Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Russia To Enter US Tanker Bid Battle  
User currently offlinen49wa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9872 times:

"...Russian state-owned aerospace group United Aircraft Corporation plans to bid for a US Air Force tanker contract, teaming up with a US partner, a lawyer for UAC has said. EADS, the parent of Boeing's Airbus, also said Friday it was considering a bid..."


Full story: http://www.france24.com/en/20100319-...boeing-united-aircraft-corporation

Should be interesting.

85 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineT prop From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1018 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9811 times:

Quoting n49wa (Thread starter):
EADS, the parent of Boeing's Airbus

  What??


User currently offlinen49wa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9766 times:

Quoting T prop (Reply 1):
Quoting n49wa (Thread starter):
EADS, the parent of Boeing's Airbus

  What??

Um, yeah, ok. I missed that part when I copied and pasted. Much better article in the Wall Street Journal.

[Edited 2010-03-19 22:25:47]

User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9746 times:

This news is making my day. In terms of entertainment, it tops the movie "Up in the air" I watched today.

User currently offlinen49wa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9706 times:

What do you folks think Russia's chances are? Off the top of my head I see 4 engines vs. 2 (767/A330), airworthiness certs, completely new entry to US aviation, etc.
Do you see anything that might work in their favor?


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8216 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days ago) and read 9675 times:

Quoting n49wa (Reply 4):
What do you folks think Russia's chances are? Off the top of my head I see 4 engines vs. 2 (767/A330), airworthiness certs, completely new entry to US aviation, etc.
Do you see anything that might work in their favor?

The 767 is so old that the Russians could probably match its performance for 1/3 or 1/2 the price. Then, that puts Boeing into a pickle. This is a joke, but the fact it will stack up against Boeing's offer is going to be embarrassing. And the Russians won't be shy about it.


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days ago) and read 9670 times:

If it meets the requirements and is half the price of A or B, what excuse will DOD have to reject the bid?

Simply playing the game, the Russians will stir the pot enough to get some kind of compensations, directly or even though they will not get deal.

No matter what, the only people having an headache now must be the USAF.


User currently offline9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days ago) and read 9625 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 6):
Simply playing the game, the Russians will stir the pot enough to get some kind of compensations, directly or even though they will not get deal.

I would be very curious to see what the Russians have to offer. Business is business,so let's keep an open mind.


User currently offlinedeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9087 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days ago) and read 9589 times:

Quoting n49wa (Reply 4):

No chance, at all.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 6):

If it meets the requirements and is half the price of A or B, what excuse will DOD have to reject the bid?

Where is comes from.
Hate to say it but if people thought the out cry over buying a aibus tanker was bad, this country would have a shit fit if we even thought about buying something Russian.



yep.
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days ago) and read 9454 times:

How about we outsource the fighting forces? I am sure there will be a long line to fight for us for a fraction of the cost we are incurring  

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 6 days ago) and read 9398 times:

It would be pretty wild if we bought a fleet of IL-76 or IL 96 tankers. I bet we could get those at a fraction of the cost.


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinethreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2127 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9391 times:

Quoting deltal1011man (Reply 8):
Hate to say it but if people thought the out cry over buying a aibus tanker was bad, this country would have a shit fit if we even thought about buying something Russian.

This always puzzled me.
EADS' tanker bid involved aircraft assembled in the US by US workers using components made all over the globe.
Boeing's tanker bid involved aircraft assembled in the US by US workers using components made all over the globe.
EADS employs a large executive, sales, design & engineering staff in the US and elsewhere.
Boeing employs a large executive, sales, design & engineering staff in the US and elsewhere.
There is really no such thing as an "American" or "French" aircraft anymore.

Presumably a Russian bid will be pitched by American staff and will involve incentives aimed at keeping US firms employed.

In any case, no matter where the aircraft originates, it will be flown & maintained by USAF personnel, so even tongue-in-cheek comments regarding outsourcing the armed forces are a bit naive. But fairness and common sense usually take a back seat in large government procurement processes.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineEDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9363 times:

Quoting 9252fly (Reply 7):
If it meets the requirements and is half the price of A or B, what excuse will DOD have to reject the bid?

Possible and simple reason could be lack of confidence in the ongoing supply of spares in the event of a change in the political climate.


User currently offlinethreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2127 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9306 times:

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 12):
Possible and simple reason could be lack of confidence in the ongoing supply of spares in the event of a change in the political climate.

Easily countered by installing a parts distribution centre in the US or licensing a local firm to build various parts at the time of award.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineEDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9218 times:

Quoting threepoint (Reply 13):
Easily countered by installing a parts distribution centre in the US or licensing a local firm to build various parts at the time of award.

IF the Russian constructor concerned was permitted to issue such licenses. Having a distribution centre is useless without anything to distribute.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12328 posts, RR: 35
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8783 times:

Personally I think the Russians must be rolling about on the floor, laughing at the prospect of IL-96s flying refuelling missions for the USAF. It is, as we Irish say, "taking the mickey" on a massive scale, BUT ...

There is another angle to this; if the Russians can put together a reasonably plausible proposal, involving a very low price and some element of production in a politically marginal state, then it has the potential to throw the whole tanker project off beam and delay it another few years, which might well be the objective of such a proposal.

Machiavellov is alive and well and living in a dacha just outside Novosibirsk ...


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8704 times:

Quoting n49wa (Reply 4):
Off the top of my head I see 4 engines vs. 2 (767/A330), airworthiness certs, completely new entry to US aviation, etc.
Do you see anything that might work in their favor?

Yes. The IL-96T feighter with P&W engines is already certified by the FAA:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...768625723a00561eb6/$FILE/a54nm.pdf



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8599 times:

Some here wer promoting the An-70 as A400M alternative for European airforces. Now the time has come to show your true coulors I guess  

User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2199 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8525 times:

That is only because this stupid RFP is tailored to make a winner from the 767! Only by demanding cheap unit prices the 767 can win over the KC-30. But guess what, if bad is cheap then worse is the cheapest.

By that stupid RFP Boeing has no chance to beat the Russian prices if they manage to deliver the minimum requirements. Will they? Why not! The bar is set only as high as KC-135 standards. A lot of aircrafts beat KC-135 capabilities. Also much cheaper ones than KC-767's.

Will be interesting to see those that demanded a cost efficient solution. Will they support the Russian offer or will we testify another swift in mindset? (you know, the best for taxpayers money is no longer so important, we changed our focus again).

Anyone who asked for cheap tankers who does not support the Russians now is demasked having a Boeing agenda. A major dilema.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8519 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 6):
Simply playing the game, the Russians will stir the pot enough to get some kind of compensations, directly or even though they will not get deal.

First they have to submit a conforming bid. Just submitting a brochure won't cut it.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 15):
Personally I think the Russians must be rolling about on the floor, laughing

Aren't they always? Vodka is rather cheap there.  



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8757 posts, RR: 29
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8474 times:

Price is not everything in tenders. The price factor may contribute about 30% in th deicsion making. Being 1/3 or even 2/3s cheaper than Boeing may apply only if they tinker the Il98 together at the Voronezh plant and with Russian engines. P&W and western avioniks makes the aircaft more expensive and if it has to be assembled outside Russia the price margoin is gone. Reliability requirements and operating costs will give it the rest.

No chance the Russians can win this case.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlineXaraB From Norway, joined Aug 2007, 210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8421 times:

I say "Bring it on!" The more choices, the better the outcome of the bidding will be, since the different bidders are putting pressure on each others and the USAF. Everyone not biased towards one of the products should (and probably do already) applaud the increase in bidders.

It also has the interesting effect of putting the perceived favourite product, the KC-767, in the "stuck in the middle" position that many described the 330 to be earlier:
KC767



An open mind is not an empty one
User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2693 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 8166 times:

This thread is worthless without photoshopped pictures of a USAF IL-96.   

I checked that "modified airliner pictures" website, and couldn't find anything. Someone step up to the plate a create a simple photoshop of one? (I wish I could but I can't make anything look decent with photoshop.)



View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2830 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 8099 times:

The article in yesterdays Seattle Times is pretty good:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ogy/2011392418_russiatanker20.html

One of my favorite quotes from the article pretty much sums up how this competition is being perceived, "Just when I thought (the tanker competition) couldn't get any dumber this comes along"



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8050 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 18):
By that stupid RFP Boeing has no chance to beat the Russian prices if they manage to deliver the minimum requirements. Will they? Why not! The bar is set only as high as KC-135 standards. A lot of aircrafts beat KC-135 capabilities. Also much cheaper ones than KC-767's.

Do you know for a fact that the Il-96 meets the minimum requirements? For one thing, I don't think they have any way to demonstrate capability as a tanker...that's a very basic requirement, don't you think?

And if there are many cheaper aircraft that can meet these requirements as you say, why are there no bids?  

   UAC needs to have a credible US partner to make this bid. I'd be gobsmacked if any major US company puts their credibillity on the line with this project. Not gonna happen.  



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
25 Post contains links TropicBird : I believe to considered a KC-X candidate aircraft, the platform has to be one of those listed in the KC-135 replacement AOA. No Russian aircraft are l
26 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Nope. Bidding on government contracts is open to all. The Rand Corporation does not have any role in who gets to bid or not!
27 727200er : You know what? this is great I'm having a good laugh here, but maybe this is the best thing that could happen. Seriously, this could be the final nail
28 Stitch : Interesting they are pitching a new tanker instead of the Ilyushin Il-78T (they can't offer the Il-78M since it has no multi-role capability).
29 Post contains links and images AirRyan : Sweet! Let's expose the ignorance of the USAF even further, as this third iteration of KC-X is flawed in being set up for the cheapest aircraft that c
30 Acheron : Probably has to do with the difficulty of fitting a boom to a T-tailed design like the Il-76, and how close that would bring the receiving aircraft t
31 Post contains images TeamAmerica : For the sake of discussion, let's pretend that this is a serious bid. Why the assumption that the Il-96 is cheaper? Consider that the RFP considers t
32 Post contains links TropicBird : True anybody can bid but they may not even be considered unless they meet the minimum requirements. The AoA study is a key requirement for the KC-X c
33 Post contains images Acheron : The wingspan of a Il-96 is pretty much the same than that of an A330, about 60m I think that's the most important aspect of it all, and why I think t
34 Post contains links and images TeamAmerica : The requirements are exactingly laid out in the RFP. The Rand study was information for the Pentagon and has no part in the RFP, much less a "key req
35 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Not at all!! If this is real, they are doing them a huge favor by providing competition for the bid. The forfeiture by NG/EADS was an embarrassment..
36 Acheron : The Russians are actually talking about turning the Il-96 into a twin-engined plane, so that wouldn't be 4 engines. Of course, the idea will make the
37 SEPilot : All of this discussion ignores the point that this is a MILITARY aircraft. The military fights wars, and in the event of a war it is vital that parts
38 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Even better. They are proposing a non-existent aircraft...impressive. That's a rather large "if", but "if" anybody can provide a credible bid that un
39 cpd : If I remember correctly - it (the KC-X) is to be ONLY a tanker, nothing else. The KC-767NG doesn't exist either. Though the KC-45 did. I love how the
40 kanban : The "American" partner is probably Israeli Aircraft Industry (we've subsidized them enough to qualify) Seems to me they did some interesting 707-320
41 Stitch : It's primary purpose will be a tanker, but it will have secondary capabilities, as well. And that's where the whole argument on this forum has been c
42 Post contains images TheCol : Unfortunately that concept doesn't exist in Russia. This is exactly why they entered the bid. We can't trust Russia with anything else, why this?
43 Post contains images cpd : Don't be surprised if they make an honest bid at this - because the financial benefit would be huge, just the thing the Russian aircraft industry nee
44 Post contains images TeamAmerica : I doubt your memory is faulty...more likely that you haven't read the actual RFP. Please. The B767 exists and has already been adapted into tankers.
45 N328KF : And...what? Is everyone forgetting that national security would be a consideration? Does anyone really think that USAF would select a mission-critical
46 Post contains images TeamAmerica : "almost"? You seem very ready to ignore the obvious problems with the UAC's proposal. Don't get your hopes up.
47 Post contains images kanban : I should have put a smiley face implying humor...
48 JTR : This is by far the funniest thing I have seen in a long time.
49 CMB56 : The IL-96 may be a four engine aircraft as it sits now but to make it a twin depends on how the wing was designed. My understanding is that the A330-(
50 KiwiRob : Not entirely true, one of the biggest manufacturers of navigation equipment and maps in the maritime industry is TRANSAS which is Russian, it's excel
51 Post contains images AviatorCraig : I'm not an expert at Photoshop but I had a go at it... Servicing and support should not be a problem - there is a facility about 90 miles south of th
52 cpd : Only because I can see the theatrics and recriminations that will occur. I can see a whole heap of politicians having a huge dummy-spit over it, and
53 Stitch : Frankly, if the Russians are willing to set up a production line and new factories to manufacture all the parts (in order to ensure production even i
54 TeamAmerica : That's just it, though...the RFP hasn't been changing in the manner that so many posters imply. I think there is rampant misunderstanding of what "RF
55 Post contains images par13del : Priceless
56 Post contains images KPDX : Wow! That is great my friend! Thanks a lot for taking your time to do that. It certainly looks good to me.
57 Revelation : That presumes someone would be taking the bid seriously. And even you can't take the bid seriously. Which the USAF says drives the costs up dramatica
58 Post contains images A342 : I guess IAI would be willing to sell them their design. Or Sarah Palin becomes the next US president, pulls a "war on communism", takes over that fac
59 magyar : In the name of the holy free market, let the Russians compete, then the Chinese, and Indians, etc. But wait, then why have USAF at all, against whom?
60 CMB56 : While I am no expert on the content of this RFP I have been involved in RFPs for specific projects. This is a "Request For Proposal" with some defined
61 n1786b : The plot thickens....and looks really silly now. Just check out these extracts: snip Russia’s United Aircraft Chief Fyodorov Denies U.S. Tanker Bid
62 Post contains images tak : WOW!!! this is starting to get really stupid. EADS is thinking of going it alone, and now some lawyer in CA decides he will offer a russian tanker....
63 cpd : That doesn't make it better though, or we'd all be flying around in them. The whole thing is quite mysterious and silly. But if it spices up the tank
64 Post contains links Lumberton : No Russian bid, but it did make an interesting a.net thread. UPDATE 1-Russia firm "will not bid" on U.S. air tanker deal A lawyer? That's who started
65 rheinwaldner : Another thought: if the Russians consider the US market principally open, they maybe don't rule out the reverse direction too. That means all of a sud
66 Post contains images keesje : :D Great Bummer, the revised selection procedure (of just meeting basic requirements and then Price is King) as introduced after the NG/EADS won, cou
67 XT6Wagon : yah, I guess when you are replacing a can opener its all kinds of wrong to spec a can opener instead of a blender. This is what you seem to want. I f
68 rheinwaldner : You mix a product that already has reached the zenith of product (or technological) evolution with one that has not. Fork and spoon will never change
69 N328KF : What you keep forgetting is that this program (KC-X) is just round one. KC-Y and KC-Z are intended to be bigger programs, to replace the KC-135Rs and
70 Post contains links BoeEngr : Apparently it's not true? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ogy/2011409610_russiatanker23.html
71 EA772LR : The USAF needs to either buy the damn KC-45 or the KC-767 and be done with it, $hit! This is getting ridiculous. By the time the USAF decides both the
72 AirRyan : The only reason why Boeing is not offering a KC-787 is because they can make more money off of the KC-767; pretty shady considering a KC-787 would be
73 Stitch : I imagine time to market plays a role, as well, since Boeing would need to design a KC-787 and then the USAF would need to wait until next decade to
74 kanban : The Air Force wants a plane now and the 787 is still in flight test... As Stitch says they would first have to create a freighter version which is so
75 XT6Wagon : I doubt the USAF would order anything off the commercial market that hasn't been in service for a decade or so. They are quite risk adverse in thier
76 Post contains images MD-90 : As long as it's fast enough, why not? Please explain?
77 XT6Wagon : Its a much larger plane in foot print, while having only a modest improvement in payload. Fuel takes up almost no space, which is why a narrowbody ma
78 rheinwaldner : Though once their new tanker was the blueprint of a new aircraft type that was ahead of any commercial frame and at the same time fathered any follow
79 XT6Wagon : and at the time it was ordered as very short term bridge to the winner of the "clean sheet" design contest for a new tanker. Since said tanker never
80 Post contains links Lumberton : More on the lawyer who broke this "amazing story". Hmm....a "hot tub bon vivant"? http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNN2222400920100323?rpc=44 Where's
81 Burkhard : Great, a hoax a few days too early. The Il-96 is far too much of an aircraft to compete against - what - a 767-200.
82 LMP737 : I don't know about anyone else but I'm half expecting for it to come out that the original story appeared in The Onion.
83 Post contains links Devilfish : Here's UAC's statement..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...%2C-russia%E2%80%99s-uac-says.html Quote: "Electronic mails sent by John Kirkland,
84 SEPilot : Here's another reason. The RFP is requesting a plane to replace the KC-135 and one that will fit where KC-135's are parked. The 787, like the A330, i
85 scbriml : Given the status of this "news", there seems little point in letting this thread wander off topic. Please continue discussion in the other tanker thre
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Eads Offers To Split US Tanker Program W/ Boeing posted Fri Dec 3 2004 20:24:14 by F4N
Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg posted Tue Jan 11 2005 22:51:09 by JMV
Boeing Plans To Double US Air Force Tanker Deal posted Fri Oct 3 2003 14:31:52 by Kl911
EADS/NA Considers Tanker Bid - Requests Extension posted Fri Mar 19 2010 08:31:48 by tugger
Airbus Tanker Bid Pullout - Implications? posted Tue Mar 9 2010 05:46:19 by AirbusA6
Northrop Out Of Tanker Bid posted Mon Mar 8 2010 14:41:38 by PlaneAdmirer
Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version posted Mon Jun 15 2009 08:11:11 by Lumberton
Russia To Buy Drones From Israel posted Fri Apr 10 2009 09:24:59 by Mortyman
Russia To Abandon Red Star posted Sun Feb 8 2009 12:23:29 by Ptrjong
Dems To Cut US Defense Budget 25%? posted Fri Oct 24 2008 23:55:06 by KC135TopBoom
Boeing Plans To Double US Air Force Tanker Deal posted Fri Oct 3 2003 14:31:52 by Kl911
EADS/NA Considers Tanker Bid - Requests Extension posted Fri Mar 19 2010 08:31:48 by tugger
Airbus Tanker Bid Pullout - Implications? posted Tue Mar 9 2010 05:46:19 by AirbusA6
Northrop Out Of Tanker Bid posted Mon Mar 8 2010 14:41:38 by PlaneAdmirer
Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version posted Mon Jun 15 2009 08:11:11 by Lumberton
Russia To Buy Drones From Israel posted Fri Apr 10 2009 09:24:59 by Mortyman
Russia To Abandon Red Star posted Sun Feb 8 2009 12:23:29 by Ptrjong
Dems To Cut US Defense Budget 25%? posted Fri Oct 24 2008 23:55:06 by KC135TopBoom