Russia-based freighter aircraft group Volga-Dnepr has served notice that it is to quit the Strategic Airlift Interim Solution (SALIS) contract which provides airlift for European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) countries.

Two Antonov 124-100 aircraft have been permanently stationed at Germany's Leipzig/Halle airport since March 2006 as part of the SALIS Project.

SALIS supports peacekeeping and humanitarian operational needs of 17 European nations and Canada.


Volga-Dnepr to withdraw from An-124 freighter uplift contract
http://www.aircargonews.net/news/airlin ... itary.html

=

Separate media source says the contract will terminate January 1st 2019 and follows intensive negotiations by SALIS board to avert the cancellation.

There is a separate report that Volga-Dnepr was considering placing AN-124s under EU registry as part of a CargoLogicAir offshoot, but not sure how that is related to this SOLIS news.

Boeing is about to get some more C17 sales.

Well it was always a risk relying on Russia.

Wonder what the future holds for all the other charters the Russians perform for Western firms including US government?

Is Boeing able to re start C17 production?.

TWA772LR wrote:

Boeing is about to get some more C17 sales.

Well that might be a little difficult considering the C-17 line at LGB has been dismantled.

Considering C-17's are out of production, what if the USAF allowed private companies to pay to have some C-5A's that are sitting in boneyards, converted to C-5M's and used for commercial purposes?

Antonov Airlines could be approached, they are Ukranian.

Perhaps China would be willing to sell some from their upcoming An124 assembly line?

TWA772LR wrote:

Boeing is about to get some more C17 sales.

Of course, right after they restart 757 production.

How much of this freight can be moved with traditional (ie: 744F, 772F) freighters?

More interesting question, how did CargoLogicAir get to be classified as a UK carrier under the EU Ownership & Control of Air Carrier rules?

Lockheed Georgia delivers the last C-5M later this year’s, if they get a contract, the As could be done. They were in good enough shape for the conversion.


GF

Russians want to get paid here. The An-124 were able to dominate the market because the Soviet Union paid for the planes and then Russia inherited them. That meant they were available for much less then their actual cost. Now Russians are looking at the end of the usability of An-124 and want customers to pay for the cost of replacements.

Europe has problem here, though it's doubtful that they will pay. But they have no option for replacements because the C17 line was closed. My guess is they can manage to by some C17s used from the US air force. But it does show the folly of both US and EU governments in allowing C17 line to close. They were somehow betting upon a plane that didn't show it actual costs to carry them through with no replacement in sight.

1) Move current military airlift frames to the -124's base and call it a day. Maybe have US ANG C-130, C-17 and C-5 crews do it on rotation?

2) Some form of the above with all NATO countries participating. C-130, C-5, C-17 and A400s.

3) Rent 2 Atlas or Kalitta 747s and have them do the work on a 24/7 timeframe.

4) Pay the Russians more $$$ to sit around in relics of a bygone era.

5) Fix the lack of airframe after the requirement goes unfilled during an emergency.

scbriml wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Boeing is about to get some more C17 sales.

Of course, right after they restart 757 production.

Boeing will never restart the 757 line. Forget about it! If the USAF or other government entity is willing to spend millions to build new facilities and restart C-17 production, then maybe. But the government is not even willing to spend money on F-35 repairs.

I think AN-124's are making more of a profit moving Boeing parts around.

wedgetail737 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Boeing is about to get some more C17 sales.

Of course, right after they restart 757 production.

Boeing will never restart the 757 line. Forget about it! If the USAF or other government entity is willing to spend millions to build new facilities and restart C-17 production, then maybe. But the government is not even willing to spend money on F-35 repairs.

I think AN-124's are making more of a profit moving Boeing parts around.

It's called sarcasm.....

DarthLobster wrote:

JackMeahoff wrote:

It will be impossible to lift our Chinooks off remote mountains in Afghanistan without the venerable Mi-26.

It will also be impossible to put Americans back in space without the generosity of the Russians and their Soyuz rockets.

Hell, the stage-1 booster on the American SpaceX rocket is also made in Russia.

1. There is no Russian "generosity" in regards to spaceflight. NASA/US Gov't pays for each and every Soyuz seat, over $70M a seat last I heard.

2. You're thinking of the Atlas V rocket, which uses the Russian RD-180 engine. SpaceX engines and rockets are built in the US.

I completely blame Former President Obama for screwing up our Celestial endeavors and for not persuing our own means of getting to the Space Station.

crownvic wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Of course, right after they restart 757 production.

Boeing will never restart the 757 line. Forget about it! If the USAF or other government entity is willing to spend millions to build new facilities and restart C-17 production, then maybe. But the government is not even willing to spend money on F-35 repairs.

I think AN-124's are making more of a profit moving Boeing parts around.

It's called sarcasm.....

It would have been nice, though. The 737-900ER's and MAX's just don't cut it. Now Trans-Atlantic flights are filling up with narrowbodies.

wedgetail737 wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

JackMeahoff wrote:

It will be impossible to lift our Chinooks off remote mountains in Afghanistan without the venerable Mi-26.

It will also be impossible to put Americans back in space without the generosity of the Russians and their Soyuz rockets.

Hell, the stage-1 booster on the American SpaceX rocket is also made in Russia.

1. There is no Russian "generosity" in regards to spaceflight. NASA/US Gov't pays for each and every Soyuz seat, over $70M a seat last I heard.

2. You're thinking of the Atlas V rocket, which uses the Russian RD-180 engine. SpaceX engines and rockets are built in the US.

I completely blame Former President Obama for screwing up our Celestial endeavors and for not persuing our own means of getting to the Space Station.

Ugh, not this garbage again. You know it was Bush who ordered the shuttles retired five years before Obama took office, right? And it's been a Republican-controlled Congress that routinely fails to fund NASA at the levels it needs to make any progress on Orion or Commercial Crew. Go bark up a different tree.

Also, just how much longer is the needless blanket Obama bashing going to continue? Seriously, it's beyond old hat by now, you don't have to jam it in every chance you get anymore...

sure the Ukraine will be happy to help out, so a non issue really!

I've read, that the owner wants to found a German airline to operate these aircraft. So it's probably just a political move, to get it done more easily... Here is the source. It's sadly just in German:
http://www.airliners.de/volga-dnepr-leipzig-halle/44527

Google translate is your friend...

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... t=&act=url

The C-17 has half the payload (130,000lbs) of the An-124 (240,000lbs).

How are you guys even calling the C-17 a replacement? It is half the size.

Also, I wonder what the An-124 replacement is going to be. Is it possible for a Russian firm start building copies with all the An-124 tooling under lock and key in Ukraine?

duboka909 wrote:

I've read, that the owner wants to found a German airline to operate these aircraft. So it's probably just a political move, to get it done more easily... Here is the source. It's sadly just in German:
http://www.airliners.de/volga-dnepr-leipzig-halle/44527

Dankeschön!! This article is actually rather interesting! Initially I thought this was all politics, but the attempt to get a German AOC seems to be ´reverse sanction busting´! Russia is having issues getting AN124 parts from Ukraine (UA) , so the idea is to have 124´s on a German AOC, where the UA would then deliver the parts in question to a ´German´operator. All rather curious, I will be watching this one develop........

JackMeahoff wrote:

The C-17 has half the payload (130,000lbs) of the An-124 (240,000lbs).

How are you guys even calling the C-17 a replacement? It is half the size.

Also, I wonder what the An-124 replacement is going to be. Is it possible for a Russian firm start building copies with all the An-124 tooling under lock and key in Ukraine?

There is still the C-5 Galaxy...

... and in case you need some, there is no reason to restart the C-17 production, because there are enought C-5s parked in the desert:

Still several 744F's / BCF's around in the boneyards that can be activated again ?

If one needs AN-124, there is always the possibility to contract with Antonov Airlines.

Why is this thread not in Military Aviation..?

the attempt to get a German AOC seems to be ´reverse sanction busting´!

Quite ingenious indeed. Even then, there would be a capability gap until the new AOC is obtained.
Serves Western powers right, for not having any long term strategic airlift strategy or follow-on program for the C-17/C-5.

If one needs AN-124, there is always the possibility to contract with Antonov Airlines.

As per the article, this is already the case. 900 of the 2300 contracted flight hours are provided by Antonov Airlines. The rest by Volga-Dnepr. Which means there seems to be a very specific need for the An-124 and its unique capabilities. They want An-124's, regardless of whatever airline provides them.

Can't people think this through before posting?

a 747 is useless for heavy plant and machinery. It requires roll-on and roll-off ability, which besides the C-5M is only really going to be possible with an Antonov. The Il-76 and C-17 are too small, and the turboprops way too small.

Using a 747 would mean specialist cargo handling equipment would have to go out there first. Even then the 747 loading door may not be wide enough. The Antonovs also have internal cranes, and even more important can operate off questionable surfaces such as desert runways.

The 747 is a freighter, not a tactical transport in the way an Antonov or C-5M is.

r2rho wrote:

Why is this thread not in Military Aviation..?

the attempt to get a German AOC seems to be ´reverse sanction busting´!

Quite ingenious indeed. Even then, there would be a capability gap until the new AOC is obtained.
Serves Western powers right, for not having any long term strategic airlift strategy or follow-on program for the C-17/C-5.

If one needs AN-124, there is always the possibility to contract with Antonov Airlines.

As per the article, this is already the case. 900 of the 2300 contracted flight hours are provided by Antonov Airlines. The rest by Volga-Dnepr. Which means there seems to be a very specific need for the An-124 and its unique capabilities. They want An-124's, regardless of whatever airline provides them.

Actually, I am not at all a Trump supporter at all, but he may have a point or 2 about (Nato) partner spending! And to stay within " civil aviation" , it is kind of sad that a Russian CIVILIAN cargo operator is basically the only solution a number of European countries have for their heavy uplift. 15 years ago when relations were great this might have been a good idea..... cheap cargo lift , but geopolitics do change and now there is someone somewhere left with a ´bit of egg on their face´ in regards to uplift capability!
On that note, rather than dodging the bullet, perhaps this thread should move to `Mil Av & Space´ !

[quote="CARST"]Are they good for more than sitting in the desert sun and the occasional Sunday lift?


ref: Gen. Kross AMC:
We need to improve the C-5’s
reliability. We’ve been operating this plane for 25 years with
ownership difficulties that no corporation in America should ever
have to carry.

WIederling wrote:

CARST wrote:

There is still the C-5 Galaxy...

... and in case you need some, there is no reason to restart the C-17 production, because there are enought C-5s parked in the desert:

Are they good for more than sitting in the desert sun and the occasional Sunday lift?


ref: Gen. Kross AMC:
We need to improve the C-5’s
reliability. We’ve been operating this plane for 25 years with
ownership difficulties that no corporation in America should ever
have to carry.

Better than having no planes at all, don’t you think?!

And the A400M is too small and not reliable enough. On the Russian dictatorship we cannot trust. So what options are there really? Most European countries should have bought C-17s, when they had the chance to do so...


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

An easy solution is to pull several C-5As out of the desert. Put them through the C-5M program and permanently station them in Europe. Have several nations pool resources so they are staffed by different crews. 4 C-5Ms for any needs, any time and any where.

Better than having no planes at all, don’t you think?!

And the A400M is too small and not reliable enough. On the Russian dictatorship we cannot trust. So what options are there really? Most European countries should have bought C-17s, when they had the chance to do so...


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk[/quote]

Carsten, I see your point, but...
Jungs, everyone is in the same boat on this one. We all know how much ´American metal´ had been moved on these flights over the years! A400, ... hmm, yes well! C17, indeed an option, but but....
C5 is not an option either (forget the C5M ideas, let us be realistic) , as/neither are the ´nose loading 74´s´ mentioned above. The Russians are having the last laugh on this one and all of us allies (Verbündete) on either side of the spectrum are in a bit of a pickle! Both the European and the US aviation industry have neglected heavy lift (Military) capability for years, yes decades , because we got sweet ´90 cent per KG´ deals from ´external service providers´. UA is not going to fill the gap, China´s ambitions on restarting ´225 production needs to be taken with a serious grain of salt! I don´t know a way out of this one and can´t think of a solution, as previously mentioned, this will be most interesting to watch in regards to developments going forward !

Guys - they will be replaced by Antonov Airlines...... this C5 stuff is just fantasy. They cannot do what the Antonov can.

Funnily enough, and pertinently, an An124 just went over my house, looking lovely in the sunshine as it descended: Antonov Airlines An-124 UR-82073 from Kiev-GML to RAF Brize Norton, so presumably on a RAF/NATO military job. Looks like the Ukraine will step up to the task.

JackMeahoff wrote:

Also, I wonder what the An-124 replacement is going to be. Is it possible for a Russian firm start building copies with all the An-124 tooling under lock and key in Ukraine?

The Russians already have a full set of An-124 tooling, and all the blueprints too. The An-124 was built on 2 lines, one in Kiev and another in Ulyanovsk in current day Russia. With Antonov being a former state-owned Soviet manufacturer, it is guaranteed that there are copies of all the blueprints located in Moscow.

When it comes to restarting production, the Russians would be better positioned than the Ukrainians. Aviastar got pretty close to restarting production of new An-124s in the Russian factory, but that project was eventually stopped in 2014 due to the fallout between Ukraine and Russia. Current Russian plans are to bring back mothballed An-124s and modernize the entire fleet, giving them an eventual total of 20.
Future plans for an An-124 replacement so far seem to revolve around the original competing design to the An-124, the Ilyushin Il-106. It is unknown if or when that will ever happen though...

cougar15 wrote:

Both the European and the US aviation industry have neglected heavy lift (Military) capability for years, yes decades , because we got sweet ´90 cent per KG´ deals from ´external service providers´. UA is not going to fill the gap, China´s ambitions on restarting ´225 production needs to be taken with a serious grain of salt! I don´t know a way out of this one and can´t think of a solution, as previously mentioned, this will be most interesting to watch in regards to developments going forward !

The US military has been severely neglected for decades in general. The EU is, in my opinion, at a lower operational level. I worked proposals over 15 years ago for heavy lift. I worked R&D on it 7 years ago and then the project funding ended. It would be starting from scratch.

A400s and C-17s with more planes and air to air refueling can do the same job (for more money).


I haven't heard anything serious about China's AN-225 production. I doubt the vendor would help. China needs far more help than drawings...

Lightsaber

Slug71 wrote:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... pak-ta.htm

The aircraft in that image is completely fictive though. It was created by some marketing students as a school project, but managed to fool a ton of people.

wedgetail737 wrote:

crownvic wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

Boeing will never restart the 757 line. Forget about it! If the USAF or other government entity is willing to spend millions to build new facilities and restart C-17 production, then maybe. But the government is not even willing to spend money on F-35 repairs.

I think AN-124's are making more of a profit moving Boeing parts around.

It's called sarcasm.....

It would have been nice, though. The 737-900ER's and MAX's just don't cut it. Now Trans-Atlantic flights are filling up with narrowbodies.

Off topic, but the 757 is more or less the same width as a 737.

VSMUT wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... pak-ta.htm

The aircraft in that image is completely fictive though. It was created by some marketing students as a school project, but managed to fool a ton of people.

Fooled me too. That's pretty funny. Hope the all got A+s.

I was reading this recent French article on the subject of French/European reliance on An-124s for heavy airlift and this interesting piece of information caught my eye:

According to our information, the European Defense Agency has studied the scenario of an acquisition of C-5 Galaxy, aircraft with characteristics similar to the Antonov 124, designed by the American Lockheed Martin. Although this aircraft was commissioned in 1969, a modernized version, called the Super Galaxy (or C-5M), entered service with the US Air Force in 2014, and could do the trick. The United States and Lockheed Martin were consulted and said they were open to selling refurbished aircraft at an estimated price of between $ 85 and $ 115 million each. The aircraft would be transferred to a symbolic sum, most of the cost being related to their upgrading. The United States even proposed to sell, free of charge, up to 23 C-5A, the oldest version of the heavy lifter.

https://www.challenges.fr/entreprise/de ... nce_463147

So acquiring the C-5 Galaxy was/is considered as a possible alternative. It would be an interesting and rather surprising development and if that happened. While acquisition costs of refurbished and upgraded C-5s seem relatively low, operating costs however would be significant. Steep maintenance costs and poor reliabilty have always been the Achilles' heels of the Galaxy, especially the older C-5A version. It remains to be seen if that option is a realistic proposal.

st21 wrote:

I was reading this recent French article on the subject of French/European reliance on An-124s for heavy airlift and this interesting piece of information caught my eye:

According to our information, the European Defense Agency has studied the scenario of an acquisition of C-5 Galaxy, aircraft with characteristics similar to the Antonov 124, designed by the American Lockheed Martin. Although this aircraft was commissioned in 1969, a modernized version, called the Super Galaxy (or C-5M), entered service with the US Air Force in 2014, and could do the trick. The United States and Lockheed Martin were consulted and said they were open to selling refurbished aircraft at an estimated price of between $ 85 and $ 115 million each. The aircraft would be transferred to a symbolic sum, most of the cost being related to their upgrading. The United States even proposed to sell, free of charge, up to 23 C-5A, the oldest version of the heavy lifter.

https://www.challenges.fr/entreprise/de ... nce_463147

So acquiring the C-5 Galaxy was/is considered as a possible alternative. It would be an interesting and rather surprising development and if that happened. While acquisition costs of refurbished and upgraded C-5s seem relatively low, operating costs however would be significant. Steep maintenance costs and poor reliabilty have always been the Achilles' heels of the Galaxy, especially the older C-5A version. It remains to be seen if that option is a realistic proposal.

I believe the operating costs of the Antonov are way higher than the ones of the Galaxy. So acquiring 30-50 of the C-5Ms seems like a smart move for the European NATO armes as a shared transport fleet. Lots of countries would need it for Afghanistan, Iraq, UN missions in Africa and troop movements within Europe (like the shared NATO based in the Baltic’s)...


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Samrnpage wrote:

this C5 stuff is just fantasy. They cannot do what the Antonov can.

So how does the USAF manage to get along without any Antonov?

I agree with Cougar‘s statement further above and I am not a Trump-supporter neither. But how comes that relative rich states such as France and Germany cannot afford to have some C5’s or An124’s?

This situation would be a unique chance to find a real European solution, meaning a certain number of aircraft financed by all European countries. Okay, now I’ really dreaming. European politicians prefer to create regulations about the shape of a Banana instead of solving such problems...

N14AZ wrote:

So how does the USAF manage to get along without any Antonov?

Why should they, as long as other US services can rent the Antonovs for little money?

N14AZ wrote:

But how comes that relative rich states such as France and Germany cannot afford to have some C5’s or An124’s?

Most of their decisions in the last 20 years had the A400M in mind, a project that has been slightly too large for Europe alone. The A400M project has always been on the brink, Germany and France didn't even dare think of larger transport aircraft, since these could have cut into the A400M program and brought it below a critical level. And with additional programs like the Eurofighter, the Tiger and NH90 helicopters, and the costs of the German unification, Germany wasn't really that rich, but had a huge deficit in the beginning of the 2000s. France still has; until 2025, they will even take only half of the A400Ms they ordered.

N14AZ wrote:

This situation would be a unique chance to find a real European solution, meaning a certain number of aircraft financed by all European countries. Okay, now I’ really dreaming. European politicians prefer to create regulations about the shape of a Banana instead of solving such problems...

Swap some C5s for A400Ms, maybe. If the US would participate in the A400M program, it would all be easier on many levels. But do they want to make it easier for Europe?

And for now, the Ukrainian An-124s are still available, and with the number of A400Ms growing, I think that the press is overdramatizing the problem; they're even playing the game of the Russian propaganda. Antonov Airlines has been a partner of the SALIS contract for many years, and they're likely to stay.

The Volga Dniepr An-124s will also be available, as will all the various Il-76 operators. The only difference is that now they have to hire them commercially each time. It will still be considerably cheaper than buying a fleet of owned aircraft.

And really, we are talking about 2 An-124s here. A hypothetical acquisition of C-5s would be for 2, not 23, 30 or 50. Hard to justify such massive investments for that few aircraft.

Slug71 wrote:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... pak-ta.htm

This picture is just a figment of some designer's imagination. At the moment, there is no approved project of a promising heavy-duty transport aircraft.
Now for Russia, the problem of replacing the fleet of light and medium transport aircraft (IL-112B and IL-276 programs) is more relevant.
The development of heavy air transport will begin after the PD-35 engine is developed, that is, not earlier than 2025. At the moment, the existing An-124 allows to cover the need for heavy transport aircraft for Russia, but as a backup option, the resumption of production in Ulyanovsk is considered.

CARST wrote:

So acquiring 30-50 of the C-5Ms seems like a smart move for the European NATO armes as a shared transport fleet.

Why on Earth would European NATO members need up to 50 C-5Ms? USAF operates less than that and I wouldn't be surprised if there are nowhere near enough suitable feedstock frames for a fleet half that size.

scbriml wrote:

CARST wrote:

So acquiring 30-50 of the C-5Ms seems like a smart move for the European NATO armes as a shared transport fleet.

Why on Earth would European NATO members need up to 50 C-5Ms? USAF operates less than that and I wouldn't be surprised if there are nowhere near enough suitable feedstock frames for a fleet half that size.

Your data is incorrect. According to the following article the USAF is currently down to 56 C-5s, but they were at 112 just a few years ago and now want to refurbish birds in the desert to C-5M Standard to bring that number back to 100.

http://www.businessinsider.com/air-forc ... aft-2017-6

All NATO armies together (minus USA) sure could use 50 aircraft. Perhaps 30 or 40. Just think of all that UN missions beside Afghanistan. 14 currently, have a look here:

https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/where-we-operate

And no matter what number, they should at least do it. The A400M is too small, has too many flaws and gets produced too slow. The price for C5s from the desert, even including the C5M modification is unbeatable. And we must get away from relying on Russian birds, Cold War is back on and in full swing...