Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Teh Stoopid

From today's AFA Daily Report...
It's Official, KC-X is Three-way Contest: US Aerospace, Inc., a heretofore inconspicuous US aerospace and defense contractor, announced Tuesday that it has entered into a strategic cooperation agreement with Antonov, the Ukrainian state-owned aerospace giant, to compete for the Air Force's KC-X tanker contract. We first reported yesterday that this was a possibility. The new team joins Boeing and EADS North America in the tanker contest. "Together we can deliver the US Air Force a superior tanker at the most competitive price," said Jerrold Pressman, US Aerospace chairman. The US-Ukrainian pair says it will offer the Air Force three Antonov tanker models: the AN-124-KC, AN-122-KC (a twin-engine AN-124-100 variant), and AN-112-KC (an updated airframe designed specifically to meet KC-X requirements).Antonov would build the airframes in Ukraine, with final assembly at a new US Aerospace facility in the US. No word yet who will supply aerial refueling booms for these tankers. (See also Seattle Post-Intelligencer blog entry)
Yeah... I can just see USAF tanker crews flying Ukrainian-manufactured tankers (you may read that as "Soviet" if'n you happen to be an old Cold Warrior).  Yup, the vision is clear as a bell.  And it's not as unlikely as you might think, Gentle Reader.  I DO believe the lowest-cost bidder is required to win the contract in Federal procurements, barring a meticulously documented reason for failing to meet any given requirement.  Just to cite one example, Lockheed consistently finished third out of three bidders during the evaluation process for the C-5 yet won the contract.  They had the lowest bid.

As for me?  I feel there ought to be a requirement that strategic weapons systems be designed, sourced, and manufactured entirely within the United States.  Period.

7 comments:

  1. So much for being Berry Amendment compliant. I'd hate to see the USAF use a single Russian nut or bolt. I fear the outcome as much as you. Damn shame. The Cold War hasn't ended yet contrary to popular belief.

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/whos-who-in-the-russian-spy-ring/

    ReplyDelete
  2. I must second your suggestion for made-in-Americanism. Hello -- jobs!!

    And the first word that sprang to mind when I read this wasn't Soviet -- it was "Russky," but cold-war era nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Buck; Why the fudge (I really mean something else) can't rational people add some stupid fargin tanks and pumps to existing airframes? As if the Boeing 707 (KC-135) wasn't an already flying machine in 1960, or that other model based on a 737. How difficult was it to make some design changes?

    Am I a total idiot? Is sensibility so far gone that there has/needs to be an entire airframe designed and developed at massive expense to our already strained Federal Budget?

    FTW. Our Congress and Senior Military Procurement "Leaders" need to be taken out and beaten by Bikers and other concerned citizens.

    It is enough to make people consider open rebellion, or at least open season/no bag limit on the sub humans in Federal Gubmint.

    Rant mode off.

    Hope you're settling in at home.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm with ya', Buck! We've got those tankers here at BAFB, as you know...or at least we DID. I haven't checked lately, but I'm pretty sure they're still out there.

    Certainly I don't want to see the taxpayer ripped off in a "US-Only bidding war." But, I REALLY would rather us just hold back a couple of billion in foreign aid, and make sure that strategic weapons are designed, and built here on home turf.

    Even if somebody's gettin' over on me, I'd rather it be one of my fellow countrymen that is likely to somehow plow those dollars back in to US.

    Heh! Word Verification: vader

    Nyuk!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'll give you a big "Amen" on this one Buck.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm glad to see all y'all agree on this. Your point is taken, Darryl. But then again, both Boeing and EADS are proposing existing airframes... with mods... like Boeing did with the 707/KC-135. I don't think the Antonov proposal is gonna fly (heh), actually. They requested a 60-day extension for the bid due date and the Pentagon hasn't granted it. Proposals are still due tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Contractor X, here are the fully owned government drawings for a complete useful tanker. Make me a hundred more at this price or give me your best and final offer.

    It's a proven design and NOBODY can improve on it.

    ReplyDelete

Just be polite... that's all I ask.