:( I don't friggin believe this CF! Can we just award this to Boeing and get it over with? And of course EADS wants back in, without Northrup-Grumman. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/03/19/us.ru...fueling.tanker/

:( I don't friggin believe this CF! Can we just award this to Boeing and get it over with? And of course EADS wants back in, without Northrup-Grumman. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/03/19/us.ru...fueling.tanker/

Now this is getting to be a real fiasco! Were what in this about 2 to 3 years, and they're still at the bidding stage? Now they want another extension, oh and while there at it add a new player at the 11th hour! This is getting to be more like a Soap Opera, then a professional business deal!!

"This is getting to be more like a Soap Opera, then a professional business deal!! "As someone said "Another episode in As the Propeller Turns"JimCYWG

Just give Boeing the contract and get it over with, if we wind up relying on the Russians for aircraft, I don't want to remind you about certain political elements that have happened in the past that still cause tension. Honestly I think we should be making all our own gear, you can't fight a country if they make your gear. It's like bombing your own factories.

Just give Boeing the contract and get it over with, if we wind up relying on the Russians for aircraft, I don't want to remind you about certain political elements that have happened in the past that still cause tension. Honestly I think we should be making all our own gear, you can't fight a country if they make your gear. It's like bombing your own factories.

Well, the Russians are making the best flight sims these days like Blackshark, etc., so maybe they should get a chance...But, seriously, I don't think people need to lose too much sleep over this this... The US doesn't even allow Russians on to the local air base when holding an airshow...

- VISITORS FROM THE FOLLOWING COUNTRIES ARE PROHIBITED: DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA (NORTH KOREA), RUSSIAN FEDERATION, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, AND IRAN.

What's the problem with using a Russian aircraft if they are offering the best package? The Cold War ended a long time ago, and the US is far more likely to be involved in smaller conflicts than an all out war with Russia, because if it did, it wouldn't matter who made the USAFs tankers, the war would be over in about 30 minutes and we'd all be back to the stone age.There are of course sound domestic economic reasons to support a Boeing bid, but from a tactical standpoint, that has its problems too, since Boeing get a lot of parts from China, and I'd conjecture that a conflict with China is more of a possibility for the US than one with Russia.In case you don't think that might be a problem, here's where some of the major parts for the Boeing 737 come from for example:Vertical fin - Xi'an Aircraft Industry, China.Horizontal stabiliser - Korea Aerospace Industries.Ailerons - Asian Composites Manufacturing, Malaysia.Rudder - Bombardier, Belfast.Tail section aluminium extrusions - Alcoa / Shanghai Aircraft Manufacturing, China.Main landing gear doors - Aerospace Industrial Development Corp, Taiwan.Inboard Flap - Mitsubishi, Japan.Elevator - Fuji, Japan.Winglets - Kawasaki, Japan.Fwd entry door & Overwing exits - Chengdu Aircraft, China.Wing-to-body fairing panels and tail cone - BHA Aero Composite Parts Co. Ltd, ChinaAl

Just give Boeing the contract and get it over with, if we wind up relying on the Russians for aircraft, I don't want to remind you about certain political elements that have happened in the past that still cause tension. Honestly I think we should be making all our own gear, you can't fight a country if they make your gear. It's like bombing your own factories.

Americans :(

What's the problem with using a Russian aircraft if they are offering the best package? The Cold War ended a long time ago, and the US is far more likely to be involved in smaller conflicts than an all out war with Russia, because if it did, it wouldn't matter who made the USAFs tankers, the war would be over in about 30 minutes and we'd all be back to the stone age.There are of course sound domestic economic reasons to support a Boeing bid, but from a tactical standpoint, that has its problems too, since Boeing get a lot of parts from China, and I'd conjecture that a conflict with China is more of a possibility for the US than one with Russia.In case you don't think that might be a problem, here's where some of the major parts for the Boeing 737 come from for example:Vertical fin - Xi'an Aircraft Industry, China.Horizontal stabiliser - Korea Aerospace Industries.Ailerons - Asian Composites Manufacturing, Malaysia.Rudder - Bombardier, Belfast.Tail section aluminium extrusions - Alcoa / Shanghai Aircraft Manufacturing, China.Main landing gear doors - Aerospace Industrial Development Corp, Taiwan.Inboard Flap - Mitsubishi, Japan.Elevator - Fuji, Japan.Winglets - Kawasaki, Japan.Fwd entry door & Overwing exits - Chengdu Aircraft, China.Wing-to-body fairing panels and tail cone - BHA Aero Composite Parts Co. Ltd, ChinaAl

My frustration isn't really that the Russians want in on the bidding process, or even that EADS wants back in to go it alone without NG. My frustration is that we are years into this mess and we still haven't figured out who the hell is even going to bid on the project, let alone build the planes! For GAWDS sake, can we just get this over with?And honestly, I have a better chance of winning the powerball jackpot 12 times in a row than the Russians being awarded this contract. I think they are having a little fun with us.

Oh I agree, there's probably no chance of it going to a Russian company simply because of the political repercussions of not choosing an American one, even if it was half the price of going with a Boeing bid. I'm just pointing out that the argument of Russia being an enemy is all a bit Reagan-era. The US has enough enemies as it is without rekindling old ones.Al

From a purely technical standpoint, I don't see how the IL-96 can meet the requirement for wing refueling pods. It has 4 engines so the placement would be much closer to the outboard engines, then either the KC-767 or KC-45. That is one of the reason the KC-135's don't have wing mounted pods. This would greatly increase the risk of the jet wash of the tanker from causing control problems or worse , for the refueling aircraft. The IL-78 which does have wing mounted pods is also a 4 engine tanker, but it's engines are closer to the fuselage, have a smaller diameter, then the IL-96's, So the pods are spaced further away. The pods would have to be mounted on the IL-96 close to the wingtip, which I would think then would cause structural issues.

The KC-135 actually can have wing-mounted refueling equipment though. Here's a picture of some in place:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KC-135_S...S_Air_Force.jpgBut as others have noted, it's likely to be a moot point anyway. I think I'd stand a better chance of getting the contract if I strapped a 55 gallon oil drum to a Tiger Moth and trailed a hose pipe off it, than the Russians would.Al

The KC-135 actually can have wing-mounted refueling equipment though. Here's a picture of some in place:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KC-135_S...S_Air_Force.jpgBut as others have noted, it's likely to be a moot point anyway. I think I'd stand a better chance of getting the contract if I strapped a 55 gallon oil drum to a Tiger Moth and trailed a hose pipe off it, than the Russians would.Al

Interesting, I stand corrected!! I think you are right , the Russian bid don't stand a chance. If nothing else, the IL-96 doesn't have a solid track record and it wasn't very successful commercially. Only 23 were ever built, and with those, although there haven't been any fatal incidents, there were a number of less serious ones, including one with Putin's plane itself!

To be fair, you cannot always judge the merits of an aircraft off how many were produced for commercial use; they only ever built about 20 Concorde SSTs as far as I'm aware, that's including the three prototypes, and that's a truly excellent piece of engineering. In common with the IL-96's small numbers, there's only about 40 Tupolev 204s been built, but that's certainly a great aircraft. Back in the west, there were only five Super Guppies ever built, but Airbus Industrie would have been screwed without the four of those they used!Al

To be fair, you cannot always judge the merits of an aircraft off how many were produced for commercial use.......

That's true. The Concorde, Vickers VC-10 and Tupolev Tu-114 are good examples of this.

Oh I agree, there's probably no chance of it going to a Russian company simply because of the political repercussions of not choosing an American one, even if it was half the price of going with a Boeing bid. I'm just pointing out that the argument of Russia being an enemy is all a bit Reagan-era. The US has enough enemies as it is without rekindling old ones.Al

Actually Chock, when you talk to the Russians, ask them if they think the Cold War is over. Only last year I was talking with one of my ArmA buddies who is Russian and he stated flat out that the Cold War isn't over. When the Russians are still trying to fight the Cold War, sorry I don't like the idea of the Russians even being considered, especially after this news story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...uter-virus.html