Russians to bid on KC-X. No, really!

[Vympel]

Link

Here's the latest twist in the Air Force tanker saga: The Russians are coming.

Russia's government-owned aerospace company will announce Monday it is competing against Boeing for the $40 billion refueling-tanker contract, a Los Angeles attorney for the company said Friday.

United Aircraft of Moscow plans to unveil a U.S. partner and offer a modified version of its Ilyushin Il-96 wide-body plane, said John Kirkland, a Los Angeles lawyer representing the group.

The still-unidentified partner, "a U.S. public company and existing defense contractor," would assemble the planes in the U.S., he said. The Russian interest in the tanker bid was first reported Friday by The Wall Street Journal.

United Aircraft was formed under the authority of then-President Vladimir Putin in 2006 to combine the most famous names in Russian aviation: Sukhoi, Tupolev, Ilyushin, MiG.

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, Aboulafia 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-135s."

Kirkland said that might be true of the current Ilyushin 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.

On another front in the tanker contest, European manufacturer EADS said Friday it was asking the Pentagon for a 90-day extension of the bidding deadline so it can decide whether to proceed without its partner Northrop Grumman.

Northrop was scheduled to assemble EADS's Airbus A330 tankers in a new plant in Mobile, Ala. But it dropped out March 8, saying the contract requirements tilted in Boeing's favor by emphasizing price over additional capabilities.

Kirkland said that "if Airbus doesn't bid, we'll step into their shoes" and consider using the Mobile, Ala., site.

The Ilyushin Il-96 first flew in 1988 as the Soviet Union began to crumble. Only 20 were sold before the passenger version was discontinued amid economic chaos at home and little interest abroad. Russian civilian aircraft, to the extent they are known in the West, are often considered lumbering and unreliable.

But Kirkland said they are sturdy, noting they have ferried U.S. troops into Afghanistan. United Aircraft makes the refueling tanker for Russia's air forces, based on the Ilyushin Il-76 airliner, and would convert its newer airliner in similar fashion, he said.

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.

Just ... weird.

[Shroom Man 777]

That's awesome! UAC markets Antonovs? I thought Antonov was Ukrainian.

[irishmick79]

have the Russians attempted something like this before, or is this unique? I don't recall ever hearing of Russian companies bidding on American defense projects like this, but I'm no expert.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

More likely to be rejected on the grounds that every filthy inch of the aircraft is lined with bugs both small and large.

[eion]

So now we know the answer to the question, "What's worse than a French tanker?"

[tim31]

Oh man, if that happened I can't wait for the next Avalon Airshow.

"And parked next to the B-1 is the pride of the 60th Air Mobility Wing, the Ilyushin KC-30!"

[Ritterin Sophia]

This is so... surreal. Could this be a sign of bettering US-Russian relations?

[Ma Deuce]

This is so... surreal. Could this be a sign of bettering US-Russian relations?

This strikes me as more of a publicity stunt than a serious bid.

[Commander 598]

The article pretty much says that Russia's United Aircraft wants to sell in the US (Specifically the AN-148) but has a slight issue in the form of no place to fix/train anyone to fix anything. I think it's hinting at the Alabama plant as the potential "facility" for UA to do all that if they were to win/EADS not win maybe.

[Jade Falcon]

If a bunch of "Yuropeans" having the chance at winning was causing hysterics you can just imagine the reaction to a Russian bid.

Fair play to them trying though.

[MKSheppard]

Someone from a nother forum, Rheinwalder from Airliners.net said it best:

That is only because this stupid RFP is tailored to make a winner from the 767! Only by demanding cheap unit prices the 767 can win over the KC-30. But guess what, if bad is cheap then worse is the cheapest.

By that stupid RFP Boeing has no chance to beat the Russian prices if they manage to deliver the minimum requirements. Will they? Why not! The bar is set only as high as KC-135 standards. A lot of aircrafts beat KC-135 capabilities. Also much cheaper ones than KC-767's.

Will be interesting to see those that demanded a cost efficient solution. Will they support the Russian offer or will we testify another swift in mindset? (you know, the best for taxpayers money is no longer so important, we changed our focus again).

Anyone who asked for cheap tankers who does not support the Russians now is demasked having a Boeing agenda. A major dilema.

[Pelranius]

Well, there is sort of a precedent for this. Boeing briefly considered the Chinese MA-60 (an evolution of the Soviet An-26, or is it An-24) as a contender for the Joint Cargo Aircraft, but that never really got off the ground, at least according to rumors from Flight Global.

[Sea Skimmer]

I bet Boeing sent Ilyushin a bottle of Voda and asked them to make a bid, so that Congress couldn’t complain that the contract wasn’t awarded on a competitive basis. I’m going to guess Lockheed for a partner, its hard to think of who else would be big enough to even try.

[Questor]

I bet Boeing sent Ilyushin a bottle of Voda and asked them to make a bid, so that Congress couldn’t complain that the contract wasn’t awarded on a competitive basis. I’m going to guess Lockheed for a partner, its hard to think of who else would be big enough to even try.

Does LockMart still operate the plants in Burbank? There might be a political upside if they do.

[Omega18]

Someone from a nother forum, Rheinwalder from Airliners.net said it best:

That is only because this stupid RFP is tailored to make a winner from the 767! Only by demanding cheap unit prices the 767 can win over the KC-30. But guess what, if bad is cheap then worse is the cheapest.

By that stupid RFP Boeing has no chance to beat the Russian prices if they manage to deliver the minimum requirements. Will they? Why not! The bar is set only as high as KC-135 standards. A lot of aircrafts beat KC-135 capabilities. Also much cheaper ones than KC-767's.

Will be interesting to see those that demanded a cost efficient solution. Will they support the Russian offer or will we testify another swift in mindset? (you know, the best for taxpayers money is no longer so important, we changed our focus again).

Anyone who asked for cheap tankers who does not support the Russians now is demasked having a Boeing agenda. A major dilema.

The problem, is that cheap prices was only one of the things considered in the tanker bid, and the Russian bid has a wide array of issues the A330 and 767 bid don't have. The claim is just nonsense.

In particular the Il-96's bid is apparently going to involve putting on two western engines instead of the 4 the plane currently has among other changes, leading to a vastly higher degree of risk for the program, and potential cost overruns. (Even if the US eventually cut off the project due to cost overruns, that would certainly lead to a huge delay in getting new tankers when having to start from scratch at that point.)

Another obvious issue is the IL-96s's height, means its going to have the exact same infrastructure cost issues from not fitting in USAF hangers designed to originally fit B-52 bombers that the A330 has. (Its actually a bit taller which might make the problem worse.) The same higher airbase apron footprint the A330 has compared to the 767 also applies to the IL-96.

The IL-96 will also definitely need completely western designed avionics and internal electronics to avoid the political risk of the Russians inserting a trojan to potentially disable the planes remotely at a key moment in the future, which is going to involve huge costs to manage. You would also need essentially all parts license built in the US since Russia being able to cut off parts anytime they want to for such a key part of military equipment would be a real unacceptable risk. By the time you add add all these issues in, its not at all clear the 767 won't retain a major price advantage over the IL-96, even leaving out the infrastructure specific issues. (When you're talking about Russia the potential political risks to the US's purchase of major military equipment become clearly quite real and not debatable as in the case of the EADS proposal.)

One other definite question is even with two engines if the aircraft will actually have as good fuel efficiency as the proposed tanker versions of the 767 and A330.

I frankly strongly suspect this is purely a publicity stunt rather than a serious attempt at a bid.

[Sea Skimmer]

Does LockMart still operate the plants in Burbank? There might be a political upside if they do.

I’m not sure on that one. However this contract is big enough that people can seriously consider building new facilities, or radically modifying existing ones. So the kickbacks can flow to an optimal location.

[Questor]

Does LockMart still operate the plants in Burbank? There might be a political upside if they do.

I’m not sure on that one. However this contract is big enough that people can seriously consider building new facilities, or radically modifying existing ones. So the kickbacks can flow to an optimal location.

I just ask because people around here do remember the individual events that have touched off the local recessions, and I suspect that channeling some money back into SoCal aerospace just might get some votes, maybe even a congressional seat.

[Pelranius]

There's the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works in Palmdale California but that focuses mostly upon building special missions stuff and prototypes, which really isn't a place to build tankers, IMO.

[Sidewinder]

Is this Russia's way of making up for their predecessor pressuring the UK to give them Rolls-Royce Nene engines? Or for pirating the B-29's design?

Considering the Russian government declared NATO- by extension, the US- its Number One threat, I find it mind-boggling it's willing to sell military aircraft to the US. Is this the Stalin Note's reincarnation, i.e., intended to create a rift the US government, between "Buy American- I mean Boeing!" and "Our boys deserve what's better, faster, cheaper!" camps?

[Sea Skimmer]

Considering the Russian government declared NATO- by extension, the US- its Number One threat, I find it mind-boggling it's willing to sell military aircraft to the US. Is this the Stalin Note's reincarnation, i.e., intended to create a rift the US government, between "Buy American- I mean Boeing!" and "Our boys deserve what's better, faster, cheaper!" camps?

It’s a cargo plane filled with fuel; the US hardly gains any advantage from having access to the latest Russian cargo plane. Meanwhile Russia would get billions in hard currency profits. Its not like Russia can do anything to stop the US from having tanker planes.

[Sidewinder]

It’s a cargo plane filled with fuel; the US hardly gains any advantage from having access to the latest Russian cargo plane. Meanwhile Russia would get billions in hard currency profits. Its not like Russia can do anything to stop the US from having tanker planes.

I doubt the US is the only nation to withhold upgrades for exported weapon systems to pressure its allies. KC-X may be a tanker, but it's military role is critical. Tell me Russia won't be tempted to suspend maintenance of the aircraft, crippling logistic support for US military expeditionary forces, if its government disagrees with America's? Or not be tempted to keep tankers undergoing refits in limbo, effectively denying them to the USAF?

[Pelranius]

If there's coproduction with Lockheed Martin, then the USAF could theoretically be able to perform most maintenance tasks, since I imagine the KC-X would involve a lot of technology transfer from any foreign airframe supplier.

[Sea Skimmer]

I doubt the US is the only nation to withhold upgrades for exported weapon systems to pressure its allies. KC-X may be a tanker, but it's military role is critical. Tell me Russia won't be tempted to suspend maintenance of the aircraft, crippling logistic support for US military expeditionary forces, if its government disagrees with America's? Or not be tempted to keep tankers undergoing refits in limbo, effectively denying them to the USAF?

If the plane was physically built in the US with western engines and avionics, what the fuck would they have to withhold? If Russia tried anything funny, it’d just mean the US government seizes the factory. Russia would in fact be incapable of providing the most important spares even if wanted too, because they’d have nothing to do with a Russian spec Il-96.

[Omega18]

If the plane was physically built in the US with western engines and avionics, what the fuck would they have to withhold? If Russia tried anything funny, it’d just mean the US government seizes the factory. Russia would in fact be incapable of providing the most important spares even if wanted too, because they’d have nothing to do with a Russian spec Il-96.

As I noted previously, if actually all the spare part components are built in the US for these aircraft, its suddenly very questionable with the other changes that the IL-96 will actually be cheaper than the 767 option. (And the Il-96 also doesn't currently fit in a bunch of USAF maintenance hangers built to basically fit the B-52 while the 767 does fit.)

The issue is parts other than engines and avionics could still be gone though pretty rapidly if the tankers are seeing significant use in a military conflict.

[Sea Skimmer]

As I noted previously, if actually all the spare part components are built in the US for these aircraft, its suddenly very questionable with the other changes that the IL-96 will actually be cheaper than the 767 option. (And the Il-96 also doesn't currently fit in a bunch of USAF maintenance hangers built to basically fit the B-52 while the 767 does fit.)

No way will it end up significantly cheaper by the time it was done being adapted, most Russian aircraft have much higher lifecycle costs then western equivalents and mixing technology doesn’t help much. That’s why for example India wants the C-17 instead of the Il-76MF, even though the latter plane has 1/3rd as high a flyaway cost. The lower operating costs will more then balance it out in the long run. The whole thing is really a joke, but I see it as really just a propaganda ploy, and a step towards Russia trying to compete on smaller contracts. Its a lot easier to see say a Russian built bridge kit being adapted by the US Army then a 40 billion dollar tanker. Course we never did pay them for stealing the PMP bridge design.

The issue is parts other than engines and avionics could still be gone though pretty rapidly if the tankers are seeing significant use in a military conflict.

The program requires that a completely US controlled repair capability be stood up within 5 years. So you’d have at worst a five year period, in which not that many of the tankers would even exist, in which Russia could withhold certain airframe parts which might not yet be produced in the US. A glaring vulnerability this is not. The fact is the US couldn’t truly trust airbus any further then it does Russia. All it takes is one intervention the EU doesn’t like and it’s the same situation. That’s why the US controlled repair bit is a requirement just to submit a proposal.