irtuskThis Kommersant was told informally that the KLA is not physically ready to make a 179 modified IL-96 “within a reasonable time. Moreover, the necessary modification of Elah today did not exist as a finished product – a model of the IL-98 developed only in draft form.
Do not know in the legal department of the KLA and the existence of counsel Kirkland. The fact that the company allegedly submitted an application to participate in the tender, its staff learned from the media. Another source in the state corporation told Kommersant that the KLA to make such a proposal “unreliable American mediators, but no action regarding this initiative has been taken.
irtuskmore details
UPDATE 2-Russia denies bid for U.S. air tanker contract
http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNLDE62L0AX20100322?rpc=44
Kirkland quoted Alexander Shishkin, who he said worked for the Russian Federal Service of Military-Technical Cooperation, as saying the U.S.-Russian joint venture being formed to bid would be announced at UAC headquarters on Monday morning.
However Shishkin, when contacted by Reuters on Monday, said he could not say anything. He would not even confirm he worked for the Federal Service of Military-Technical Cooperation. “I cannot say anything until the bosses decide something,” he said.
UAC’s Tulyakov also said Russia was making arms sales abroad only via state arms export monopoly Rosoboronexport. “We have held no discussions with them (about the tender),” he added.
FANTASY
An official at the agency said that there was nobody called Alexander Shishkin listed as working there.
Kirkland had said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov discussed a UAC bid for the tanker contract at a meeting with Clinton. Russia’s Foreign Ministry declined comment on Monday.
irtuskother random notes to wrap this up
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/il-96-400v.htm
On 19 December 2004, Nezavisimoye Voennoye Obozrenie reported that the general director of the Il’yushin Finance Ko aviation leasing company, Aleksandr Rubtsov stated that a version of a refueling airplane is being developed based on the Il-96-400T heavy transport airplane. In July 2005 it was reported that Russia could acquire an in-flight refuelling version of the Il-96 in its 2006-15 procurement plan, says Ilyushin director general Viktor Livanov. “A feasibility plan for developing and manufacturing a tanker based on the Il-96-400T is being discussed. Technically, the development of the new tanker is not complicated.”
. . .
According to unofficial information, the Ilyushin aviation company has already started working on the project to build an Il- 96-400SZ tanker aircraft
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/11-04-2007/89517-ilyushin-0
(from 2007)
According to the head of Ilyushin Victor Livanov the project of the Il-96 air tanker has been developed and technical evaluation were sent to the Russian Air Force for consideration.
irtuskRussia’s United Aircraft Chief Fyodorov Denies U.S. Tanker Bid
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adEaKS.f.nIk&pos=7
Russia’s United Aircraft Corp. isn’t planning to bid for the Pentagon’s $35 billion Air Force aerial-refueling tanker program, Chief Executive Officer Alexei Fyodorov said, contradicting U.S. media reports.
. . .
“This is utter nonsense,” Fyodorov said in a subsequent telephone interview with Bloomberg News. “UAC is not planning to take part in the tanker tender or set up a joint venture.”
. . .
Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said by telephone that he was unaware of any plans by United Aircraft to bid.
that sounds believable
“Either it’s all a huge misunderstanding” or a matter of the Russians not wanting to confirm the plan “until something is officially announced,” Kirkland said in a March 21 interview with Bloomberg. “If I’ve been duped, it’s a massive conspiracy, but anything is possible.”
“I’ve spoken with lots of people on the Russian side” including from United Aircraft, Kirkland said, adding that he was told Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin had approved the plan to bid. “That’s consistent with what I’ve been told for the last six months,” he said.
that doesn’t
irtuskAny patents on the KC-97 boom expired long ago. If IAI wants to copy it, they’re free to. Intellectual property lasts forever only in the wet dreams of copyright rentiers.
However they may not have just ‘copied it’, they may have signed some sort of licensing deal which is still in effect.
ie they didn’t just do a full reverse-engineer from the physical boom, but Boeing agreed to send some drawings or lend assistance, and through this contract, Boeing is able to exert veto power
pure speculation of course
i would still say the bigger problem is uprating it to 1200gpm. Boeing found the problem so hard they threw away the millions they had invested in the Gen6 boom.
irtuskarticle originally posted by Flying-A on the other thread
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/19/us.russia.refueling.tanker/index.html
Russian company expected to bid on Air Force refueling tanker
“The Russians spoke with Hillary Clinton today about it,” Kirkland said.
. . .
The Russian-American joint venture would be based in Los Angeles, Kirkland said, but he said the aircraft could be built anywhere in the country.
. . .
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Department of Defense has received a request by EADS to extend the time to submit a proposal by 90 days.
“The department is considering it,” Whitman said.
irtuskirtuskApart from that, it would need to be uprated to cope with the 1200GPM fuel transfer requirement right?
Indeed, since their current boom only does 900GPM
http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/files/5/36885.pdf
And that’s no trivial task. Boeing ditched their Gen6 boom (also 900GPM) that they had spent millions developing to go with a modified KC-10 boom.
irtuskI know, but the above is what I’d do Unless GE90 integration studies for the Il-98 (as I believe the Il-96 twinjet was to be called) were far more advanced than I realise, the risk involved seems substantial.
Another consideration is that the outer pylons might be a handy place to hang the WARPs from, kind of like the A330/A340 wing.
Just look at the issues Boeing had, and the risk of mounting a WARP where the wing isn’t designed to support the load is substantial in its own right
Yes, but needless to say that’s a Russian piece of kit. Workshare considerations might call for a US-sourced pod by GE.
There is nothing in the RFP about workshare considerations, just price.
They’re already dead politically, getting a GE WARP won’t change that. Their only hope is being legalistic and winning the contract by the letter of the RFP, which means as low cost as possible
irtusk– Il-96T-style F117 engines (low risk, C-17 commonality)
well we already know they’re not doing that, presumably because the fuel/maintenance costs over 40 years would eat-up any upfront savings
– IAI centerline boom and operator station
good catch, didn’t realize they had a boom
here’s a little article about it:
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/iai-tanker-program-advances/
The only issue would be if Boeing has any claim to parts of it
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/anak/Anak.htm
After the Six Day War, around 1968, four KC-97G’s were obtained from US surplus to enhance Israel’s airlift capability. These aircraft can be distinguished from the previous aircraft by the square fuselage windows and were equipped with the flying boom system, which gave the IAF the ability to refuel the F-4E Kurnass mid-air. This system served as the basis for the IAI flying boom system, later perfected by IAI and adopted on the IAF Boeing 707 fleet.
– Whatever underwing pods they see fit
That’s the easy part, they already use the UPAZ-1M on the Il-78 which has a higher rate than any western hose
irtuskNow that would be the best looking choice. 4 engine are just so much more sexy.
they said they’re changing the plane into a 2-engine model
So, shall we bet on who’s the US partner? Where’s the book keeper? 😀
Right! Out, you perfidious grandsons of General Arnold and show your faces in the bright sunlight – if you dare so!!
Vought perhaps?
You need to be thinking much, much smaller.
It will be some 2-man shop we’ve never of before.
In essence, a fig-leaf
irtuskAnd it would actually use the same engines as the C-17A.
nay, they said they were switching to a 2-engine model, which would mean a much bigger engine (GEnx anyone?)
Wonder if EADS would sell the ARBS boom
seriously, seriously doubt it
this is a huge hole in the russian proposal and i have not a clue how they plan to fill it
and the Cobham hoses …
the russians already have very good hoses. in fact, the WING units of the Il-78 outperform the CENTER-LINE units of both the KC-767 and KC-30
If anything, Boeing and EADS should be trying to license the russian hose units
irtuskhttp://defensenews.com/story.php?i=4547300&c=EUR&s=AIR
Asked about the UAC announcement, DoD spokewoman Cheryl Irwin said, “We welcome all qualified bidders.” Asked whether the Russian firm was qualified, she said, “I don’t know.”
irtuskhttp://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/configuration-on-kc-767-emerge/
Configuration details on KC-767 emerge
(some of the more interesting ones)
Q. The new-gen FBW boom: is this the 6th gen from the KC767AT?
A. It is not the 6th Gen boom from the AT. The NewGen is a brand new offer…with a brand new boom…based on the proven KC-10 boom.
Q. The 787 cockpit displays are referenced in the PR, but it is not clear to me if this is more-or-less a “cosmetic” thing or if the cockpit is akin to the 787. The KC767AT was to have the 767-400 “cockpit” and I am trying to understand just what it is Boeing is putting into the KC767NG.
A. It was our intention to only share (via the press release) that we’re taking electronic displays from the 787 for the NewGen Tanker and how that will help future aircrews if we’re fortunate to win the contract. That’s as far as we’re prepared to go on the flight deck…at this point.
Q. I continue to hear that there are wing pod issues for the Italian tanker. Are there any issues of any kind that result in lower operational performance (such as refueling at a slower airspeed) or aerodynamic issues that have contributed to further delays? I continue to hear that there are issues with the fuselage center-line hose-and-drogue on the Italian tanker. Are there any issues of any kind that result in lower operational performance (such as refueling at a slower airspeed) or aerodynamic issues that have contributed to further delays?
A. All I can provide is the current statement on the Italy Tanker Program. Here it is… As we have previously stated, there are a handful of major milestones we need to perform before we enter Tender for Acceptance and the delivery process for the first KC-767 tanker for our Italian customer. These include testing with refueling of a C-130J by the KC-767 and overall completion of flight testing, a military utility observation and, as necessary, resolving issues that arise during these tests. We are working toward completion of these milestones.
irtuskhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011392418_russiatanker20.html
Russian company will bid on Air Force tanker
Kirkland acknowledged it faces “significant hurdles … there are obvious security issues, there are sanctions and restrictions on buying things from Russia.”
He insisted, however, that “the IL-96 meets every single one of the final RFP (request for proposal) requirements, and it comes in at a lower price (than Boeing), so if it’s a fair competition, we win.”
One leading U.S. aerospace analyst thinks otherwise.
“What a completely bizarre idea,” said Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group. “There would be enormous political, technical and performance barriers. It will not happen.”
For one thing, he said, “The Il-96’s operating economics have more in common with the KC-135’s than with the Airbus and Boeing jets scheduled to replace the KC-135’s.”
Kirkland said that might be true of the current IL-96, which uses four engines. But United Aircraft will pitch a tanker using two modern, fuel-efficient Western engines, he said.
“That’s a great idea, if the Air Force enjoys taking on much more risk and if they delay the program a few years,” Aboulafia responded.
“Just when I thought (the tanker competition) couldn’t get any dumber this comes along,” he added.
:D:D
This just gets better and better
just eyeballing the ground-clearance in the above pictures, i’m not sure how much of a larger engine they can fit
Kirkland said that “if Airbus doesn’t bid, we’ll step into their shoes” and consider using the Mobile, Ala., site.
. . .
But Kirkland said they are sturdy and hold up well in combat conditions, noting they have ferried U.S. troops into Afghanistan
He attributed the mechanical problems of Russian airliners to lack of access to proper maintenance and training — something that could be corrected if United Aircraft can establish a maintenance, repair and overhaul base (MRO) in the U.S., he said.
“The whole economic incentive to do this transaction is we will have an MRO facility in the U.S., to allow us to service Russian airplanes to eliminate the maintenance problems people experience with Russian airplanes.”
That in turn would open the door for United Aircraft to market its Antonov AN148 regional jet, for up to about 85 passengers, in the U.S. market.
“Its Putin’s favorite plane,” Kirkland said, adding that because of the AN148’s low price, “Everyone should want it, they’re just worried about the maintenance.”
He said his Russian clients told him that when President Obama met Putin, the Russian president specifically asked about United Aircraft’s potential bid on the tanker. “Obama gave him his personal assurance they would be given a fair shot at this like everyone else,” he said.
::jawdrop::
Sign In
