Chuck Arnold extended his layover at JFK airport this evening to answer phone calls, including one from me. Arnold, senior advisor to the board of directors of sudden KC-X competitor US Aerospace, Inc., was halfway home to Los Angeles. He had flown in from meetings at Antonov headquarters in Kiev, Ukraine.
It was 11pm in Kiev last night when Arnold says he sealed the deal. Tiny US Aerospace would offer Antonov aircraft for KC-X, facing off against Boeing and EADS for a roughly $35 billion tanker contract. Arnold didn't get to sleep until a few hours later. First, he had to call the Pentagon to inform a wide range of military officials that a Ukrainian-built aircraft would enter the KC-X competition. He was honest - if diplomatic - about their reactions.
"Everyone's been rather reserved on this," Arnold says. "They haven't had time to think about this."
Tell me about it. I've been covering the KC-X contract war for nearly a decade, and I've seen a lot of strange things. But a surprise bid by a small American firm offering a non-existent Ukrainian transport with no announced supply chain to the US Air Force one week before the deadline for proposals? Well, that tops them all.
Arnold has been traveling for most of the day and missed the storm of coverage that erupted after the story broke, which included aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia's verdict that the Antonov-based KC-X proposal is "dumb beyond belief" and a "complete waste of time". But Arnold is at least not unaware of the apparent absurdity of the situation.
"Most of the first responses I get are like yours," he says, adding with mock disbelief: "'Are you offering a Ukrainian manufacturer for the KC-X tanker project?'"
The answer to that posed question from Arnold is a definitive yes. It's still unclear how seriously we should take this bid. It's the kind of story that makes me worry I'm falling for this year's most belated April Fool's joke. After speaking with Arnold for 25 minutes, he gave the impression of not only sincerity, but also a surprising -- and arguably unjustified -- confidence for his team's chances. He patiently answered some of the many questions his announcement raises, so I'll try to now put his responses into the public record. I didn't tape-record the phone interview. I wasn't expecting a return phone call at 5:30pm on the eve of a holiday weekend. But I'll do my best to paraphrase the conversation based on my notes.
Please click on the jump to read the paraphrased Q and A with Arnold:
It was 11pm in Kiev last night when Arnold says he sealed the deal. Tiny US Aerospace would offer Antonov aircraft for KC-X, facing off against Boeing and EADS for a roughly $35 billion tanker contract. Arnold didn't get to sleep until a few hours later. First, he had to call the Pentagon to inform a wide range of military officials that a Ukrainian-built aircraft would enter the KC-X competition. He was honest - if diplomatic - about their reactions.
"Everyone's been rather reserved on this," Arnold says. "They haven't had time to think about this."
Tell me about it. I've been covering the KC-X contract war for nearly a decade, and I've seen a lot of strange things. But a surprise bid by a small American firm offering a non-existent Ukrainian transport with no announced supply chain to the US Air Force one week before the deadline for proposals? Well, that tops them all.
Arnold has been traveling for most of the day and missed the storm of coverage that erupted after the story broke, which included aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia's verdict that the Antonov-based KC-X proposal is "dumb beyond belief" and a "complete waste of time". But Arnold is at least not unaware of the apparent absurdity of the situation.
"Most of the first responses I get are like yours," he says, adding with mock disbelief: "'Are you offering a Ukrainian manufacturer for the KC-X tanker project?'"
The answer to that posed question from Arnold is a definitive yes. It's still unclear how seriously we should take this bid. It's the kind of story that makes me worry I'm falling for this year's most belated April Fool's joke. After speaking with Arnold for 25 minutes, he gave the impression of not only sincerity, but also a surprising -- and arguably unjustified -- confidence for his team's chances. He patiently answered some of the many questions his announcement raises, so I'll try to now put his responses into the public record. I didn't tape-record the phone interview. I wasn't expecting a return phone call at 5:30pm on the eve of a holiday weekend. But I'll do my best to paraphrase the conversation based on my notes.
Please click on the jump to read the paraphrased Q and A with Arnold:
Question: You're offering three different aircraft: the An-124, An-122 and An-112. I know what the An-124 is, but can you tell me what are the An-122 and An-112?
Answer: The An-112 is a design that will be an adaptation of one of Antonov's existing models. That is the design that will provide an aircraft that should fill all of the requirements for KC-X and could be the lowest bid provided in the competition. In the second half of the program, the US Air Force is looking for more requirements. We believe that's where the An-122 and An-124 will offer an advantage.
Question: By saying "the second half of the program", you're referring to KC-Y?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Can you go back to the An-112 and explain what that aircraft is? There is a reference on Wikipedia that refers to the An-112 as a jet-powered, swept-wing adaptation of the An-12. Is that true?
Answer: We will be able to release details about the An-112 after we get the performance specifications on Monday. It's close to what you are describing. It's not quite that, but it's close to that. I want to emphasize that the An-112 we feel will be the number one aircraft in the competition.
Question: Where will you source the refueling equipment?
Answer: Refueling parts are components that are very sensitive, and they will be among the equipment that is sourced in the United States and subassembled here.
Question: What engines are you offering?
Answer: US Aerospace is looking at both Pratt & Whitney enginers, either those or General Electrics. We'll also make that decision on Monday. We're leaning towards GE.
Question: Can you explain how you're going to put together a responsive bid in a week to a KC-X request for proposals that includes 372 mandatory requirements and 93 non-mandatory specifications?
Answer: This is something that would take Boeing 50 to 100 people for three months. We've been working on this since November last year. But you're right. This next week will be really busy. All of us will be working on this day and night.
Question: Can you go back to the refuelling issue and discuss where you're getting the boom? The refueling boom is [nearly] unqiue to the US Air Force and there's only so many sources of supply. You can find probe-and-drogue systems all over the world, but there's only a few places you can source refueling booms. So how will you do that?
Answer: The boom is one of the few pieces that will have to be done here in the US. When we submit the bid we'll have that specification there. We have to make a decision between three suppliers. We feel comfortable that we can provide a boom that meets the specifications. I can't say more because we haven't finished final negotiations on the specifications.
Question: Where would US Aerospace place final assembly if you win the contract?
Answer: We're looking at the Southeast right now. We've talked to a few states down there and received a good response. It will be Southeast or Midwest. We will be making that decision also this week. These will be busy days.
Answer: The An-112 is a design that will be an adaptation of one of Antonov's existing models. That is the design that will provide an aircraft that should fill all of the requirements for KC-X and could be the lowest bid provided in the competition. In the second half of the program, the US Air Force is looking for more requirements. We believe that's where the An-122 and An-124 will offer an advantage.
Question: By saying "the second half of the program", you're referring to KC-Y?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Can you go back to the An-112 and explain what that aircraft is? There is a reference on Wikipedia that refers to the An-112 as a jet-powered, swept-wing adaptation of the An-12. Is that true?
Answer: We will be able to release details about the An-112 after we get the performance specifications on Monday. It's close to what you are describing. It's not quite that, but it's close to that. I want to emphasize that the An-112 we feel will be the number one aircraft in the competition.
Question: Where will you source the refueling equipment?
Answer: Refueling parts are components that are very sensitive, and they will be among the equipment that is sourced in the United States and subassembled here.
Question: What engines are you offering?
Answer: US Aerospace is looking at both Pratt & Whitney enginers, either those or General Electrics. We'll also make that decision on Monday. We're leaning towards GE.
Question: Can you explain how you're going to put together a responsive bid in a week to a KC-X request for proposals that includes 372 mandatory requirements and 93 non-mandatory specifications?
Answer: This is something that would take Boeing 50 to 100 people for three months. We've been working on this since November last year. But you're right. This next week will be really busy. All of us will be working on this day and night.
Question: Can you go back to the refuelling issue and discuss where you're getting the boom? The refueling boom is [nearly] unqiue to the US Air Force and there's only so many sources of supply. You can find probe-and-drogue systems all over the world, but there's only a few places you can source refueling booms. So how will you do that?
Answer: The boom is one of the few pieces that will have to be done here in the US. When we submit the bid we'll have that specification there. We have to make a decision between three suppliers. We feel comfortable that we can provide a boom that meets the specifications. I can't say more because we haven't finished final negotiations on the specifications.
Question: Where would US Aerospace place final assembly if you win the contract?
Answer: We're looking at the Southeast right now. We've talked to a few states down there and received a good response. It will be Southeast or Midwest. We will be making that decision also this week. These will be busy days.
Recent Comments