Antonov 124-100 (flying more troops to Kosovo)

[mustamato]

Sweden sent some more troops to Kosovo with a leased Ukranian Antonov 124,
yesterday the 10 first APC´s and 20 soldiers arrived. Yup, that´s right, they arrived
with the first shipment, the An 124 is a hugh motha:

http://www.mil.se/int/images/local/apr3_pbv2.jpg

http://www.mil.se/int/images/local/april4_anfront1.jpg

http://www.mil.se/int/images/local/april4_anfront2.jpg

http://www.mil.se/int/images/local/an124_inne.jpg

http://www.mil.se/int/images/local/an124_pbv.jpg

http://www.mil.se/int/images/local/an124_co.jpg
In Prishtina, Kosovo

http://www.mil.se/int/images/local/april4_pbv1.jpg

http://www.mil.se/int/images/local/april4_bargare.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/an-124.htm
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/an124/

[scott]

charter aircraft replacing national strategic airlifters
for everyone except the US, its the way of the future...

[Russian Texan]

You see mustamato, this is one of the reasons why Europeans are incapable of any large scale military action - their militaries simply do not have adequate airlift capability and have to borrow other countries aircraft to move anything significant...

[mustamato]

You see mustamato, this is one of the reasons why Europeans are incapable of any large scale military action - their militaries simply do not have adequate airlift capability and have to borrow other countries aircraft to move anything significant...

Yes it would have been impossible without the help of the Ukrainians, they
could not have been moved with train or anything like that. Le impossible.

[Russian Texan]

Does Airbus have anything in works?
And does EU community(militaries) plan to develop their own, non US or charter dependent, airlift capability?

[mustamato]

Does Airbus have anything in works?
And does EU community(militaries) plan to develop their own, non US or charter dependent, airlift capability?

Yes.

[Russian Texan]

Care to elaborate, pictures maybe?

[fletch]

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/a400m.asp

[AFACadet]

The A400M is sorta a cross between a C-130 and a C-141 in respect to size. Both are about 3-4 feet narrower and 3 feet less compartment height, but the C-141 is 20 feet longer (C-130J is 20 feet shorter and C-130H is 35 feet shorter). The C-17 just for compairson is only 13 feet longer but is 5 feet wider (1 foot lower). The A400M is much better than the C-130s, G.222s and C-160s Europe has now (with the excepting of the 2 British C-17s), but not large enough to carry the very large or heavy loads.


Its also been talked about for about a decade with not a single aircraft flying. I really hope it does soon though, Europe needs that kind of aircraft.

[AFACadet]

The A400M is sorta a cross between a C-130 and a C-141 in respect to size. Both are about 3-4 feet narrower and 3 feet less compartment height, but the C-141 is 20 feet longer (C-130J is 20 feet shorter and C-130H is 35 feet shorter). The C-17 just for compairson is only 13 feet longer but is 5 feet wider (1 foot lower). The A400M is much better than the C-130s, G.222s and C-160s Europe has now (with the excepting of the 2 British C-17s), but not large enough to carry the very large or heavy loads.


Its also been talked about for about a decade with not a single aircraft flying. I really hope it does soon though, Europe needs that kind of aircraft.

[scott]

what is wrong with using the private sector to deploy to "large scale military action" like canada does and sweden does here?
i dont see how this form of logistics is any different from using contractors to feed and supply troops in iraq.

"No Strategic Airlift Capability for Canadian Forces

In terms of demonstrating responsible management, I have made it crystal clear that Canada will not be unilaterally purchasing strategic airlift for the Canadian Forces.

Only two NATO nations, the US and UK, have this capability. For a country of Canada's size, it is simply not an efficient use of resources. Over the past six fiscal years, Canada has spent approximately $107 million on strategic airlift, an average of $18 million per year.

This is but a mere fraction of the annual interest on the cost of our own strategic airlift – let alone the capital cost. And no one has yet been able to give me a single instance where the absence of this capability stopped us or significantly delayed us moving people or equipment from point A to point B.

I note with pleasure that the department has already signed a contract to airlift armoured vehicles to Kabul – just two working days after the decision to send those vehicles was taken.

By removing strategic airlift from the SCIP, we free up money measured in the billions of dollars for more important investments. "


from Reallocating Defence Spending:
Transforming the Canadian Army into a Niche Force?
Speech to the Canadian Defence Industries Association, Ottawa
The Honourable John McCallum, Minister of National Defence
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-mccallum2.htm

[fletch]

what about the russian an-70
http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/an70.asp

[fletch]

what about the russian an-70
http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/an70.asp

[AFACadet]

Germany was looking at the AN-70 for a while but they decided against it. The main reason were engine troubles on the AN-70 (and the always present politics).

[scott]

what is wrong with using the private sector to deploy to "large scale military action" like canada does and sweden does here?
i dont see how this form of logistics is any different from using contractors to feed and supply troops in iraq.

"No Strategic Airlift Capability for Canadian Forces

In terms of demonstrating responsible management, I have made it crystal clear that Canada will not be unilaterally purchasing strategic airlift for the Canadian Forces.

Only two NATO nations, the US and UK, have this capability. For a country of Canada's size, it is simply not an efficient use of resources. Over the past six fiscal years, Canada has spent approximately $107 million on strategic airlift, an average of $18 million per year.

This is but a mere fraction of the annual interest on the cost of our own strategic airlift – let alone the capital cost. And no one has yet been able to give me a single instance where the absence of this capability stopped us or significantly delayed us moving people or equipment from point A to point B.

I note with pleasure that the department has already signed a contract to airlift armoured vehicles to Kabul – just two working days after the decision to send those vehicles was taken.

By removing strategic airlift from the SCIP, we free up money measured in the billions of dollars for more important investments. "


from Reallocating Defence Spending:
Transforming the Canadian Army into a Niche Force?
Speech to the Canadian Defence Industries Association, Ottawa
The Honourable John McCallum, Minister of National Defence
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-mccallum2.htm

[scott]

whoa, sorry for the repost-
*if* there was a need, C-17 dominates
absolute best bang for buck

[fletch]

does the private sector have aircraft large enough for military vehicles?

[AFACadet]

Germany was looking at the AN-70 for a while but they decided against it. The main reason were engine troubles on the AN-70 (and the always present politics).

[mustamato]

whoa, sorry for the repost-
*if* there was a need, C-17 dominates
absolute best bang for buck

It´s my understanding that the C-17 needs a proper paved landing strip, while
the A400M can land on improvised ones, and what says that the airports in
countries that have had a civil war or something is unharmed?

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fla/images/fla2.jpg
A400 cockpit, looks like a space ship

[scott]

youre looking at one in this post...
antonov airlines operates the AN-225, and a fleet of AN-125s (seen at the top)
heres its uk subsidary http://www.airfoyle.co.uk/
there are a bunch of other operators too of which volga-dnper comes to mind http://www.vda.com.ru/

both have been used by the canadian forces to much success

[fletch]

the c17 can land on unimproved runways
http://aviationzone.com/images/globemaster/bin-2/c17068.jpg

[scott]

true about landing on damaged airstrips,
i would argue though that thats a requirement for a tactical or battlefield airlifter, like the Herc
and in both the A400M and Herc's cases, you lose the capability to transport large logistics payloads as a trade of with tactical mobility
dont get me wrong, every nation should have an aircraft like the 130 or the A400M... but its a priviledged few that should *own* C17s and larger

charter strategic airlifters just seem more reasonable for our purposes

[fletch]

sorry....more pics here
http://www.theaviationzone.com/images/html/globemaster/page5.asp

[AFACadet]

C-17s were specifically designed to land on 90 foot wide 2,500 foot, dirt strip with a full payload, no lights, and under hostile fire. There's no other aircraft in the world that can land 160,000 lbs of cargo under those conditions.

[fletch]

the problem with the c17 is the cost (~160$ million), compared with the an-70(~50$ million) and the a400(~85$ million). nobody is going to risk a 160 million dollar aircraft to hostile fire. and besides even the us has only ~160 of them.

[He219]

whoa, sorry for the repost-
*if* there was a need, C-17 dominates
absolute best bang for buck

It´s my understanding that the C-17 needs a proper paved landing strip, while
the A400M can land on improvised ones, and what says that the airports in
countries that have had a civil war or something is unharmed?

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fla/images/fla2.jpg
A400 cockpit, looks like a space ship

What scott writes is a well known fact ...

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/c17/DVD-32-07.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/c17/c1711.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/c17/DVD-32-06.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/c17/c17_5.jpg

http://www.globemaster.de/assets/images/c17_pack.jpg

http://www.globemaster.de/assets/images/c17-passes.jpg


The Boeing C-17 Globemaster III military airlift aircraft is capable of carrying payloads up to 169,000 pounds, with international range and the ability to land on small airfields. A fully integrated electronic cockpit and advanced cargo systems allow a crew of three, the pilot, copilot and loadmaster, to operate all systems on any type of mission.

In 1998, eight C-17s completed the longest airdrop mission in history, flying more than 8,000 nautical miles from the United States to Central Asia, dropping troops and equipment after more than 19 hours in the air.

The aircraft is capable of turning in a small radius and can complete a 180 degree star turn in 80 feet. The aircraft can also carry out routine backing. A fully loaded aircraft is capable of backing up a 2% gradient slope using the directed flow thrust reversers.

During normal testing, C-17s set 22 world records, including payload to altitude time-to-climb, and short takeoff and landing (STOL) mark in which the C-17 took off in less than 1,400 feet, carried a payload of 44,000 pounds to altitude, and landed in less than 1,400 feet.





SELECTED WORLD RECORDS
Sub-class : C-1s (Landplanes: take off weight 250 000 to 300 000 kg) Group 3 : Turbo-Jet


Altitude with 60 000 kg payload:
11 171 m

Altitude with 70 000 kg payload:
9 805 m

Greatest mass carried to height of 2000 m:
73 039 kg



The A400M and the C-17 have similar basic designs: Both are top-wing, four-engine, heavy lifters, with rear cargo doors and cargo holds designed to maximize payload-to-weight ratio. The C-17 cruises at 450 knots (Mach 0.74), carries a maximum payload of 77,519 kg/170,900 lb and can take off and land on runways as short as 914m/3,000 ft. The A440M expects similar speed (Mach 0.72) from its economically designed turboprop motors, but will bear a maximum payload of 37,000 kg/81,570 lb - half that of the C-17 - and will require a slightly longer 1,067m/3,500 ft minimum airstrip length. Composites will make up about 35 to 40 percent of the A400M's structural weight, with carbon fiber used in primary structures. By comparison, about 16,000 lb of composite materials have been applied to the C-17 aircraft (8 percent of the aircraft's structural weight), including on major control surfaces and secondary structural components.
http://www.compositesworld.com/hpc/issues/2003/July/148


the problem with the c17 is the cost (~160$ million), compared with the an-70(~50$ million) and the a400(~85$ million). nobody is going to risk a 160 million dollar aircraft to hostile fire. and besides even the us has only ~160 of them.
;)

$750million contract

The aircraft are to be leased from the Boeing company under an eight year contract reportedly worth some $750 million that will bridge the gap until the first European Airbus A400M aircraft is delivered to the RAF. The Ministry of Defence had to fight a tough battle with the Treasury over the cost of the C-17s compared to the apparently cheaper option of hiring Ukrainian Antonov An-124 aircraft via the UK-based freight company Air Foyle.
Britain's aircraft are already on the Boeing production line and will be in front line service by the middle of next year. The C-17s will be based at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, where they will form the core of the airlift component of the UK's joint rapid deployment force (JRDF). They will be held at short notice readiness to fly intervention forces to trouble spots around the world at the direction of planners from the UK's permanent joint headquarters (PJHQ) at Northwood,Middlesex.
The RAF has been keen to get its hands on the C-17 for several years after seeing its capabilities in action with the USAF, where it has helped deploy troops during crisis in Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia and the Middle East. Particularly valued is the C-17s capability to carry outsized cargoes such as helicopters and armoured vehicles that cannot be carried in the RAF¹s current fleet of C-130 Hercules aircraft.
http://www.ets-news.com/c-17.htm


Airbus still claims a unit flyaway cost of 85 million Euro.
In reality, the "total commitment of the participants” for the 180 aircraft order signed in May 2003 "is about 20 billion Euros”, i.e. 111 million Euros per aircraft....
....German defence ministry, where studies by the military had found the Antonow An-7X as a superior and cheaper solution. But on the political level, a commitment to Europe was preferred.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRFLA.htm

[fletch]

no one doubts the c17 abilities, thet doubt their cost. what more effective one c17 at 160 million or 3 c130j's at 50 million?




http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRtypen/FRmilit.htm

[He219]

Mission specific. C130J's will not carry oversized cargoes such as helicopters and armored vehicles as part of a Rapid Reaction Force with the lifting potential and speed of C-17's throughout the global theater.

Interesting fletch , I used a similar source to show the actual costs for the A400M ...

An An-7X would be far more efficient than an A400M, but my point is that Europe's decision to go with the Airbus Programme is quite political in nature.

p-)

[mustamato]

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRtypen/FRmilit.htm

"Freight (Airbus A400): All sorts of cargo, including alternatively
2 x Tiger or Apache attack helicopters
2 x Bell 412
1 x transport helicopter (Cougar, NH90)
armoured transport vehicle like GTK (30 tons)
6 x Land Rovers and trailers side-by-side
1 x Roland SAM system
2 x five ton trucks and two 105 mm guns,
9 x palettes (108 x 88 inch) and 57 troops
40 ft ISO container
1 x mobile crane
120 paratroopers
66 stretchers"

I especially like the "company of paratroopers" alternative. Of course
the AN-70 would be cheaper, but I don´t see why Europe should buy
non-European products, in the long term it can´t be good to have unemployed
Europeans and a industry not capable of building stuff like this.

[fletch]

sorry..i got euro's and dollars confused. (i tend to get confused during the middle of a double shifts). my main point was that even though the the c17 is probably capable of tactical airlift, it will only be used as a strategic airlift due to cost and numbers. i don't believe the a400 or the an-70 are direct competitors of the c17 (is any aircraft?). only the usa will be able the field c17 in usefull numbers.

[aeternum]

The A400M has indeed just tactical capabilities and no strategical. My suggestion is tho, to get some A124 on a european level (European Transportation Command) and make them available to the EU nations if needed. Similar to the NATO Awacs in use.

[Kingpin]

An-224 Mria (250 tons payload - biggest transport aircraft). Just FYI.

http://www.foxbat.ru/maks/2001/an/an013.jpg

http://www.foxbat.ru/maks/2001/an/maks2001_2_33.jpg

http://www.foxbat.ru/maks/2001/an/an009.jpg

http://www.foxbat.ru/maks/2001/an/an007.jpg

http://www.foxbat.ru/maks/2001/an/an008.jpg

http://www.foxbat.ru/maks/2001/an/an003.jpg

[AVZ]

aeternum wrote

The A400M has indeed just tactical capabilities and no strategical. My suggestion is tho, to get some A124 on a european level (European Transportation Command) and make them available to the EU nations if needed. Similar to the NATO Awacs in use.

Yes it's logic in terms of economical view. But what do you do with a mix of 10 states pilots/personnel when the "willingly coalition" does not exist of all of them????

That's the point. So two states need the air capability to reach their aims but it is not achieveable because other states strongly resist that matter of action.
So you can just let your own pilots flying.But the other personnel of the opposing country is still working on the ground for your country although they oppose your opinion?????????The opposing state would loose his face. - Tha't the fu**ing problem!!!!!!!!!!!




Kingpin wrote:

An-224 Mria (250 tons payload - biggest transport aircraft). Just FYI
http://www.foxbat.ru/maks/2001/an/an013.jpg

Is there a difference between A-224 and A-225??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at the pic and into the text!!!! It doesn't fit!!!!!!! I don't know the difference or have enough time to evaluate your post. So answer!!! ;)

Don't you think you spreading false information here :bash:


Just thinking :lol: :hug:

[HELEX]

Big enough? :lol:

A military transport version is possible...

http://www.airbus.com/multimediaelements/2329.jpg

http://www.airbus.com/product/a380_backgrounder.asp

[Kingpin]

AVZ, relax man. Drink some beer and relax. An-225 and An-125 almost the same as An-224 and An-124. Just some minor modifications.

[HELEX]

By the way, Russia is eager to fly foreign Troops around with these Babys because otherwise they couldnt afford them any longer.

[scoone]

About the A400M

http://www.friesland-chronicle.de/Berichte/A400M.htm

[AVZ]

@Kingpin:

Congratulations 1000 posts!!!!!!!!!! woot

I'm cool. But yeah, you're right I think I need some beer or better whiskey??!!

So A-224/A-124 are more or less the same and A-225/A-125 too??

But not A-224 and A-225??

[tomcat1974]

By the way, Russia is eager to fly foreign Troops around with these Babys because otherwise they couldnt afford them any longer.
Wrong dude... they are actually very solicited in civilinian large and agabaritic transports.. From what I read they actually programed month away.

[platform389]

The replacement for the C130 is ready. Much more advanced concept as you can see.

http://www.boeing.com/phantom/images/att2.jpg



The Advanced Theater Transport (ATT) concept is currently being studied by Boeing Phantom Works. Powered byfour (eight-bladed) turboprop engines, the aircraft features a tailless fuselage with a forward swept tilt-wing arrangement. This unique configuration provides for enhanced performance capabilities for landing and takeoff within 750 feet carrying 80,000 pounds of payload in very austere operating conditions. The tilt-wing design and computerized flight controls allow for steep ingress and egress angles, increasing flexibility in hostile areas, as well as its ability to quickly establish and replenish forces in forward operating areas.

With a typical payload of 80,000 pounds, the ATT can fly more than 3,000 nautical miles. It can also use its 115,000 pounds of wing fuel to airlift large quantities of fuel to advancing operating forces. Such impressive strategic and theater lift flexibility would make the ATT concept a valuable asset for theater lift and augmenting vertical lift assets in forward areas.

ATT's fuselage cross-section is similar to the C-17 configuration and will be able to accommodate two of the U.S.Army's 20-ton advanced Future Combat System vehicles, as well as additional outsized loads including Bradley vehicles, Patriot missile systems, MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System), HEMTT (Heavy Expanded Mobile Tactical Truck) and PLS (Palletized Load System). The ATT's autonomous cargo handling System increases cargo through-put capability and eliminates or minimizes the need for the advance placement of material handling equipment at forward bases.

The ATT's capability to handle outsized cargo in unprepared forward areas will provide any future operating force with a large degree of agility, tactical surprise, flexibility and increased options for on-site commanders. In addition to military missions, the ATT could be an important asset for performing peacekeeping missions and humanitarian relief efforts around the world. In either case, it would prove itself to be an air lifter for the 21st Century.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Just when I began to think the ATT was another program of questionable worth, I checked the specs against the current C-130J (pictured here). The ATT gives nearly double the cargo weight capacity & more range (in addition to shorter takeoff/laning roll). If they can meet those specs, it would be very impressive.

C-130J
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/c-130j-cpt2.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/c-130j-landingwithsmoke1.jpg

[Operation Ivy]

Those are some big ass planes woot

[Uncle Chô]

- C-27 Spartan (aka G-222)

- Casa CN 235

- C-160 Transall

- C-130 Hercules

- A-400M

- C-17

-An 224

All different aircrafts for different needs.

Do not try to compare them. An A-400M will not replace a C-17, a mixed fleet is the most prefered by the European military (at least the Armée de l'Air ;))

[scott]

right on,
as for the A380
completely different ballgame
i cant see it ever adapted to such an extent as carrying vehicles
and if were talking strategic airlift in the convert-passenger-aircraft-to-logistics sense wouldnt it make more sense to run a fleet of 767 or A330 types?

granted, you may have been just wishin...

[GazB]

*if* there was a need, C-17 dominates
absolute best bang for buck

Except that noone except the US can afford the incredibly expensive C-17s.

Western companies that hire Il-76s and An-124s seem to be profiting.

The real problem is that everyone bought C-130s thinking they were strategic transports... they are not.


no one doubts the c17 abilities, thet doubt their cost. what more effective one c17 at 160 million or 3 c130j's at 50 million?


For $160 million you could get an An-124 and a couple of Il-76MFs.


Of course
the AN-70 would be cheaper, but I don´t see why Europe should buy
non-European products

The Antonov is Ukrainian and quite completely european... unless the Ukraine has shifted and suddenly extends over the Ural mountains.


Is there a difference between A-224 and A-225

The An-124 and An-225 are related... the latter is much larger and has six engines intead of 4 and has a large tail... it can also carry 250 tons as opposed to the An-124s 180 ton max limit.


By the way, Russia is eager to fly foreign Troops around with these Babys because otherwise they couldnt afford them any longer.

Except that they aren't Russian, they are Ukrainian and they are doing it for money.

[mustamato]

Of course
the AN-70 would be cheaper, but I don´t see why Europe should buy
non-European products

The Antonov is Ukrainian and quite completely european... unless the Ukraine has shifted and suddenly extends over the Ural mountains.

EU = Europe.

[mustamato]

Of course
the AN-70 would be cheaper, but I don´t see why Europe should buy
non-European products

The Antonov is Ukrainian and quite completely european... unless the Ukraine has shifted and suddenly extends over the Ural mountains.

Europe as EU that is.

[mustamato]

Of course
the AN-70 would be cheaper, but I don´t see why Europe should buy
non-European products

The Antonov is Ukrainian and quite completely european... unless the Ukraine has shifted and suddenly extends over the Ural mountains.

Europe as EU that is.

[Flagg]

[Mark Sman]

[ShadowNeo]

You see mustamato, this is one of the reasons why Europeans are incapable of any large scale military action - their militaries simply do not have adequate airlift capability and have to borrow other countries aircraft to move anything significant...

The UK has around 4 C-17's leased directly from Boeing, to fill a Strategict Airlift requirement. Also there is a pretty large fleet of Hercules, about half of which are C-130J standard.

We might be able to move something "significant" by ourselves ;).

[Russian Texan]

We might be able to

"Might" is the key word here ;)
jk

[mustamato]

We might be able to

"Might" is the key word here ;)
jk

You are naive. In example sending more troops from Sweden to Kosovo
is not difficult in any way, it´s just that sending them by air means that you don´t
have to send them with train thru several countries with peace-hippies, security
guards etc etc. It´s just a more comfortable way, not the only way. Sending them
with boat is of course also an alternative, although that would take some time.

[Russian Texan]

We might be able to

"Might" is the key word here ;)
jk

You are naive. In example sending more troops from Sweden to Kosovo
is not difficult in any way, it´s just that sending them by air means that you don´t
have to send them with train thru several countries with peace-hippies, security
guards etc etc. It´s just a more comfortable, not the only way. Sending them
with boat is of course also an alternative, although that would take some time.

I didn't even have to explain it, you did it yourself :)
Anyway you look at it - ability to rapidly transport its troops and equipment is the essential part of any modern military force.

[mustamato]

We might be able to

"Might" is the key word here ;)
jk

You are naive. In example sending more troops from Sweden to Kosovo
is not difficult in any way, it´s just that sending them by air means that you don´t
have to send them with train thru several countries with peace-hippies, security
guards etc etc. It´s just a more comfortable, not the only way. Sending them
with boat is of course also an alternative, although that would take some time.

I didn't even have to explain it, you did it yourself :)
Anyway you look at it - ability to rapidly transport its troops and equipment is the essential part of any modern military force.

And how long does it take to send them from Sweden to Kosovo with train?
A day? It doesn´t go faster if flying them to Kosova my young friend. And
the day when EU gets the capability to invade Mongolia or some other country
"where the trains don´t take us" I will be worried, but we are not there yet.

[Russian Texan]

What if railways are destroyed/sabotaged?

[Threelions]

You see mustamato, this is one of the reasons why Europeans are incapable of any large scale military action - their militaries simply do not have adequate airlift capability and have to borrow other countries aircraft to move anything significant...

The UK has around 4 C-17's leased directly from Boeing, to fill a Strategict Airlift requirement. Also there is a pretty large fleet of Hercules, about half of which are C-130J standard.

We might be able to move something "significant" by ourselves ;).

All this talk of European nations inability to provide airlift capabilities is a bit silly, and heres why. In todays world the only nations that need to fork out the vast amounts of money to gain a big enough airlift sector in their militaries are those with offensive goals. Europe has allready been through this stage of culture. During the 1800's and early 1900's britains navy provide the military mobility to project British policy and engage in offensive operations around the world. This role is now met by the use of airlift. Europe doesnt need this ability because the primary focus is inward and defensive and not outward and offensive like the American military.

Cheers

[Marmot1]

You see mustamato, this is one of the reasons why Europeans are incapable of any large scale military action - their militaries simply do not have adequate airlift capability and have to borrow other countries aircraft to move anything significant...

The UK has around 4 C-17's leased directly from Boeing, to fill a Strategict Airlift requirement. Also there is a pretty large fleet of Hercules, about half of which are C-130J standard.

We might be able to move something "significant" by ourselves ;).

All this talk of European nations inability to provide airlift capabilities is a bit silly, and heres why. In todays world the only nations that need to fork out the vast amounts of money to gain a big enough airlift sector in their militaries are those with offensive goals. Europe has allready been through this stage of culture. During the 1800's and early 1900's britains navy provide the military mobility to project British policy and engage in offensive operations around the world. This role is now met by the use of airlift. Europe doesnt need this ability because the primary focus is inward and defensive and not outward and offensive like the American military.

Cheers
True... and btw using private companies to airlift is much more cheaper than using own aircraft especially when you need a strategic airlift once a few years... and for smaller countries like poland or sweden we don't need them since we dont have global strategic interests... if we go abroad we stick to someone bigger like US(Iraq,Afghanistan,Haiti) or NATO(Kosovo,Now Afghanistan) or UN and then we can always use private company or ask someone to give us a lift ;-) And last time wen we invaded someone was just abroad... little to the south- Czeslovakia 68 and also there we sticked to bigger brother...