Sikorsky wins Presidential helo competition
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L/W 50
am not sure if you have noticed, but the aviation industry has been slowly consolidating, not expanding, over the last 15-20 years. That does not make for more competition, it makes for less.
Competition is not a label, it's a condition that results from 2 (minimum) rivals actively bidding to win something. As a condition, the environment has to be created that enables the condition to develop. When over-control, protectionism, or lack of trust in the market occurs, the catalyst for competition to occur is absent. The market has no choice but to contract. The responsibility to create the condition where competition can occur is not on the seller (suppliers), but is on the buyer (DoD in this case).
While your observation that the aviation industry may be slowly going through a contraction cycle, there are sectors such as the commercial helicopter industry has boomed in the last 10 years. That growth was due to active and healthy competition.
Why didn't it get noticed? The 3 major US Helicopter OEM's are very dependent on DoD, and not particularly well balanced. They go as DoD goes.
Boeing Vertol has nothing in the civil market, Sikorsky only has S-92 and S-76 (a few little S-300's), and Bell only recently has refocused (thanks to Garrison) on civil after a long distraction with V-22, and H-1s. The top two companies in the world in terms of TOTAL sales are off-shore; AIRBUS (Eurocopter) and AW. Both have a very broad product line and are well balanced between military and civil. They were well positioned to grow with the commercial helicopter market.
Why is the US market so important that you have 5 global OEM's all fighting over it? Even with all the market growth, It still represents a huge percentage of the global helicopter market.
As the largest, single consumer of helicopters in the market, why can't DoD seem to foment a competitive environment in which they would directly benefit? Instead DoD seems to do everything they can to kill the competitive condition because they are execution risk petrified. DoD leadership has been very vocal about leveraging competition in its favor, and then the armed services do the exact opposite.
As the largest, single consumer of helicopters in the market, why can't DoD seem to foment a competitive environment in which they would directly benefit?
1. Because the DoD is not the commercial market.
2. Because the logistics tail is immensely cheaper when you have fewer TMS, not more. See USN Helo Master Plan, whose genesis was earl 90's (perhaps even before that).
3. Because federal contracts require a wide variety of in built inefficiencies due to how federal regs are written.
4. The industry developed as rapidly as it did due in part to an immense infusion of federal dollars, from the fifties to the present.
5. The DoD has as part of its remit, as does the federal government when it comes to defense contracts, to sustain the AMERICAN industrial base.
Now, since you probably already know that, I wonder at why you still typed that rant about how competition in and of itself is inherently virtuous and has no drawbacks.
Now, is competition good? Can be. The competition for UTTAS was a good deal. Competition for F-35 ... not sure. Competition for the "light" part of the Navy's light/heavy mix ended up in the F-18. If you've read "the Pentagon Paradox" you'll find that a great many people within the system were appalled at how that turned out. F-18 has since become the E/F, which once again was a decision rife with controversey.
I recall back in the 80's when the Sec Def was able the leverage the developmet of the F-20 as a competing export fighter to the F-16, which was beginning take the place of the F-5 family as the next export fighter, to the point where GD eventually dropped the price of the F-16 multi year deal by about 4 million per copy. That's real money, in those days.
There were other examples, that's the one I am most familiar with. As to how virtuous European Helicopter companies are, NH-90 ... sing me its praises, program-wise.
Insofar as American helicopter companies and the commercial market, I share your concerns that they have gone about their business as though they intended to work themselves out of it ... but I am not convinced that the DoD is to blame for that. I find your assertion along those lines of dubious merit.
Textron and UTC, as parent companies, are run by the standard pile of HBS suits. I'll stop there.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L/W 50
A few reasons that have nothing to do with building the better helicopter, and a lot to do with federal laws and federal budgets, and cost.
Uncle.
You are right. The acq. system is utterly defendable and you cannot fix something that isn't broken?
Stinger, this line of crap is beneath you.
That isn't my position on the acq system.
Your pretense that somehow "competition" is the ultimate solution ignores the details of the problem ... and I think we actually agree that there are non trivial problems in the system. (Case in point would be how AW 101 died its VH death ... )
I seem to recall an old saying about complex problems having a lot of simple, and wrong, solution sets.
Cheers.
You are right. The acq. system is utterly defendable and you cannot fix something that isn't broken?
Your pretense that somehow "competition" is the ultimate solution ignores the details of the problem ... and I think we actually agree that there are non trivial problems in the system. (Case in point would be how AW 101 died its VH death ... )
I seem to recall an old saying about complex problems having a lot of simple, and wrong, solution sets.
Cheers.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L/W 50
Don't get me wrong. I respect your knowledge and understanding of the Navy system and how we arrived at this point. Its good.
Competition doesn't solve the multitude of issues, but it's a necessary and essential building block to fixing the system. Handing out $B in non-competed contracts is bad in just about every aspect, and the trend in DoD just in the past 3 years is staggering. I guess the capstone, in my opinion, was VXX because of the visibility, the desire for an OTS product, and DoD Leadership's constant rhetoric about "better buying power", competition, and even Congress lauding WSARA as a fix. Only to have the Services ignore all of it and do the easier thing.
If we don't fix the system and hold people accountable for failures like VH-71(I don't recall hearing anybody other than Industry losing their jobs over a $3.5B failure), we will suffer the same fate as the former USSR, eventually, when it comes to equipping our military. OUR economy cannot support that kind of extreme inefficiency, and we are just now starting to see the symptoms.
Competition doesn't solve the multitude of issues, but it's a necessary and essential building block to fixing the system. Handing out $B in non-competed contracts is bad in just about every aspect, and the trend in DoD just in the past 3 years is staggering. I guess the capstone, in my opinion, was VXX because of the visibility, the desire for an OTS product, and DoD Leadership's constant rhetoric about "better buying power", competition, and even Congress lauding WSARA as a fix. Only to have the Services ignore all of it and do the easier thing.
If we don't fix the system and hold people accountable for failures like VH-71(I don't recall hearing anybody other than Industry losing their jobs over a $3.5B failure), we will suffer the same fate as the former USSR, eventually, when it comes to equipping our military. OUR economy cannot support that kind of extreme inefficiency, and we are just now starting to see the symptoms.
As I suspected, we are in agreement in a lot of areas, despite our disagreeing. 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The S-92 (like the 747-8) was always the logical choice for a nation with as large an aerospace industry as the USA (just as the Airbus & Super Puma combo is for France and Germany), but the claim that the VXX bidding was 'competitive' ("...because the companies who declined to bid remained interested up to the August deadline for responding to the RFP...") is questionable.
I/C
I/C
VXX Will Be Less Complex Says Sikorsky?s Maurer | Farnborough 2014 content from Aviation Week
Oh boy. This would seem to indicate...the odds it will incorporate honest 30 minute run dry? Extremely remote.
The customer is "going to get an aircraft that is identical to those operated by our commercial customers, a green S-92, an FAA certified aircraft…and that does great things for the program," Maurer says.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: On the Rump of Pendle Hill Lancashi
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me, that any competition to find the best , is a sham, Sovereign states be they US or EU or UK should Always purchase from their national bank of Companies who are experts at whatever type of kit you are looking for, politically , and in the minds of the citizens of that sort of state see that as being fair to the country were the citizens taxes are paid, segments of additional profit should then come from the unstable states in the middle east where Petro Dollars and sense seems to be governed by how much Baksheesh can be fitted into a Camels Saddlebag .
However all the "Good Guys" seem to now have rules now allegedly banning that sort of deal,...... don't they?
Just my thoughts.
Peter R-B
Lancashire
However all the "Good Guys" seem to now have rules now allegedly banning that sort of deal,...... don't they?
Just my thoughts.
Peter R-B
Lancashire
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA isn't completely convinced yet on S-92 MGB solution
FAA proposes S-92 oil pump failure prevention mandate
By: STEPHEN TRIMBLE
WASHINGTON DC
Source: Flightglobal.com
The US Federal Aviation Administration has proposed to mandate a series of actions already recommended by Sikorsky aimed at preventing a main gearbox oil pump failure on the airframer’s S-92 helicopter.
The proposals include automating a process to switch a bypass valve if oil pressure drops below 2.4bar (35psi), and installing a sensor that would detect an oil pressure drop and alert the pilot, the notice of proposed rulemaking issued on 23 July says.
The FAA would also require software changes to give the pilot visual and aural warnings of an oil pump failure in the S-92's main gearbox.
Publishing the draft rule in the Federal Register is the first step in the FAA’s rulemaking process. The public now has a chance to comment on the rule until 22 September.
Sikorsky has already advised S-92 operators to make the same hardware and software changes in a series of service bulletins issued by the company from 2011 to 2013.
The bulletins and rulemaking process were launched following the 2009 crash of an S-92 off Newfoundland, Canada in which 17 people died, due to a loss of oil in the main gearbox.
The FAA document also discloses another incident of a leaking oil pump.
The S-92’s manual requires the pilot to manually switch the bypass valve within 5s of an oil pump failure alert. In this case it took the pilot significantly longer to make the manual switch, the FAA says.
The incident persuaded the FAA that the manual process was impractical, which led to the recommendation to automate the switch.
By: STEPHEN TRIMBLE
WASHINGTON DC
Source: Flightglobal.com
The US Federal Aviation Administration has proposed to mandate a series of actions already recommended by Sikorsky aimed at preventing a main gearbox oil pump failure on the airframer’s S-92 helicopter.
The proposals include automating a process to switch a bypass valve if oil pressure drops below 2.4bar (35psi), and installing a sensor that would detect an oil pressure drop and alert the pilot, the notice of proposed rulemaking issued on 23 July says.
The FAA would also require software changes to give the pilot visual and aural warnings of an oil pump failure in the S-92's main gearbox.
Publishing the draft rule in the Federal Register is the first step in the FAA’s rulemaking process. The public now has a chance to comment on the rule until 22 September.
Sikorsky has already advised S-92 operators to make the same hardware and software changes in a series of service bulletins issued by the company from 2011 to 2013.
The bulletins and rulemaking process were launched following the 2009 crash of an S-92 off Newfoundland, Canada in which 17 people died, due to a loss of oil in the main gearbox.
The FAA document also discloses another incident of a leaking oil pump.
The S-92’s manual requires the pilot to manually switch the bypass valve within 5s of an oil pump failure alert. In this case it took the pilot significantly longer to make the manual switch, the FAA says.
The incident persuaded the FAA that the manual process was impractical, which led to the recommendation to automate the switch.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it is. Here is the direct link to the article: FAA proposes S-92 oil pump failure prevention mandate - 7/31/2014 - Flight Global
Note the dates in the byline:
Note the dates in the byline:
By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC 10:50 31 Jul 2014 Source: Flightglobal.com
Their was an EASA/FAA/Industry rule making group meeting last week in Cologne addressing oil out issues to tighten the wording so no one can skate on marketing propaganda.
The Sultan
The Sultan
