US Military Cargo Outsourcing..Unbelievable!!!

[Zoneload]

The Antonov's are being used to carry MRAPS. They will not fit on a DC-10 or 747.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I thought the Antonov's were owned by a British company. The ones that flew out of Houston were.

 

[wickedride]

I doubt there is anyone on this board that has enough money to sway any politician to make a decision much less a decision based on whats good for the entire country.
We are own worst enemy.

 

[jmreii]

What goes around, comes around; somebody get me a mirror.

 

[AC560]

I thought the Antonov's were owned by a British company. The ones that flew out of Houston were.

There was a joint venture between Volga-Dnepr and UK Company Heavy Lift (Volga owned the planes, Heavy Lift sold the space) but that terminated 1999 or 2000. They are all Russian operations, far as I am aware.

Just to add to the other comments nobody is chartering an Antonov unless it is a size/weight issue military or commercial. They cost about twice as much, they do half as much, take twice as long, fly half as far, etc. The only purpose for them is taking extremely dense cargo, oversized cargo, or operations out of fields which a commerical plane can't land (i.e. some West African sh1t h0le).

 

[GCD]

Another reason, for you short-sighted individuals, is that US insurance companies will not insure N registered aircraft to land into war zones. They are now allowed over-flight only, which is a change from the begining of the wars.

Atlas got landing permission from the FAA early on, but no US insurance company would insure them with their N registered airplanes.

As an Army officer and an Atlas pilot, I can tell you that the MRAP does not fit in the B-747 or DC-10 and boat is too slow for the immediate need. The only civil aircraft for the lift in the AN. Otherwise, Atlas, Kalitta, World, Southern and others would be making a ton of money on them.

On the other point of non-American made flags: How many of you drive a non-American made vehicle because you say American mades are junk? How many Blue Bell factories (US based textile and sewing manufacturing of clothing and other sewn goods) have shut down because you want cheaper clothing and American flags? You want Walmart prices, but you want union wages. However, You think it's cool to be pretentious and have a Rolex knockoff and give you wife or girfriend a Louis Vuitton knockoff bag you picked-up in Hong Kong or Bangkok for next-to-nothing. What's up with that union boy?

The US economy is where it is today because we, as a society, went from selfless to selfish over the past 50 years. I'm not talking just about Wall Streeters. I'm mean all of us.

Go ahead and blast away at my public thoughts. At least I'm doing something, right now, to be selfless to defend your right to blast away at me.

OUT

 

[kingairyahoo]

Another reason, for you short-sighted individuals, is that US insurance companies will not insure N registered aircraft to land into war zones. They are now allowed over-flight only, which is a change from the begining of the wars.

awwww crap...another injection of good info into another flightinfo scrum :laugh:

...dammit, back to playing spades on pogo.com

 

[b707guy]

Methinks this says is all, from www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34264.pdf Scroll down to page 30, if you want to see the whole thing.

The An-124 Condor is a strategic lift aircraft larger than, but comparable to, the C-5. It also appears that DOD use of An-124 missions is accelerating. Some contend that while C-5s may not be as modern as C-17s, or able to operate from as many runways, the fact that DOD is outsourcing missions to Russian aircraft indicates C-5s offer important capabilities other U.S. aircraft may not be able to satisfy. In contrast, it is possible An-124 contract missions may be the result of the convenient availability of relatively low-cost airlift near a busy theater of operations. Since the Air Force retired 14 C-5s in 2004, the number of An-124 missions has increased. During congressional testimony*, Gen. Schwartz explained that costs associated with transporting Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to Iraq were about $130,000 per MRAP for both C-5s and An-124s — and less expensive than moving them on C-17s. However, he suggested An-124 reliability made it the logical choice stating, “because kids are in jeopardy, I’m not going to have airplanes broke in Europe or somewhere else when I have an alternative which, to date, has not resulted in a late delivery.” Perhaps DOD is already exploiting commercial aircraft to its maximum potential. The Air Force indicates in the MRS-05 study that it could not use the 20.5 MTM/D of CRAF capability assigned for most of the halt phase of the wartime scenarios studied, because of the limitations listed above. Likewise, planning to utilize foreign-owned contract carriers during contingency operations might be risky because of potential political constraints a foreign carrier’s government may impose on their use.

*Hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security Subcommittee on Military Airlift Costs, September 27, 2007.

The General's reliability comment is particularly disturbing, but not surprising however, because we got our Deep Pac combi contract back after losing it to C-17 units when the places we had been serving faithfully and with over 90% reliability for many years couldn't take the lack of service any more.

DoD contract companies, including airlines, are limited in what they can make from the US government. Outside of CRAF activation, I believe the number is on the order of 70% of their total revenues, but don't quote me on that.

 

[GCD]

I intentionally did not mention the C-5's unreliability and the C-17's high cost out of respect and OPSEC, but the General said it.

For the record, I detest the foreign carriers carrying for the US mil contracts, but it goes back to companies, like AIG, who refuse to insure N registered airplanes to land in the AO's.

The Russian Air Force that is operating there at this time (the collection of former Soviet State airlines), call themselves "self insured" and do it on the cheap. If an airplane breaks, it's expendable and is left there for weeks or even months. In some cases they are completely abandoned because they are already written off. The crews aren't treated much better, but that's another issue.

 

[avbug]

Another reason, for you short-sighted individuals, is that US insurance companies will not insure N registered aircraft to land into war zones. They are now allowed over-flight only, which is a change from the begining of the wars.

Really? Then what have we been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq all this time?

Yes, we overfly, and YES, we land there, too. Try again.

 

[dojetdriver]

Really? Then what have we been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq all this time?

Yes, we overfly, and YES, we land there, too. Try again.

I thought GAC was going into Afghanistan as well when they were operating.

 

[b707guy]

We have and I'm sure will continue to land in all of those places. Not as regularly as some others that have been mentioned, though. Our company has been tight-lipped regarding insurance for the aircraft and load, and only allowing for what our contract provides should any of us meet our demise. Not particularly comforting, but it hasn't been an issue, knock on wood....

C-5s aren't alone with reliability issues. Thing is, I'd bet if any Fed had the cojones to ride along or somehow "ramp check" any of those Antonovs, they'd quickly lose certification to operate in this country. Maybe they do in IAH, I don't know.

I don't have any problem with these foreign carriers moving heavy equipment into theater, but out of CHS? We should at least be using our own assets to get them to Ramstein, Hahn, whatever, then transfer to these unfortunate expendables flying their Antonovs and Tupolevs into theater where the rest of us are unwilling to or cannot go. Interestingly, I've seen a number of 747s, MD-11s, 767s, and even 777s in Aeroflot as well as other colors. While I can understand contracting AN-124s in some circumstances, I sure hope to never see a one of those others carrying our toys. That situation WOULD be cutting into our pie.

We supposedly were in line to operate the BC-17, a commercialized C-17, and if that had come about, and despite our worst efforts, I'd bet we'd have operated it at reliability rates in line with our DC-8s, high 90s. I know milspec rules and other operational equipment requirements make the military version a bit more likely that "we won't be flying today", but if the reliability rates of our very own strategic and tactical airlift (not including the Hercs of course....) is so bad that a two bit airline like ours with 40 year old airplanes is able to pull off mid-90s reliability under FAA and AMC scrutiny, our problems go a lot deeper than not being able to find an American flag that was made here in America at my local mom and pop store.

 

[propsarebest]

I believe that the MRAP fits in a C130. Lynden I know has been hauling a few.

The company I work for (same at the original poster) flies into Afghanistan at least once a week, and into Al Asad a couple of times a month. The insurance thingee is NEVER an issue, because the DOD picks up the slack, guaranteeing the difference between what the insurance companies don't cover.

As far as the free repos go, all carriers are paid to move the aircraft, along with the fuel to get there. For us usually, they pay enough to get the airplane to HKG from the middle east.

Happy '09 to everyone- lets hope its a hell of a lot better than '08.

 

[Thedude]

For the record, I detest the foreign carriers carrying for the US mil contracts, but it goes back to companies, like AIG, who refuse to insure N registered airplanes to land in the AO's.
.

The majority of civilian AMC flights do not go into war zones. They going into the staging area and then the Air Force moves it. I have done many flights to the staging areas. The flights that do go into war zones can and do get insurance for that specific flight.

I am not happy that foreign companies get AMC flights but it does happen. Currently I work for a foreign company that does flights into those hot zones.

 

[spitfire1500]

This paragraph shows so much ignorance of reality that it's hard to know where to begin.

AMC contractors have never been wholly supported by the military. AMC serves as a supplemental carrier through which military uplift is only part of the equation.

Operators such as Kalitta, which did the bulk of their trade out of Hong Kong carrying Victoria's Secret and other products, are furloughing because of many factors unrelated to AMC flights.

To suggest that the use of foreign contractors or Antonov aircraft has anything to do with loss of US jobs is ridiculous. It doesn't.

There has been a recent reduction in AMC flying to be sure, but this hasn't significantly impacted the operators who fill the CRAF or supplemental needs.

If operators do cut back and can't carry the load after they've furloughed, then the material still has to be carried and someone else will carry it.

A poor carpenter blames the saw, and operators who collapse under the weight of their own operation can't really blame the russians or anyone else for carrying the loads they've missed.

When MK went down earlier in the year, everybody picked up that slack, as well as other operators folding. This is business; not everyone makes it.

Where did you come up with this crap!!! Any outsourcing to a foreign carrier is revenue that a US carrier could be collecting. Once again I had a friend that was told by my company that no US passport no interview because of AMC. So how do these Russians comply? Who said anything about wholly supported by the military.....? I hope your 6000 some odd other posts weren't the same type of drivel as this one.