Comments: – – I saw the An-124 at Sea-Tac in 1998. Impressive! I have always believed the US should own a few for their capabilities and cost as compared to the C-117. Not just for hauling military equipment but for humanitarian aid around the world. Ukraine is the sole producer and Antonov has a well respected name the world over. With GE or Pratt Whitney engines I see this as a more cost effective transport and help Ukraine financially. Heavy duty hauling companies benefit with this plane and we have too with chartering from foreign carriers. For our own national security having the ability to move things rapidly sounds like a sound investment. What if the charter aircraft is not available for political reasons?

It’s not about how much cargo one aircraft can carry. It’s about how much cargo a system can deliver over distance over time. The first cargo ship that arrived in Tel Aviv in 1973 off loaded more war material than all the airlift had delivered in the last 12 days, BUT the war was over!

It’s a good business practice. the Military has it’s transports that remain on call without the wear, while the renter (at a lower cost to them) does not have to keep and maintain the rental aircraft itself.

You might think it would be easier ( and cheaper in the long run ) to make the flight simulator ‘modular’…each section would be transported on already available aircraft and assembled on site….but what would I know !

And that airplane is awesome! It landed here in Phoenix, Arizona USA at Sky Harbor international airport. While on the ramp they parked an F16 fighter and a C5 on either side of it for an awesome photo shoot I can only dream of seeing.

.

.

.

.

.