Previous  1  2  3

That makes an argument for the C-17: CF interoperability and mutual support with the Aussies and the US. It's nice to know that you can count on the Aussies to help in a pinch with spares and techs if one of your planes is laid up in, say, Rwanda.

   

Don't forget the Brits, they've already leased four of them. And I'm guessing they'll keep them even after the A400Ms come online in 2008-9.

If we had had these back then, we could have airlifted a couple of companies to Rwanda and made a real difference.

   

[web]http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-antonov-1.htm[/web]

While it hasn't totally sold me on the An-124, I am starting to see why these are a viable alternative.

From this article;

From this table we can see that, compared with the C-17, an An-124-100 has:

• 55 % greater maximum load than the C-17
• 115 % more of a maximum cargo-cabin volume
• 33 % greater range (when carrying 77t – the C-17’s maximum load)

Put simply, the An-124 can carry loads which are 1.5 times heavier, cargo that is more than twice as large, and it can travel almost 1,500 km further than the C-17 with a similar load.

Taking an average of the above performance characteristics (55%, 115% & 33% better / 3), we come to the conclusion that An-124-100 has a critical strategic airlifter performance which is 68% better than that of the C-17.

Hmmmmm...

   

Previous  1  2  3