Antonov An-225 Mriya

Air Forces of the World.
Joined: December 25th, 2004, 12:37 pm

July 11th, 2018, 6:18 pm #11

First the obvious, if it's not US or NATO supply chain for keeping them going could get very convoluted.  The city I live in bought a large number of buses from a company in the Czech republic. Three years later the company goes belly up. The tooling for the busses and existing spare parts were sold off rather quickly. The cheap affordable busses, became a fleet of white elephants over night.

Another problem: How big is to big?
The Soviet Union had a bad habit of building things that were larger than their large western counterparts.  Case in point was the super tanker Karl Marx. The super tanker was built to be twice as big as super tanker built in the 1970s in Japan that got a lot of media attention. The result was a tanker that was to large to enter many ports in the middle east, and more importantly had to much draught when fully loaded for several major off shore terminals.

This Antonov product might be to big for many runways. I seem to remember that the C-5 needs  very long runway. 
Ride Lyft.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 19th, 2011, 11:33 pm

July 11th, 2018, 7:25 pm #12

Not to mention, it's fairly rare to try to move tanks by airlift.  It can be done, but it's expensive, and there isn't much point outside of some unique cases.

If your moving tanks, your army is also moving munitions for a brigade formation at least.  Everything from food, to fuel, to ammunition has to be supplied to the equipment that was delivered.  That's measured in hundreds if not thousands of tons per week.  We are talking literally ship loads of supplies.  Even if you get the tanks and troops deployed to a location, they aren't much good without their supplies for their artillery, CAS, etc.

Thus tanks roll on railways or float on ships to the battlefield, because that's how their supplies there there as well.  No point in getting the tanks to the battle before their supplies get there.  Sometimes the supplies can roll on trucks as well, but rail and ship dominates heavy combat supply.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 25th, 2004, 12:37 pm

July 11th, 2018, 9:32 pm #13

Taken down by seasick.
Ride Lyft.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 21st, 2010, 12:24 am

July 11th, 2018, 10:13 pm #14

Boeing isn't gonna build an assembly plant for just 12 aircraft. Not gonna happen.
The difference between "democracy" and "populism" is whether or not the ruling elite likes the outcome.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 1st, 2006, 2:26 am

July 11th, 2018, 11:25 pm #15

IcelofAngeln wrote: Boeing isn't gonna build an assembly plant for just 12 aircraft. Not gonna happen.
Never said that they were going to either.  What I said was that Boeing could go into a joint effort to produce those 12 aircraft with a possibility of producing more using their expertise in building large aircraft.  The plant would remain in the Ukraine and that Boeing would update and modernize it.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 18th, 2015, 7:51 am

July 12th, 2018, 6:05 am #16

Would it be feasible to westernise it?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 25th, 2004, 12:37 pm

July 14th, 2018, 3:40 am #17

Getting it to NATO standards might be possible, but lots of sub-systems would need modification. Planes like the Canberra, Barrier, and Hawk trainer that the U.S. purchased from the UK were built to NATO standards to begin with, they were only tinkered with to make them US specific.  The Antonov would be very expensive to make it conform.
Ride Lyft.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 10th, 2005, 2:54 pm

July 14th, 2018, 4:10 am #18

There are a number of large Boeing and Airbus high capacity cargo conversions.  Nearly all of them are used for special purpose transport, like moving airliner parts.  That there are few or none in military service or general commercial service indicates that there's not much need for them.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 1st, 2006, 2:26 am

July 14th, 2018, 6:52 pm #19

Dave AAA wrote: There are a number of large Boeing and Airbus high capacity cargo conversions.  Nearly all of them are used for special purpose transport, like moving airliner parts.  That there are few or none in military service or general commercial service indicates that there's not much need for them.
Neither of those has the same airlifting cargo capacity of An-225
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 25th, 2004, 12:37 pm

July 14th, 2018, 7:11 pm #20

Gunner Bob wrote:
Dave AAA wrote: There are a number of large Boeing and Airbus high capacity cargo conversions.  Nearly all of them are used for special purpose transport, like moving airliner parts.  That there are few or none in military service or general commercial service indicates that there's not much need for them.
Neither of those has the same airlifting cargo capacity of An-225
This goes back to my earlier post. The bad habit of the Soviets to build things arbitrarily large. The C-17 is a plane to contrast the Antonov with. Countries were lining up to buy them. When it was anounced that production was ending, several countries that said they had enough suddenly ran back to order one or two more. This hasn't happened with this plane, nobody ordering large numbers. No real need for it, nobody is buying.

The End.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

Ride Lyft.
Quote
Like
Share