UK STSA requirement still exists, but is no longer a competition just a series of dicussions that include the An-124-100 according to UK MoD

Published: 11/24/1999

According to Pyotr Balabuyev, Antonov"s General Designer, the suspension of the UK"s Short Term Strategic Airlifter (STSA) competition, in which a modified An-124-100 was entered, was politically motivated. "They could not just cancel it, but they seem to be meaning exactly this by the suspension", he said. Balabuyev remains cautiously optimistic about the An-124 Ruslan"s prospects in the UK. Antonov is continuing work on the "British" version, in the hope that the UK"s Ministry of Defence"s (MoD) lifting needs will resurrect the tender. Antonov"s enthusiasm for the resurrection of the STSA is not totally without foundation, according to Bruce Bird of Air Foyle, Antonov"s partner in the original bid involving the An-124. It appears that, almost as soon as the original process was cancelled, due to the potential candidates failing to meet the criteria on the basis of price, viability or acceptability in August 1999, a second process was started to find an aircraft to meet the requirement. This was described by the MoD as “not a competition, but a series of discussions". A decision is now due in “ early part of the new year" and talks are currently taking place with a number of potential suppliers, including the Boeing C-17 and the An-124-100. The terms of acquiring the aircraft are also still being discussed and include ownership and “long term leasing arrangements", according to the MoD spokesman. Despite the relative cheapness of the An-124, at half the price of the C-17, it seems that the original bid from Antonov was rejected partly because of concerns over the time involved in integrating a package of new engines and avionics. This was estimated by DERA, the MOD"s equipment evaluation arm, as being upwards of four years, according to industry sources, and therefore outside the timescale of the programme, which requires the aircraft to be in service within two years. This assessment is contested by those involved in supplying and integrating the equipment, who believe that the re-equipping could be achieved in two years. The aircraft proposed for the second round of the competition is a standard An-124-100 which, although not flown by the UK"s Defence Procurement Agency, has been assessed on the ground by a team from DERA. The team has visited the Antonov facility in Kiev and is reported to be impressed by the bureau"s approach to development. At this stage, the problems for the aircraft may not be a simple matter of technology or even reliability, in assessing which is the best candidate for meeting the requirement, according to Bruce Bird. “ It is a matter of some concern that the air forces (the RAF and USAF) and governments involved are combining unfairly with Boeing to reduce the price of the C-17 to meet the STSA budget costing " says Bird. He feels that the cheaper Antonov bid is therefore somewhat undermined. Other sources suggest that the Royal Air Force is by no means unanimous over the C-17 and that some officers have expressed a preference for the An-124 and its proposed leasing structure. The issue of political risk is also felt by Air Foyle to be irrelevant, arguing that the planes, if adopted, will be British owned, registered on the UK military register, and operated and maintained by British crews. The C-17s will remain owned and maintained by the US if they are to be priced within the STSA budget. Otherwise Antonov continues development of the An-124-210, a westernized version of the civilian Ruslan, with a plan to equip it with GE engines and Western avionics, although Rolls Royce RB-211 engines are continuing to be considered according to Balabuev. This new version of the 18-year-old heavy lifter could hopefully bring additional demand for the Ruslan, which currently has only one order for two aircraft from cargo carrier, Volga Dnepr. Balabuyev however, is confident that a westernised aircraft can be sold to western carriers, as “there is a market demand for an aircraft such as this. Since, for some reason, Western manufacturers cannot create their own Ruslan at a reasonable expense." The re-equipping with GE engines however, is considered by some including Volga Dnepr, to be predicated on a much higher utilisation of the aircraft than there has been date, with some insiders claiming that the aircraft would be required to fly two to three times its current levels for re-engining to be viable. GE is reported to be currently suggesting fitting cheaper second hand engines to the airframe as an alternative, but this is incurring some opposition from those who believe the powerplant for the Ruslan should be Russian/Ukrainian. At the heart of the argument however, the fact remains that re-engining is an expensive business for so few aircraft with such a specialist role and would require the reliable funding of a STSA contract to justify the commitment. Answering the critics to the poor reliability and operational economics of the Ruslan's D-18T engines, Balabuev confessed that first-series engines "are not perfect". However, he claimed that the Series 3 engines are "fully competitive with the GE's on reliability, lifetime resources and all the rest". But the CIS airlines have no money to buy the new engines and continue to use the faulty engines of the first series.

Article ID: 1128