US/Ukrainian venture plane to enter USAF contest

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

Originally published Friday, July 2, 2010 at 7:24 AM

Ukrainian plane to enter Air Force tanker contest

A tiny, cash-strapped California aerospace supplier says it has teamed with the Ukrainian manufacturer of Antonov aircraft to make a longshot bid for the U.S. Air Force tanker contract.


By Seattle Times business staff

A tiny, cash-strapped California aerospace supplier says it has teamed with the Ukrainian manufacturer of Antonov aircraft to make a longshot bid for the U.S. Air Force tanker contract.

The company, called US Aerospace, is delinquent on federal and state income and payroll taxes, as well as two car loans, according to a regulatory filing last month. And its latest quarterly statement warns that its financial troubles "raise substantial doubt" it can survive without raising more money soon.

All that would presumably change if the late entrant can wrest the $35 billion tanker contract away from bidders Boeing and Airbus parent EADS, which have battled over the 179 plane job for years.

But that's a big if.

US Aerospace said it signed a joint-venture agreement Thursday with the Ukrainian state-owned company Antonov, and immediately notified the U.S. Department of Defense it would join the tanker competition.

"We anticipate bidding three models of aircraft, the AN-124-KC, AN-122-KC and AN-112-KC," the company said in a regulatory filing.

"The airframes will be built by Antonov in Ukraine, with final assembly in the United States. We believe that we will be able to offer a superior aircraft at a significantly lower price than other potential bidders."

The company, which is based near Los Angeles, said its agreement with the Ukrainian plane maker also contemplates bidding for other U.S. defense contracts and selling Antonov's aircraft and services commercially in the U.S.

Besides needing money, US Aerospace faces the challenge of receiving special security clearances because of secret military systems built into the airplane. EADS is tightly bound into the defense establishment of Western Europe that is allied with the U.S., and has the classified clearances it needs to build the tanker.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... ker03.html

I don't know how far it would make it, but a 3 way fly off would be cool.

[DaveSims]

Do the Ukrainians/Russians even have a viable large tanker aircraft, or would it be a modification of an existing airframe.  I noticed an AN-124 KC, which I would venture to guess is a AN-124 modified.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

I'm trying to find the An-122 & An-112, with no luck.

[SeanTK]

Well that's not going to go far. I doubt that the US would spring for a "Russian" airplane...there is too much pride and too many egos involved.

@davysims,

They are mainly offering mods to an existing airframe (the An-124) basically with either the 4 engine, or a 2 engined variant. Note....the An-122 is a two engined version.
It also looks like they are adding a third option of a completely new frame, dubbed the An-112. I think if you find any images at all of these, it would be concept art.

Regarding the first options....it's a very viable & logical thing to do. Keep in mind that the US is currently using

[Ivan]

With cameras its just a bunch of flexible fuel cells and some extra piping in the wing...

The Il-78 has depending on which version is used either fixed tanks or flexible tanks

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote]U.S. Aerospace Protests KC-X Source Selection
By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com

The 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

[HawkSpeedSix]

[quote]Do the Ukrainians/Russians even have a viable large tanker aircraft, or would it be a modification of an existing airframe.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

A little more info

The Government Accountability Office is now reviewing the Aug. 2 protest filed by US. Aerospace/Antonov.

The company is claiming it was unfairly shut out of the competition. And, the crux of this argument will likely boil down to the type of discussion that former President Bill Clinton had when he said "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

At issue is when USAF took control of the proposal documents submitted by U.S. Aerospace. All of the following detail was provide from an industry executive who wished to be anonymous due to the sensitivity of the issue.

The company claims its messenger, which was delivering the proposal was at the Wright-Patterson Area B gate before 1:30 p.m. July 9. The deadline was 2 p.m. that day.

According to the company, Air Force personnel at the gate "initially denied the messenger entry to the base, then gave incorrect direction to the 1755 Eleventh Street Building 570," where the proposal was headed. The messenger apparently became lost, and Air Force personnel told him to wait while they came to him.

By the time the papers reached their destination, the Air Force stamped the proposal as being received at 2:05 p.m.

U.S. Aerospace was notified July 22 via a letter from the Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patt that the company's bid was late and would not be considered as part of the source selection.

So, one of the questions that is likely to be addressed as GAO reviews the protest is at what point the USAF had "control" over the proposal.

Was it when the messenger stepped onto the base? I'd suspect that when it comes to matters of security, the Air Force would say its personnel have control over all people on their bases. When it comes to a contracting matter, it may be different.

Apparently, Air Force officials subsequently told a company representative that delays at installation gates are common (and they are -- I've been subject to more than a few), and that the company should have anticipated this potential snag and planned appropriately.

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.

Another issue likely to arise during the review process is whether the Air Force was responsive to requests from U.S. Aerospace to the classified documents required to provide a fully compliant bid.

The U.S. Aerospace argument is that the Air Force took a week or more to provide the documentation required for the company to respond to its bid. The Air Force, however, has a rigid process for such communications and asked the company to resubmit its request through an official process channel. The net result was that the company had less time to review the materials and respond to the RFP.

On this matter, the Air Force is likely to argue that the processes for bidders are set -- as laid out in the FAR -- and the service is unable to budge from them.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

[DaveSims]

The Air Force boys just better take really good care of those old KC-135s.  At this rate they will be around for a long time to come.

[HawkSpeedSix]

[quote]The Air Force boys just better take really good care of those old KC-135s.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote]Latest KC-X Protest Not Likely Precedent

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has a healthy set of case law exploring the question of proposal tardiness upon which to draw during its review of the U.S. Aerospace protest of the U.S. Air Force

[Ivan]

[quote][quote]Do the Ukrainians/Russians even have a viable large tanker aircraft, or would it be a modification of an existing airframe.

[DaveSims]

[quote][quote][quote]Do the Ukrainians/Russians even have a viable large tanker aircraft, or would it be a modification of an existing airframe.

[RaptorF22]

[quote][quote][quote][quote]Do the Ukrainians/Russians even have a viable large tanker aircraft, or would it be a modification of an existing airframe.

[HawkSpeedSix]

And strategic transports as tankers... look here, Two were rebuilt and are still flying around and refuelling F-14's.

Ok, I'll rephrase that. Large military strategic transports don't historically make good tankers.

As for flying around refuelling F-14s, I suspect that depends on the serviceability of the F-14s.

The 747's too big to be an effective tanker though, unless you plan your war very, very well.