Boeing BC-17

[Minorite invisible]

The C-17 compared to classic freighters

I once compared the C-17 to an MD-11F freighter. The MD-11 costs less to acquire, has 100 cubic meters more cabin volume, carries 92 tons (vs. 77), has better range, flies faster, burns about the same amount of fuel but costs less to operate. So there really is no reason at all to operate a BC-17 in any job that can be done by a MD-11F.
What advantage does the BC-17 have? It has a ramp, has larger doors, can carry some outsize cargo, uses less runway.
So why not an AN-124? It has almost double the cabin volume as a BC-17 (1160 vs. 592 cu m), bigger floor area (233 sq m vs. 147), has larger doors at both ends, has better range, costs 2 to 3 times less to acquire and probably less to operate, mostly thanks to the much lower acquisition cost.
So the only advantages the C-17 has over the AN-124 is better fuel burn (8 tons an hour vs. about 13) and better runway performance.
So when will a BC-17 be used rather than an AN-124? When a load than can fit into a BC-17 needs to go to a runway where the AN-124 cannot. UK based Air Foyle has indicated to me that they have already operated AN-124s (at reduced weight) into 1800 meter runways. So BC-17s would be needed to fly oversize loads that can fit into it into runways under 1800 meters? That a pretty small market.
What some entrepreneurs seem to count on to assume a larger share of the oversize market is "western" certification. Foreign owned AN-124s are only allowed in many countries because there just is no domestic alternative. Once a BC-17 gains civil certification in those countries, they will shut out the foreign AN-124s when they can, but will also increase the price of the charter. AN-124s presently rent for about 20,000$ US an hour. How much will BC-17s rent for? They have about a 4000$ fuel burn advantage, but how cheap can you rent a 250 million dollar aircraft that only flies 1000 or 2000 hours a year? 40,000$ an hour? More? Less? Any ideas? Such a business plan assumes that the AN-124 will never resume production and will never attain JAR-25 and FAR-25 certification, allowing western companies to buy and operate it alongside BC-17s.
Anyone willing to invest 10 or 20 billion dollars on that assumption?
I would think it less risky to invest in the resumption of a JAR-25 certified AN-124.