In his campaign promises here at Trenton PM Harper promised 3 strategic airlifters for 8 wing. Everybody assumed at the time the promise would be for the C-17, but I have been hearing rumours the the AN-124 is also in the running, Although Canada is familiar with the loading and use of both aircraft I think buying Russian would be a bad idea.

BFD15, I concur with you as to buying either the Russian or Ukranian heavy airlifts. If for no other reason than the inter-operability problems this would pose when working with our #1 ally, the USAF. Getting us to add our purchases to USAF contracts would also fetch a better price for us and make all of us a lot happier.

i can see the logic of that for the c 130's but for the real heavy lift the price tag of the an 124 vs the c 17 is rather vast. i can certainly see where having 5 an125 vs 3 c17 could be very worthwhile. i was talking to a chap who hired some russian helo's for logging on vancouver island and he was very very pleased with them. saved a bundle of money on the rent plus not a single hour of unscheduled downtime over the two summers he had them there. thought he might have a problem teaching them to heli log but they thought it was great fun. ex military pilots with a very high tolerance for risk.

You are right about the pricing difference, however that is not the entire story. First you have a total lack of inter-operability with our largest allies, the US and Britain. Second, if things ever get 'frosty' again with the former communist countries, this could be a problem. Finally size does pose a problem for a number of airfields in terms of take off and landing requirements, plus the 'footprint' they have on the taxi areas, and the pounds per sq. foot they can exert on the runways themselves, which may only be able to handle weights up to the C-17 size. This is in part, why the C-5 was not the favourite choice for the USAF. Putting all these elements together, including the fact that we could have common training and purchasing programs with the USAF, RAF, RAAF, and CF could garner much lower pricing.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avantgt.html The An-124 remains a product with a unique niche, and the Russian and Ukrainian organizations that build and fly the machine have lobbied their respective governments to authorize further new production. The new machines are to be built to the "An-124-100M" specification, with payload raised from 120 to 150 tonnes (132 to 165 tons), crew reduced from six to four, and improved service life. A second-stage improvement, the "An-124-100M-150", would feature 20% more range and increased service life, from 24,000 hours to 40,000 hours. Griffin- I dispute that the AN-124 messes up runways. It can land on a dirt strip 3,800 foot long, a heavy ground pressure would sink the wheels (of which there are many). If you are worried about security of supply then buy a lifetime of parts. It would still be cheaper than the C-17. My grandfather was on the C-5 program (part of the brain drain from the UK). He told me that they had loads of trouble with melting tyres on landing. Eventually they increased the tyre footprint, but not by anything near the spread that the AN-124 has. The design was too advanced by then for a radicaly different undercarridge like the Condor has. They can carry so much more that they could carry their own spares and still carry more. I feel that the UK MoD missed the boat when they ordered C-17s. As to the Hercules, only a flagwaving yankee would order anything other than A400(M)s.

and when will the a400 fly? lot to be said for a bird in the hand.

Perfectgeneral, the C-5 has a number of limitations due to the weight impact on runways, the footprint they have off to the side, etc. No disputing about the larger lift capability, but still the Air Force pilots from the CF I have spoken to point to the problems with the weight impact on runways, size of runways, as being the key reasons not to go that large and in their stead look to the C-17. Also storing massive supplies overseas of foreign aircraft parts and not being able to have common inventories with one's allies is not a smart move. The A400M, while having many interesting features, is yet to be proven. For these and other reasons the purchase of the C-17 and C-130-J30 would seem to be the CF's best move at this time. In the future, if and when the A400M is proven, then a closer look over the Herc would be worthwhile.

If you re-read my post you will see that I am against the C-5 Galaxy. I am saying that the AN-124 Condor has a lighter footprint than a C-17, can land on dirt and carrys more. As to the A400M being an unknown quantity, if you wait to be sure then you wait. I don't sell any of these products. I'm just expressing my view on them. If I was buying for the Canadian Air Force, I'd get the AN-124. You have the closest requirement to that of the Russians that you are likely to find. If you must buy NATO, then get the A400M (or don't - it ain't my loss).

for starters, the C17 is far overpriced. the Russians are not offering the AN-124, they are offering the Illyushin 76. this plane outdoes anything the C-17 can do. It's cheaper and better. the thought that the Government is going to sole-source a 2.5 Billion $ project is whacked. have a fair and open competition and let the best plane win.