modelman11 Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 United Aircraft Corp plans on bidding with an unnamed U.S. Defence contractor for the KC-X. It will apparently be based off of the IL-96 with only 2 engines!!! Possibly C-17 type. :lol: And no, Im not screwing with you!!! http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/busi...iatanker20.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 Yeah, it was already mentioned >>> here <<< ... Interesting, to say the least ... :lol: Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 Has this finally happened? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
modelman11 Posted March 20, 2010 Author Share Posted March 20, 2010 Yeah, it was already mentioned >>> here <<< ...Interesting, to say the least ... :lol: Gregg Dang it!!! And I swear I checked everywhere before I posted that!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Julien (UK) Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 That and EADS re-entering are interesting to say the least. I still think its bad if only for the fact it will further delay an in service date for those guys flying around in old KC-135's Julien Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 Not that it matters anyway, considering they have no chance of winning, even if it had plasma stealth and could supercruise while hovering. Not sure why they bid on the competition anyway. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 Even if (and it's a big "if") the DoD gives EADS another 90 days, that's hardly time enough for them to get with another company and come up with a realistic plan. As noted in another article I read about this development, neither Lock-Mart nor L3 is in a position to take on a major large aircraft production scheme at this point. Lock-Mart doesn't have the capacity, and L3 has no chops in building a/c, only in modifying existing ones. I very seriously doubt anybody but Boeing has a prayer in this competition. J Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 It will be able to refuel the F-22 in the midst of a Kobra maneuver. Regards, Murph Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vesper Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Has this finally happened? That happened when the Saints won the Super Bowl Ves B) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Oroka Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I actually looked at the clock in my task bar to see if somehow I missed 10 days and it was April 1st. Really. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
devil505 Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 That happened when the Saints won the Super Bowl Ves No,no,no... You mean when Detroit wins the Super Bowl. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ventura_kelley Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 United Aircraft Corp plans on bidding with an unnamed U.S. Defence contractor for the KC-X. It will apparently be based off of the IL-96 with only 2 engines!!! Possibly C-17 type. And no, Im not screwing with you!!!http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/busi...iatanker20.html They just called the pentagon's bluff on the whole "fair competition" thing. Don't like a European airplane? Fine. Try Russian. :rofl: What's weird is everyone pitching a fit over us using a "European" design, because components will be built over there, when we demanded that they used components built here for aircraft designs we sold them. Weird how that doesn't seem to work both ways. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ventura_kelley Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Not that it matters anyway, considering they have no chance of winning, even if it had plasma stealth and could supercruise while hovering. Not sure why they bid on the competition anyway. Just messing with the pentagon. Any chance they get to embarrass us by calling us out on our bullsnot (and we've been full of bullsnot for nearly a decade now), they're going to take it. They wrote the proposal to get rid of the Europeans, but if the Russians can beat every single requirement (including maintainability) and can do it a lot cheaper, they're going to have to come right out and admit that this was a "Boeing only" competition. That's the problem with rigging the game; occasionally someone calls you on it by winning anyway. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caudleryan Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I don't really care what it is. Just as long as we can get them out to our troops ASAP. RYAN. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Oroka Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 No,no,no... You mean when Detroit wins the Super Bowl. You mean when the Toronto Mapleleafs win anything? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
C5sparkcatcher Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Here is the skinny, straight from United Aircraft: http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/press/news/index.php?id4=484 Shame really, was looking forward to seeing the Acquisitions people squirm around on this one. Ray Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Linden Hill Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 UAC doesn't do any bidding or negotiating with foreign entities. This is the sole preserve of the state-owned Russian Defence Export Corporation, Rosoboronexport. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hawkeye's Hobbies Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 I think my concept of a shortened B777 is a perfect choice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 if the Russians can beat every single requirement (including maintainability) and can do it a lot cheaper, they're going to have to come right out and admit that this was a "Boeing only" competition. That "if" at the beginning of your sentence is a HYOOOOOGE "if". An if I very, very seriously doubt they'd be remotely able to satisfy with anything Russian. J Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shark Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 An if I very, very seriously doubt they'd be remotely able to satisfy with anything Russian.J Russians have had refueling tankers for years, they refule Flankers all the time with no major issues, so not sure what's your point here Thruth is, they will not bid on it, they already stated that. Although it was on every major news outlet for a while. Shark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Russians have had refueling tankers for years, they refule Flankers all the time with no major issues, so not sure what's your point here They can certainly refuel aircraft in flight. But the Russians/Soviets never developed a high flow rate system like the flying boom. The USAF's requirement calls for a flying boom. Beyond that, there's absolutely no way anything Russian could begin to meet the maintainability and reliability requirements the USAF has in the specs for the program. But as you say, it's all academic at this point. J Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.