n49wa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11240 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..."
n49wa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11074 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?
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 10046 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11043 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.
threepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2341 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10759 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.
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 13245 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10151 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 ...
rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2450 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 9893 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.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 10900 posts, RR: 33
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 9842 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.
XaraB From Norway, joined Aug 2007, 210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 9789 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:
KPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2896 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9534 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
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9418 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.
: 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
: Nope. Bidding on government contracts is open to all. The Rand Corporation does not have any role in who gets to bid or not!
: 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
: 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).
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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..
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: The "American" partner is probably Israeli Aircraft Industry (we've subsidized them enough to qualify) Seems to me they did some interesting 707-320
: 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
: 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?
: 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
: 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.
: And...what? Is everyone forgetting that national security would be a consideration? Does anyone really think that USAF would select a mission-critical
: "almost"? You seem very ready to ignore the obvious problems with the UAC's proposal. Don't get your hopes up.
: I should have put a smiley face implying humor...
: This is by far the funniest thing I have seen in a long time.
: 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-(
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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