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

reply to post by ShatteredSkies

The AN-225 would never be able to take on the roles of the C-17 or C-5's in any form and you've said it best Iskander, you said it yourself, it's the best custom specialized transport out there.

I agree absolutely.

There's only one and it's fulfilled its mission of transporting the Buran when it was in service, you're right about that no one has argued that to this point.

When it was in Soviet service, also agreed, but currently it’s in Russian service, and it is regularly used to carry highly specialized cargo, like GE 777 engines for example.

In this commercial application, it simply has no equal.

But alas, simply finding a use for the plane now is difficult because it can no longer carry out its original mission of transporting the Buran.

Not true, the very reason for the planned manufacture of the second one is do to high international demand for An-225s super capacity.

Russians want to have one on hand for their own use at all times, while leaving the other always available to fulfill international orders.

Simple, economically viable logistics.

Gods sake.

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE THE GENX AND GE90 PROGRAMME IS LOWERING COSTS BY HAVING THE PROPULSOR AND FAN SEPERATE. You can carry them even on a 747.

Simple, economically viable logistics.

[edit on 9/11/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

reply to post by iskander

You’re making me feel old,

If I make you feel old you must be positively ancient.

and I don’t know what qualifies to even be an internet nerd

apart from the example you quoted, I would also say it was someone who argues for the sake of it even when there is patently no need, possibly borne of a desire to keep themselves at the centre of attention in any argument, like maybe taking a humorous comment out of context and turning it into an argument in itself.

You did not say Hilton IN Paris, you clearly said Paris Hilton. Logic confuses you?

Oooh, look!

it simply escapes me how you compare An-225 to a spoiled daughter of the Hilton family, that got her celebrity from some porn videos.

I already told you, it was a simile. Do you know what a simile is?

She is quite nice to look at but has no real talents of any sort that is in demand and is mainly of ornamental value, while the An-225 was, for a long time.....you see? An "aeronautical Paris Hilton", its really not difficult, unless you are being deliberately obtuse.

Sorry if this is going over your head but from your previous posts I assumed a degree of intelligence that does not appear to be there, my mistake. I wont repeat it.

Are you aware of the Boeing operation in Moscow, and what they are out to do?

Again, look into Boeing level of involvement in Russian civil and transport aviation.

Maybe you need to do some research yourself?

1 The effort is directed to component design for Boeings, plus a possible regional jet - not freighters. The Russians have historically struggled to make competitive passenger aircraft and the Russians are hoping to address this.

2 We are talking about freighters here, not passenger planes, not even converted ones.

3 Antonov is not Russian, Ukraine is a different country, Boeing are working with Ilyushin and Sukhoi, in Russia.

Besides, being a positive move, or even an attractive one, does not equal 'absolutely necessary'. Why do you think a Boeing mod to the An 225 is so vital? I'd be interested to know as it seems to be doing ok, for the moment, in its limited sphere.

The difference is that An-225.........did exactly what it was made fore, and then some. In other words, mission accomplished.

Mission accomplished, yes. Market opened up for a fleet of such planes (or even more than one more)? No. See also Bristol Brabazon and Saro Princess. These too worked exactly as advertised but there was no market for them, same as.

Also, the An 225 was not created as a 'rent a jet' outsize freighter for hire, so it is not doing the job it was designed for. Its owners have, however, found a useful role for it, which is not the same thing.

PS, IF you are going to berate members for their lack of communication and comprehension skills hadn't you better make sure your own are up to scratch?

You failed to comprehend what I wrote (and clearly demonstrated a lack of comprehension) and also use phrases like "with all do respect", which is not even a proper sentence

I only mention it because you went and climbed on your high horse about it with Canada EH, who seems to me to have comprehended what he replied to just fine, I did let all previous examples go unremarked, due to a wish to avoid pettiness and also because my own cack handed typing frequently throws up errors. But I don't use one word when I mean something else, so when you have used 'do' instead of 'due' in at least two posts on this thread it kind of grates when you pull up another member in that fashion.





[edit on 10-11-2007 by waynos]

reply to post by waynos

If I make you feel old you must be positively ancient.

Don’t you worry, I’m young at heart, at least that’s what my wife keeps telling me when I make an a$$ out of my self : )

apart from the example you quoted, I would also say it was someone who argues for the sake of it even when there is patently no need, possibly borne of a desire to keep themselves at the centre of attention in any argument, like maybe taking a humorous comment out of context and turning it into an argument in itself.

waynos, is this an attempting to provide a complementary psychoanalysis?

Comparing Paris Hilton to An-225 is neither humorous nor sarcastic. There’s no analogy there of any kind.

For example, here’s a “humorous” analogy of SR-71 to O.J. Simpson.

“The BlackBird sure is black, but it’s so fast that no jail can hold it even when it’s guilty!”

Catch my drift?

I already told you, it was a simile. Do you know what a simile is?

Yep, let’s look into that one;

Analogy –

Definition:

1. comparison: a comparison between two things that are similar in some way, often used to help explain something or make it easier to understand

2. similarity: a similarity in some respects

Simile -

A simile is a comparison between two different things, designed to create an unusual, interesting, emotional or other effect often using words such as 'like' or 'as ... as'.

Common comparisons are with the qualities associated with animals (as sly as a fox, as brave as a lion, etc.).

Paris Hilton – An225

SR-71 – OJ Simpson.

As usual, all roads lead to fallacyfiles.org

She is quite nice to look at but has no real talents of any sort that is in demand and is mainly of ornamental value, while the An-225 was, for a long time.....you see? An "aeronautical Paris Hilton", its really not difficult, unless you are being deliberately obtuse.

An-225 was never an “ornamental” value, and unlike Paris Hilton, it does useful stuff that MATTERS, while from what I gathered, the only thing Paris Hilton can be useful in is fornicating.

If that humors you, by all means be amused.

Sorry if this is going over your head but from your previous posts I assumed a degree of intelligence that does not appear to be there, my mistake. I wont repeat it.

On that note, I don’t find farting and belching humorous as well, so any such remarks about An-225, (like it’s so big and fat it farts on takeoff) will also go over my head.

Maybe you need to do some research yourself?

Not really, I just have to call some buddies that work at Boeing.

Besides, being a positive move, or even an attractive one, does not equal 'absolutely necessary'. Why do you think a Boeing mod to the An 225 is so vital? I'd be interested to know as it seems to be doing ok, for the moment, in its limited sphere.

I said An-124, not An-225. Why? Because they are cheaper, more capable, and most importantly will help Boeing to establish long term partnership instead of an inevitable competitor.

Mission accomplished, yes. Market opened up for a fleet of such planes (or even more than one more)? No. See also Bristol Brabazon and Saro Princess. These too worked exactly as advertised but there was no market for them, same as.

I never said “fleet”. One or two will be just right for those “special” large scale “items”.

Also, the An 225 was not created as a 'rent a jet' outsize freighter for hire, so it is not doing the job it was designed for. Its owners have, however, found a useful role for it, which is not the same thing.

Wrong and wrong. It’s obvious that it was not created as a “rent-a-jet” because it was built during Soviet era, and its new role was forced by the needs of the modern market and not the efforts of its owners.

PS, IF you are going to berate members for their lack of communication and comprehension skills hadn't you better make sure your own are up to scratch?

Should I grab a pencil for a multiple choice you got ready for me or something?

There’s always the “fight club” section of ATS, and if you have questions like this, that would be the place to ask them.

You failed to comprehend what I wrote (and clearly demonstrated a lack of comprehension) and also use phrases like "with all do respect", which is not even a proper sentence

Well, with all DUE respect, if you are so interested in exploring the depths of my comprehension and extent of my vocabulary, just say so, don’t tap dance around so timidly.

I only mention it because you went and climbed on your high horse about it with Canada EH, who seems to me to have comprehended what he replied to just fine, I did let all previous examples go unremarked, due to a wish to avoid pettiness and also because my own cack handed typing frequently throws up errors. But I don't use one word when I mean something else, so when you have used 'do' instead of 'due' in at least two posts on this thread it kind of grates when you pull up another member in that fashion.

With no intentions of belittling your opinions on this matter, what so ever, here’s a little more humor for you, since being an Englishmen you seem to understand sarcasm so much;

When you preface your critical comments by telling people “with all due respect” you are claiming to give them the respect they are due—that which is owed them. Many folks misunderstand this phrase and misspell it “all do respect” or even “all-do respect.” You shouldn’t use this expression unless you really do intend to be as polite as possible; all too often it’s used merely to preface a deliberate insult.

wsu.edu...

My pardons to everybody, I thought that one would go unnoticed as usual, just like fallacyfiles.org : )

O.J. Simpson didn't get out of jail because he was so fast and black...

So how does your SR-71 vs O.J. Simpson analogy even compare? Waynos' analogy made sense if you really knew what he was trying to say.

I'll try to make it blunt, by Waynos' simile, the An-225 is to the world what Paris Hilton was, just a flashy pretty little thing who really has no purpose in life, but is flaunted around and paraded to get attention.

The An-225 fits the case well because it no longer carries out it's original mission. It does what its operators try to so hard to find it to do. Same with Paris and the media, the media are always trying to find spots where they can put Ms. Hilton's fame to play.

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by ShatteredSkies


reply to post by ShatteredSkies

O.J. Simpson didn't get out of jail because he was so fast and black...

Dear Sir, please do mind the massive chunks of humor that fall upon the earth from the heavens, one just might hit you over the head and cause a case of fatal (and irreversible) perplex“shion”.

In other words, rent a movie called “Idiocracy”.

I'll try to make it blunt, by Waynos' simile, the An-225 is to the world what Paris Hilton was, just a flashy pretty little thing who really has no purpose in life, but is flaunted around and paraded to get attention.

Even though it was not a “simile”, I see that non existent topic of Paris Hilton is still brought up by some of our “subprime” (like a mortgage) ATS members, I highly doubt that fornication and acting stupid will get Paris Hilton into the Guinness World Records book and match An-225s 240 records.

Shattered&OUT, how exactly a ditsy dumb blond is similar to the most capable air transport in the world?

How exactly An-225 is “flaunted around and paraded to get attention”, by fulfilling customers orders as contracted?

What does Paris Hilton does professionally again?

The An-225 fits the case well because it no longer carries out it's original mission.

Paris Hilton had an “original mission”? LOL! What might that one be? This is getting to “FOXy networks” type of insane all of the sudden.

It does what its operators try to so hard to find it to do. Same with Paris and the media, the media are always trying to find spots where they can put Ms. Hilton's fame to play.

How bout this one, I admit I don’t know much about Paris Hilton, and God knows I never will since fluff like that definitely falls well outside of my circle of interest, but maybe you can clue me in on something.

An-225 set an all time airlift record by transporting the biggest piece of machinery in the history of human kind, it being the 135.2 ton Siemens power generator, what the heck did Paris Hilton ever do since you approve of such asinine comparisons?

I have to see how much more ridiculous and childish this Paris Hilton thing is going to get.

waynos, is this an attempting to provide a complementary psychoanalysis?

no, it was just an answer to a question, but it could serve either way I suppose

Comparing Paris Hilton to An-225 is neither humorous nor sarcastic. There’s no analogy there of any kind.

What are you trying to say? Do you mean (in Harry Hill style);
"One is a woman, one is a plane, what can he mean? Oww, My brain hurts?"

That would be what is known as 'missing the point'. Like I said, it was not meant as a literal comparison, it was a light hearted aside and to examine it for a deeper meaning is extremely OTT. debates can be fun too, at least with most people. Disagree with my POV by all means, but deconstructing the gag for analysis is a bit sad. Is it a coincidence that analysis starts with anal?

For example, here’s a “humorous” analogy of SR-71 to O.J. Simpson.

I see you put the word 'humourous' in quotation marks, after reading it I could see why. The joke you posted was in an entirely different context. That was gratuitous humour for its own sake (which I found to be a bit weak but of course everyone has their own humour), I, on the other hand, was drawing a humorous similarity to put over a point of view, the fact it was humorous was entirely secondary to the point of view it conveyed and whether you found it funny or not is unimportant to the debate.

Yep, let’s look into that one;

I don't know why you defined 'analogy' here, I never said it was an analogy, but you could use the term instead if you wanted to. You could equally say it was a metaphor if you like, such is the flexibility of the English language, so what?

I did say simile however, as in "a figure of speech in which two unlike things are explicitly compared". The bolding is my own.

How sad are you to suck the life out of a simple remark that was perfectly adequate for its task when a normal person might just smile (or not) and recognise the point that is being made and move on with the argument? But then again how anal am I to continue with this stupid debate over a quick one-liner? Just because you didn't get it doesn't make it 'wrong'.

An-225 was never an “ornamental” value

What was its value in the years it was grounded then? It was no less ornamental than any museum exhibit.

On that note, I don’t find farting and belching humorous as well, so any such remarks about An-225, (like it’s so big and fat it farts on takeoff) will also go over my head.

They might go over your head, they would never enter mine as such humour is beneath me. Hang on, If they go over your head but they are beneath me, that doesn't put you in a very good position does it.

Why are you trying to guess what amuses me? Are you just kicking out like a cornered animal? Why are you arguing so fiercely over a throwaway remark? This behaviour is extremely odd.

Not really, I just have to call some buddies that work at Boeing.

Bully for you.

I said An-124, not An-225.

My apologies, I misread this passage on page one;

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

But how about the fact that you were banging on about Boeing's Russian venture when Antonov are Ukrainian? Boeing could well do something with Russia's own An-124's but this would not necessarily mean the long term partnership you were referring to. Surely they would need to speak to Antonov and the Ukraine govt for that to happen. Doesn't the C-5M already cover the ground that this modernized An 124 would be aimed at?

One or two 'Boeing C-225's in USAF service would be an enticing vision though. Given that Mriya means Dream, what a shame Boeing have already used the name 'DreamLifter' on that ugly 747 conversion

I never said “fleet”. One or two will be just right for those “special” large scale “items”.

I agree, but I am not confident we will ever see that second one completed, though I would like to see it happen, just out of interest as a aircraft buff.

Wrong and wrong. It’s obvious that it was not created as a “rent-a-jet” because it was built during Soviet era, and its new role was forced by the needs of the modern market and not the efforts of its owners.

Eh? You say I am wrong and then repeat most of what I posted. Strange. If the An 225's owners made no effort how is it in service? Will power? Or perhaps did Antonov re-engine it and modify it for its current role?

Here's a clue ; yes they did.

Regarding the final paragraphs of your reply, I already spelled out exactly why I raised that point and it does not need reiterating.

Yes I do understand sarcasm, I also can see when someone is just plain old 'being an arse'. Kind regards.








[edit on 11-11-2007 by waynos]

Yeah whatever, I don't need a 10 year old in an adult's body to tell me I'm stupid when in fact he's the one who's contradicted himself every other post.

Iskander, if only you were smarter and less arrogant, welcome to my ignore list.

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by waynos

That would be what is known as 'missing the point'. Like I said, it was not meant as a literal comparison, it was a light hearted aside and to examine it for a deeper meaning is extremely OTT. debates can be fun too, at least with most people. Disagree with my POV by all means, but deconstructing the gag for analysis is a bit sad. Is it a coincidence that analysis starts with anal?

Dear waynos, your continuing focus on Paris Hilton and preoccupation on “anal” topics are leaving me rather uneasy.

I understand it’s a modern world, you are definitely free to express your views on such topics if it’s your cup of tea, but I implore you to find an appropriate forum for it, here we discuss aviation.

Let’s just follow the military approach of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and leave it out of ATS boards.

Thank you very much.

I see you put the word 'humourous' in quotation marks, after reading it I could see why. The joke you posted was in an entirely different context. That was gratuitous humour for its own sake (which I found to be a bit weak but of course everyone has their own humour), I, on the other hand, was drawing a humorous similarity to put over a point of view, the fact it was humorous was entirely secondary to the point of view it conveyed and whether you found it funny or not is unimportant to the debate.

Again, if you care to discus what is funny and what is not, please feel free to do to so in a appropriate setting, like here;

TBS network “humor study”, just follow John Cleese and he’ll show you the way.

www.tbs.com...

Now going back to the relevant point of this discussuin.

What was its value in the years it was grounded then? It was no less ornamental than any museum exhibit.

It was “stored”, not displayed in a museum as an “exhibit”.

The plane had the first flight in early 1988 and entered service in 1989. It's first flight took 75 minutes. After the cancellation of the Buran space program, the only An-225 built was stored in spring 1994, and it's engines were used for An-124s. In 2001 the aircraft was made airworthy again, and made it's new first flight on May 7. There were rumors that the European Space Agency had plans to launch the unmanned British HoTOL (Horizontal Take-Off and Landing) from the An-225, though these rumors appear to be unfounded. Although, some possibilities for deployment have already been found. Plenty of customers are to be found in the USA. According to Bruce Bird, Director of the Charter Division of Air Foyle, parts of rocket launchers like the Delta and Atlas could be transported in the An-225. Lockheed's planned Venture Star could be transported on its back. Additionally the Mrija could serve as a launch platform for the X-34B. Furthermore big sections of aircraft could be transported in it. The complete assembled fuselage of a Boeing 737 can be fitted in the hold.

www.airliners.net...

They might go over your head, they would never enter mine as such humour is beneath me. Hang on, If they go over your head but they are beneath me, that doesn't put you in a very good position does it.

Why are you trying to guess what amuses me? Are you just kicking out like a cornered animal? Why are you arguing so fiercely over a throwaway remark? This behaviour is extremely odd.

Again, if you care to act juvenile, feel free to find your “crowd” to “click” and “hang” with, this is a forum for constructive discussion.

But how about the fact that you were banging on about Boeing's Russian venture when Antonov are Ukrainian?

Because I read?

Russia/Ukraine to Restart Antonov 124 Production
Russian An-124s Flying into Iraq, Afghanistan

www.russiablog.org...

Eh? You say I am wrong and then repeat most of what I posted. Strange. If the An 225's owners made no effort how is it in service? Will power? Or perhaps did Antonov re-engine it and modify it for its current role?

See source above. Correction, READ the source provided above.

Regarding the final paragraphs of your reply, I already spelled out exactly why I raised that point and it does not need reiterating.

Yes I do understand sarcasm, I also can see when someone is just plain old 'being an arse'. Kind regards.

Best to you as well.

reply to post by ShatteredSkies

Yeah whatever, I don't need a 10 year old in an adult's body to tell me I'm stupid when in fact he's the one who's contradicted himself every other post.

Iskander, if only you were smarter and less arrogant, welcome to my ignore list.

Have a great time and enjoy!

iskander - it might be an idea to be a little less confrontational. You've managed to piss off 3 or 4 pretty long standing members of the forum in one thread!

There was nothing wrong with the facts in your posts, just the presentation of them.



Anywayz, on subject:

1. The tooling for the AN-225 is believed to be gone.

2. The market niche for the AN-225 is incredibly small (although it is large enough to sustain more than one aircraft - it wouldn't sustain more than 10 IMO).

3. The An-124 is superior to the C-5 in many respects.

4. The A400M, C-17, C-5, C-130 etc exist for many reasons outside of pure performance (to compare, saying everyone should buy An-124s is like saying the Russians should buy F-22s - no country wants to lose their technical base).



Basically, in answer to the original thread question:

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

No, as of this moment it is not possibly to buy any, and for any work requiring it, hiring is more feasible.

reply to post by kilcoo316

iskander - it might be an idea to be a little less confrontational. You've managed to piss off 3 or 4 pretty long standing members of the forum in one thread!

There was nothing wrong with the facts in your posts, just the presentation of them.

I’m sorry, did I miss the part where ATS has a theocratic hierarchy?

fo•rum

The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.

A public meeting place for open discussion.

A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.

A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.

A court of law; a tribunal.

Which one of those is ATS in your opinion then?

1. The tooling for the AN-225 is believed to be gone.

I have not heard of that, especially since production of An-124 on which 225 is based on is scheduled to be ramped up to full scale.

2. The market niche for the AN-225 is incredibly small (although it is large enough to sustain more than one aircraft - it wouldn't sustain more than 10 IMO).

It’s true, but there will AWLAYS be a market when somebody needs 200 tons of cargo airlifted asap.

3. The An-124 is superior to the C-5 in many respects.

Modernized versions with glass cockpits/engines and avionics An-124s are, while commercial operation of older version is questionable.

4. The A400M, C-17, C-5, C-130 etc exist for many reasons outside of pure performance (to compare, saying everyone should buy An-124s is like saying the Russians should buy F-22s - no country wants to lose their technical base).

We live in the century with out economic borders, it’s a Flat World Supply Chain, where nationalistic overtones do not exist, only profit margins do.

Basically, in answer to the original thread question:

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



No, as of this moment it is not possibly to buy any, and for any work requiring it, hiring is more feasible.

As before, I agree absolutely, but again, as I said before, a joint Boeing/Antonov An-124 venture will be most profitable, and reasonable.

Originally posted by iskander
I’m sorry, did I miss the part where ATS has a theocratic hierarchy?

No.


But manners are easily carried.

Originally posted by iskander
I have not heard of that, especially since production of An-124 on which 225 is based on is scheduled to be ramped up to full scale.

They use some parts of the An-124, others of course are bespoke. Its generally been known that the tooling is gone.

Originally posted by iskander
It’s true, but there will AWLAYS be a market when somebody needs 200 tons of cargo airlifted asap.

Yeap, an incredibly small market.

Originally posted by iskander
We live in the century with out economic borders, it’s a Flat World Supply Chain, where nationalistic overtones do not exist, only profit margins do.

Not quite there yet...

Give it another hundred years and maybe

Originally posted by iskander
As before, I agree absolutely, but again, as I said before, a joint Boeing/Antonov An-124 venture will be most profitable, and reasonable.

Which would be Boeing admitting the C-5 is comparatively crap (sh*tting on their own design staff in the process) - they aren't gonna do that.

reply to post by kilcoo316


It's just good etiquette to not take a thread off on a rabbit trail it was not intended to go on.

If you start your own thread on scramjets I'm sure Bios and many others would love to comment.

Natalie~

They use some parts of the An-124, others of course are bespoke. Its generally been known that the tooling is gone.

It seems that I missed that one, how were the “gone”? Do you have any info on that?

Yeap, an incredibly small market.

True, an incredibly small, exclusive and expensive market, kind of like going into space.

Not quite there yet...

Give it another hundred years and maybe

I don’t how it works in Ireland, but here in US, corporate lobbyists are actually succeeding in pushing through a law which will allow Mexican freight drivers to cross the border and drive on American roads at will.

Think about it, they don’t have to pay taxes for road maintenance, no petrol taxes, no fees associated with drivers license testing, no vehicle certification fees and safety procedures.

It is a flat word, and corporate interest could care less about everybody’s opinions on what a national border represents when there are profits to be made.

Which would be Boeing admitting the C-5 is comparatively crap (sh*tting on their own design staff in the process) - they aren't gonna do that.

Nope, C-5 is not rated to operate in harsh environments and operating / maintenance cots are what preventing it from being widely adopted.

Currently the world airlifting work horse is IL-76 precisely because of its ruggedness, and An-124 will deliver heavy lift capacity with the same degree of reliability and ruggedness.

While C-5 is just fine for operating from clean, well maintained runways, An-124 has the ability to operate from less the stellar strips.

Originally posted by iskander
It seems that I missed that one, how were the “gone”? Do you have any info on that?

Why do you think think they are having such problems putting together the 2nd An-225?

If the jigs were there, they'd just make the appropriate parts and get it built.

Originally posted by iskander
I don’t how it works in Ireland, but here in US, corporate lobbyists are actually succeeding in pushing through a law which will allow Mexican freight drivers to cross the border and drive on American roads at will.

Think about it, they don’t have to pay taxes for road maintenance, no petrol taxes, no fees associated with drivers license testing, no vehicle certification fees and safety procedures.

It is a flat word, and corporate interest could care less about everybody’s opinions on what a national border represents when there are profits to be made.

Look - your asking the US to replace all their dedicated strategic and some of their tactical airlift capacity with foreign aircraft.



Why not replace the legacy hornets with Rafales?

or replace the Arleigh Burkes with Type 45 destroyers?

or the M1 with the T-95?


Countries are not eager to lose design and build capabilities, it is no different here than for the 3 examples listed above.

Originally posted by iskander
Nope, C-5 is not rated to operate in harsh environments and operating / maintenance cots are what preventing it from being widely adopted.

Currently the world airlifting work horse is IL-76 precisely because of its ruggedness, and An-124 will deliver heavy lift capacity with the same degree of reliability and ruggedness.

While C-5 is just fine for operating from clean, well maintained runways, An-124 has the ability to operate from less the stellar strips.

If not the C-5, then the C-17.

Either way, it involves Boeing implying their in-house designs are crap.

I was under the impression that the C-5 was a Lockheed Martin design?

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by ShatteredSkies


And you would be correct

en.wikipedia.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.lockheedmartin.com...

reply to post by kilcoo316

Why do you think think they are having such problems putting together the 2nd An-225?

If the jigs were there, they'd just make the appropriate parts and get it built.

They are having problems? I read aviation news regularly, and have not come across any information of problems.

Can you please provide a source? I’d really like to catch up on that one.

[quote[Look - your asking the US to replace all their dedicated strategic and some of their tactical airlift capacity with foreign aircraft.

No, what I’m saying is that worlds current airlift workhorse, the IL-76 is aging, and even with modernization programs are running as planned, their airframes will eventually exhaust their service life, and that’s when they will be replaced with something, and it’s sure not going to be C-5/C-17 do to their high cost and inability to operate in rough environment and extreme weather conditions.

Modernized An-124 will do just that, and if we don’t get on the band wagon, we’ll loose a huge peace of the commercial transport market.

Why not replace the legacy hornets with Rafales?

or replace the Arleigh Burkes with Type 45 destroyers?

or the M1 with the T-95?

Not relevant comparisons.

Either way, it involves Boeing implying their in-house designs are crap.

Currently over one thousand of Russian engineers are working in US based Boeing design teams, it’s not because they take less pay.

Further more, as I mentioned before, Boeing has a design bureau in Moscow, which is staffed with about a thousand Russians as well.

The truth of the matter is that all those Boeing strikes over the years was not just a bunch of lazy guys complaining and trying to get more pay, it was about “farming out”, aka “outsourcing”.

American labor, be it intellectual or manual, is just not profitable anymore, because of the total system failure, health care in particular.

Boeing kept “downsizing” qualified Americna workes that dedicated their entire lives to the company, simply because it was getting to expensive to pay their benefits.

These days “brand royalties” and outsourcing is the name of the game, and if we fail to recognize that the very back bone of American aviation industry is outsourcing more and more every year, we’ll end up with the aviation industry fiasco like the one we created in Canada.

If Boeing fails to expand its Moscow office and does not succeed in creating strong joint ventures, Russians will simply use the resources for the time being, and then do what everybody else does, merge with Chinese giants.

This is how it is;

For the first time, with the 787, Boeing is outsourcing more than 70% of the airframe and is giving all aircraft suppliers the responsibility for doing the detail engineering designs. The Japanese and Italians are designing and building the composite fuselage sections and the wings. The Russians are contributing key engineering talent -- particularly in the area of designing titanium aircraft parts.

www.businessweek.com...

Do we really need an An-124 joint venture? Sure do.

This is the best Russian cargo plane. This plane will still be flying when its jet age cousins are aluminum dust in some scrap heap.

i14.photobucket.com...[/IMG]]link

Me personally I would purchase new build C-5s

C-X would also take over alot of roles maybe?