$9 Billion No-Bid Contract for 65 F-35s

[wyly]

It has at least one huge disadvantage. The main cargo deck has limited pressurization meaning live cargo is restricted to the upper deck which can only carry 88 people.

that could be true and a legit reason for not buying it but was it even considered in the tendering process?

[Wilber]

that could be true and a legit reason for not buying it but was it even considered in the tendering process?

It is true, check it out yourself. Why would you buy a transport aircraft that can't carry people? Can't airlift troops, can't carry and drop airborne troops. Can't evacuate refugees or disaster victims. Only a complete idiot wouldn't consider it.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Wilber

[DogOnPorch]

the An 124 isn't Russian it's Ukrainian so spare parts come from there and how would that affect spare parts? parts for planes can be delivered anywhere in the world in a day or two, if the plane was in Afghanistan and needs parts how is the USA in an more advantageous position than the Ukraine?...some of the An 124s avionic systems are made in the USA, and if made for export I'm sure the manufacturer would have no issues changing in-flight voice to whatever language was required...it was good enough for NATO to have leased...it's a super long range aircraft why would it need refueling with US/Euro aircraft?

Former Soviet Union, actually (a 1986 machine, the An-124)...and the cockpit avionics are in Russian...not Ukrainian, oddly enough. It's not a simple switcheroo to English as you seem to think, either. Voltages are different amoung numerous other naggy problems.

[DogOnPorch]

You have 3 seconds to figure this out or you're dead...it's blasting in your headphones.

Опасность. Тяга вверх.

Oooops...too late.

[M.Dancer]

97 people have been killed on AN 124...

4 have been killed on C-17s

...just sayin'

[Peter F]

Former Soviet Union, actually (a 1986 machine, the An-124)...and the cockpit avionics are in Russian...not Ukrainian, oddly enough. It's not a simple switcheroo to English as you seem to think, either. Voltages are different amoung numerous other naggy problems.

I imagine that point would have been brought to light during a competitive process. Who knows, perhaps the competitor has come up with a solution?

[DogOnPorch]

I imagine that point would have been brought to light during a competitive process. Who knows, perhaps the competitor has come up with a solution?

Yeah...move to Russia.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm not sure if those in favor of taking bids...(low? high?)...mentioned what particular aircraft(s) would be the competition to the F-35. Any particular models in mind?

[Wilber]

I imagine that point would have been brought to light during a competitive process. Who knows, perhaps the competitor has come up with a solution?

The AN-124 is a good airplane for what it does which is heavy lift. You see them at airports all over the world as they move big stuff for companies and governments. However it is nowhere near the all rounder the C-17 is and if you are only getting three it better be able to do a lot of different things. It is also an older Soviet design aircraft. East Bloc machines had little or no compatibility with western aircraft when it comes to systems. Different voltage and frequency electrical systems. High pressure hydraulic systems that use different operating pressures and spec fluids. The East Bloc uses kilometers and meters when it comes to distance, speed and altitude. All western aircraft use knots and feet. Sure, if you wanted to throw enough money at one of these things you could switch all the systems over to western spec but you would still have an older design bastard aircraft competing with a more modern one that had been designed from the ground up as a complete integral system.

[Smallc]

and if you are only getting three

four

[DogOnPorch]

We'll it's neither here nor there re: the An-124 (or An-225 for that matter) as they aren't making 'em anymore. So contract only. By the time they'll go up for any kind of sale, they'll have had the bag flown right off of them. Sort of like a British sub...lol.

[Wilber]

four

Cool

[wyly]

We'll it's neither here nor there re: the An-124 (or An-225 for that matter) as they aren't making 'em anymore. So contract only. By the time they'll go up for any kind of sale, they'll have had the bag flown right off of them. Sort of like a British sub...lol.

hmm I've read that Russia plans to buy 20 224's by 2020 and Boeing is also in some plans to assemble 124's for the US market and even the Pentagon has lease agreements for thier use...

[wyly]

It has at least one huge disadvantage. The main cargo deck has limited pressurization meaning live cargo is restricted to the upper deck which can only carry 88 people.

and the galaxy C-5 is listed as carrying 75 passengers but that still works for the americans, it's heavy lift they want for cargo there are less expensive ways to move troops...

[Smallc]

and the galaxy C-5 is listed as carrying 75 passengers but that still works for the americans, it's heavy lift they want for cargo there are less expensive ways to move troops...

Well, the C-17 is pretty much taking over things in the USAF.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Smallc

[wyly]

It is true, check it out yourself. Why would you buy a transport aircraft that can't carry people? Can't airlift troops, can't carry and drop airborne troops. Can't evacuate refugees or disaster victims. Only a complete idiot wouldn't consider it.

is that why the pentagon leases the AN 124? because they're complete idiots??? I would say only a complete idiot would not consider all possible options, excluding competition from rivals from a bygone age is what's idiotic....why do we even trade with germans and japanese they were former rivals in a much bigger way than the Ukranians ever were...

[wyly]

You have 3 seconds to figure this out or you're dead...it's blasting in your headphones.

Oooops...too late.

sorry DOP I don't think you know as much as you claim about the AN 124, looking at some factsheets on the Antonov your making some assumtions that don't hold water...

[bush_cheney2004]

hmm I've read that Russia plans to buy 20 224's by 2020 and Boeing is also in some plans to assemble 124's for the US market and even the Pentagon has lease agreements for thier use...

The US maintains excess heavy airlift capability for political and contingency reasons. The USAF has decided to move forward with re-engined C-5 Galaxies, which have about 75% of their airframe life still left, ironically because of the limitations and lower reliability of the original TF39 turbofans.

EXCESS CAPACITY

Meanwhile, the USAF is struggling to balance what it considers an excess of capacity in its strategic airlifter fleet.

The USAF acquired the Boeing C-17 to replace a fleet of 270 Lockheed C-141 Starlifters. Including 43 C-17s added by Congress since 2007, the USAF's C-17 fleet will add up to 222, with one aircraft lost to a crash in early August. Although the C-17 fleet is smaller, the Boeing airlifter can carry more than twice the cargo of the C-141.

In addition, the USAF also continues to lease the Antonov An-124, which can haul eight mine-resistant ambush protection vehicles compared with only five inside the C-5.

According to USAF statistics, the combination of 111 C-5s and 222 C-17s provides a capability to move nearly 36 million ton miles per day, but the service needs capacity to transport a maximum of 32.7 million ton miles daily.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/31/346674/usaf-invests-in-c-5-upgrade.html

[wyly]

Well, the C-17 is pretty much taking over things in the USAF.

different tools for different jobs...C17 is likely a plane that does a lot of things well but when it comes to the big lift and long range the Antonov and Galaxy C5 are the planes to go with...

I have no doubt as to the quality of the C17 my only point was this cold war fixation we have that prevents us from looking at other aircraft...the american military has no issues with using the Antonov, Boeing may be going into production of the plane so apparently it's good enough for them, are you suggesting Boeing and the Pentagon know nothing about planes?...do Canadians know something about planes that the Americans don't?...seems to me we have still cold war issues that the americans are beginning to leave behind....

Edited September 22, 2010 by wyly

[DogOnPorch]

hmm I've read that Russia plans to buy 20 224's by 2020 and Boeing is also in some plans to assemble 124's for the US market and even the Pentagon has lease agreements for thier use...

Those aircraft are spoken for if the production line actually starts-up again. "If" being the key word. The DC-8 is also a fine aircraft with still some demand around the planet.

sorry DOP I don't think you know as much as you claim about the AN 124, looking at some factsheets on the Antonov your making some assumtions that don't hold water...

You're free to believe myself and Wilber if you like...or not. The thing that struck me the most about the An-124 I toured was the analog instrument panel with engineer stations. Old school. Takes 6 crew to fly the thing properly.

Edited September 22, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[wyly]

Those aircraft are spoken for if the production line actually starts-up again. "If" being the key word. The DC-8 is also a fine aircraft with still some demand around the planet.

this isn't the type of plane that will have huge demand so there will never be a constant production line...

You're free to believe myself and Wilber if you like...or not. The thing that struck me the most about the An-124 I toured was the analog instrument panel with engineer stations. Old school. Takes 6 crew to fly the thing properly.

you and Wilber are clinging to old info for the sake of an argument...I'm sure the Boeing 747's of 1970 have been significantly updated electronically over 40yrs as well...the newer Antonovs and those being refurbished have Honeywell avionics and a crew of 4...the Galaxy C5 has a crew of 7 to fly the thing properly...C-17 crew of 3...with Boeing having tentative plans to assemble the Antonov for the American market I doubt very much language is an issue...

but the entire point of my posts is excluding competitors from the bidding process, "a no-bid contract" based on past political disputes and false information and assumptions...it's our tax dollars being spent irresponsibly ...

[DogOnPorch]

Old jet, the An-124. There are no 'new' ones at the moment and it is still pie in the sky that they'll go back into full production. Dream on, I say.

So what fighter/strike aircraft other than the F-35 do you have in mind for Canada?

[DogOnPorch]

Re: Wikipedia's mention of Antonovs with Honeywell avionics...

Didn't the Brits go for the C-17 in the end?

[wyly]

Re: Wikipedia's mention of Antonovs with Honeywell avionics...

Didn't the Brits go for the C-17 in the end?

the point being and that you keep missing, there was a comptetive process, not which plane was chosen...no erronous info about Ukranians not being able to build planes that don't have english command systems, or can't they supply spare parts, or they used to be commies, or they're not americans...the process was to choose the plane that was best suited/value to meet their needs... Edited September 22, 2010 by wyly

[M.Dancer]

...the process was to choose the plane that was best suited/value to meet their needs...

agreed. They picked the C-17