Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X  
User currently offlinejoecanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5472 posts, RR: 30
Posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 15325 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-antonov-in-surprise-kc-x-bid.html

This is a fantastic and potentially very rewarding concept for both sides. The US can get a real footing in Ukraine, (where Clinton happens to be at the moment, I believe), and Ukraine gets some much needed cashflow.

I really doubt it would ever happen no matter how good the bid might be but it could get An-124 production going again. The USAF might be talked into ordering a few heavy lifters to round out their fleet.


What the...?
74 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 15288 times:

While the Ilyushin proposal seemed realistic enough to me (right aircraft type and already certified in the US), I have to call BS on this one. If you put a boom the An.124, there goes your rear cargo ramp.


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 15276 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 1):
While the Ilyushin proposal seemed realistic enough to me (right aircraft type and already certified in the US), I have to call BS on this one. If you put a boom the An.124, there goes your rear cargo ramp.

Perhaps they're thinking more about wing-mounted hose & drogue systems ?

I'd check the article in the link but I'm getting a "Page not found" error.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3559 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 15264 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

while interesting, I don't give it much of a chance.... though the spread of a/c models is an interesting concept... Maybe now Boeing will offer a 737, 767, 777, 747 tanker family   

User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4839 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 14995 times:

Would US Aerospace be the same outfit as US Aircraft which was behind the A-67 Dragon COIN plane for Iraq?


.
http://usaircraftcorp.com/images/dragon06_copywht.jpg

I cannot find the article now, but with it was a photo at Aero-India or another airshow with a mural of a high-wing, twin turbojet Antonov as background. That could be this proposed An-122.


However, there was this UAC twin model too.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Hal_MRTA.JPG/800px-Hal_MRTA.JPG
.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e6/Hal_MRTA.JPG/800px-Hal_MRTA.JPG

[Edited 2010-07-02 15:53:51]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 14852 times:

I believe this is the company website.

http://www.usaerospace.com/

A couple of articles on them and the agreement...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2012263539_tanker03.html

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/07/defense_kcx_tanker_070210w/


User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3649 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 14833 times:

Well, that would solve the problem of sole bidder if Airbus doesn't submit something.

User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14689 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 4):
However, there was this UAC twin model too.....

Which, I'm 99% sure, is an Ilyushin design.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 14588 times:

The photo included in the string here looks a lot like the twin - high wing - CF-6 powered military transport the Japanese already have flying. Why hasn't someone offered that? It at least is already flying.

User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4769 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 14492 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 8):
The photo included in the string here looks a lot like the twin - high wing - CF-6 powered military transport the Japanese already have flying. Why hasn't someone offered that? It at least is already flying.

cuz you would have to get around the Japanese constitutional prohibition to exporting "weapons". its also only C130 sized isn't it??


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14317 times:

I just don't see how an An-124KC, An-122KC, or An-112KC would fit all 372 requirements.

User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4839 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 13801 times:

Their first problem seem to be submitting a valid bid on time. Now they have the cheek to request for a 60-day extension after waiting for the last minute before announcing their intent to bid.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ay-freeze-on-kc-x-competition.html

Who might benefit the most if the extension was granted? Whose interests would be served if three separate low bids of (at least two) unknown airframes were made by the same bidder and accepted?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinejoecanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5472 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13737 times:

I really doubt an extension will be granted...the screaming would be heard from Chicago to Toulouse. While it's an interesting concept, I think this exercise was more to get the US looking at the An-124 as a possible heavy lifter purchase than a serious bid for KC-X.


What the...?
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 13635 times:

First, this compitition is for a 'medium' tanker (by gross weight), the An-124 is a 'large' airplane by weight and size.

Second, I don't see the DOD granting a 60 day extension if US Aerospace says they can submit a 'viable' bid by this Friday.

This is just a new ring added to an already 3 ring circus.


User currently offlinelumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 13572 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Second, I don't see the DOD granting a 60 day extension if US Aerospace says they can submit a 'viable' bid by this Friday.

And if they refuse, what then? They granted one for EADS, why not this outfit? At the very least I can see the potential for a protest, or a lawsuit and more delays, more protests, more acrimony, hand wringing, political food fights, etc.

DOD started down this road by granting the first extension; now they may to deal with the (unintended) consequences. They could have had this "competition" wrapped up by now.

This thing could get even sillier.

[Edited 2010-07-07 09:36:24]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlinejoecanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5472 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13479 times:

I doubt the DOD is under any obligation to further extend the deadline. Since the Airbus extension was completely public, it could easily be reasoned that the extension benefited any potential bidder equally. In other words, Antonov has already had the benefit of a deadline extension.

They just couldn't get it done in the alloted time.



What the...?
User currently offlinelumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13463 times:

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 15):
Since the Airbus extension was completely public, it could easily be reasoned that the extension benefited any potential bidder equally. In other words, Antonov has already had the benefit of a deadline extension.

   I doubt antonov will agree with you on this.

DOD wasn't obligated to extend the deadline for airbus. They acceded to this due to fierce lobbying by the airbus governments.

Now comes this potential bidder asking for the same treatment. I'm sure they will advance some reason for requesting a delay. It may or may not have merit. Frankly, if they protest, they only have to convince one or a few people at GAO.

Or failing that...one judge at a federal district court.

DOD has only itself to blame for this (potential) mess.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13366 times:

Quoting lumberton (Reply 14):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Second, I don't see the DOD granting a 60 day extension if US Aerospace says they can submit a 'viable' bid by this Friday.

And if they refuse, what then? They granted one for EADS, why not this outfit? At the very least I can see the potential for a protest, or a lawsuit and more delays, more protests, more acrimony, hand wringing, political food fights, etc.

DOD started down this road by granting the first extension; now they may to deal with the (unintended) consequences. They could have had this "competition" wrapped up by now.

The USAF does not have to accept any bids from companies they consider not viable for that contract. The DOD did extrend time so EADS could bid against Boeing, both companies are viable and capable of fulfilling the contract. US Aerospace is not. Their (USAE) publicly traded stock is worth 18 cents a share (unchanged).

http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/s...ote?Symbol=USAE&getquote=Get+Quote

So, even investors do not take this company seriously. Why should the DOD and USAF?

In contrast EADS (EADSF) today closed at 21.10 (up 1.50)

http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?Symbol=US%3AEADSF

Boeing (BA) closed at 63.30 (up 1.94)

http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/s...quote?Symbol=BA&getquote=Get+Quote

[Edited 2010-07-08 12:09:24 by srbmod]

User currently offlinelumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13350 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
So, even investors do not take this company seriously. Why should the DOD and USAF?

They don't. But they risk a protest and/or a suit. And...as I noted earlier...it only takes one individual at GAO or one judge in a Federal District Court to agree.

These are the unintended consequences of kissing @$$ over that EADS extension.

Will it happen? Who knows. Could it? Yes, its possible.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlinejoecanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5472 posts, RR: 30
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 13277 times:

Quoting lumberton (Reply 16):
Now comes this potential bidder asking for the same treatment. I'm sure they will advance some reason for requesting a delay. It may or may not have merit. Frankly, if they protest, they only have to convince one or a few people at GAO.

My point was that Antonov had the same public information about the bidding process as everyone else so they could have used the 2 months that Airbus was granted to get their act together. It seems they didn't so they will most likely be out of luck.

What happens if Antonov gets the extension and Emb decides with moments left that they want to make a bid. This game would then go on ad nauseum.

Antonov will, in my opinion, be out of luck for an extension.



What the...?
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3559 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13261 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

from all I see USAerospace is a parts and tooling manufacturer with no facilities or experience for this venture... it's a wild shot to boost company value to shareholders.

there is not enough there to even interest the air force. and any court would call it a frivolous law suit and toss it


User currently offlinevcjc From United States of America, joined May 2010, 17 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13133 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
The USAF does not have to accept any bids from companies they consider not viable for that contract. The DOD did extrend time so EADS could bid against Boeing, both companies are viable and capable of fulfilling the contract. US Aerospace is not. Their (USAE) publicly traded stock is worth 18 cents a share (unchanged).

Just because a company is small doesn't mean that the investors don't take it seriously. That said, the fact that US Aerospace is tiny means USAF should not take them seriously as a KC-X bidder. The way to look at it is market capitalization - latest figure for US Aerospace is $4.5 million. That means that the KC-X contract is over 5000x larger than the cost to buy 100% of the shares in the company.

Quoting lumberton (Reply 19):
They don't. But they risk a protest and/or a suit. And...as I noted earlier...it only takes one individual at GAO or one judge in a Federal District Court to agree.

These are the unintended consequences of kissing @$$ over that EADS extension.

There is no chance that a US Aerospace protest/suit would get anywhere. Neither US Aerospace nor Antonov have ever been a prime contractor on any DoD work and would therefore have no shot at creating a responsive proposal due to their lack of past performance. This request for extension has nothing in common with the extension for EADS. If a protest is filed based on the extension EADS got, this episode would not influence the outcome at all.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 13072 times:

Correct.

If we go back to the 2008 compitition, there was a potential bidding US company that wanted to offer a KC-747-8F tanker. But, IIRC, the USAF never accepted that offer because of concerns that company could not fulfil the contract. Isn't that correct?


User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 13035 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
If we go back to the 2008 compitition, there was a potential bidding US company that wanted to offer a KC-747-8F tanker. But, IIRC, the USAF never accepted that offer because of concerns that company could not fulfil the contract. Isn't that correct?


That small company never got to proceed to a bid because Boeing refused to provide data on the 748 saying the USAF did not want a large tanker. The USAF denied ever saying that to Boeing even though Rep. Norm Dicks (Mr. Boeing) says the USAF told him that they wanted the KC-767. That small company planned to partner with another larger experienced defense contractor - they knew they could not pull it off on their own.


User currently offlinelumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12847 times:

Quoting vcjc (Reply 21):
There is no chance that a US Aerospace protest/suit would get anywhere.

Most would agree with you, but the latest out of DOD is NOT an unequivocal "No".

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Quote:
The Pentagon says -- at least for now -- it is sticking to its July 9, 2 p.m. deadline for competitors to submit bids for the U.S. Air Force's KC-135 replacement program.

Undoubtedly, they were surprised by this latest gambit from the lawyer.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
25 KC135TopBoom : But with the EADS bid already received (which EADS cannot submit changes to now), and Boeing's bid due in a few hours from now, I don't see how the D
26 Post contains images lumberton : IMO DOD have long passed the point where they were "protest proof". An argument could be made that they changed the conditions and nature of the comp
27 Post contains links vcjc : looks like US Aerospace and Antonov did in fact bid: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-...am-2010-07-09?reflink=MW_news_stmp They put in a price of
28 DEVILFISH : They could make public a terrific price but their bid would remain meaningless without a known quantity (airframe) at the other end. They may bid a l
29 santafejay : Wouldn't it be nice of for just once the American taxpayer got the best aircraft for the money, what a concept!
30 Post contains links egronenthal : Here's a pitch from the US Aerospace / Antonov people that sheds some light on their USAF tanker bid. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...finally-t
31 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Delineations could blur with these plans..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...aerospace-grows-in-confidence.html Quote: "Russia is due to fina
32 Post contains links Lumberton : See Amy Butler's post here. The Mysterious Third Bidder for KC-X ... A Potential Protestor?
33 vcjc : Apparently they did not submit their bid by the 2pm deadline on July 9, minutes late.
34 Post contains links Lumberton : That's what Amy Butler is reporting. No links to any articles, but here's the link to her blog. Will this result in a protest? Stay tuned..... Only T
35 Post contains links and images Lumberton : Golly gee, it looks like we have a protest. Who could have predicted this? U.S. Aerospace Protests KC-X Source Selection I will repeat myself: USAF ha
36 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest UPDATE: U.S. Aerospace filed a protest with the Government Accountabilit
37 keesje : Although the basic specs were interesting this was never a serious bid. They managed to get a lot of attention and press, that probably was the main g
38 Post contains links and images Lumberton : GAO has it and they say they will have a decision by 10 Nov 10. This is totally out of DOD's control now. And to think this whole thing could have bee
39 Post contains images par13del : I think 1 and 2 are the same, as for 3, based on the plans they continue to put forth for programs, cost is only of concern to the folks on the Hill
40 vcjc : You say this as if its a bad thing. As a taxpayer I want the best price. That's ironic. We would have had tankers already if the the sole sourcing to
41 par13del : Which price are you looking at, the one you pay now or the one you pay down the road as a nation? No, those in jail had nothing to do with the sole s
42 Post contains images Lumberton : Its not just ironic--its sad. Jail time? What about Daimler AG and their bribery plea to the Department of Justice? They are a major airbus sharehold
43 Post contains links keesje : You are right. Afterall it was just Darleen who is fully responsible for everything. To be honest, nobody else at Boeing knew anything and since then
44 Lumberton : Darleen worked for the USAF at the time she committed her misdeeds.
45 KC135TopBoom : Then why can't we see just who is supporting USAE? I am looking at the total of all costs, including purchase, MilCon, fuel burn, maintenance, and LC
46 Post contains images keesje : If a militairy contract in the EU is overrun by a 20%, it's a big row in capitals, parliaments. Newspapers are full of it for yrs & responsible p
47 Post contains links Lumberton : DOD seems to be quite caviler about this protest. If their past predictions on this procurement are any indication, I would be very concerned. http://
48 Post contains links Lumberton : Amy Butler summarizes the potential consequences quite succinctly. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest Again
49 vcjc : Of course I'm talking about the total cost of ownership: acquisition, fuel, milcon, sustainment, mx, ... I'm not advocating any particular bid. I am
50 AirRyan : With 372 specific KPP’s, the USAF couldn’t have found at least one viable fault in US Aerospace’s bid, as opposed to resorting to adolescent she
51 kanban : there seem to be an equal number of problems on the bidder's side... like getting there at the last minute, not obtaining a preclearance, not knowing
52 ThePointblank : Actually, EADS North America was the prime contractor for the UH-72 Lakota... so they have US DoD experience.
53 KC135TopBoom : If this goes into the US Federal Courts system, you can bet the KC-X program will be canceled and the USAF will begin refitting the KC-135Es. We don'
54 CMB56 : I think the AF brass need to review the old saw "Better to let people think your an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt." In this case the
55 Post contains links Lumberton : I saw this on a comment on DOD Buzz. Its a cite from the Federal Acquisition Regulations, commonly known as "the FAR". Here's the article: http://www.
56 KC135TopBoom : The USAE bid is a joke. The An-112-KC is not even an exsisting airplane, the new tanker is suppose to be an 'off the shielf' design, not a new design
57 Lumberton : Depends on the GAO's (or a federal district judge's) interpretation of "and was under the Government’s control prior to the time set for receipt of
58 KC135TopBoom : Correct. But if the GAO attorneys rule against USAE, they will, most likely go on to the federal courts. But that will cost them lots of money....tha
59 Post contains images par13del : One could argue that the 372 requirements are meant to create a new build a/c without the requirement of a new build a/c, the difference compared to
60 kanban : a lot of assumptions here about what happened... the impression I get is the bidder didn't make adequate preparations to deliver the bid on time and
61 JayinKitsap : Most governments on competitive bids a "no-sh*t" date and time for submissions. I bet it happens in 5% or more contracts someone submits late. It is t
62 KC135TopBoom : Correct. Did they use a low bid courier service that no one at WPAFB ever heard of?
63 thomil13FRA : I wouldn't bet on that. When I worked as a security guard for the US Army over in Hanau, we regularly got the whole lot, UPS, DHL, TNT, FedEx, as wel
64 Lumberton : Good point. Remember, despite the "could have should have, would have" this thing--and the entire tanker acquisition--is (again) in the hands of the
65 KC135TopBoom : In the US, it is common for courier services, like UPS and FedEx, to have drivers and trucks cleared for delivery services on US Military Bases. These
66 Post contains links lUMBERTON : The General Accounting Office denied their protest. What's next? Will they walk away or file suit in federal court? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010
67 kanban : my bet is after a lot of noise, and a minor suit over some triviality, they will walk away... they don't have the money for much more...
68 DEVILFISH : Guess their first step at "effectuating" their business strategy just got shot in the foot. And with it whatever prospective investments that might ha
69 JoeCanuck : They had years to come up with a bid...just as long as anyone else. It's not as if the competition was a secret. It's a classic case of too little, to
70 Post contains links Lumberton : I just listened to this IAG podcast titled "Meet US Aerospace". In it the company representative states that they are still considering what to do as
71 DEVILFISH : Would winning an appeal just entitle them to reenter the contest, or might it also award them cash damages they could use to pursue their bid and fun
72 Lumberton : I honestly don't know what their game is here. However, if they were to pursue this in Federal Court, and if a judge agreed to hear the case, it woul
73 JoeCanuck : Too little, too late. They waited until the last minute to throw something together when they had ample warning of the process including timelines. Th
74 KC135TopBoom : Listening to the pod-cast, it seems USAE just doesn't get the fact they are not one of the 'big boys', like Boeing and EADS. But, I can see them tryin
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Will Boeing Be Able To Offer B787 For KC-X posted Fri Jul 17 2009 06:55:36 by Mptpa
Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf? posted Thu Oct 11 2007 06:31:59 by KC135TopBoom
Why So Long For A KC-135R To Get Into The Air? posted Sun Sep 10 2006 02:01:28 by 747400sp
WSJ: Congress Wants KC-777, Boeing Likely To Bid posted Mon Dec 5 2005 15:39:09 by N328KF
US Senate To Allow Airbus Tanker BID posted Mon Nov 22 2004 21:35:48 by Dayflyer
AW Still Going To Bid VH-71 In VXX... posted Fri May 14 2010 19:00:21 by AirRyan
RAF To Order 22 Chinooks - Cuts To Pay For Them posted Tue Dec 15 2009 04:30:40 by Ant72LBA
Looking For P&W R-1340 To Buy For Texan posted Mon Oct 5 2009 02:33:34 by Art
Obama To Depart For ME From Dulles, Not Andrews posted Tue Jun 2 2009 15:22:28 by RJpieces
The Netherlands Has Decided To Go For JSF F35 posted Thu Dec 18 2008 12:37:28 by Mortyman

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format