irtuskDid the Soviet/Russian Air Force ever use a boom?
Nope, even their ‘strategic’ bombers were hose
irtuskFrench union understands “Buy American” on tanker
The Federation des Travailleurs de la Metallurgie, or CGT, holds the position that the French military should buy its equipment from French industry and to be consistent with this position, told us that it understands the “Buy American” approach of Boeing supporters.
Airbus and EADS dismissed the CGT’s view as that held by a minority union concerned about outsourcing and off-shore jobs.
irtuskAnalysis: Who will win the Air Force tanker contract?
Richard Aboulafia, vice president, Teal Group
“The big central tragedy of this contract is that it hasn’t done the concept of an independent procurement authority any favors. In an ideal world, when it comes to the Pentagon procurement of weapons systems, you have people in a room able to make decisions in a vacuum basically, just sitting there going through the numbers, saying ‘Well, this is the best for the warfighter at this price, let’s go with it,'” Aboulafia said.
“Instead, we have achieved the exact opposite goal, where I suspect an awful lot of their recommendations and opinions are being disregarded by the politicians, as a result, in the end it’s never about capabilities, it’s almost always about jobs or something like that.”
And the surprising U.S. Aerospace/Antonov bidding team is just the latest twist in the tale, according to Aboulafia.
“We’re surprised if there’s a single human being on the planet who takes the whole thing seriously from their standpoint,” Aboulafia said. “As a matter of fact, the planes that they are offering for this particular competition are the exact opposite of what the Pentagon says it wants. The Pentagon says it wants an off-the-shelf commercial derivative of the jetliner, just like Airbus and Boeing make for airline use, and what Antonov is offering is a high-wing dedicated military cargo plane that is extremely specific for that use. And then, of course, there’s the issue of U.S. Aerospace which somehow managed to acquire the name U.S. Aerospace a few months ago. You think it would have been taken.”
So why even consider submitting a bid if they are such a long-shot? Aboulafia thinks the team, which is financially in tatters, was after any publicity and attention it could get. “So, mission accomplished!”
. . .
With Boeing being heavily aligned with Democrats, and EADS with a stronghold on Southern Republicans, Aboulafia suspects that this time around there will be challenges again, regardless of who is awarded the contract.
irtuskTrimble seems to have pulled his article on ‘the An-112KC revealed’, did anyone manage to save the presentation?
edit: you can still view it at this link.
if anyone can manage to signup for slideshare and download it, that would be great
the best i can do for the moment is screenshots
irtuskEADS
Airbus slashes prices to win US military project
Airbus has cut the proposed cost for the contract to build 179 aerial refuelling tankers by at least 10 percent from the level in a previous offer in 2008
irtuskI know NG pulled out. Any reason given by NG?
The risk/reward ratio wasn’t to their liking
(proposals are expensive to create and they felt the new RFP made it difficult to win
then the fixed-price contract dramatically increased their risk if something went wrong
EADS is able to deal with a higher risk/reward ratio because they have ulterior motives (plant in the US, strike a blow at Boeing, etc))
irtuskBoeing
selection of the Pratt & Whitney PW4062 engine as the exclusive power for Boeing’s proposed NewGen Tanker platform
irtuskUS Aerospace
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/07/finally-the-an-112kc-revealed.html
Finally … the An-112KC revealed
US Aerospace Inc. has released a sales brochure revealing the Antonov An-112KC as a new version of the An-70 airlifter with twin, GEnx-class engines and an extended wing.
. . .
Amazingly, the company delivered the proposal despite receiving the actual forms from the US Air Force less than six hours before the deadline, says company adviser Chuck Arnold.
there’s a 16 page slideshow presentation at that link too
in it they mention a 1500GPM boom, which slightly strains credulity considering both Boeing and EADS are 1200GPM. Where does this magic boom come from?
irtuskU.S. Aerospace, Inc. (OTCBB: USAE), a U.S. aerospace and defense contractor, today announced that it has submitted a bid to the U.S. Air Force to supply 179 aerial refueling tankers at $150 Million per plane, with a total bid package of $29.55 Billion including research and development costs.
It’s been a week and I haven’t heard a peep from Antonov, either confirming or denying
irtuskNothing heard from HQ this end on this!!:confused::confused:
You should be hearing a denial shortly
irtuskJohn Kirkland, a Los Angeles-based attorney for U.S. Aerospace…
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0219217020100702
Don’t feel sorry, somebody either didn’t learn their lesson last time round or they’re party to the set up. Either way, sympathy seems inappropriate.
NOOOO FREAKING WAAAAAAY
can’t believe i missed that!
irtuskafter all, why not? they say they’ve been working on it since last november, so maybe they lanage to pull an interesting offer.
they’ve been working on it since last november and they still don’t know what engines they’re going to be using?
😀
The bid is due in less than a week and the engine has quite an impact on several items in the bid.
there’s also this gem
The boom is one of the few pieces that will have to be done here in the US. When we submit the bid we’ll have that specification there. We have to make a decision between three suppliers.
who are these three suppliers in the US?
Let’s see, there’s Boeing and EADS NA and who? Oh yeah, those first two are competing for the same contract so why exactly would they be willing to sell in the first place?
So let me get this straight, they’ve been working since November, the bid is due in less than a week and they still don’t have an engine, they still don’t have a boom and they still don’t have final specs of the aircraft.
Frankly I feel sorry for the poor sap, the scammers clearly went through a lot of trouble to string him along. I’m not sure what they’re planning, but you know this isn’t going to end well.
irtuskHere is the same story, more credible source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/02/343992/us-company-partners-with-antonov-in-surprise-kc-x-bid.html
what was being reported (SEC filing, cali company believes it’s partnering with Antonov) was never in doubt
what’s in doubt is that Antonov has ever heard of this joker
But who in the world would take such an aircraft? If the A330 is already considered too large by some, how should an aircraft that can carry an empty B767 (by weight) can compete?
it can’t
irtuskNo offense but this aircrafts will be built in Russia.
Further Ukraine lacks in any capabilities of resuming its production.
actually the An-124 rumor du jour was that production would be in the US
which, while entertaining, is at least semi-plausible
that the same would compete for KC-X is not
irtuskBoeing says it will bid for US tanker deal, despite concerns
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1727044020100517?type=marketsNews
WASHINGTON, May 17 (Reuters) – Boeing Co (BA.N) on Monday said it intends to bid in a multibillion-dollar U.S. Air Force refueling plane competition although it remains concerned that rival bidder EADS (EAD.PA) could have an advantage in the competition because it receives government subsidies.
Defense News on Monday quoted an unnamed senior Boeing executive as saying that Boeing was considering not bidding for the contract, valued at up to $50 billion, given concerns about whether the company could win the deal or make a profit.
. . .
Defense analyst Loren Thompson said Boeing’s top defense executive Dennis Muilenburg raised the possibility of pulling out of the competition with company insiders last week, apparently convinced that the Pentagon was “trying to rewrite the selection criteria to favor a team led by EADS.”
In a blog posted by the Lexington Institute, Thompson said he doubted Boeing would truly withdraw from the competition, and its executives were probably being “paranoid,” since the Air Force’s framework still seemed to favor the smaller, cheaper Boeing 767-based airplane over EADS’ larger A330.
Boeing spokesman Dan Beck said the company planned to submit a low-cost bid that met all of the Air Force’s requirements, but the company regretted that its concerns about subsidies to EADS, the parent of Airbus, would not be reflected in the Pentagon’s evaluation of competing bids.
Boeing executives “are deeply concerned about the ability of a heavily and illegally subsidized Airbus/EADS to accept levels of financial risk that we cannot in a way that distorts the competition,” Beck said.
One source following the issue said Boeing was keeping its options open, particularly if the Air Force made changes to the final request for proposals before the July 9 deadline that appeared to favor EADS.
. . .
We all knew this was coming.
The only surprise is that it took them this long to issue a denial.
Sign In
