Triton said:
A Strategic Cooperation Agreement with AVIC seems inline with US Aerospace's goal of being the least expensive US military contractor. I wonder if they are going to continue to propose Antonov aircraft designs manufactured with cheaper Chinese-made AVIC parts? Or perhaps the entire aircraft will be assembled in China by AVIC? US Aerospace seems to be all about maximizing tax payer value. I guess the question is could the US Department of Defense actually buy Chinese or Ukrainian made aircraft or whether a US subcontractor could be considered a credible supplier.
I'm all for maximizing taxpayer value. The thing is, what do they actually do, and what have they done so far? Not withstanding its inaccuracies in certain fields, doesn't it seem odd that a company supposedly so heavily involved in the Defense industry doesn't even have an entry in Wikipedia? Reviewing the information about them on their web page and elsewhere, what exactly are the large scale things they've done? Are they just a marketing company, a financial holdings firm or are they actually going to be involved in manufacturing here or abroad. OK, the sole shareholder of PAI in Oct 2009 agreed to transfer all shares. but what is it
US Aerospace makes? They say PAI has three main customers, one of whom is GE (the others are unidentified), but what do they make for GE? Looking at their webstie, there are some nice aircraft skeleton and exploded views, but nothing to indicate what, if anything, they have to do with what the company does. Review my comment on their tanker illustration. There's not a lot of "meat" out there about them.
During the KC-X run-up, just months before the deadline, they weren't able to say exactly what it was they were planning to bid. They said that a contract for the engines was "imminent", but no engine manufacturer as far as I know ever said, "Yeah, we're going to supply engines for them". While I appreciate that in their comments on their protest being denied on all counts they magnanimously said that it was an honor just to be nominated, even if they hadn't screwed up their bid, it'd be hard to take them seriously given their performance to that point. For example, in their design, what would happen if they lost an engine at low speed? I don't see that the rudder/vertical stabilizer had been redesigned to compensate for the loss of 50% power rather than the 25% of the original design. It didn't give anyone a high degree of confidence when they said that their bid might be found to be non-compliant or might not meet all the requirements. This is not the way the way you build support.
Maybe they are legit regarding the things they say they're going to do (if we could figure out what they are) and aren't just looking for things to bid and protest (there are smaller companies that do just that). I'm not in a position to say. It might be nice to have someone shake up the Defense establishment, but first you've got to shake up the US Congress. Forget the Chinese or Ukrainian connection, if there actually is a firm one. A lot more specifics need to be known about them if they wish to be considered a credible supplier to begin with.
