This article appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on Sunday, August 14, 2016. Found it kind of shocking. We need Russian planes to move equipment because we do not planes domestically that can handle the job. Read on.
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/08/russia_has_become_our_uber_for.html
Geez, no love for my Air Force/Navy reference? Because if there’s a legitimate story anywhere in the article, it would be that. I mean, how much does the continuing services rivalry actually cost us? And to what end?
The article was written by a stringer who couldn’t find the Spruce Goose if it took a dump on his head. The AN-124 in question is a commercial variant of a Russian military aircraft, owned by a private Russian airline. FEDEX doesn’t fly C-5M Super Galaxy or C-17 Globemaster variants because it would be cost prohibitive to do so. Boeing chartered the AN-124 because they needed 5 gigantic jet engines to arrive simultaneously to satisfy a downed line. NASA chartered it because it’s a civilian agency and they cannot, by law, use military aircraft for transport purposes. The Navy chartered the AN-124 because it would gall them to ask the Air Force for anything. What’s missing from this discussion is the economics of scale, which leads us to this: Ronald Reagan didn’t slay the Soviet Union. It collapsed from within, from the weight of its simplistic belief that size matters in all things. It does, to the extent that it does, but bigger, when applied to aircraft, also means more costly to operate, maintain and store. It’s a commercial disaster. On the military side, the 124 can carry a load of 120 tons vs the C-5M’s 125 tons, so we’re not at any military disadvantage. If a Russian airline wants to waste resources to be hired on occasion, well, why not?
Thanks for that information. Your detail adds a lot to an otherwise concerning story.
Charlie, you make a good point. The line “It’s strictly a function of there being no other equivalent aircraft in the U.S.,” would have been more accurate if it had the word “civilian” in it …. “equivalent civilian aircraft”. BTW, I like your reference to the Spruce Goose. Nice touch.
As a fan of aviation, I notice this huge aircraft every time it is on the tarmac at PBI (West Palm Beach) airport. And this plane has been visiting occasionally for years. I always assumed it was some wealthy European bringing his polo horses in or out of Palm Beach for the season. It is a little disconcerting that there was an industrial need that can not be fulfilled by a USA or at least a NATO aircraft.
I would agree. I found it pretty shocking.