it in large numbers in the best of circumstances. Given that the introduction of the big cargolifter coincided with the last days of the Soviet Union, it is not surprising that only two were built.

So do you think the U.S. military should buy some of these since we seem to be having problems with buying and upgrading the expensive C-5s and C-17s. I don't know what the price tag is for this aircraft but I expect it to be 5 to 10 times less than what it cost to buy a C-17 or C-5.

Originally posted by deltaboy

So do you think the U.S. military should buy some of these since we seem to be having problems with buying and upgrading the expensive C-5s and C-17s. I don't know what the price tag is for this aircraft but I expect it to be 5 to 10 times less than what it cost to buy a C-17 or C-5.

In theory, a great idea... in practice - the company operating the one that does exist is scrambling to get the 2nd flying from the half-finished initial construction.

If the tooling still exists, more could be built - but given the evident market, I'd assume that more would have been built if Antonov could have.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Given that the introduction of the big cargolifter coincided with the last days of the Soviet Union, it is not surprising that only two were built.

So do you think the U.S. military should buy some of these since we seem to be having problems with buying and upgrading the expensive C-5s and C-17s. I don't know what the price tag is for this aircraft but I expect it to be 5 to 10 times less than what it cost to buy a C-17 or C-5.

Really you had the answer in your material. Only 2 where built and the runways etc need to operate the plane are a huge limiting factor. The C-17 isn't even in the same catigory. As I've heard it the C-17 upgrade is just theory and on paper right now and the C-5 is on track but over budget. Also who is we?

Originally posted by kilcoo316
In theory, a great idea... in practice - the company operating the one that does exist is scrambling to get the 2nd flying from the half-finished initial construction.

If the tooling still exists, more could be built - but given the evident market, I'd assume that more would have been built if Antonov could have.

Yeah I know that there is one in production and another one being built, but if the U.S. military were to procure more, then its possible to start up an assembly line for this aircraft to produce like about 200 of them.

The company that built this aircraft will not build more unless there are demand for it, not build it for fun.

The aircraft can carry over 275 tons of load. This is what it's made for: carrying load, specifically the Buran orbiter. After being produced in 1988 the Antonov 225 has been used to transport cargo. The US has been using the Antonov 225 quite a lot mainly for transporting military supplies to the Middle East. This is a testament to the quality of the aircraft, no other American-made aircraft compares to it.

Source

Without doing the math or using any sources, I think that's equivalent to using 6 C-17's.

Resuming production of An-124 Production

Since the An-225 is based off of the An-124, we may end up seeing more of them around if the market demands it.

No, each An-225 would likely cost 5 to 10 times more than a new build C-17, Antonov no longer have the tooling, production line or ability to produce the An-225.

The An-124, the aircraft the -225 is based on, is in 'reduced production mode', with only a handful likely to be produced over the next 15 years.

The An-225 could not fulfill the operational requirements of either the C-17 or C-5, it really is a specialist heavy lift aircraft and not the general heavy lift aircraft that either of those two are.

Yes, a second An-225 hull was built, but its been in 'final assembly' for nearly 20 years now - and its still sat in a hanger with no wiring, no avionics, no internals, no nose, no wings (the wings do not actually exist currently), no engines, no tail. Its highly unlikely that it will ever be completed!

It is a great airplane for what it is a extremely larger and heavy material that need to be transported quikly. If there were more of these then it could start compete with more but now as there is just 1 operational only the most needy can afford it. Im quite sure that the only one flying, is flying to the limits of its capabillity.

There may not be plans to build anymore 225s, but Antanov is planning to constuct a varient of the 124 with the wings of a 225 to give it greater range. However with more advanced engines available today there will only be 4 required.

Jensy

First question is why would we need it? We have the civil air fleet to move all our stuff in a non-tactical way. Our C-5s are still flying and our C-17s are rather massive too and are tactical. We have our C-130Hs going through big upgrades and our C-130J numbers are growing.

C-5 and C-17s can both carry M1 tanks and with more efficiency. This is about the biggest oversize thing we carry by air.


[edit on 1-11-2007 by Xtrozero]

RichardPrice pretty much sums up the chances. It would be in effect a brand new production aircraft and the one flying example would be a valuable reference but the modern avionics required and testing new engines etc etc would push its price way beyond what it would cost to get more C-17's or despite its current woes, upgrade the C-5's

Remember unless Im mistaken that monster is seldom flies outside the borders of the old USSR because of its older aviaonics etc.

I

Originally posted by FredT
RichardPrice pretty much sums up the chances.

Thanks

It would be in effect a brand new production aircraft and the one flying example would be a valuable reference but the modern avionics required and testing new engines etc etc would push its price way beyond what it would cost to get more C-17's or despite its current woes, upgrade the C-5's

One thing I did forget, and the thing that would cost the most, is that the current An-225 does not fly under a proper Type Certificate - it holds a special designation from the Russian aviation authorities.

Any new build aircraft would have to be built under a new type certificate, and that would be costly to obtain. These days, for certain classes of aircraft, the US DoD requires them to hold all the relevant civilian certificates as well as military ones (which are more lenient) - thats one of the main reasons the C-130J lost out in a competition recently.

To certificate a new An-225 would cost a significant amount of money.

Remember unless Im mistaken that monster is seldom flies outside the borders of the old USSR because of its older aviaonics etc.

Actually shes quite regularly seen outside the old USSR, shes kept quite busy and overflies the UK on average about once a month - sometimes she even stops in Manchester!

The current An-225 is grandfathered in under safety laws, so the older avionics aren't actually an issue.

Um.

I couldn't imagine the An-225 replacing the C-17. The Roles are NOT the same.

Hello everybody, I bring reality;

The Antonov 124 does it again - Where is the C-17?



What a surprise! I just learned from a Canadian Forces website (French only) that the first of our borrowed Leopard 2A6s, arrived in Kandahar aboard a leased An-124-100. Not in a C-177, and not even in a USAF C-17 like last time.

Why wasn't it carried inside a C-177?

Learn more here;

boeingc17.blogspot.com...

Here’s an embarrassing one;

An-124, RA-82045 delivered the first Lockheed-Martin Atlas V booster and its Centaur upper stage to the west coast launch complex. In March, the Atlas team will transport the rocket segments to the newly refurbished Space Launch Complex 3 East for vertical stacking.

The Atlas V vehicle stands over 200 feet tall, an increase of about 50 feet over the Atlas IIAS vehicle that launched successfully three times from SLC-3E. The vehicle also incorporates a stretched Centaur upper stage. In performance, The Atlas V 400 and 500 series of launch vehicles will provide over two times the lift capability of the 100 percent successful Atlas IIAS vehicle.

An-124, RA-82045 flew to Huntsville, Alabama on Friday, Febuary 11 and on to Shannon, Ireland on Saturday, February 12.

Our Atlas V had to be airlifted on a LEASED Russian Condor, simply because we DON’T HAVE anything big enough to do the job.

www.air-and-space.com...

Here’s more;

CLEVELAND -- Cleveland's NASA offices received a large special delivery on Thursday.

The second-largest plane in the world delivered hardware for the NASA Glenn Research Center.

The equipment is called the Ariane 5 Payload Fairing and could protect the shuttle's payload from heat and pressure it would come into contact with entering space.

www.newsnet5.com...









Man I hate Wikipedia, but here’s some more on the AN-124, and why it’s being leased by everybody;

Service

AN-124 in Brussels

Germany led the recent effort to lease An-124s for NATO strategic airlift requirements. Two aircraft are leased from SALIS GmbH as a stopgap until the Airbus A400M is available.[4]

Russian cargo company Volga-Dnepr has contracts with Boeing to ship outsize aircraft components to their Everett plant. The An-124 is used for airlifting (in fully assembled form) the massive General Electric GE90 turbofan engines used in the Boeing 777 airliner.

Airbus Transport International has selected another Russian cargo company, Polet Airlines as 'designated carrier' to the company. Polet expects its three An-124-100s will transport astronautic equipment manufactured by EADS, which owns 80 percent of Airbus and full-size components of a model of the Airbus A380 superjumbo.[5] As the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 is the only A380 engine that can be transported whole in a Boeing 747F[6], the competing Engine Alliance GP7200 needs a larger aircraft, like the An-124, if it is to be shipped in one piece.

In short, Antonov super transporters allow BIG things to be airlifted, while others can’t.

Do we need An-225? Not really, but a joint venture Boeing /Volga-Dnepr modernized An-124, ABSOLUTELY, will if ever happen?

Absolutely not, we’ll keep leasing from the Russians just like everybody else.

Wonder if they could use a HGW 744LCF to lift large things.

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.

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
Wonder if they could use a HGW 744LCF to lift large things.

Such a thing does not exist currently, and the LCF requires a significant amount of extra equipment at both ends of the flight in order to load and unload the aircraft.

The An-124 and related aircraft do not need any of these things, as they are roll on roll off aircraft.

reply to post by RichardPrice

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.

No, the very point is that the alternative does NOT exist, Antonov super-lifters are the biggest and most capable in the world, and that’s why only they can do the biggest jobs.

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.

Read the source please, don’t make assumptions.

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.

You get that from where?

Atlas simply doesn’t fit into anything but Antonov, and even in An-124, it fit “barely”. I’ve watched it being loaded and unloaded.

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?

Are we grasping the concept of size yet? Really BIG things need LOTS of space, and lots of power to LIFT them into the air.

Condor and Mriya provide that, while other aircraft do not simply by design.

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.

And it can lift bigger, heavier loads.

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.

Yep, I’ll believe in a “private” Russian airspace company when aliens will deliver me a notarized document stating that they are financial backers of the concern.

Here's something else to add to your list as well - Boeing has its GE engines delivered by An-124.

It’s on the list, look better.

Wow, I can't actually think of a single aircraft on the planet that would be easier to shoot down than that behemoth.

I am tempted to compare it to the USN's supercarriers, big and expensive targets.

Originally posted by iskander

No, the very point is that the alternative does NOT exist, Antonov super-lifters are the biggest and most capable in the world, and that’s why only they can do the biggest jobs.

The alternative exists - it just may not be available at the time.

Read the source please, don’t make assumptions.

I didn't make any assumptions, and I did read the source. At the time of the deployment, the Canadian Air Forces sole delivered C-17 was deployed to Haiti on humanitarian missions.

The rest of the source was a baseless rant, quite simply.

You get that from where?

Atlas simply doesn’t fit into anything but Antonov, and even in An-124, it fit “barely”. I’ve watched it being loaded and unloaded.

The internal dimensions of the An-124 are no different to the internal dimensions of the C-5 - the C-5 is actually larger in some aspects.

Are we grasping the concept of size yet? Really BIG things need LOTS of space, and lots of power to LIFT them into the air.

Condor and Mriya provide that, while other aircraft do not simply by design.

Get off your high horse - the C-5 can move 99% of what the An-124 can. It can certainly move everything we have been talking about here.

And it can lift bigger, heavier loads.

Bigger and heavier loads are not always the reason for having the aircraft.

Yep, I’ll believe in a “private” Russian airspace company when aliens will deliver me a notarized document stating that they are financial backers of the concern.

Volga-Dnepr operates 10 An-124, and is a 100% privately held company.

Polet Airlines operates 8 An-124 and is a 100% privately held company.

Out of the three Russian operators of the An-124, only Antonov Airlines is owned by the state.

It’s on the list, look better.

Your list only mentions the GP7200, my point was that all GE large fan deliveries to Boeing Field are done by An-124.

Its obvious you have a bee in your bonnet about the An-124, and its equally obvious you don't want to listen to reason.

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Wow, I can't actually think of a single aircraft on the planet that would be easier to shoot down than that behemoth.

Erm... and?


Is a C-5 a particular fleeting target?



All transport aircraft are sitting ducks - even for the most basic of fighters.