JoeCanuck
Posts: 3951
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:02 pm

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...?
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:11 pm

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.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:17 pm

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 avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:22 pm

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   
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5257
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:37 pm

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
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Sat Jul 03, 2010 3:24 am

 
mham001
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Sat Jul 03, 2010 4:00 am

Well, that would solve the problem of sole bidder if Airbus doesn't submit something.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Sat Jul 03, 2010 12:40 pm

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.
 
cmb56
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:25 pm

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.
 
trex8
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:00 pm

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Sun Jul 04, 2010 11:46 am

I just don't see how an An-124KC, An-122KC, or An-112KC would fit all 372 requirements.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5257
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Wed Jul 07, 2010 4:13 am

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
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3951
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:25 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Wed Jul 07, 2010 1:36 pm

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.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Wed Jul 07, 2010 4:33 pm

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".
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3951
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Wed Jul 07, 2010 6:46 pm

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...?
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:03 pm

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:56 pm

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]
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:29 pm

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".
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3951
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:03 am

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 avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:11 am

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
 
vcjc
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 6:33 pm

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Jul 08, 2010 12:01 pm

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:03 pm

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?
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Jul 08, 2010 4:11 pm

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.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:42 am

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".
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:50 am

Quoting lumberton (Reply 24):
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".

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 DOD can now extend the deadline for anyone without having a court law suit or GAO protest filed.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:24 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
I don't see how the DOD can now extend the deadline for anyone without having a court law suit or GAO protest filed.

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 competition when the opted to let airbus bid. Yes, yes, I know it's happened in the past, but I believe there was more than one bidder on those occasions. Opening the door for another bidder when things didn't go as they expected obviously favors that bidder. There could be other points of contention as well.

DOD have only themselves to blame when (not if) this thing bets tied up in protests and court cases. They could have had this thing closed and put to bed. I've opined on another thread that their reasons for doing this were keeping allied solidarity on two foreign policy problems.

Now they've pushed the likely award announcement past the upcoming congressional elections in November, knowing they'll likely have a different congress. I agree, but it will probably be more populist come January 2011.

Besides, any protest-er has only to get one judge--be it at GAO or a Federal Court--to agree.

Oh what tangled webs we weave....  

[Edited 2010-07-09 06:02:13 by Lumberton]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
vcjc
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 6:33 pm

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:08 pm

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 $29.55 billion, well below what NG said their price would have been in their presser when they pulled out. ($150 million unit flyaway cost for Antonov vs $184 million for NG)

This will probably be well below Boeing and EADS offer prices, but I still see no way they will be found to be a responsive bidder or convince USAF they can meet all 372 requirements. On the other hand, I am curious exactly what a AN-112 could be. If they'd give away the most sensitive piece of info (the price), I'd hope they'd go ahead a reveal a bit more about their proposed aircraft.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5257
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Sat Jul 10, 2010 1:42 am

Quoting vcjc (Reply 27):
If they'd give away the most sensitive piece of info (the price), I'd hope they'd go ahead a reveal a bit more about their proposed aircraft.

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 lemon and all those "forward looking" qualifiers in their press release would take care of it. Of course, the 372 mandatory requirements are a different kettle of fish altogether.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
santafejay
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 11:38 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:36 am

Wouldn't it be nice of for just once the American taxpayer got the best aircraft for the money, what a concept!
 
egronenthal
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:11 am

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-the-an-112kc-revealed.html

The "An-112KC" looks like an An-70 with the four turboprop engines replaced by two GEnx-class turbofans, and an extended wing span.

[Edited 2010-07-12 19:12:18]
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5257
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:04 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 7):
Which, I'm 99% sure, is an Ilyushin design.

Delineations could blur with these plans.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...aerospace-grows-in-confidence.html

Quote:
"Russia is due to finalise a major rearmament programme later this year and this could lead to the reopening of the production line for the Antonov An-124 heavylift transport (Antonov is, of course, a Ukrainian company but retains strong links with the Russian aerospace industry) and orders for the Ilyushin Il-476, a major modernisation of the rugged Il-76 freighter."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles.../12/344177/this-week-briefing.html

ANTONOV AND UAC SEE JOINT VENTURE BY OCTOBER

"United Aircraft and Antonov are aiming to complete formation of an intermediate 50:50 joint venture over the next three months. The two sides plan to set up a common marketing firm to sell Antonov types including the An-140, An-148, An-124 and probably the An-70 and work out ways to further integrated the companies."



All in all, US Aerospace seem to have gotten what they had set out to achieve...a worldwide stage with a captive audience.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/thezeke/2010-KC-X/9e7d5f14.jpg

Bravo for a marketing show par excellence...though possibly not for the USAF's eyes only, nor strictly for the international tanker market. Now, if only they could get it out flying and smoothed out in even half the time it took the An-70, they may yet corner a few of the airlifter replacement contracts coming on line in the near to medium term. How many countries will have the need or budget for that size outside the remaining "loyal" A400M customers is the big question.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:04 pm

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.

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

DOD has only itself to blame for this (potential) mess.
Quoting lumberton (Reply 18):
These are the unintended consequences of kissing @$$ over that EADS extension.

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

See Amy Butler's post here.
The Mysterious Third Bidder for KC-X ... A Potential Protestor?

Quote:
So ... back to this idea of bid requirement compliance. The Pentagon still has not answered questions on how bid compliance is determined. Is there a "quick look" process, as one industry official suggested, where the Air Force does a basic sniff test on bids to make sure there are no glaring problems? And, if there is, is the service required to notify the bidder that he is noncompliant and out of the competition promptly, or simply at the end of the competition?

This will be the crux of handling the US Aerospace Antonov issue; if the company is already predicting being thrown out, the question now seems to be not if the team protests, but when.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
vcjc
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 6:33 pm

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:29 pm

Apparently they did not submit their bid by the 2pm deadline on July 9, minutes late.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:32 pm

Quoting vcjc (Reply 33):
Apparently they did not submit their bid by the 2pm deadline on July 9, minutes late.

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 Two Bids for KC-X -- US Aerospace/Antonov is OUT

Quote:
If you thought the latest KC-X competition couldn't get weirder once the obscure U.S. Aerospace/Antonov bid surfaced last month, you were wrong.

Despite crowing by the U.S. Aerospace advisor, Chuck Arnold, about a KC-X bid, it seems the company didn't dot its i's and cross its t's -- at least not in time.

Bids to compete for the program -- 179 KC-135 replacements estimated to be worth $35 billion -- were due at 2 p.m. EST at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Apparently, the U.S. Aerospace/Antonov bid didn't make it in time (subscriber only).

"Those deadlines count," says Geoff Morrell, Pentagon press secretary. "They mean something ... They are there for a reason and any professional contractor knows that."
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:35 pm

Golly gee, it looks like we have a protest. Who could have predicted this?  U.S. Aerospace Protests KC-X Source Selection

Quote:
he Pentagon is assessing only two bids for the U.S. Air Force KC-135 replacement competition because a last-minute proposal from U.S. Aerospace/Antonov was not received before the deadline, according to Geoff Morrell, Pentagon press secretary.

This has sparked a protest from U.S. Aerospace filed Aug. 2 with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Company officials say that the “conduct of the Air Force was unreasonable,” among other complaints, according to an industry executive. They claim that personnel at the Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, where the KC-X program office is located, discriminated against their bid.

I will repeat myself: USAF had a chance to bring this whole thing to closure by sticking with the original deadline. That they didn't speaks volumes--of which I'll posit three:
1. The really, really want the airbus.
2. They really, really need to keep the French, Germans, Brits, & Spainish support for Afghanistan and Iran (sanctions).
3. They really, really want competition to drive down the price.

Personal opinion, I rate the reasons in numerical order as: #2, #1, #3.

I can see this whole thing turning to dog **** and eventually they'll realize that a sole source--to Boeing of course--is the only way they're going to get a tanker this decade. As for the silly notion that the Republicans support EADS, wait until the next Congress is elected! (BTW, aren't the two Kansas senators Republican?).
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:06 pm

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

UPDATE: U.S. Aerospace filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office Aug. 2 citing "unreasonable" conduct by the U.S. Air Force. According to an industry executive, the company's messenger arrived at the Wright-Patterson AFB gate at 1:30 p.m. July 9 (30 minutes before the deadline) and was denied entry, given bad directions and told to wait by Air Force personnel. As a result, the Air Force stamped the proposal received at 2:05 p.m.

Seems like the 'company messenger' should have gotten there about 1200 noon.

Why didn't US Aerospace say anything about this until now?

The GAO cannot sustain their protest because of incidential travel problems.
 
keesje
Posts: 8861
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:15 am

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 goal of their bid.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:34 am

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 been put to bed last May.

Instead, USAF/DOD has done something else to the bed.
  

Hardly like no one saw it coming.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0080405733.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Quote:
The protest was filed Monday, according to the GAO, and a decision on it will be made by Nov. 10. According to Ralph White, managing associate general counsel at the GAO, U.S. Aerospace submitted the protest because the Air Force rejected its proposal as late. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday, U.S. Aerospace alleges that the Air Force intentionally delayed the company's delivery of its proposal. The company declined to discuss its protest Wednesday, and Pentagon officials did not immediately respond to requests to comment.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:58 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 35):
I will repeat myself: USAF had a chance to bring this whole thing to closure by sticking with the original deadline. That they didn't speaks volumes--of which I'll posit three:
1. The really, really want the airbus.
2. They really, really need to keep the French, Germans, Brits, & Spainish support for Afghanistan and Iran (sanctions).
3. They really, really want competition to drive down the price.

Personal opinion, I rate the reasons in numerical order as: #2, #1, #3.

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 not those who inhabit the halls of the Pentagon.

Quoting vcjc (Reply 33):
Apparently they did not submit their bid by the 2pm deadline on July 9, minutes late.

Seems as if the US Air Force were once again up to some "dirty tricks" by ensuring the messanger got lost on base trying to get the bid to the office on time. Shocking  
Quoting vcjc (Reply 21):
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.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
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).

Let's see, are any of these requirements listed in the 300+ mandatory requirements. EADS / NA was never a prime contractor to the US before this bid so what makes them special, besides, after their partnership broke up they were looking at any US company they could find to get onboard, so again, what makes them special?

The GAO is already bashed by EADS / Airbus supporters as being pro-Boeing, will be interesting to see how they maintain that bias by not upholding this protest and allowing the Air Force to once again "play games"
 
vcjc
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 6:33 pm

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:12 pm

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 35):
3. They really, really want competition to drive down the price.

You say this as if its a bad thing. As a taxpayer I want the best price.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 35):
eventually they'll realize that a sole source--to Boeing of course--is the only way they're going to get a tanker this decade

That's ironic. We would have had tankers already if the the sole sourcing to Boeing (tanker lease deal) hadn't resulted in jail time for a few people.

Back to the topic -

Their 7/9/2010 8-K SEC filing said:

Quote:
“The Air Force may find that our proposal does not meet all mandatory RFP requirement, that we do not have qualified subcontractors and teaming partners, that we are not a capable and responsible contractor, that we have not obtained or processed the classified information that is needed to prepare a proposal, that we have not demonstrated that the company has the facility and personnel clearances that are prerequisites to receiving, handling and storing classified information, and that our failure to meet the proposal submittal deadline was attributable to our failure to act diligently and promptly.”

In there it says they had not received the classified portion of the RFP. It's hard to imagine that US Aerospace could have satisfied all 372 mandatory requirements without the full RFP in their hands.


and from their 8/4/2010 8-K SEC filing:

Quote:
In addition, the requirements of FAR 52.215-1(c)(3)(ii)(A)(3) are also met, because the AN-112KC aircraft is the only one that meets all of the requirements set forth in the System Requirements Document (SRD) for the KC-X. The other two bidders have publicly acknowledged that their aircraft do not meet all of the SRD requirements.

Our bid protest also alleges that certain Air Force personnel may have intentionally delayed the messenger from delivering our proposal, in order to create a pretext for refusing to consider it because they have political issues with our Eastern European supplier, thus violating the requirement that the program be a fair and equal competition, open to all qualified bidders.

The conduct of some Air Force personnel—such as repeatedly leaking information to the press, granting one bidder a 60-day extension but denying any extension to USAE, intentionally delaying advising us that it would not be granted an extension, and intentionally delaying sending us the information disks needed to prepare the proposal—give rise to an appearance of impropriety regarding the conduct of some members of the Air Force.

The more I look at the US Aerospace situation, the more I get a nagging suspicion that somebody is holding the strings behind a curtain ... or maybe I love a good conspiracy theory ...
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:35 pm

Quoting vcjc (Reply 40):
As a taxpayer I want the best price.

Which price are you looking at, the one you pay now or the one you pay down the road as a nation?

Quoting vcjc (Reply 40):
That's ironic. We would have had tankers already if the the sole sourcing to Boeing (tanker lease deal) hadn't resulted in jail time for a few people.

No, those in jail had nothing to do with the sole source contract not being re-done.

Quoting vcjc (Reply 40):
In there it says they had not received the classified portion of the RFP. It's hard to imagine that US Aerospace could have satisfied all 372 mandatory requirements without the full RFP in their hands.

Remind us who controls the documents?

Quoting vcjc (Reply 40):
The more I look at the US Aerospace situation, the more I get a nagging suspicion that somebody is holding the strings behind a curtain ... or maybe I love a good conspiracy theory ...

We have the President of France and various US politicians pulling strings for their supporters, why discriminate?
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:47 pm

Quoting vcjc (Reply 40):
That's ironic. We would have had tankers already if the the sole sourcing to Boeing (tanker lease deal) hadn't resulted in jail time for a few people.

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 shareholder after all. Despite all these competitions and posturing, "airbus" just resonates negatively with the majority of the Congress. "Darleen" was almost a decade ago; why not bring up BAE as well and their Saudi bribes? They were an airbus member back then. But if It brings comfort to to spew the Darleen litany go ahead, but outside of a.net and a few websites it is now irrelevant. The political reality is the majority in Congress won't support an airbus buy.    Not a popular a.net observation, but there it is. The next Congress? Probably will be more protectionist, and certainly more populist, than this one.

Sole source to Boeing. If the USAF wants a tanker within the decade, this is the only way they'll get it. Doesn't matter if they select airbus again, they won't get the support in the Congress.

They fumbled the ball here. This thing could have been over last May.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
keesje
Posts: 8861
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:56 pm

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 42):
the Darleen litany

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 the ethics culture has competely reversed. It's hard to find a more ideological correct, enviromental friendly, sustainable, ethical and honest company then Boeing, Period!

http://www.google.nl/#hl=nl&source=h...=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=5ae2f471af465d05
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:12 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 43):
fterall it was just Darleen who is fully responsible for everything. To be honest, nobody else at Boeing

Darleen worked for the USAF at the time she committed her misdeeds.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:21 pm

Quoting vcjc (Reply 40):
The more I look at the US Aerospace situation, the more I get a nagging suspicion that somebody is holding the strings behind a curtain ... or maybe I love a good conspiracy theory ...
Quoting par13del (Reply 41):
We have the President of France and various US politicians pulling strings for their supporters, why discriminate?

Then why can't we see just who is supporting USAE?

Quoting par13del (Reply 41):
Quoting vcjc (Reply 40):
As a taxpayer I want the best price.

Which price are you looking at, the one you pay now or the one you pay down the road as a nation?

I am looking at the total of all costs, including purchase, MilCon, fuel burn, maintenance, and LCC.

Quoting par13del (Reply 41):
Quoting vcjc (Reply 40):
In there it says they had not received the classified portion of the RFP. It's hard to imagine that US Aerospace could have satisfied all 372 mandatory requirements without the full RFP in their hands.

Remind us who controls the documents?

By law, the USAF cannot release the classified portions of the SRD/RFP to anyone who does not have the proper clearances to see it. USAE has already said they don't have anyone with those clearances.

Quoting keesje (Reply 43):
keesje

But, of course, EADS is as lilly white as freshly fallen snow, and their failure to follow the A-400 contracts just prove that?
 
keesje
Posts: 8861
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:59 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):
But, of course, EADS is as lilly white as freshly fallen snow, and their failure to follow the A-400 contracts just prove that?

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 people pushed into the spotlights. They are not covered by fear & flags and industrial pressure groups.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:08 pm

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://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4735873&c=AME&s=AIR

Quote:
A protest filed by U.S. Aerospace alleging the U.S. Air Force unfairly rejected its bid for a multibillion-dollar aerial tanker contract will not force the Defense Department to delay a contract decision slated for this fall, says DoD spokesman Geoff Morrell.
"I can tell you the awarding of this contract is still scheduled for this fall," Morrell told Defense News in an Aug. 5 e-mail.
Quote:
The California aircraft parts manufacturer also questions the "conduct" of some Air Force officials.

"The conduct of some Air Force personnel - such as repeatedly leaking information to the press, granting one bidder [EADS] a 60-day extension but denying any extension to [U.S. Aerospace], intentionally delaying advising us that it would not be granted an extension, and intentionally delaying sending us the information disks needed to prepare the proposal - give rise to an appearance of impropriety regarding the conduct of some members of the Air Force," according to the documents.

All they have to do is to convince a couple of lawyers at GAO and this whole thing goes to **** (i.e., a colloquial term for excrement) -- AGAIN! Failing to convince a few lawyers, they can go to federal court and convince one.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:16 pm

Amy Butler summarizes the potential consequences quite succinctly.

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

Quote:
But, the U.S. Aerospace argument is that Air Force personnel "intentionally delayed the messenger from delivering the proposal in order to create a pretext for refusing to consider it because they have political issues" with the principal supplier, Ukrainian state owned Antonov, according to the industry executive.

If this is proven to be true, it will bring the KC-X competition and the entire U.S. Air Force acquisition system to its knees after and already rough decade of missteps and scandals.

Again, AFAIK even if GAO sides with the USAF, there are options to appeal. What if an injunction is issued?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
vcjc
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 6:33 pm

RE: Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X

Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:35 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 41):
Which price are you looking at, the one you pay now or the one you pay down the road as a nation?

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 advocating competition as a mechanism to save me money.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):
Quoting vcjc (Reply 40):
The more I look at the US Aerospace situation, the more I get a nagging suspicion that somebody is holding the strings behind a curtain ... or maybe I love a good conspiracy theory ...
Quoting par13del (Reply 41):
We have the President of France and various US politicians pulling strings for their supporters, why discriminate?

Then why can't we see just who is supporting USAE?

Not sure what you mean here. It's hard often times to know who's backing what, especially in sleepy little companies. The amount EADS and Boeing spent on their bid efforts was at least 3-4 times USAE's annual revenue (and USAE doesn't make profits) according to their annual reports. I realize some of this is marketing money, but both Boeing and EADS have 100's of people that assembled these proposals, which costs a lot. 100 skilled people for a month of work is $1 million +.

US Aerospace is publicly traded (an OTC penny stock) with 20% held by financial buyers which, given the current crisis, may not be in a position for reckless speculation. The market cap right now is $4mn - assembling a bid is essentially doubling (or quadrupling) down a bet on everything invested in US Aerospace. So then - where is the money coming from?

Joking about conspiracies aside - everything about this is fishy. The timing, the law firm involved with this and the Illyushin "bid" earlier, the probable existence of an unnamed source of funds.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: scbriml and 8 guests