US Presidential Helicopter Bid (and Result) [Archive]

rjsquirrel

14th Mar 2004, 12:04

The politicization began at the first shot, guys! The the US content concept was started by the EH-101 crowd, as I recall, with some claim about 65% US, and the political battle was laid when the Agusta-Westland folks had Blair write Bush directly to ask him to buy the EH-101. Not much technical content in those tactics!

The Sikorsky counter with an all US composition, raising the stakes of a political decision. Switching Vought for the offshore airframers has been done before, I think Vought specializes in airframe sub structural manufacture. The word is that every part and piece of airframe will be made in the US, from scratch. The rotors transmissions and blades are made in the Sikorsky main plant in Connecticut.

In contrast, reports from Yoevil say that the US-101 for Presidential delivery will be built in England in sections, shipped to Texas and assembled at Bell, so the US physical content will be quite small, but the claim "Made in the US" could be made, with an asterisk or two. Getting to 90% of the cost in the US as the LM people now claim could be an interesting trick, if the airframe, rotors, transmissions are worth 10%, maybe we should all start buying EH-101 kits!!

I would bet the US Navy folks who are scoring the competition could care less about exactly where the machine came from, in the end, their review will surely be tech based. Friends at PAX told me there were two RAF EH-101's presented by Agusta-Westland for the brief trials, with about 40 maintainers. The Sikorsky folks used one S-92 with 4 crew, I heard. Observers in the hangar said the S-92 never had to change a part, they mostly inspected. Rumor has it both aircraft did well, but the testers have not showed any partiality.

I saw a press release where the S-92 they used had a full VIP interior, with video conferencing, extra soundproofing and extra vibration treatment (the US reporters who flew it said it was the quietest helo they ever flew in). The cockpit had EGPWS, weather radar, TCAS, dig map, and two kinds of SATCOM (including a tracking INMARSAT antenna). They had a TV camera that displayed on the pilot's MFD to show precise wheel placement for the White House lawn landing. Word was the test pilots had bets who could place the gear within a 1/4 inch of the desired landing point.

The Sikorsky team extended the cabin about 5 feet, so the cabin is actually longer that the EH by 2 feet. They did it in about 3 months, in Florida, it is said. Lockheed Martin folks said it was a "90 day wonder!!"

The RAF EH101's flew around DC for a few weeks afterward, with some impressed reporters. One rumor has it that a whole planeload got sick when one passenger barfed, because a guest pilot got a bit energetic at the controls with a plane full of people.

I know two HMX pilots, and some former ones, they seem to think the Sikorsky the favorite, 46driver. One guy really resented the Prime Minister trying to push the EH into the Marine inventory.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040310/ids_photos_ts/r1234951052.jpg

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040311/480/mbc10703110012

This one shows the new back airstair door:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040311/480/mbc10703110012

RotorPilot

14th Mar 2004, 18:18

The politization began at the first shot, guys !

Mr. rjsquirrel

You are dead wrong.

The politization of the American military procurement has existed since the US has Armed Forces, its NOT something new...

rjsquirrel

14th Mar 2004, 19:03

RotorPilot-

Touched a nerve, did I?

I was referring to the VH project, not the beginning of the world. I do think the letter from Blair was the political shot, but I guess he was sending a technical eval. OK, you win.

Regarding closed markets, the subject is complex, but I think we could find a French aircraft in US Military inventory pretty easily, but a US aircraft in the French Military could be found about the same time we find a Hot Dog in Jacques Chirac's dinner plate!

My son humps the boonies with a SAW and a close friend flies a Dolphin, and I know some dudes who fly US Military Agustas.

Visionary

14th Mar 2004, 19:28

rjssquirrel,

Guess we dont share the same sources , the ones I have spoken to have nothing but praise for the EH101, they say its a wonderful aircraft, and would love to fly it.

You mention the amount of maintainers the RAF brought with them to Pax, bear in mind that they are 3000 miles from UK and been out here since November. Dont see any mention of the amount of guys we take to Lakenheath and Mildenahall to maintain our aircraft there.

The fact that Sikorsky only took one aircraft tells me one thing, that they are closer to Pax river than the UK is, why would Lockheed not bring two over? Sikorsky have 5 at their plant in easy reach.

The RAF aircraft on the trial never missed one sortie, they never failed to provide an aircraft, and if my sources are correct and I believe they are, then you will be pleased to know that the same EH101 airframe did the whole trial. The other aircraft got airborne as soon as the other departed on its trial. 100% serviceability. From my understanding, the only time they couldnt get airborne was during the snows and cold of January, not because of limitations but due to the local rules at Pax, the RAF guys were itching to fly in the snow.

As for the press, they loved it, the RAF brought some IPs out so that people could fly, handle and try it out for themselves, no one had a bad word to say about it. As for the sick rumour, maybe thats what it is, a rumour.

As for Tony Blair, it may have been a political thing but sometimes we have to look whats on offer and take the best, the best is the 101, look what happened with the Harrier

ase engineer

14th Mar 2004, 21:56

Ah, rjsquirrel, mon brave.....not even close. Should've checked before shooting from the lip...Presently,

E-3,
C-130,
C-135,
DC-8,
and that's just the US of A. For the rest of America there's a couple of Embraer Types and DHC Twin Otters. Previously they've had at least the LTV F-8, and that's without really looking hard.

Now where did you want that hot dog...........

Lu Zuckerman

14th Mar 2004, 22:54

To: Visionary

the best is the 101, look what happened with the Harrier

The Harrier as originally designed was not very reliable and it was very difficult to maintain. It was not fully integrated into the US Marines until it was completely redesigned by McDonnell Douglas. And if the US-101 is adopted for the presidential flight it too will be completely redesigned to make it safer and more reliable. It will not be in any way the same EH-101 flown by the British forces.

:E :E

Visionary

15th Mar 2004, 11:39

The Harrier as originally designed was not very reliable and it was very difficult to maintain

In whose opinion was it difficult to maintain? Dont forget our services still have "left wheel undercarrage maintainers" etc. The UK guys actually have airframe technicians, avionic technicians, propulsion technicans, they specialize in the whole scope of thier trade, not just one undercarriage strut. Maybe you should ask them was the Harrier difficult to maintain.

Sorry going away from the thread. May the best Heli win the competition but its got to be on merit and not political. The fact that Sikorsky lost Comanche should not have any bearing on this, neither should the amount of funding that LM put into their advertizing campaign.

:ok: :ok: :ok:

RotorPilot

15th Mar 2004, 16:49

----------------------------------

NickLappos

15th Mar 2004, 19:18

RotorPilot,

Let me butt in:

You say:
"Everybody is waiting for the May decision on the choppers. If the US folds again to the by American only, you will see the repercussions, be sure of that."

It is comforting to hear warnings from you (who are you, BTW?) that warn dire consequences if the US happens to chose the best helicopter, the one that carries more, goes farther, costs less, and is more modern in design. That helicopter is of course, the S/H-92.

I guess the consequences are that the decision would be labled a "political" one (going back to the Big Bang, as you did to RJ).

I fear the greater consequences. If the EH-101 were chosen, the cost would be 50% higher, the payload would drop a ton, the fuel burn would go up, the maintenance burden would go up 50% and the aircraft would have to be disassembled to stuff it into a C-5. Yep, I guess it fits your definition of "political".

Hope Tony has lots of stamps, RotorPilot.

Visionary

15th Mar 2004, 19:48

Anyway, what tail rotor design does the S-92 have this week?

Can tell from Nick that he is a salesman. Maybe we should get a LM/ Westland guy in here at same time, could be fun

RotorPilot

15th Mar 2004, 20:00

____________________

46Driver

15th Mar 2004, 22:16

One thing to keep in mind - this is bigger than just the prestige of flying the President. The Marine Corps' Osprey program is next up on the chopping block following the cancellation of the Army's Comanche helicopter and Crusader self-propelled artillery piece. If the Osprey is cancelled, the most likely replacement for the CH-46E is going to be the winner of this competition for the President's helicopter. The Marine Corps will not buy the H-60 because it is too close in size to the Huey and could possibly affect the Huey/Cobra 4 blade upgrade. (also, the Marine Corps insist on having a ramp in the back)

Thus the winner of the Presidential bid is the odds on favorite as the alternate to the Osprey. The buy for that will exceed 300 airframes.

As for which one SHOULD be the President's helicopter, I don't know. I am rooting for Sikorsky. And if the Marine Corps had any common sense, we would get the same MH-60's coming off the assembly line for the Navy and replace the Huey, the Phrog, and cancel the Osprey.

Finally, does anybody have any updates on Piasecki's Vectored Thrust Ducted Propellor modification?

RotorPilot

16th Mar 2004, 15:19

46Driver

I completely agree with you.

dangermouse

16th Mar 2004, 16:33

You won't get an AgustaWestland comment on this thread because employees have been warned not to post anything on this kind of site as it can be construed as an official quote, regardless of some of the mistruths posted here.

I am sure somone would love to comment but it's not worth losing a job over.

I hope that the results of the selection process (whatever they are) are going to be available so we all can see why what was chsoen was chsen, however I am sure that 'national security' interests will take priority (like they did when my suitcase was opened coming back home and items stolen withour any chance of an appeal.....so much for Thruth, Justice and the American way)

DM:mad:

RotorPilot

16th Mar 2004, 18:17

_____________________

NickLappos

17th Mar 2004, 01:19

RotorPilot:

The answer to your questions is that the EH-101 is particularly inefficient as a transport vehicle. Any EH-101 drivers out there please refute these numbers:

The empty weight of an EH-101 is about 20,000 lbs as a minimum. Their stripped brochure weight is 19,600 lbs. The max gross weight to hover OGE at sea level is 32,100 lbs. I will email the performance chart to anyone who wants one. Thus the maximum useful load for the EH-101 is about .12,400 lbs..

The brochure shows that the EH-101 burns 13.5 lbs of fuel per mile, so at 300 miles the payload cannot exceed 12,000 - 13.5 x 300= 7950 lbs. These numbers are shown on the latest EH-101 brochure, which I can email to anyone who wants.

The H-92 weighs (in the same configuration as the EH-101 above) 15,600 lbs, and it has a maximum gross weight, and HOGE SLS weight of 28,300 lbs. Thus, it has a max payload of .12,700 lbs..

The H-92 burns slightly less than 10 lbs per NM, so at 300 nm the payload is 12700 - 10 x 300 = 9700 lbs.

In other words, .the smaller helicopter carries 1700 lbs more payload at 300 miles than the big one!v.

At higher altitudes or hotter climates the EH-101 performs comparitively worse.

I will gladly share the data with anyone who wants a more factual analysis than "Bigger vs. Smaller"

Now look at the fuel burn per mile and the payload, and decide which has longer range. Don't be fooled by the size of the fuel tanks - at 900 NM, an H-92 carries about 3000 lbs, the EH carries a postage stamp.

All the above is predicated on the need top HOGE, if you make IGE or rolling takeoffs, the EH gets a bit better.

Regarding cost, you can buy all the H-92's you want for about $17 million. Ask your friendly EH-101 guy how much that thing costs, last time Conklin and Dedecker published their comprison, it cost $22 million stripped.

Regarding cost to operate, the independent Conklin and Dedecker carries the S-92 at $890 per hour maintenance cost (and Sikorsky contracts at just a bit more than that). The EH-101 is listed by them at $1480 per hour, 50% more expensive to maintain. And with less payload, that is a really big 50%!!

RotorPilot, the reason why the smaller helicopter carries more is because the bigger one is not at all efficient. Maybe that's because it is older, and has three engines that weigh it down and that drink more fuel.

Before you decide that bigger is better, check your flight manual data more carefully. Or not, it is your choice.

Visionary

17th Mar 2004, 02:11

No mention of the tail rotor Nick?? :confused: :confused:

I believe the Air Force has more use for C-17s than C-5 so whats the problem??

Straight Up Again

17th Mar 2004, 02:59

Isn't all this talk about who can carry how much a bit redundant? How fat are you expecting your President and their immediate entourage to be?

I was always taught to think in terms of mission relation and suitability when selecting/testing. Both aircraft seem suitable for the mission, they both have strengths (one is bigger, the other is cheaper to run etc). The mission is surely to carry X number of people a certain distance, within certain time constraints, I can't see either aircraft conducting underslung load operations at the same time (unless it's a really big entourage. :) ).

Is the bigger aircraft better for VIP use, as there is more room for more people or a plusher fit out? I’m sure they’re both smooth and as vibration free as is possible. I do notice that the US-101 is the ramped variant in the advertising pictures, what does a VIP helo need a ramp for? Why haven’t they gone with the tapering tail variant, as per the RN/Italian naval aircraft (less complex, less weight)?

The websites I've seen say that the US-101 will have the 5 tank configuration, but nobody has mentioned that 1 engine can be shut down during cruise (yes, I know, no current operators do this), but it has been done and proven to work (even on an over max weight aircraft). What does that do to the range calcs / efficiency? I don’t know if the fuel burn numbers Nick quoted were for 2 or 3 engine operation.

As for fitting into transport aircraft, are we talking about folded or not? I can see no reason why the presidential helo couldn’t have blade and tail fold for easier transporting.

The info I have looked at (I didn’t spend too much time looking) does seem a bit sparse for me to make up my own mind about this.

NickLappos

17th Mar 2004, 03:14

Visionary,

I dont know what you mean about the tail rotor. Are you hinting at something?

Regarding the C-5, there are hundreds in the US inventory, and they are being updated to last another 25 years. They represent about 2/3 of the lift capacity for the USAF for the forseeable future. BTW, Lockheed Martin has the contract for their upgrade!

Straight Up Again (nice name!!)
The fuel burn I give is for all engines operating. If you shut down an engine with the President on board, you will probably not get to be captain of the return flight! The performance of the EH with only one engine operating is simply awful, so you'd have to scramble start the shut down engine if one quit, dont think there is a "spare" engine, it uses all three to do its work.

Regarding payload and range, certainly there is plenty in either aircraft, for many missions. I am referring above to value and efficiency, and I think that point is made.

Both aircraft must be folded for transport. Even folded, the EH-101 cannot fit into a C-5, the transmission and center engine must be removed. The aircraft is just too high for the inside of the C-5. In a C-17, the EH just fits with about 2" to spare with the head tucked into the cathedral behind the wing beam.

46Driver

17th Mar 2004, 03:32

Straight Up Again,
Reread my previous post. The helo that wins the Presidential lift award is the likely candidate for the Marine Corps medium lift assault mission. The Marine Corps will not buy an assault helo without a ramp.

Also, no helo carrying the President is going to shut down an engine in flight (unless it is carrying Hillary and then they might shut them all down and take one for the team... :) ) Nor is an aircraft in an assault mode going to shut down an engine.

I would like to know what is the commonality of parts between the S-92 and the H-60 fleet is. If many of the parts can be swapped back and forth, that would be a logistical advantage for the S-92.

On the other hand, I understand from my buds at HMX that the S-92 currently comes with GE 700 engines? That seems underpowered for a 28,000 lb helo. Is Sikorsky going to put bigger engines on the S-92 and if so, are these engines going to have the proven reliability to be a Presidential Helicopter?

NickLappos

17th Mar 2004, 03:59

46Driver,

The H-60 and S/H-92 don't share many major parts, the 92 has about 30% more power and thrust, so most of those components were redesigned to take it. Also the 92 family is fully flaw tolerant, which means that you can scratch, dent or damage the parts without worry about fatigue cracks. The 92's gearboxes do fit onto the Hawk family, however, so a future retrofit could upgrade to that extra power. (with structural beefup, for sure)

The engines for the S-92 are the CT7-8A at 2500 SHP< and the H-92 has those (which I used for the performance quoted above) or the CT7-8C, which has 3000 SHP each. The H-92 carries about 3000 lb more than the typical hawk under any environment. The transmission is in the 4400 HP catagory (vice 3400 for the Hawks).

http://www.s-92heliport.com has a presentation on the S-92 and the safety features. See slides 6 and 7 of the H-92 discussion for payload range data on the 92 vs the EH.

John Eacott

17th Mar 2004, 04:05

Nick,

Interesting figures, but I can't quite correlate the weights that you put forward.

According to Sikorsky's details on the VIP H-92 here (http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/0,3038,827,00.pdf) , the empty weight is 17,200lb, not 15,600lb. I have had no luck confirming the 101's weights, except for a reference to Basic Empty Weight of 18960lb, but I accept this will increase with a VIP fit.

The fuel burn figures that I've managed to pick up give the 101 burning c.12.7lb/hr at 150ktas, SL, and the 92 burning 11lb/nm (again, from the Sikorsky brochure), both with all engines running. The 101 sounds light to me, with three donks, but that's the way I read Agusta-Westland's brochure here (http://www.agustawestland.com/dindoc/EH101_Brochure.pdf) . I'm only interpolating from their cruise data, and accept it isn't dead accurate.

I'd appreciate looking at the brochures that you may be using for your calculations :ok:

Straight Up Again

17th Mar 2004, 04:50

46Driver

I did read your post, I was just wondering why having 2 variants, with the different tail sections would be so difficult, after all the areas either side would be identical from a maintenance, spares and training point of view. Even the pilot training shouldn't be too different, I can't think of many extras, except to teach them about the ramp as well.

Nick

I didn't realise the height difference was so great between the 92 and the 101 (4.71m for 92, and 5.2m for 101). Just out of interest, how high is the floor above ground level? I know if you stroll out of the side of a 101 you'll get something broken (from memory it's about a metre up, even has a little fold out step at the cargo door).

I suppose there are a few people who think the president is too important to go around shutting engines off. I'm not an engines expert, but what would be the problems with leaving the 3rd engine at idle? I'm sure there should be some, but my engines knowledge isn't that extensive (I am but a simple flight test engineer).

I do have a soft spot for the 101 (ex-Wastelander, approx 190 hrs on EH-101s, most variants), but don't think the extra cabin space will win it the contract, I think the running costs will win out, along with the slightly more modern aircraft and the 92 will get the contract, and people will cry foul about the “buy American” stuff, wether it is true or not.

Unfortunately I have never seen the 92 in the flesh, any chance of a tour of Oz?

Edited 'cos I got the 101 height wrong (used tip of TR not main rotor beanie).

46Driver

17th Mar 2004, 09:58

Straight,
Good question. I just don't think they would go for a variant without a ramp. (and why a ramp is a pre-requisite for the Corps I have always wondered myself....). I just re-read my post and I hope I didn't come off as an @sshole - didn't mean it that way... Congrats on living in Melbourne, I was just down there several months ago with my girl and we had a wonderful time - its a beautiful city.

Nick,
You have any gouge on the Piasecki tail modification? Any thoughts? If the H-60 can get up to 230 knots with that thing, I would think the MV-22 would be dead.

Gregg

17th Mar 2004, 12:24

The brochure for the 101 shows a max gross weight for OEI HIGE of 14055 kg.

How do the CAT-A performances of the two aircraft compare?

(OK- I found some of the S-92 data on Nick's site- looks like for sea level at ISA +18 degrees the S-92 has CAT A performance up to roughly 26,400 lbs, which really cuts its payload from the comparison Nick has posted earlier. The 101 brochure shows CAT A performance at the same conditions at max gross weight, so it loses no payload to keep Cat A.)

Visionary

17th Mar 2004, 14:35

Gregg,

I concur, as ever Lappos is not comparing "Bananas with bananas" at the same time and test point. I too have read the US 101 brochure which quotes 34,400lbs (15600Kg) as the MAUW and not as he quoted. The figures he quotes are for the basic 101 as operated by the Brits, Italians and Canadians. The aircraft is already qualified to operate at 34,400lbs and all the customers are likely to operate at this mass very soon without modification. Indeed the Danes will operate theirs at these weights from the start.

Moreover, back to the "bananas" he is quoting fuel consumption figures for the RTM engine when we should be comparing the GE engine as used by the Canadians and proposed for the US101.

Surely, we should just let NAVAIR do the assessment with like "Bananas" and then do an objective comparison.

:uhoh: :uhoh:

RotorPilot

17th Mar 2004, 16:39

____________________________

NickLappos

17th Mar 2004, 17:39

I don't have time to post the brochures, but I will later. My data is solid, and true, even if those who have no data disagree.

The takeoff weight I used is not the maximum that is published, it is, as stated, the weight at which they hover OGE. The idea of using IGE or rolling takeoffs is fine, just know that when you go into the problem. Most military services demand HOGE weight as the starting point for performance, as is reasonable. The US Army uses HOGE plus a 500 fpm vertical rate of climb, and so do about 5 military services around the globe.

Visionary, the 34,400 lbs is based on an IGE takeoff, and if you weigh that much in an EH-101, when you pull into an OGE hover, you will crash.

My weights are precise, and are based on the data provided by their brochures. As I have stated elsewhere, I would be glad to personally fly an H-92 today with a vertical takeoff to a point 300 miles away with 1700 pounds more that an EH 101 brought from that place, as long as both aircraft are similarly equipped.

The 19600 lbs I used for the empty weight of the EH is quite low, but is in their brochure.The actual operating empty weight of the Canadian EH's is about 4000 lbs more than that (I called the guys who fly them), based on the extra equipment they carry. The 19600 lbs does not even include the seats in back!

More to follow.

Lu Zuckerman

17th Mar 2004, 17:50

To: 46 driver

(and why a ramp is a pre-requisite for the Corps I have always wondered myself....). I just re-read my post and I hope I

I would think you being a 46 driver would know the reason.

The pilot places the helicopter with the front end facing the enemy and placing themselves in jeopardy and using the helicopter to mask the troops exiting at the rear. But I think you already knew the answer to your question.

:E :E

46Driver

17th Mar 2004, 18:44

Actually, it was due for the importance of bulk cargo. The Corps places a bigger premium on this than does the Army with its medium lift birds.

Gotta run right now.

Straight Up Again

17th Mar 2004, 20:39

From what little memory I have left, I have to back Nick on the MAUW, The EH-101 can fly at 15,600 kg, and even do it on 2 engines, BUT this is from a rolling take off (not much use on the White House Lawn).

Westlands did a press release after the work up for a long range demo flight (I still have a copy of it), and I'm sure even that stated a heavy (15,700 kg I think) rolling take off was performed. Engine 3 was shut down at the top of the climb out (2000 ft) and we then flew happily at 120 kts for 400 nm, then hovered for 30 min (3 engines on), then did another 400 nm (2 engines), then kept going until the fuel was used. Though most of the weight was fuel (ferry tank fitted). I do remember the press release only mentioned the blue eyed steely jawed aviators in the front, no mention of myself or Potwash Prescott in the back taking performance figures and switching/monitoring the ferry tank (I'm not bitter or anything though, 8 and a 1/4 bloody hours).

Anyway, back to the topic, I think the 3 engines does give the EH-101 an advantage in OEI situations, you could still get the Prez to where he's going very easily. Though if I have a donk quit, I would like to know why as soon as possible, not carry on for ages with a potentially serious problem.

46Driver - You didn't come across as an asshole (not intended from my side either). I can see why the military want a ramp, the quicker you dump the blokes/kit (ramp and also side door if the seats aren't blocking it) the less time in danger you have. I suppose just buying the one type makes life even easier, and I doubt the VIPs care, as long as the seats are nice...

I still reckon payload isn't that critical, with the president / high ranking government chaps on board in VIP luxury, are you going to have to start trading payload for fuel? Surely the payload that either one will have to carry will be similar, maybe a bit heavier for the 101 as it has more cabin space to fit out (about 5.39 square metres of extra floor space, going by the dimensions on the two websites).

Anyone any idea how much a VIP fit out would add to the basic weight, then add in the max number of VIPs etc carried to get a realistic AUW for the mission? (I'm presuming the number of seats fitted would be the same for each aircraft, just the 101 may have more legroom)

oops, that was a bit of a long post!

Visionary

17th Mar 2004, 21:05

Visionary, the 34,400 lbs is based on an IGE takeoff, and if you weigh that much in an EH-101, when you pull into an OGE hover, you will crash.

Bit harsh a comment that isnt it Nick? Are you sure it will crash or will it fly away safely and land?

Nothing like a bit of exaggeration Nick but come on, its a bit out of order to say it will crash. Wouldnt try putting that in a sales pitch Nick

Flight Safety

17th Mar 2004, 21:30

Visionary, I suggest you search the web and look up the terms IGE and OGE in context to a hover. Then you'll understand Nick's comments.

Visionary

17th Mar 2004, 21:33

I understand IGE and OGE, just saying that it will crash is a bit strong

NickLappos

17th Mar 2004, 21:37

Straight Up Again,

The 3 engines do give some OEI advantage, for sure, since the part power remaining after a failure is greater. This is balanced against the loss of payload for having the third engine, which is about 1500 to 2000 lbs. The customer makes his choice. I am digging up some comparison for this too, and the EH advantage will show up.

Visionary,
My comment is correct and not harsh. If you are in a helicopter that is loaded to 2200 lbs above its hover weight, and you try to hover OGE, you will crash. If you don't believe it, try it and let me know! It is not intended to say that the EH is in any way unfit! The Westland pilots are friends (Jerry Tracy and I go way back) and their products are fine helicopters.

Untermensch

17th Mar 2004, 21:58

I'm sure Jerry is pleased to be mentioned here!

Straight Up Again

17th Mar 2004, 22:46

I can see what Nick's saying, but I don't like the word "crash" either. 'Crash', to me, suggests a more 'out of control' situation, rather than a 'not enough power' situation. Dictionary.com defines Crash more in terms of "To break violently or noisily; smash. To undergo sudden damage or destruction on impact". I don't think that is the case. Possibly a poor choice of words Nick.

Should a pilot try to hover OGE at the weights we're talking about, would they, in fact, crash? If they only had 90% (at a guess) of the power required to hover, wouldn't they just sink to ground, and land with not much more force than a normal landing? As soon as the pilot sees they are at max power and still descending, wouldn't they push the stick forward and try to fly away? How much forward airspeed would be required to stop them from contacting the ground? I think they would be able to fly away, and not touch the ground. Of course if they decide to stay in the hover and keep the wheels up (despite being reminded by Bitching Betty), then I hope I never get into an aircraft with such a pilot.

Nick is, however, right about the take off weight that should be compared, as most of the aircrafts missions will probably require a vertical take off, the extra payload would hardly ever be used. It may be a factor when the Marines come to choose a new steed, so maybe it will factor into the final decision if they will all end up with the same aircraft.

I still think that the payload limit will not be a factor. I think it will come down to purchase price (H-92 wins), running costs (H-92 wins, I think), safety (especially for the Prez, not sure who wins here, though extra engine is good on US-101), interior size (US-101 wins), I could probably think of others, but I'd better do some work. They both win on some points, lose on others. I would hate to be the one to choose, especially with the high public attention and pressure to buy from home soil (public perception).

NickLappos

18th Mar 2004, 01:02

John Eacott and group:

The brochure John points to is an excellent summary of the EH-101 performance.
http://www.agustawestland.com/dindoc/EH101_Brochure.pdf
It shows these things:

Empty Weight:
See the Performance chart at the top of page 23, it shows the max payload in utility configuration as 5300Kg. Take 5300Kg from 14600Kg and you get 9300Kg empty weight (this includes pilots and trapped fluids, but NOT reserve fuel, note the bottom of the range chart is exactly the same as the total fuel mass). 9300Kg is 20506 lbs. I was accused of fibbing when I used 19600 in my earlier post. I was 1000 lbs kinder than their own brochure.

Fuel Burn:
Take the slope of that chart and you get 6Kg/Nm fuel burn, which is 13.24 lb.nm. Look at page 22 at the top and you see 761Kg/Hr at 123 Kts. 761/123 = 6.18Kg/hr. I said 13.5 lb/hr which is 6.12 Kg/hr and was accused of fudging!

HOGE weight:
The table at the top of Page 22 shows the HOGE ceiling standard day as 14600Kg. Their flight manual shows the 14600Kg HOGE ceiling as about 900 feet.

S-92 data is shown at www.s-92heliport.com

Empty weight:
Look at the S-92 Overall Description, slide 56, it shows the empty weight as 15900 lbs. This includes all the offshore equipment shown on the previous pages (rafts floats, full interior etc. I used an empty weight of 15600 lbs for a utility transport, guys!

Fuel burn:
Look at page 62 for the fuel burn at Vbest range. The chart shows 1380 lb/hr at 25,000 lbs (mid mission weight). At 138KTAS this is 10 lb/nm.

HOGE weight:
See Page 58 which shows the HOGE for the S-92. Note that it shows just 28,000 lbs at Sea Level, standard. The H-92 has a slightly uprated transmission, and this number is 28,300 lbs.

Comparative payload range:
See the H-92 Overall Description on that web site, page 6 and 7. Those charts contain the info from above. Note the fact that the EH-101 as shown is EXACTLY as shown in the EH-101 brochure (the range is slightly less because I made that chart, and I subtracted 600 lbs of fuel from each helo, since I never publish a chart with no reserve, unlike the EH brochure).

Cat A: The Cat A weight for the S-92 is 26500 at SL ISA +18 degrees (chart 59 of the S-92 Overall Description). This gives it 10,600 lbs of Cat A useful load per the brochure weights.

The EH-101 at the same conditions is 14,600Kg or 32193 lbs. Less its brochure empty weight of 9300Kg, 20505 lbs, it has a Cat A payload of 11686 lbs. This means it carries about 1000 lbs more Cat A payload. This advantage is wiped away when the range is more than 285 NM, since the fuel the EH needs at that distance is 1000 lbs more than the S-92 needs.

Sometimes smaller can be better, fellows. And when I post, I always post factual data.

Red Wine

18th Mar 2004, 03:13

Chaps, if you are ever limited in an IGE maneuver, then get yourself into an OGE maneuver under the same atmospheric conditions, yes you will crash!!
[Or trash the gearbox, transmission or engine[s]…which ever lets go first]

Hope no pilot asks the obvious hidden question now!!

RotorPilot

18th Mar 2004, 17:39

_______________________________

NickLappos

19th Mar 2004, 06:51

Rotorpilot has some good points, ramp designs are easier for unloading all kinds of cargo, especially wheeled vehicles, and also serve as fast troop exits. They do, however force the tail higher, and so create an overall height issue, which could affect shipboard stroage and also air transportability. Ramps are also big holes in the tail cone where the loads from the tail and tail rotor pass thru, so ramp equipped helos suffer a bit of payload reduction (empty weight increase) due to somewhat less efficient structure. For bigger machines, nothing beats a ramp, I think.

Inside the ramp lintel of the CH-53E is my favorite placard:

"All Vehicles Turn Left to Exit"

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ch-53e-dvic305.jpg

Heliport

24th Mar 2004, 08:39

Washington-AP, Mar. 23, 2004

Despite pressure from the White House to move quickly, Navy officials say they are delaying a decision on who will build the next presidential helicopter, suggesting it may take until the end of the year.

Navy spokesman John Young Junior said today that comparable development programs have taken about 12 months from the release of the bidding requirements to the contract award.

The bid proposals for the new Marine One fleet went out in December, and a decision was originally planned for May.

Young said additional time is needed for discussions with the two bidders, Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft and Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, on aircraft design, performance and costs.

Heliport

24th Mar 2004, 13:42

Fort Worth Star-Telegram: Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - The battle to build a new presidential helicopter took a surprise turn Tuesday as the government announced that it may defer a decision until after the November election.

The politically charged battle to build the next-generation Marine One -- the executive helicopter used to ferry the president and other top government officials -- pits Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. against a U.S-European consortium composed of Lockheed Martin, Fort Worth-based Bell Helicopter and AgustaWestland, a British-Italian aerospace company.

The competitors expected a decision in May after months of lobbying for one of the world's most prestigious helicopter contracts. But the Navy, overseeing the program, stunned both sides by extending the competition indefinitely to "allow the government to make a far more informed decision."

An industry source, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the competitors were told that the decision would be deferred until late November or early December, after the Nov. 2 election. The government also promised that each side would be given $10 million to $30 million more for extra design work and other preliminary costs, according to the source.

Analysts suggested that the delay might have been orchestrated by President Bush's White House to take the issue off the table during the president's re-election campaign. Sikorsky has sought to inject a strong "buy America" theme into the sweepstakes by presenting itself as an old-line company opposed by a partially foreign consortium.

The Lockheed-led group, called Team US101, is developing a presidential version of the EH-101 used in Europe. Team leaders maintain that the U.S. version would be largely American-built, pointing out that it would be assembled at Bell's Amarillo plant.

Assistant Navy Secretary John Young said the government wanted more time to work with industry on design, performance, costs and other issues.

chopperdr

24th Mar 2004, 14:36

rotorpilot, agree with almost all of your comments regarding rear ramp advantages except one point. my stepdad, a two tour combat vet from vietnam said to me once, no matter what you do never go into a LZ in a ****hook, charlie knows damn well 20 guys are going to run out the back door, take the slick, at the very least you shoot back on your way in.
i would say wise words from a voice of experience.
dr

RotorPilot

24th Mar 2004, 17:15

_____________________

Flight Safety

24th Mar 2004, 18:15

Nick, I know it has its rewards, but with this and the Comanche decision, it must be frustrating at times to be a government contractor. :sad:

NickLappos

24th Mar 2004, 19:40

Flight Safety,

Every now and then, I wake up with twinkies on my breath, and the cat has unexplained dents, but all in all it is a wild ride every day!

After 7500 hours of flight time, in helicopters all over the world with some of the best people who ever held a collective, I have nothing but smiles every day. After all, I could be working in some factory somewhere, drilling tail-holes in hobby horses, couldn't I?

Like Grant said at Shiloh, "We'll get them Tomorrow!"

Flytest

25th Mar 2004, 13:37

This cutting from a newspaper today.

"In their letter, the lawmakers said the delay amounts to another blow to Sikorsky, a division of United Technologies Corp. Last month, the Army cancelled the Comanche helicopter program, putting hundreds of jobs in jeopardy."

Not going to do Mr Bush many favours with the voters, so is this the most blatant case of "Sweeping it under the carpet for now.." yet, from the accidental president?

Would you say that perhaps this decision of delaying contract award til "hopefully later in the year" does not bode well for Sikorsky's chances of winning?

Obvious points I know Nick, but to an impartial observer, I wouldn't think Lockheed Martin are losing much sleep over this.

Also, this "blow to Sikorsky", a blow because of the loss of prestige that comes with supplying Marine One, or serious financial blow?

Cyclic Hotline

13th May 2004, 19:31

Posted on Rotorhub (http://www.shephard.co.uk/rotorhub/Default.aspx?Action=745115149&ID=a18780b0-c774-420b-9fc6-5d4b3f8f64ad) today. The editorial is by David S. Harvey.

Marine One: Washington Post Weighs In On Murphey Job

John Murphey, former chaiman of Bell Helicopter has attracted national media attention with news that he will head the joint venture to build the new presidential version of the EH/US-101, if chosen.

In a column called "Special Interests," Washington Post writer Judy Sarasohn implies Murphey has eaten his words to take the job.

It is rare - extremely rare - for anything the helicopter industry does as part of its daily business to make the pages of the national press. While the intent here is to emphasise an implied double standard on Murphey's behalf (castigating foreign helicopter manufacturers and then joining them) the real story is perhaps the intensity of the lobbying effort behind VXX.

While the competition itself is in limbo until the US elections are over, there is nothing dormant about the behind-the-scenes battle for the hearts and minds of official Washington.

The column appears below:

"When it was announced last week that Bell Helicopter chairman emeritus John Murphey was named chief executive of a joint venture with two foreign companies to compete for replacing the fleet of Marine One helicopters, which carry the president, some D.C. folks went scurrying to their copies of Murphey's testimony last year before the House Armed Services Committee:

"The Europeans are coming to America with their products: products developed with substantial government funding," Murphey said as part of his testimony on the U.S. rotorcraft industrial base. "They are seeking U.S. partners to produce the products in the U.S. and they will find them. But European products manufactured in the U.S. do not do anything to develop or enhance our nation's capability in the engineering and manufacturing technologies that are so important to sustained viability in this industry. Are we headed to a point where U.S. manufacturers could simply be assembly subcontractors to European firms that develop and own the technology that was funded by European governments?"

That was March 12, 2003. Now he is chief executive of AgustaWestlandBell, a joint venture of Bell, Italy's Finmeccanica and the United Kingdom's GKN. According to a release, Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor and responsible for systems integration, while the joint venture would be the licensee of its US101 helicopter program's intellectual property and have overall responsibility for the vehicle design and support. The helicopters would be manufactured and assembled by Bell.

The joint venture is battling it out with Sikorsky Aircraft for the $1.6 billion project to replace the fleet. Both are playing up their American pedigrees, with Sikorsky dumping its foreign suppliers for its entry, the VH-92 helicopter.

So is Murphey just a pretty American face of the joint venture? He says no. The joint venture will be bringing "high-paying jobs and technology out of Europe to the United States," he said in an interview yesterday, adding, "We bring an incredible amount of ability" to the joint venture.

Murphey said what he was telling Congress last year was that the federal government needs to restore research and development funding for the industry, especially since foreign governments are investing in their helicopter industries.

Sikorsky's program director, Nick Lappos, said the Sikorsky folks "certainly back his view before Congress."

Lu Zuckerman

13th May 2004, 19:54

......and technology out of Europe to the United States," he said in an interview yesterday,

The EH-101 is not technologically advanced nor is it designed to superior European standards. Agusta has for some time been a licensee of major American helicopter firms (Sikorsky, Hughes, Boeing (Vertol), and Bell. If you look closely at the EH-101 dynamic system and the powertrain it has Sikorsky written all over it. They have created little and copied a lot.

I worked in Germany for a company that formed an alliance with a top of the line American Company that designs and builds hydraulic servos among other things. The alliance was to be a two way street that required technical information interchange. It turned out to be a one-way street and once the German firm got the American companies design handbooks the street was closed to traffic.

:E :E

RotorPilot

16th Jul 2004, 13:11

2 firms vie to replace aging Sea Kings Winner may be named within days

Toronto Star 2004 July 16 - Chopper contract landing soon? (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1089929438817)

Lu Zuckerman

16th Jul 2004, 15:28

Last night on the Canadian Discovery channel they had a segment on the Seaking and the problems involved in landing on frigates. They were doing research on the wind currents generated by the superstructure and the various technical appendages attached to the ship. It was proven that installing a radar antenna or other projection could significantly alter the wind disturbances and this could seriously interfere with the pilots’ ability to land a Seaking on the flight deck.

Another point brought up by the speaker who is an ex Seaking pilot and now a test pilot for the research facility was the movement of the flight deck. He indicated that the Canadian frigates operate in rougher waters than any other naval service and that the upward and downward movement of the flight deck in rough seas could be as high as 800 feet per minute.

In light of this I believe they should demonstrate the ability of the Cormorant (EH-101) and the H-92 to operate under these conditions prior to releasing a contract. If they don’t it might come back to bite them.

My only question is why don’t they use the bear trap system which after all was developed by the Canadians.

:E :E

Gadget freak

16th Jul 2004, 18:42

With the bear trap system do you have to have any matelots on the deck to hook up the wire? With the Merlin harpoon and Type 23 Frigate deck handling system I think you can get the aircraft into the hangar without anyone having to go out on the flight deck.

GF

widgeon

17th Jul 2004, 15:38

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/001200407171538.htm

Someone still likes sea kings !

and this from toronto star

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1089929438817&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467&tacodalogin=no

Jul. 16, 2004. 01:00 AM

DARRELL OAKE/CP
The crash of a Sea King, above, on the deck of HMCS Iroquois last year added to the federal government's embarrassment over its aging, trouble-prone helicopter fleet.

> Thomas Walkom

Chopper contract landing soon?
2 firms vie to replace aging Sea Kings Winner may be named within days

BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA—Canada's new defence minister may be quick off the mark next week and announce some long-awaited good news for the military — a replacement for the aging fleet of Sea King helicopters, sources say.

One scenario has the new minister making the announcement just two days after the Liberal cabinet is sworn in Tuesday.

"It's probably 50-50 whether they blast off within days," said one government source. "But it's something that will happen in the near term."

The government called for tenders last December and under the original timetable, an announcement on the replacement chopper was expected sometime this summer.

There are indications the Liberals are reluctant to let the controversial selection process, which has dogged them for more than a decade, drag on any further.

"Everything we hear points to a quick announcement," said one industry official involved in the bidding process.

The preliminary winner could be announced within days or weeks, with the defence department then taking the rest of the summer to hammer out final pricing and contract details.

Two companies are in the running for the $3 billion contract to supply the Canadian Forces with 28 maritime helicopters for anti-submarine patrols, surveillance and ship-borne duties.

Sikorsky Aircraft, teamed with General Dynamics Canada, is offering the H-92, a variation of a civilian helicopter. If selected, Canada would be the first nation to pick this helicopter for naval duties.

AgustaWestland, an Anglo-Italian consortium, is offering the Cormorant, a variation of the EH-101 helicopter rejected as an unaffordable "Cadillac" by former prime minister Jean Chrétien in 1993.

In one of his first acts as prime minister, Chrétien tore up a $5.8 billion contract signed by the Brian Mulroney government to buy the sophisticated EH-101 choppers, dismissing them as a waste of money. Cancelling that deal cost $500 million.

And it added to the government's embarrassment as the fleet of 1960s-era Sea Kings suffered through close calls, breakdowns, emergency landings and harrowing crashes. After the spectacular crash of a Sea King on the deck of a destroyer in 2003, pilots were given extra training on how to ditch in the ocean and fly on one engine.

The replacement selection decision hinges on more than just the capability of the two choppers and includes the investments each consortium is promising for Canada and a touch of politics, too.

In 1998, the Liberals came under fire after awarding a $593 million contract to AgustaWestland to buy 15 Cormorants for search-and-rescue work — just four years after it cancelled the other deal. But the fact Canada already has Cormorants doing search-and-rescue work could give that consortium an edge.

Ironically, the two companies are squaring off south of the border as well in a fierce competition to provide the helicopters used to shuttle the U.S. president.

RotorPilot

23rd Jul 2004, 13:23

2004 July 22

Graham to announce 'copter deal (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1090491309269)

2004 July 23

Sea King successor set to be named (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1090534213227)

2004 July 23

Sikorsky wins 'copter contract from Ottawa (http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040723.wseakings0723a/BNStory/National/)

RotorPilot

23rd Jul 2004, 18:34

Ottawa picks successor for Sea Kings (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1090577919129&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154)

NickLappos

23rd Jul 2004, 21:26

Not much positive there, RotorPilot!

Would it surprise you to know that the H-92 carries more payload, goes farther and goes faster than the EH-101? It isn't a lesser choice, at all, according to the published performance of each. Additionally, an EH costs about 50% more to buy, and to operate.

Publishing only the negative exerpts infers that you don't believe the serving officers who made the decision. Oh well.

The Sultan

25th Jul 2004, 18:18

Nick,

For an aircraft that the FAA says has to use contingency power to meet routine performance, I am sure that when you add all of the promised equipment it will really be a great performer.

As to your previous message. Your arguments are moot as as previously "Nick Sez" relative to the 92 versus V-22 that speed does not count and range doe not count. Now apparently value and development risk does not count.

By the way, what product do you have that can go 1500+ miles in 6 1/2 hours including refueling and pilot pit stops. The V-22 does it routinely.

The Sultan

RotorPilot

25th Jul 2004, 19:00

Ottawa selects bargain-priced Sikorsky helicopter as replacement for Sea Kings

NickLappos

25th Jul 2004, 19:38

RotorPilot,

You can chose to follow the one quote from an enlisted maintenance technician (a certain Sgt. Phil Moffitt) who managed to get picked up by all the newspapers or you can try to believe the serving officers who selected the aircraft. Many on the selection board are long time experienced pilots, several with engineering degrees, and in my opinion, all of them working to buy the best helicopter available.

It's your choice who you believe, but Sgt. Phil Moffitt seems to have cornered the naysayers market.

Corax

27th Jul 2004, 05:41

The quoted Sgt is an experienced sensor operator but no offence to him, he is a back ender and when the crappola hits the fan I sure hope the machine is chosen by and built for pilots. You can put gizmos in any old truck for the GIBs (guys in back) but you need a great ride to do it well and survive harsh operational and combat environments. So thanks for the input Sgt M but we'll listen to the drivers who chose the 92.

As for chosing an airframe we already have there is some validity to that, many common things, money savings in training and all however when the Cormorants all get grounded, where would that leave us or our SAR capability on our coasts. As it is our aging Sikorskys do yoeman service now on SAR alert every time the Cormorants are down.

There are numerous advantages to the 92 over the 101. I've trapped a Sea King on the back of our frigates and I sure as hell wouldn't want to do it at 33,000 pounds. Our ships are small and the 101 in my opinion is just too big for us. As for new and untested, can't think of a better place to test the 92 to her limits than Canadian ship ops.

While it is true there are some items that need to be addressed for our use, I remain confident in Igor's team to have the machines delivered as requested.

One does have to wonder about the 101, a machine that only military or para military outfits have purchased to date. Three engines and quite heavy with a dissappointing payload. Not quite big enough to compete against 53s or 47s yet too big to compete against 61s and Pumas. Looks to me like EH has created it's own niche market. All the best lads.

[email protected]

27th Jul 2004, 06:42

Corax you are absolutely right about the 101 - it was designed as a heliliner with rig transfers in mind and has been bastardised and marketed as everything from ASW to SH. The RN seem to like it but probably because the avionics and software are good - the recent grounding may have taken the shine off the airframe for them.
Sadly the harsh reality of the British Military is that we will continue to write blank cheques for BAesystems and Westlands despite the indifferent and very costly products they provide. So, much as I congratulate Nick and the boys for getting the contract, I am saddened by the knowledge that we will get the Cormorant as our Sea King replacement instead of the S92.

NickLappos

27th Jul 2004, 09:57

Gosh, crab, ya made me all misty, ya big lug!

Seriously, competition is good, it makes us all sharper. We pushed the S-92 early on to meet the EH payload, because it was there. The continuous leap frog of helo design is a product of the market pushing us forward. Without competition, the movement would be much slower.

I have a bunch of comparison data to post soon, but do need some empty weight data on the 101. Anybody? I will use their brochure weight of 19600 lbs light utility equipped, if I can't get a better number.

Corax

28th Jul 2004, 23:59

Gadget Freak - yup you need two crewman on deck to hook up the line to the helo for a bear trap landing, one for hook up and a safety man. They do not however stay on deck for the actual landing.

The Sultan

29th Jul 2004, 20:18

From Rotorhub:

"In his years in the US Senate, Malcolm Wallop tackled a lot of defense issues. Now, as a consultant to Sikorsky on its bid for the executive helicopter project, VXX (or 'Marine One' ) Wallop says award of the contract would mean an overall loss of high tech jobs from the military helicopter industry in the US. Instead, jobs would go overseas to Italy and the UK."

High Tech? On the S-92? I do not think so. Any aircraft limited to takeoff and landing altitudes of 3500 HD or less can not be called high tech.

The Sultan
:eek:

Localiser Green

15th Sep 2004, 11:03

"British Airways is cancelling almost 1,000 flights from Heathrow over the next few months in a bid to improve its performance, the company says."

New York, Los Angeles, Hong Kong, Edinburgh, Manchester, Frankfurt, Munich, Brussels and Amsterdam will all be hit by cancellations of an average 12 flights per day.

BBC News Online article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3658556.stm).

Mr Toad

18th Sep 2004, 01:55

FOR NICK LAPPOS
-----------------------

Thought I saw a CNN ticker bar last night saying Sikorsky have won the competition. Is this correct Nick?

Only last month the Marine Corps were saying the decision would not be till after the Presidential Elections (for operational reasons of course!).

If it is correct then congratulations to you all.

MightyGem

18th Sep 2004, 02:52

Nothing on CNN.com.

NickLappos

18th Sep 2004, 02:57

Mr Toad,

Hold those congrats for a few months, if you could. The decision is expected sometime in December.

Lots of long days here getting things in order, as I am sure in the other camp the late night fires are burning!

CRAN

18th Sep 2004, 10:26

I was at the 30th European Rotorcraft Forum last week presenting some of my recent research. At the conference dinner Richard Case, the Westland Chief Executive was awarded a major prize for achievements in European rotorcraft development from the French Aeronautical Society for the development of the EH101.

Couldn't help thinking that there have been a great number of more worthy projects at Eurocopter over the same time period. There current research efforts are also ambitious and well thought out. I can only assume that this was a thinly veiled marketing exercise.

Don't even get me onto Richard Case's speech...

CRAN

Time Out

18th Sep 2004, 12:34

Presidential Helicopter Fight Nears Final Round
Thu Sep 16, 2004 12:29 PM ET By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp. and United Technologies Corp.'s Sikorsky Aircraft are in the final throes of a bitter battle to build a new U.S. presidential helicopter, a contest that could be worth about $10 billion to the winner.

The U.S. Navy plans to pick a winner in December of its competition for a new "Marine One" helicopter to replace aging Sikorsky VH-3Ds and VH-60Ns. It wants the new copters to be in use in 2008.

The contract for the president's new "Oval Office in the Sky" will be worth around $2 billion, and the winner will have a good chance to win 400 more helicopter orders from the Air Force, Coast Guard and Homeland Security.

Since the competition was launched last year, Lockheed and Sikorsky have tried to undercut each other's credentials.

Sikorsky has touted its two-engine VH-92 "Superhawk" as an "all-American" solution. Lockheed has said its US101, a variant of a three-engined European design, will be built in America, with parts suppliers in 41 U.S. states.

The rivals are spending millions on last-ditch advertisements in Washington and executives are making the rounds on Capitol Hill, at the Pentagon and with the media.

Richard Aboulafia, analyst with the Virginia-based Teal Group, said the presidential helicopter contest was nearly as bitter as the 2004 race for the White House.

"It's almost like the presidential election itself: nasty, brutish and hopefully short," he said. "It was bound to be politicized. The ramifications are really big."

Connecticut-based Sikorsky, builder of the presidential helicopter fleet since 1957, is offering its VH-92 as all-American. But it has had to find U.S. suppliers to replace a Chinese company and other foreign vendors that make parts for the current S-92 commercial version.

Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin leads the rival team offering a U.S. variant of the three-engine EH101 multimission helicopter designed by AgustaWestland Inc., a unit of Italy's Finmeccanica and Britain's GKN . The helicopter, to be built by Textron Inc.'s Bell Helicopter unit, was renamed the US101 for this bid.

Finmeccanica is due to buy the remaining 50 percent stake it does not own in AgustaWestland from GKN by year's end.

That's what Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reutersEdge&storyID=6257097) is reporting.

B Sousa

18th Sep 2004, 13:44

So Typical.....A couple of sayings come into mind. "If it works, don't fix it." and then "Never fly an A model of anything"

SASless

18th Sep 2004, 15:08

My money is on Sikorsky....unless Kerry wins....he prefers things foreign to American.

Nick...hows about setting two of them things aside for me....they would look good in Navy Blue trimmed with Marine Gold and Red.

;)

NickLappos

18th Sep 2004, 15:13

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/9666150.htm?1c

Copter makers battle for presidential duty

Will Pentagon choose all-U.S. Sikorsky or coalition-built competitor?

TODD DVORAK

Associated Press

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa - Designers say it flies faster, farther and smoother. Pilots say the latest collision avoidance systems in the all-digital cockpit make it the safest in the air.

Then there's the wood-paneled cabin, soft leather seats, on-board galley, executive bathroom and a bank of TV screens, satellite links and video conferencing equipment.

If it sounds like a helicopter fit for a president, that's because the VH-92 Superhawk is one of two new aircraft competing for a $1.6 billion contract to replace an aging fleet of presidential choppers.

"It has everything the president needs to have an Oval Office in the sky," said Joe Haddock, vice president for government business at Sikorsky Aircraft, the United Technologies Corp. unit that designed the Superhawk with Rockwell Collins Inc.

The Superhawk's avionics include eye-level glass displays that allow pilots to keep their eyes on the horizon while continuing to track flight and navigational data.

For security reasons, the demonstration model lacks some items featured in the real thing. But executives said the demo provides a glimpse of the latest technology available to the leader of the free world.

The Pentagon also is considering a rival aircraft, Lockheed Martin Corp.'s US101, for the contract to replace 19 Sikorsky Sea King helicopters -- some dating from 1974 -- with 23 new ones by 2008. A decision is expected in December.

The US101 is tailored after a model built by Lockheed partner AgustaWestland, a British-Italian consortium that supplies choppers to the British Navy.

Both sides claim they have the best craft for ferrying the president and teams of advisers in the post-Sept. 11 era of heightened security. Steve Ramsey, vice president for Lockheed Martin's US101 project, said the US101 is just as fast as the VH-92, but is bigger, wider and has more cabin space.

But Sikorsky, which has supplied U.S. presidents with helicopters since 1957, also has used Lockheed Martin's overseas ties to frame the contest as a test of corporate patriotism.

Presidential helicopters, referred to as Marine One when the president is aboard, are stationed at military bases across the country to ferry the president on short trips of 150 miles or less. For longer trips, the president flies aboard Air Force One.

The VH-92 can cruise at speeds of 175 mph and withstand strikes from a 2.2-pound pigeon traveling 190 mph, officials said. A network of six rotors is strategically positioned up and down the helicopter to cancel vibration from the rotors and other moving parts, allowing passengers to converse without shouting.

The transparent eye-level glass displays, now being used in some commercial and military cockpits, are slightly smaller than a sheet of paper.

"It's hard to predict what difficult environment this helicopter could be placed in, and that's why it's important to have the pilot's eyes looking through the windshield at all times," said Ken Schreder, senior director of Army programs for Rockwell Collins, which developed the new avionics.

New technology also was used to make the dashboard less cluttered. Five easy-to-read liquid crystal displays replace the bank of circular gauges found in most older dashboards. At the push of a button, pilots can call up flight data, local maps and weather patterns or warnings.

Schreder said the VH-92 also is the first helicopter equipped with a bank of sensors to collect information about the terrain below and ahead. The information is analyzed with on-board databases to produce television-like images to aid pilots with navigation in bad weather or landing on uneven surfaces.

The US101 is modeled after AgustaWestland's EH101 Merlin, choppers that have flown missions over Iraq and Bosnia.

In addition to similar advanced avionics, the Lockheed chopper is equipped with warning systems to detect oncoming aircraft and send pilots messages for avoiding collision.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi have lobbied the Pentagon on Lockheed Martin's behalf, while U.S. labor unions are backing Sikorsky.

end

SASless

18th Sep 2004, 15:28

Nick ol' Buddy....

Are we talking a Chinook here...."A network of Six rotors placed along ....." or whatever your last post said????:confused:

rjsquirrel

18th Sep 2004, 15:29

SASless,

It is interesting that you bring up the political race to this, because the competition seems to be caused by the Bush administration! They declined to chose at several points in the past, and they put off (till AFTER the election!)

It is said that the Union president at Sikorsky met with Kerry, who personally told them he would not have even considered a foreign helicopter to begin with.

Funny how beliefs (like combat veterans are poorer patriots than guys who hid in the guard) get based, isn't it?

SASless

18th Sep 2004, 15:34

Awright RJ....let me get this straight...you are saying a Democratic Presidential candidate....talking to a Union President...is going to tell said Union Dweeb that he (Kerry in this case) is going to buy Foreign or even consider buying foreign?

Now that is a very interesting concept.

Why is it RJ, I find the odds of that happening as being ....well....well.....about that equal to the Air Log management getting struck by lightning and settling the CBA dispute in the GOM.

rjsquirrel

18th Sep 2004, 16:37

No SASless! The current administration is RESPONSIBLE for this competition, They gave the foreign helo the shot, yet you somehow paint them as the American heros who have a more likely chance of selecting the real US helicopter!

And for all ppruners who will jump up to claim unfair competition, someone please tell me about how Agusta-Westland and Italy are taken to EU court for controlling the Italian market and locking out British and French helos!

SASless

18th Sep 2004, 17:13

RJ....gimme a break here....last time I checked...Westland was a UK based company. Thus if Italy was using Agusta/Westland....then they are not protectionist at all.

Also...is not the Republican party a party of "Free Enterprise"....and competition is always good....however the thought of the President riding around in the product of the lowest bidder sounds pretty interesting....particularly if it is not the "best" product.

But as you should know....but might argue against....Sikorsky's entrant is by far superior to the opposition. Or can you refute that statement? I know which side that ol' Teetotaller Nick Lappos will come down on in that argument.

B Sousa

18th Sep 2004, 17:50

I heard a rumor that Robinson is secretly including his new one. The MH-69 12 cylinder supercharged model?? Could someone be pulling my leg??

rjsquirrel

18th Sep 2004, 19:38

SASless,

Everything I see says the EH-101 has lots of problems. Somehow 5 crashes occurred, and that pilot error rubber stamp Agusta has seems to be wearing out.

And those parts shortages are really interesting! Blaming a parts shortage on the logistics weenies is like saying a flat tire is because of an air shortage. Someone might figure out the beast is eating parts like Oprah eats ham. Those "combat proven" helos seem to need one christmas tree in the hangar to keep one flying, at least according to the press reports I have seen.

The S-92 does have to prove itself, however. Lots of promise, now its showtime. My bet is it will behave about as advertized. Time will tell.

NickLappos

18th Sep 2004, 19:49

Thanks for the vote of confidence, rjsquirell and SASless. I could take a double bourbon right now, pardner!

SASless

18th Sep 2004, 21:58

Fallen off the wagon have we, Nick? What happened to your Teetotalling ways?

NickLappos

18th Sep 2004, 22:32

All this stress, SASless! Make mine a double!

diethelm

19th Sep 2004, 22:35

Relax Nick, you are going to win the Presidential contract as well as others.

Flying Lawyer

21st Sep 2004, 19:34

Shays seeking review of rule governing president's helicopter

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays said Monday that he has asked for a federal review of rules that appear to disqualify groups with foreign workers from building and maintaining the presidential helicopter.

He questioned whether the regulations would affect a current bidding contest for the new presidential helicopter by Stratford, Conn.-based Sikorsky Aircraft and a team including Maryland-based Lockheed Martin and British-Italian helicopter consortium AgustaWestland. The contract for the Marine One fleet would be worth about $1.6 billion.

Shays, R-Conn., said he asked the General Accountability Office to examine Department of Defense regulations stipulating that "all persons directly associated" with the manufacture, repair and maintenance of the president's helicopter fleet must meet the "highest Defense Department security clearance requirements."

The clearance requires "all relevant personnel to be citizens of the United States who are not married to non-citizens and who possess unquestionable loyalty to the United States," Shays said.

Steve Ramsey, a vice president at Lockheed Martin, said his company's proposal for the helicopter will meet all security requirements. He said 90 percent of government funding for the US101 aircraft would go to U.S. suppliers and the rest to suppliers in the United Kingdom and Italy, two of America's allies.

"It's going to be an American helicopter," Ramsey said.

The US101 presidential helicopter would be built by Bell Helicopter in Amarillo and Fort Worth, Texas, he said.

A Sikorsky spokesman said the company believes the only way to meet the security requirements is to do all the work on the presidential helicopter in the United States.

"How are you going to build, design, manufacture and maintain the presidential aircraft with foreign content is not a question Sikorsky will have to answer," said Ed Steadham, a company spokesman.

The Pentagon is considering replacing 19 Sikorsky Sea King helicopters, some dating back to 1974, with 23 new US101s made by the Lockheed Martin group. Sikorsky is pitching its VH-92 Super Hawks for the new presidential helicopter.

"Sikorsky makes the only all-American helicopter and it seems to me that, given Department of Defense rules, this should be an important part of the decision-making process," Shays said.

Shays said he was surprised to learn of the rules, which were brought to his attention by industry representatives.

"We want to know the history of the rule," he said.

Shays, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, said the GAO report will not likely be completed until after the contract is awarded in December.

Navy Secretary Gordon England said in April that the Pentagon will make its choice based on the technical merits of the two proposals.

Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press

NickLappos

21st Sep 2004, 20:00

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/text/i521087p.txt

SASless

21st Sep 2004, 22:05

Last time I checked....and Nick correct my math here....90% is 10% less than 100%.....and just as one cannot be a little bit pregnant....either you are 100% American or you are not. (by the definition given). And....it wouid seem to me....if 10% of the work goes to the UK an Italy....then it sure ain't American. Sorry, Chaps....as I was told in the Lakers Pub in Redhill.....".... to the Manor, One must be born!";)

NickLappos

23rd Sep 2004, 03:31

SASless,
It is hard to be 100% of anything, but the numbers keep flying around!

The "US"-101 will always have rotor heads, rotor blades, transmissions and critical components made in Yoevil and Milan, regardless of the funny math that comes out of Lockheed lawyers.

It is my opinion that a watch with the works made in Japan and the band, case and hands made in Chicago is a Japanese watch.

The issue is clearly not understood by Lockheed. It is surely about security and safety of the president. If the rotor blade is made in Italy, can the Italian worker be assured to have "unquestionable loyalty to the United States"? Same for those who cut the gears in the transmissions.

Hilico

23rd Sep 2004, 06:57

I hope anyone manufacturing any part of any aircraft has unquestionable loyalty to the customer. How would Luigi or Mario know this blade or that was intended for any particular ship?

Aser

23rd Sep 2004, 18:04

If the rotor blade is made in Italy, can the Italian worker be assured to have "unquestionable loyalty to the United States"?

Nick.. I believe that you have made an unfortunate comment.
I'm pretty sure that more than a few U.S. citizen are not very "loyalty" to G. Bush... :E

SASless

23rd Sep 2004, 18:49

Nick can correct me if I am wrong...but I always heard that parts bound for the Presidential aircraft were segregated throughout the process....and when installed on the aircraft were only allowed to go to half life before being removed and then were placed into the normal parts inventory for military aircraft.

In this day and age....we have lots of folks that wish our President harm...like Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, Osama, Zarqawi....Cat Abdul Islam Stevens.....Terry McAulliff.....so no offense to our Italian and British allies intended here.

Lu Zuckerman

23rd Sep 2004, 19:07

The "US"-101 will always have rotor heads, rotor blades, transmissions and critical components made in Yoevil and Milan, regardless of the funny math that comes out of Lockheed lawyers.

If the rotor blade is made in Italy, can the Italian worker be assured to have "unquestionable loyalty to the United States"? Same for those who cut the gears in the transmissions.

It is my understanding that the US Navy has for the last few years purchased high value dynamic SH3 components from Agusta since Sikorsky was no longer producing them. I can only assume that some of these parts ended up on the Presidential VH-3D.

Another point to consider is that many of the high value dynamic components have catastrophic failure modes that were never considered in the Merlin / Cormorant applications. If these parts are not redesigned by Lockheed or Bell they could very well end up on the US 101.

:E :E

46Driver

23rd Sep 2004, 21:53

SAS,
You are correct. A number of my friends are flying, and have flown, at HMX-1. The parts are definitely half-lifed, and I am pretty sure they are segregated as well.

Lu Zuckerman

24th Sep 2004, 00:33

You are correct. A number of my friends are flying, and have flown, at HMX-1. The parts are definitely half-lifed, and I am pretty sure they are segregated as well.

Those dynamic components that are half-lifed and then returned to general stock for the rest of the operators are capable of failing at any time during their life.

The engineers calculate the stresses that a component will see during its’ operational life and then they add in a safety factor to establish how long that part can be used in its’ design application. If they determine that the part is lifed at 5000 hours then the half-life is 2500 hours.

In establishing the life the engineers make a lot of assumptions in that the part is 100% perfect. Manufacturing defects, human error and a whole host of things can result in decreased reliability.

When they calculate the reliability and safety of an operating system one of the things that enters into the calculation is that parts will be replaced before the reliability or safety are effected.

The reliability and safety calculations are arrived at by the manipulation of numbers. To show the operational safety of a system catastrophic failures that would result in loss of life or loss of the system the analyst can show that the safety of the system is 10e9 or better and in some cases as good as10e18.

Because the loss of a blade is catastrophic the failure rate of the blade has to be greater than 10e9 and from a manufacturing and design point of view this is impossible yet this figure is used in the overall calculations. What protects the presidential helicopter is maintenance and to a lesser extent the continuous exchange of parts. However Murphy’s’ law is still waiting to reveal itself.

:E :E

Rick Burt

24th Sep 2004, 01:12

Nick,
I have to be honest I would not qualify SACs delivery of our S-92 this year as a "Slam Dunk". I honestly hope they have better success in the future at meating delivery schedules. As you know Nick I am a big S-92 fan but I guess the hastles I have had to deal with this year with the numerous delivery delays of our S-92 have taken a toll.

John Eacott

24th Sep 2004, 01:20

Slightly OT, but the Royal Flight used to apply the same half life principal to aircraft used for flying Royalty. We then had the mind boggling application of this "rule" when Chuck had to be transferred from a frigate (he was Guns 2, IIRC) to Eagle for lunch. Although 826NAS was less than 2 years into operating brand new Sea Kings, it was all too difficult to establish which of the fleet met the half life criteria.

End result? Bosun's Chair transfer at sea for the heir to the throne, with the same old bit of cable used to support the chair that had been used for the past 5 years. Not sure that was the best, but it got a bit of a laugh ;) :rolleyes:

Similar dramas when he learnt to fly in a Wessex V, "his" cab was kept especially for him, plus Dayglo panels all over for high vis. Prince Andrew obviously wasn't so important, routine cabs off the Flypro; especially in the Falklands :ok:

SASless

24th Sep 2004, 02:16

Lu,

In all derference to your experience and educational background...but I assure you...I would rather fly around in one of HMX-1's aircraft than some of OLOG's clapped out 212's with max life components.

You can probably rest assured the folks at HMX-1 have anything they want or need to do the work...and have plenty of time to do it...get all the schools....and have to be the very best at what they do....unlike some of the operations I have flown at.

NickLappos

24th Sep 2004, 03:12

JunglyAEO,
I never got around to posting the data, I will when I get back from this latest trip.

I have the comparitive data (the respective brochure charts from each manufacturer) and can email it to you in the meantime, if you wish.

shoot me a PM with your email address and I will send it to you.

Hueymeister

24th Sep 2004, 06:31

What a load of old cobblers....Why must the Good Old US of A constrain itself to such archaic and ponderous precurement strategies. Stuff the Trades Unions, buy the best cab for the job?

g33

24th Sep 2004, 07:29

Hueymeister,

I agree. Imposing protectionist measures implies that the US of A is prepared to buy second best.

As the sectors for Marine 1 are quite short, perhaps payload isn't that important, but size does matter!

g33

212man

26th Sep 2004, 19:21

Look what happened with the HH-65 (Dauphin): must have an American engine (LH-101) to get the contract, but actually maybe it would be better with the engine it was originally designed with (TM Arriel). Years later they are retrofitting it with the latest Arriel in the face of fierce opposition from the pro LH-101 protectionist lobby (so what about the multiple power unit failures; at least it's an American engine!).

The whole concept is bizarre. The UK military fly British aeroplanes, British Helicopters, French helicopters, American helicopters, American aeroplanes, British aeroplanes and don't give a toss where they came from; they just fit the bill (up to a point).

Does anyone seriously believe that there are safety issues with a product's origin (well, a European product)?

ase engineer

26th Sep 2004, 19:46

Oh yeah? how quickly they forget...

"Associated Press
Immigration crackdown leads to arrests at Sikorsky
An immigration crackdown has led to the arrests of several illegal aliens working for subcontractors at Sikorsky Aircraft in Stratford. -- Seven suspects, five men and two women, were brought into U.S. District Court shortly before 9 p.m. Tuesday, charged with misusing Social Security numbers and having false alien registration cards. They were turned over to the INS after a court appearance."

NickLappos

27th Sep 2004, 00:38

It is actually proof, ase engineer, thanks!

That is unless you propose that Agusta intends to arrest all its workers who are not US citizens!

[email protected]

27th Sep 2004, 06:07

212man - if only the MOD were so wide-ranging in their procurement process, as far as helicopters go we will get what Westlands can produce (either their own or under license) and stuff whether or not the aircraft is suitable for the role (SH Merlin for example). Even when we do buy American, we still go through the same 'must be a certain percentage British' rigmarole which is why our Apaches have RTM322s fitted, a process which required a new gearbox to be designed and added to both weight and fuel consumption (not to mention altering the fuselage dynamics for the gun computer).
There is no such thing as fair competition these days, politicians have seen to that by allowing themselves to be pressured (lobbied) and influenced (bought) by industry and generally interfering in a procurement process for items they do not understand.

212man

27th Sep 2004, 13:08

Crab,
I agree that what you say will be true to a large degree, however I don't think anyone would seriously doubt the safety of an American product versus a British one?

Keeping jobs in country is one thing, slagging off a product as being potentially unsafe because it's not home grown is another thing entirely (not saying you say that Nick!)

NickLappos

27th Sep 2004, 15:41

212man,

The regulations have little to do with the safety of the item, they have to do with the safe handling of that item. When one thinks of the implications of purposeful and mistaken acts, where the world's headlines will report every problem, there is little left to chance. When the composite rotor head and blades are being laid up, who is doing it? Is the item left exposed where someone else could do something to it?

Such security is what the regulations are all about, not the safety of the basic machine.

Remember when some buffoon sat on the Queen's bed a few years ago and chatted with her? Is that guy now working in Milan or Yoevil or Stratford CT? Adherence to those regulations is one way to be sure not.

low height bug

27th Sep 2004, 18:27

Apologies but slightly off topic

Crab

"......RTM322s fitted, a process which required a new gearbox to be designed and added to both weight and fuel consumption (not to mention altering the fuselage dynamics for the gun computer)."

What new gearbox?

What "gun computer" change?

What Bo[[ocks!

ase engineer

2nd Oct 2004, 21:56

>>>It is actually proof, ase engineer, thanks!
>>>
No it isn't! 100% except for the foreigners ain't 100%, is it!

Anyway, if the argument has come down to 100% US or else, (and as Lu Z pointed out, the present one isn't) then clearly the argument over which a/c is best for the job has been won...or lost.

"Patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels ..." Samuel Johnson

So it'll come down to politics, just like things usually do...

SASless

2nd Oct 2004, 22:38

What an appropriate day....P-51 Mustang from our museum doing Jolly Rides as I sit here trapped in the office. Lets see....wasn't that an American Airframe with a British engine at first....gosh, but I do love the sound of that recip engine! The Grumman Wildcat has been growling too...cannot wait for the A-1E to roar....

Oh, well....back to work!:{

NickLappos

2nd Oct 2004, 23:17

ase engineer,

You chose to resort to labels like patrotism, and only you do. Similarly, you use 100% when nobody else does.

Simply said, you offer no way for the US military to assure that a vital component like a rotor blade or a transmission made in Italy can meet the regulation designed to protect the security of the president. Fume and harumph all you want, it is a method of assuring security that answers the mail, and you haven't done anything but harumph. Remember that Italy has had 58 governments in 59 years, some of them Communist, and some of them in keen opposition to US policy, to the point of disallowing use of Italian airspace for US military.

Also, how come the EU has taken Italy to court because Italian markets are closed to competition, yet you think every other country should just roll over?

As far as politics go, exactly how technical was the letter from Blair to Bush reminding him of how great a buddy England is, and how much good it would do if Bush bought the EH-101. If that is not a political shot, fired at the outset of this campaign, exactly what was it?

The best aircraft won in Canada, and will win in the US, in spite of the poltical pressure from Blair and Burlisconi.

MightyGem

3rd Oct 2004, 03:20

Sorry SASless, but the P 51 Mustang was originally designed with an American Allison engine. It was only when refitted with the Merlin that it turned into an outstanding aircraft.

ase engineer

3rd Oct 2004, 22:25

Nick,
I neither fume nor do I harumph (is that a verb?) One of the problems of email is that when I type witty comment you can read insult, and vice versa, and when I type facts and opinions, you can read fuming and harumphing (if to harumph is OK)

So in no particular order then,
>>>You chose to resort to labels like patrotism, and only you do.
>>>

"But Sikorsky, which has supplied U.S. presidents with helicopters since 1957, has also used Lockheed Martin's overseas ties to frame the contest as a test of corporate patriotism."

by TODD DVORAK Associated Press as quoted in earlier post to this forum by a certain Nick Lappos
Not just me, then, but at least three of us!

>>>Similarly, you use 100% when nobody else does.
>>>

"There is a American firm, Sikorsky of Straford, Connecticut. that is committed to building a 100% American product. "
Syndi Holmes Magic City Morning Star
"Shouldn't the president's aircraft be 100 percent American"
maepennant.com
"It would be surprising if Sikorsky's 100 percent American bid ..."
csmonitor.com

Ah, not just me there either, eh!

"It is an honor for Vought to be a member of the VH-92 All-American team," said Vought President and Chief Executive Officer Tom Risley."
"In January 2004 Sikorsky announced the formation of the All-American VH-92 Team "
"Sikorsky, a division of United Technologies, has run advertisements in major newspapers and trade publications stressing that its team is all-American" The Hill
"a great All-American team to bring it all together" said Joseph Haddock, Sikorsky’s vice president -perhaps you know him?

OK not verbatim 100% I grant you, but "all" and if that isn't 100% what is?

and that was just 0.22 secs worth of googling (is that verb now as well?)

>>>a vital component ....meet the regulation designed to protect the security of the >>>president.

Well, according to Lu Zuckerman, they already do on the existing aircraft with high value dynamic components (is that Lu-speak for gears and blades?),

>>>it is a method of assuring security that answers the mail
>>>

That suggests that it is a requirement of the bid request documents. If so why did Westland even bother bidding? Why not put a copy of that part of the requirement up here for us all to see? or perhaps all-americanism wasn't actually asked for....

>>>and you haven't done anything but harumph
>>>

Well, pardon me!

>>>As far as politics go..... letter from Blair to Bush
>>>
Yep, that was politics, never said it wasn't, and I dare say that W has lifted the phone to Tony on the occasion as well...

And all that is apart from the rather insulting assumption, but don't worry the rest of the world is used to that from Americans (how many countries do compete in your "World Series?"), that somehow the Brits and Italians have less interest in the safety of their heads of state than you do in yours.

Harrrumpph!

Ase

rjsquirrel

3rd Oct 2004, 22:50

ase engineer,

What do you expect when you spring on Nick with that "last resort of scoundrels" quote. To you this is great theory, to others, it is war.

You foolishly ask "why would Westland even bother bidding?" Wake up, Westland aren't bidding. The company that used to be Westland was eaten by the real "scoundrel", the one that won't let anyone compete on its home turf, the one that wants the US market too.

Want to know the real issues behind Sikorsky's hard fighting in the the US Marine 1 competition? Ask yourself WHY there is no longer a real British helicopter industry. Want to take a bet on how much longer Yoevil stays open after this US competition is over

NickLappos

3rd Oct 2004, 22:53

ase engineer,
You are quoting reporters, not Sikorsky people when you support your argument, go discuss it with them.

RJ, you are almost exactly right, the quotes ase engineer didn't provide discuss the medium military helicopter market, and how this is really a battle for that future market.

widgeon

4th Oct 2004, 00:19

to be pedantic the correct spelling is Yeovil ( on the river Yeo ). The US navy has in the past purchased S61 parts from Westland and Agusta .( don't think they would have ended up on the Presidential machines though ).

SASless

4th Oct 2004, 02:24

Nick,

How can RJ know sickum about this...here you are much closer to the situation and he has the crust to suggest you would stoop to trickery or provoke an argument over this.

RJ does make a point in his post....but I would put my money on your position as I doubt RJ can be for real when he says what he does.

I suspect a level playing field to our European friends is defined as the field of play where they own the field, both teams, and the judges. When the USA adopts some of the same procedures they get a bit squeamish.

I would suggest to RJ he listen to you more closely....and he might be the wiser for it. Think you can help him out a bit?

NickLappos

4th Oct 2004, 11:46

SASless,

Everyone in pprune has his/her right to an opinion! Even you!

Cyclic Hotline

4th Oct 2004, 15:16

Ottawa delays signing helicopter deal
To hear complaints from losing bidder

Lawsuit calls deal with Sikorsky `biased'

BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA—The federal government has agreed to hold off signing a multi-billion dollar deal for replacement helicopters until the complaints of the losing bidder have been heard in court.

AgustaWestland, an Anglo-Italian consortium, says it has been assured by the government that the deal to buy Sikorsky helicopters won't be finalized until after Oct. 26. That's when preliminary motions from the lawsuit are scheduled to be heard in court.

"We'd asked, as part of an over-all scheduling arrangement, that the government agree to do this and they did," said Gord Cameron, an Ottawa lawyer acting for AgustaWestland.

"It's significant to us," he said. "They haven't said they will award it after that."

It's not clear even whether the government would have been in a position to sign the deal over the next few weeks, given that it's still negotiating final details with Sikorsky.

But in a move that could drag out the long-delayed replacement process even longer, AgustaWestland says it expects the government to delay inking the contract until its serious allegations are "fully" aired by the federal court.

"If there's still uncertainty about the progress or outcome of the case, I would hope the government would extend it until the court had considered it fully," Cameron said.

On July 23, the federal government announced it would buy 28 Sikorsky H-92 Cyclones as its new maritime helicopters instead of the EH-101 offered by AgustaWestland. The helicopters will replace Canada's aging Sea King fleet.

AgustaWestland, which had long complained about the selection process, filed a lawsuit on Sept. 1 accusing the Liberals of deliberately skewing its choice to avoid the "embarrassment" of picking its EH-101 helicopter, which the government had rejected as an unaffordable "Cadillac" in 1993.

The lawsuit charges that the government's evaluation of the bids was "biased, unfair and contrary to the rules of the procurement."

Federal officials, including Defence Minister Bill Graham, have insisted the government will push ahead with the purchase of the Sikorsky helicopters.

But AgustaWestland is asking the Federal Court to force Ottawa to hand it the $5 billion deal or start the decade-long selection process over again.

Cameron says the government made the "right decision."

"Otherwise we would have had to deal immediately with the injunction issue which would have put a lot of strain on the court," he said.

Sikorsky spokesman Ed Steadham had no comment on the latest development but said the company is committed to have the new helicopters flying within the four-year deadline set out in the contract.

ase engineer

5th Oct 2004, 18:17

Nick,

>>>You are quoting reporters, not Sikorsky people when you support your argument

1. I quoted Joseph Haddock, Sikorsky’s vice president..

2. I quoted TODD DVORAK Associated Press , the same reporter you quoted!

Harrumph!

Ase

NickLappos

5th Oct 2004, 18:51

ase engineer,

Are you sure you're not a politician? Let me be more specific, since you still have trouble understanding what you said:

No Sikorsky person said what you attribute to them, you use others' words and then assign them to Sikorsky people.

ase engineer

10th Oct 2004, 21:53

No I'm just a regular working guy. In fact I was begining to think you were the politician, always moving the subject and never accepting what the other guy says if he doesn't agree with you.

Since you were kind enough to be specific (but wrong), let me specific and simple - you accuse me this time with "No Sikorsky person said what you attribute to them, you use others' words and then assign them to Sikorsky people"
I rebut you with

"...and a great All-American team to bring it all together," said Joseph Haddock, Sikorsky's vice president for government business development."
quoted, not via some reporter who you quoted, or any other reporter, but directly from YOUR COMPANY'S WEBSITE.

http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,3036,CLI1_DIV69_ETI1860,00.html

OK? I don't make things up, I don't misquote people, and I don't " use others' words and then assign them to Sikorsky people."

Just accept that this is all a political issue and little to do with the merits or otherwise of the helicopters concerned - in fact just like most other big defence orders - and then we can off this carousel and debate more interesting things.

Harumphing over.
ase

RDRickster

10th Oct 2004, 22:06

ase engineer,

Even I have a hard time getting the message you are trying to convey. Your arguement is hardly persuasive.

R2

ase engineer

13th Oct 2004, 19:26

RDRickster,

D'you know - so have I now!
I think it started when someone, and please Nick or anyone else don't lets start again on who it was, suggested that only an all/100% USA h/c should be allowed to carry the US president. I took the views that if it had really come down to that argument then the "which is the most suitable helicopter" argument must have been won/lost and that it also showed that big decisions like this, in the end, are down to politics and that which is the best h/c hardly comes in to it. We then got sidetracked by accusations of, fuming and harrumphing then misquoting, quoting reporters, not Sikorsky people etc etc which I refuted and showed that I hadn't, except possibly that I am now warming to the idea of harrumphing. It sounds like the sort of thing more people should do.....
Please don't drag this on any more by disagreeing, or even agreeing, and stirring NL up again, as I think I am losing the will to

SASless

20th Oct 2004, 15:58

Yo! Nick!

Canada has grounded their fleet of Comorants...is that not the vaunted competitor to the S-92? Seems the tail rotors want to fall off the thing....kinda like the Bell 412 in that regard.

How does this play into the competition?

Sailor Vee

20th Oct 2004, 16:09

I don’t think that the 101 was ever a serious contender for this job.

When you fix a problem by adding a spring so the tail rotor won’t go to max pitch in the event of a linkage failure, instead of a re-design, you really can’t expect the world to take you seriously, and this was long before the ‘new’ T/R problems.:uhoh:

Heliport

18th Nov 2004, 07:35

The decision seems to have been put back to the end of January 2005.

More time to watch the rotary giants battle. :D

John Eacott

18th Nov 2004, 09:14

When you fix a problem by adding a spring so the tail rotor won’t go to max pitch in the event of a linkage failure, instead of a re-design, you really can’t expect the world to take you seriously, and this was long before the ‘new’ T/R problems

There appears to be an amazing amount of criticism of the 101 based on the accidents to date: certainly some justifiable, but it would benefit some critics to look at the teething problems of many (currently) successful helicopters.

The above quote from Sailor Vee could almost be directly aimed at the S76, and the mouse trap solution following failure of the tail rotor control cable. At least one fatal accident until the mouse trap, IIRC. The S76 was, and still is, one of my favourite helicopters, but it wasn't without its teething problems. Nor were many others which matured into solid performers.

My tuppence worth.

NickLappos

18th Nov 2004, 16:07

John,

The S-76 has much more than a centering spring on the tail cable system. It is a mechanism that essentially makes the cable redundamt, a fair bit more than a spring. I will try to find some pics to post, if pprumers want it.

John Eacott

18th Nov 2004, 19:28

Nick,

I was overly simplistic, re the mousetrap, but thanks.

The point was that other excellent helicopters have had teething problems, some well into commercial service. SV's dig about springs on tail rotors reminded me of the S76 fix after the fatal off Thailand when the tail rotor cable snapped: Okanagan machine, went in from 6000' or so and hit the water, IIRC.

rjsquirrel

19th Nov 2004, 05:01

John Eacott,

Which is it, a new helicopter with teething problems? Or an experienced combat veteran with 56,000 hours?

I find it amusing that one helicopter can be both.

The crashes, groundings and miserable maintenance experience continue, either way!

John Eacott

19th Nov 2004, 05:49

RJS,

Read my posts. I made no reference to new helicopters, nor "combat yadda yadda". IIRC, the S76 (the only specific reference I made) had its tail rotor control problems after about 5-6 years in commercial service, and probably (stress probably) by then had many tens of thousands of hours fleet wide.

I fully accept that the S-92 appears a marvellous bit of kit, and wish it well. Similarly, the Merlin is a well equipped and excellent helicopter which is plagued with serviceability problems; to quote a Merlin driver on another thread

1. When it works it's bl@@dy fantastic
2. problem is, previous point isn't happening quite as often as we'd like - Although this week's Welsh landaway is going swimmingly, apparently.

Standing on the sidelines, the virulent and vindictive attacks on the 101 don't appeal to me. Personal irrit, but there it is; such diatribes don't make me inclined to view the S-92 in a more favourable light, but reasoned argument does.

NickLappos

20th Nov 2004, 00:17

John,
You should see what its like on this side of the pond. According to those lawyers who run Lockheed Martin and Agusta westland, if you don't have three engines, you are practically dead already!

I can't wait for this thing to be over!

I posted these brochures in the other thread, they are similar documents for each helicopter, and the performance graphs tell the story about relative performance. The big EH-101 file is the entire brochure, the smaller one has the performance pages only:

Here are the two brochures for the aircraft (with today's engines):
http://www.s-92heliport.com/H92.pdf 200K
http://www.s-92heliport.com/EH101.pdf This is about 5 megs
http://www.s-92heliport.com/EH101perfpages.pdf performance excerpt only 600K

Jack Carson

20th Nov 2004, 19:07

Nick,
Have you had a chance to respond to or receive any rebuttles to the Gen's published viewpoint? PR vs facts. Facts should rule!
Jack

NickLappos

20th Nov 2004, 19:15

The McCorkle piece in Av Week has not yet spun out. I spoke to the editorial staff, and they are Extremely upset that McCorkle failed to tell them he is a paid consultant of Agusta Westland, and that he is on their Board of Directors.

I do have a rebuttal, but frankly, the opinion piece was so very biased, it hardly deserves any answer.

I also heard that the LM program manager wrote to every member of Congress and told them the same basic story!

It is a shame that truth has been so completely lost.

It will cost them both, in terms of their reputation in the industry. Not a big loss.

George Semel

21st Nov 2004, 00:50

Nick, I would not worry to much about what the europeans do or don't do. There is no way that the next presidential helicopter will be anything other than something from Sikorsky. And my reason, tradition. Tradition dose count for some things.

NickLappos

21st Nov 2004, 05:00

OK, so Sikorsky is the one politicizing the contest, Huh?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1367747,00.html

The Sunday Times - Britain

November 21, 2004

PM wants British helicopters on White House lawn

Andrew Porter, Deputy Political Editor

TONY BLAIR is seeking to capitalise on his special relationship with George Bush by urging the American president to buy British-built Westland helicopters for his Marine One fleet.

The US Navy is looking to replace its ageing fleet of helicopters that make up Marine One. They are famous throughout the world for taking a succession of presidents to and from the White House lawn.

Recognising the publicity value of taking such an iconic role, Blair lobbied for the British firm to win the contract during his private meeting with Bush in Washington this month.

He is said to have emphasised the quality of the Westland bid and its importance to British and American jobs.

Westland has attempted to Americanise its bid by offering a US-built version of EH101 helicopter — carefully renamed the US101. Its consortium is led by Lockheed Martin, the US defence contractor, and includes Bell, a US helicopter manufacturer.

The bid has attracted support from Hillary Clinton, the New York senator, because it would bring employment to New York state.

Blair believes the deal would allow the Westland plant in Somerset to be a showcase, attracting similar deals with other countries.

Bush is understood to have listened closely and is fully aware of the ramifications of the deal. However, Westland faces stiff opposition from Sikorsky, the American company that has provided Marine One aircraft for almost half a century. Its consortium, Team America, plays heavily on its US credentials.

The US Navy wants a replacement by 2008 and the bidding process is now at a crucial stage, with a decision expected early next year. Industry experts say the Westland helicopter is superior but the patriotic vote might favour Sikorsky.

The White House contract would be important enough, but there is something even bigger at stake. The winner would not only supply 23 helicopters for Marine One, it would also be regarded as a shoo-in for a much larger Pentagon order for 200 or more search-and-rescue helicopters.

The Pentagon traditionally takes its lead from the navy when buying such aircraft.

Some industry analysts believe the Pentagon deal is big enough to decide the future of the world helicopter industry. “Whichever company loses it will find it very difficult to compete in this medium-to-large military helicopter market,” said one analyst. George David, the no-nonsense chief executive of United Technologies, Sikorsky’s parent, has no doubt about its importance: “It’s win or drop dead,” he said.

Whitehall officials have also written to the Bush administration putting forward the case for Westland. Both the White House and Downing Street refused to comment on the bid last week, because it was “a commercial matter”.

http://www.s-92heliport.com/VH-92.htm

[email protected]

21st Nov 2004, 06:25

This intervention by British politicians is the only thing that has kept Westlands alive during the last 20 years - they are the only British helicopter manufacturer and therefore must be kept going with MoD contracts for aircraft that are not needed or wanted. It's the same deal with BAesystems - high ranking military officers retire into lucrative positions and persuade the treasury that the taxpayer should pay through the nose for shoddy products that never deliver their promised capability.
Westlands could always try making a good helicopter that does what it is supposed to rather than a mediocre one that needs political and media spin to keep it airborne.
All helicopters are good when they work - it's the period they stay working for that determines how good they are.
Westlands best products were those made under license from Sikorsky - why don't they just build the S92 in Yeovil and stop pratting around.

widgeon

21st Nov 2004, 12:36

One question I have asked before and not has not been answered.
An EH101 suffers an engine failure during take off does the flight manual advise you to land or to continue the flight to your planned destination ?.

NickLappos

21st Nov 2004, 15:49

The Category A procedures list specifically what to do, just as in a twin. It is an emergency. The land-back distance for an EH-101 at MGW sea level standard is about 350 meters, if I remember the charts correctly.

The RFM most certainly does not say, "The spare engine has failed, be sure and have it looked at sometime in the near future."

clean_windscreendude

22nd Nov 2004, 13:05

Perhaps the next chopper will have a self cleaning windscreen ;) Amazing what you can find out from website referrals ;)

Jack Carson

23rd Nov 2004, 18:56

Don't confuse an engiine failure "OEI" with a pre-planned flight on two engines. The H-53E flight manual allows for 2 engine cruise to extend maximum range. However, it's EP for a single engine failure states that extended flight is not recommended. Once the engine fails the crew now has to flight plan for a twin not a tri-moter aircraft. i.e duel engine HIGE/HOGE performance and account for the increased H-V envelope.

Head Turner

24th Nov 2004, 12:58

This thread is going on longer than the presidential election (probably the most booring thing on this planet) and the process to select the presidential helicopter (most likely the third most booring thing on this planet). Whatever the pros and cons are of the available helicopters in terms of ability and suitability for sure knowing how narrow minded the americans are when it comes to accepting that anything that is not american could be superior will ensure that the name plate on that helicopter reads Sikorsky (Russian).
Oh by the way the second most booring thing on this planet is the BBC news as it's mostly about america.
Tony Blair will be not be upset if Agusta Westlands don't get into the business as he will be soothed by George by other promises.
I believe that Sikorsky will be the eventual winner as the bad publicity surrounding the EH101 will sway the decision in Sikorsky's favour. And it's probably the better machine at the end of the day all things being equal.

RDRickster

24th Nov 2004, 14:07

how narrow minded the americans are when it comes to accepting that anything that is not american could be superiorThat's a bit broad in scope, isn't it? I guess you didn't know that most Americans buy and drive foreign automobiles? In fact, Alan Greenspan recently pointed out the ENORMOUS trade deficit because Americans aren't buying as many products built and produced in the USA. We seem to like foreign imports just fine... almost to our detriment.

I wonder why the Department of Homeland Security purchased a rather large fleet of Eurocopter ships for Customs and Immigration (border patrol)? No, I don't think you can claim that we have an overtion to foreign products at all. If fact, it may even surprise you that we are actually capable of making an informed decision, based on merit and other factors, including economic benefit for our GNP.

But shucks, ya'll, I'm just an ignorant red-neck that can't possibly understand how to make the right decision.

Gadget freak

24th Nov 2004, 18:10

AgustaWestland can't really lose in this competion now they've got this far. Just being in the race probably helps them in the buy US vs European debate in future competions. George may not end up flying in an AW product but if one is almost good enough for the President surely other AW products might be good enough for the Army!

Some of the cash left over from the Comanche cancellation might end up in European hands yet.

It's a different situation for Lockheed though. I think they have less to win and more to lose by pushing the EH101 in the US.

widgeon

24th Nov 2004, 22:16

Yes other examples of the US buy America theme are :- US Coast guard HH-65 ( now being re engined with TM Engines ) , A109 Hitiron and in future the AB139 , USBP Eurocopter AS350 B3 and now EC120 . DEA Bo 105LS, Shorts Sherpa (some years ago now ) for the US Army. In the same period how many US helicopters have been purchased by European Government agencies ?

SASless

24th Nov 2004, 23:30

Headturner......

"....knowing how narrow minded the americans are when it comes to accepting that anything that is not american could be superior will ensure that the name plate on that helicopter reads Sikorsky (Russian)."

Whew Bubba! I don't think I would have said that! Were you around when the Brits were discussing accepting GPS technology? It sure has not been embraced by the UK CAA yet or has lightning struck yet?

I can recall the attitude being summed up by a statement "....GPS...that's a Yank DOD thing isn't it?" To be followed by a comment that since the Nigerian CAA had required all aircraft to be equipped with GPS, then the company would install it but upon becoming U/S the first time....they would not repair it!

The Yanks have no monopoly on such things, nope, no sir!
:uhoh:

Flying Lawyer

29th Nov 2004, 07:14

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 29, 2004

Bragging rights included

Two U.S. defense contractors are appealing to the hearts of politicians and the minds of the Navy as they vie to build a new fleet of helicopters for the White House.
Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky Aircraft are both fighting to win a U.S. Navy project to make the next generation of Marine One aircraft, the designation given helicopters used to transport presidents since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
The initial project would be worth about $2.7 billion to produce 23 aircraft through 2009, said John Milliman, public-affairs officer for the presidential helicopter program at the Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, Md.
But the even bigger payoff would be bragging rights -- manufacturing an iconic aircraft for the leader of the free world -- and a chance to win even more lucrative contracts worth billions more with U.S. and foreign militaries.
"The value of the program is not just this program. The air vehicle ... will be the opening shot for a U.S. Air Force competition for around 130 aircraft," said Nick Lappos, Sikorsky's program director for the VH-92, the company name for its version of the presidential helicopter. "The winner gets a leg up on the competition."
Both companies say their product would be the best replacement for the current, aging fleet of Marine One helicopters as a mobile executive office. Neither is certain who will win the competition. The Navy is expected to make a final decision in late January, although the awarding of the contract has been delayed twice.
In the meantime, each company is extolling not just the virtues of its helicopter, but how patriotic its product is.
Sikorsky, based in Stratford, Conn., and owned by United Technologies, stocks the current Marine One fleet with its Sea King aircraft and hopes to continue that tradition with the VH-92.
Sikorsky bills itself as the All-American choice and has been quick to note that Lockheed's proposal for Marine One is made in partnership with AgustaWestland, a European firm with its main operations in Cascina Costa, Italy, and Yeovil, England.
"The Lockheed people will have Italian workers making the rotor blades, should Lockheed win," Mr. Lappos said.
Lockheed, headquartered in Bethesda, says the argument about American content is misleading.
"We don't believe the helicopter should not be selected because of participation of our allies," said Stephen D. Ramsey, Lockheed vice president and general manager for the US101, the company name for its Marine One proposal.
In fact, it's hard to find better allies than Britain and Italy, two countries that supported the United States with boots on the ground in Iraq, Mr. Ramsey said from the company's Owego, N.Y., offices.
"I think the xenophobic approach is counterproductive to the process and doesn't serve anyone well," said Stephen Moss, president of AgustaWestland's U.S. subsidiary. The company is consolidating its U.S. offices in Reston.
In the complex world of defense contracting, it is unlikely that either helicopter would be 100 percent American.
"It is hard to find in the defense industry a purely American defense product. I suspect if you dig deep enough into any system, you will find some sort of foreign component," said Pierre Chao, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a D.C. think tank.
The companies rely on hundreds of subcontractors for major components such as engines and minor pieces such as fasteners.
Lockheed, in fact, doesn't specialize in manufacturing helicopters. That's why it has partnered with Sikorsky on past projects and why Agusta-Westland and Texas-based Bell Helicopter are part of its Marine One team.
Lockheed instead focuses on systems integration, bringing the pieces together and installing high-tech equipment to make it all work, a capability valued by the Navy.
"What we are looking for is a [helicopter] platform that is in production that we don't have to do much development on the airframe, so we can devote energy and resources to systems that go aboard," Mr. Milliman said.
Sikorsky says it's not just about American content, but about controlling production on behalf of the president's safety.
The company also wants the research funding for new systems to flow to Connecticut.
"The question is not buy American; it is whether you invest American," Mr. Lappos said.
Many have weighed in, from British Prime Minister Tony Blair on behalf of AgustaWestland to the entire Connecticut congressional contingent on behalf of Sikorsky.
"So the US101 might offer opportunities for mutually beneficial cooperation," Mr. Blair wrote to the president in January 2003.
The Connecticut group added their opinion this month.
"We ... wish to express our concern about potential vulnerabilities to the presidential helicopter fleet should Marine One be produced with international components," two senators and five representatives said in a letter to President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Navy Secretary Gordon R. England.
All the attention and rhetoric might affect the final decision, though not the way either company intended.
"It does encourage, if not force, the Navy to be as apolitical and as technically based in their decision as possible," Mr. Chao said.
"I suspect the delays are about crossing the t's and dotting the i's so that anyone can follow their reasoning and reach the same conclusion," he said.

Flying Lawyer

8th Dec 2004, 16:41

Sikorsky will win.

Interesting editorial on Rotorhub today. "Thoughts As Marine One Goes Down To Wire

Stratford, CT: Why is Sikorsky still waging the war of words on the US Marine One Presidential Helicopter competition - VXX?

Says Nick Lappos, Program Manager on the project: The battle is on a grander scale than just the competition.'
Explaining, Lappos says there is a need to anticipate the climate after VXX, when the S-92's technical merits could be obscured in the jumble of activity and torrent of commentary that wil flollow.

'They (Lockheed Martin) wil say - if we win - 'they won but it was political,' and that would not tell the story. Of course, if we lost, we will suffer the same thing but for a different reason: 'they must have lost because they weren't technically good enough.''

Lappos' dilemma - surely mirrored on the other side as well - highlights the importance of VXX for what is considered the real pot of gold in the medium helicopter market today, the USAF''s PRV (Personnel Recovery Vehicle) contract, the RFP for which is is anticipated by next May.

The irony for both sides is that by allowing VXX to become politicised the way it has - around the question of national identity - the VXX is locked into a context that doesn't allow the most meaninful points - the technical merits - to emerge.

Lockheed Martin continues to invest heavily in advertising - Sikorsky claims it doesn't have the matching resources even as the 'evidence' - in this case the submissions to the Navy - has been presented. Final proposals will go in before Christmas to the Marines, and Navy evaluators will prepare their decision by January 28. That date, Sikorsky officials here said, is hardening 'day by day.'

'We're pretty much certain there will be a decision at that time. No more slippages. There are just a lot of signals saying that's the plan and they'e sticking to it.'

There is, of couse, many a minefield twixt now and that final nod.
The decision can be seen as a 'two-parter ' in some ways, a technical merit-based evaluation, and one potentially manipulated to meet the needs of the White House politics du jour.

Lappos, a realist, says he is concerned about that, hence the need to keep telling his side of the story - but with the twist of beating back the points made against him by the other aide.

Lappos was in fine and often devatastingly funny form protecting the merits of his programme.

He is, perhaps, on the angry side about some of the things said, particularly about claims concerning payload range and costs. This is not the place to go into detail because others have heard the points before.

Lappos is cutting, however, about claims of a 30 percent size advantage ascribed to US-101. 'If you like, I'll give them a tape measure, and even show them how to use it,' he quipped, of the somewhat arcane debate going on about cabin volume.

In another part of the brief he says - or a chart does - 'A private in the US Army has a safer ride than a Prime Minister in an EH-101.' One of his main points is that some claims made by Lockheed Martin 'fly in the face that their's is a safer more powerful aircraft; it is not. It is less efficient.'

Observers in the media have revelled in the contest - one of the liveliest for a long time and one with the added interest-attracting feature of lots of lavish display advertising available to media not mormally seen inside aircraft factories at all. If we could say one thing for sure it is how we have admired the restraint shown by both sides in resisting the temptation to spin tales and tell whoppers to obviously non-technical and non-aviation press who wouldn't know the difference anyway.

So is this the end of the competition?

Well, there's still six or seven weeks left (including Christamas and the New Year) for the Agusta Westland Lockheed Martin folks to come back with a 'best and final' rejoinder,' but somehow we don't think they will.

The Navy was supposed to mandate a 'quiet time' in the VXX several weeks ago, but hasn't done so yet. It might be in everyone's interest if it did so soon.

We get the point - the industry gets the point - that this is a 'needle' contest for a lot of reasons. From our perspective it is an important one mostly for the future of the helicopter industry, whoever wins. This is an industry badly stalled in terms of technical development, almost totally reliant on the Government to feed it with orders. The fight is over, really, scraps, though important scraps that will go a long way to dictate how the whole industry fares in the future.

Yes you can say VXX is the key to PRV, and therefore a 'must win' for anyone wanting to win the big contests.

But we've seen things like PRV before - massive programmes with poorly organised constituencies supporting them, poor internal politics, questionable support from the PA and E communities that must approve the budgets and overall low priority status in the 'big world' of F-22 Raptors, Joint Strike Fighters and tankers - leased or unleased.

VXX has a good, real, chance of going ahead within a reasonable time. PRV doesn't. And both sides know it.

John Eacott

8th Dec 2004, 21:36

Telling statement in an article about UK's Helicopter Fleet plan, in this week's Flight International, byline Tim Ripley, London:

Type selection decisions are due in late January or early February, with contract negotiations to gather pace by mid-2005. A Ministry of Defence source says the process is not a formal competition, with the key consideration being to establish a policy that protects AgustaWestland's Yeovil plant and the EH101's future sales prospects.

The UK Department of Trade and Industry, Treasury and MoD are all likely to fight their corners in the battle over the UK helicopter industry's fate. AgustaWestland is keen to launch an enhanced troop transport version of its Merlin, dubbed the HC3+, featuring an improved transmission, fly-by wire flight controls, enhanced rotor blades, folding tail, significant weight reduction and additional maritime features. The Merlin CSP effort is also important as it will strongly influence the export potential of naval versions of the Merlin. At the point at which the EH101 is starting to ramp up foreign sales, now would be the worst possible moment for the UK to signal it was not going to invest in future versions of the helicopter, says one industry insider.

Copyright Flight International

rjsquirrel

8th Dec 2004, 23:33

Interesting observation about the ability of UK helicopter industry to withstand competition:

"A Ministry of Defence source says the process is not a formal competition, with the key consideration being to establish a policy that protects AgustaWestland's Yeovil plant and the EH101's future sales prospects."

I guess the shoe is not on the other foot when it comes to EH-101 fairly treated in US competition for Presidential and Air Force missions. I wonder how those Sikorsky fellows handle such news!

SASless

9th Dec 2004, 00:44

My money is on Sikorsky....Nick can be a formidable opponent especially when he is right. (Just ask Lu!) But he can be gracious. (Just ask me!)

Being ambridextreous and having prehensile toes....knowing I shall never get to fly either of the two machines....from all I have read....the S-92 is the better machine. It has a much longer history to fall back on when considering reliability (all dem Blackhawk, SeaHawk , PaveHawk, and JayHawk hours), the homecourt advantage (sorry guys but the Sikorsky is USA made) and the 101 no matter how you dress it up....is an immigrant.

Diet called us out....Eacott is looking at things completely upside down.....So....I put my money on the 92....stand with Brother Lappos....and will take bets as they come. Flying Lawyer can hold the stakes.

Since FL is holding the stakes...and Nick is a party to the fight....that leaves me and RJ. Howabout it RJ....doughnuts to dog droppings....FL holds the stakes in his mouth.....I say the 92 over the 101....care to wager?:ok:

Gomer Pylot

9th Dec 2004, 00:59

Well, I don't have enough inside knowledge to make a bet. It has nothing to do with the technical aspects, it's going to come down to who applied the most grease to which palms. Here in the good old USA, we have the best government money can buy (at least it has been bought), and bribing politicians is completely legal, as long as you call it a 'campaign contribution'. It's a pity that democracy has lost out to capitalism, but those are the facts.

NickLappos

9th Dec 2004, 03:35

Gomer,

Wow! Tough words! I have been dealing with the USN and USMC for the last 2 1/2 years on this one, and they are really tough, fair and generally very technically sharp. It is a shame that you think this place runs like a Banana republic.

I don't know who will win, but I do know that there is a cell next to Martha Stewart with the "very long vacation plan" for anyone who tries what you think is the normal way of selecting the winner in these contests!

Nigel Osborn

9th Dec 2004, 03:40

I don't know much about this selection process but Westlands bought me a dinner and after all his time in Oz, Nick never even bought me a beer.:ok:

NickLappos

9th Dec 2004, 04:07

Nigel,

I will email one to you this instant!

John Eacott

9th Dec 2004, 04:09

Nigel,

You got a dinner? :oh: Mind you, I've still got those Whirlwind & SeaKing ties from dear old Westlands, plus a spiffy Future Lynx keyring :cool: :ok:

And after 1000's of hours in S61's and S76's.........nada :rolleyes:

Nigel Osborn

9th Dec 2004, 04:21

Ah, but I was one of the first Wessex Mk5 pilots and flew it at Farnborough plus their chief pilot tried to chat up my girl friend at the time.
So I deserved a dinner!!:ok:

ppheli

9th Dec 2004, 04:46

Choosing the S-92 would make Tony Blair cry. I can just imagine the pathetic primary school scenes now "but Dubya, you promised........." and that will provide the UK opposition party a great lever for what looks like a May-05 Election....... or even Cherie Blair's reaction (she's bound to be hanging off her Tony's arm), which will be a mix between (a) rabbit in the headights (b) wide-mouthed-frog and (c) a cartoon cat with fur standing on end.

Given that it's going to be a political and not a technical decision, Dubya will need to weigh up between the American people (lower priority, they just voted him back in) and Blair (higher priority, he needs him in power to support Dubya's wish to finish off Iraq and then invade Iran, NKorea and probably a few stations in between).

So, here's a vote for the 101. :ok:

Gomer Pylot

9th Dec 2004, 07:04

Nick, I think the USN and USMC will do as they're told. If you believe otherwise, I have some land a few miles south of Fourchon, LA that I'd like to sell. The decision on the Vxx will be made by politicians, for purely political reasons. The current system of campaign financing is, quite simply, legalized bribery, and won't change easily, because those who have the power to change it have no desire to, being the beneficiaries of the present system. McCain tried, and got slapped down. I truly wish it weren't so, but it is.

Head Turner

9th Dec 2004, 09:12

So USA is NOT a Banana Republic. Oh come on be realistic and open your eyes and ears. Whatever you are told that money is 'official' but it still is greasing palms IF money is passed from one to the other for anything that is not invoiced MUST in reality be palm greasing and the US politicians are very good at propaganda or data information if you want a different explanation on underhand operations which looks on the surface as quite genuine. Get real you American Boys and see through the big and mighty words of your politicians. You are all so easily fed on persuasive words of little content and as such the S92 will win the contest. I don't understand where the 101 supporters think they stand in the arena of debate on this matter, they are throwing good money after more good money on a fruitless mission. All this discussion is only a smoke screen to make it look a fair contest. Those of clear thinking will understand that Sikorsky has it in the bag through the support established by other previously supplied and comendable helicopters. Who in their right mind would buy a Brit/Italian machine which although is used by others in a role similar to that required has no real substance. My vote therefore must be S92

SASless

9th Dec 2004, 14:24

Here's a chance for Nick to do a marketing effort.....e-mail beers all around....virtual neckties...(heavens knows why a self respecting helicopter pilot would want/need a choke rag beats me!)...and ethernet key rings. Right then...off you go Nick....get 'er done!

widgeon

9th Dec 2004, 22:38

Nick I need an S92 tie to go with my slightly soiled EH101 version .
Can you e mail me one as well ?

HeloEagle

9th Dec 2004, 23:47

Having been in both aircraft, if they competition is truely fair, the S-92 wins because of it's higher margin of safety. If politics come into play it could go to the EH101. I am keeping my fingers and toes crossed that it will be the S-92, it gets my vote.

Hippolite

10th Dec 2004, 01:39

The S-92 will win. It is a superior product in VXXX form. The new GE CT7-8C engines at 3000 SHP each will insure that any "power advantage" claimed by the 101 will not be a factor.

Politically, there is no way that Dubya can be seen in a foreign product no matter how much pressure the UK poodle puts on him and how much that Lockheed Martin say its not foreign but 'merican.

Nick, I don't want a tie or a hat or anything if that's ok. I already have my S-92 model anyway!!

HH :cool:

SASless

15th Dec 2004, 14:46

The following excerpt is from today's Rotorhub news....it makes this Yank wonder what the definition of a level playing field is on the far side of the salt water divide?

"According to Standart, the "excessively intimate relations" between BAE Systems and the Ministry of Defence in Sofia were one of the reasons for Bulgarian Socialist Party to ask for a vote of no confidence earlier this year.

The first public indications of alleged irregularities came from Air Force supreme commander General Dimitar Georgiev, who said in an interview that the way negotiations were being conducted was "predetermining the winner" regarding the deal.

Later, the press alleged that Defence Minister Nikolai Svinarov had ordered the departmental commission on the evaluation of the modernisation bids to submit to him the final report on December 3, 2002, that same day the commission itself was established. The experts managed in a record-breaking period of time to review the details of the technical offers and presentations of seven firms and recommend the minister to pick BAE Systems as a strategic partner.

Suspicions concerning the participation of Saxe-Coburg in the negotiations on behalf of BAE Systems is not the only international scandal in the dossier of the British company, Standart further said. Corruption charges in the deal for the supply of fighter aircraft for the Czech army in 2002 escalated into an international row in June, 2003. Then it transpired that the US government accused BAE Systems of "corrupt practices" after they received reports from the CIA and from a competing British arms-dealing giant. "

M609

15th Dec 2004, 15:15

To say that Sofia politics are the norm in Europe is a bit off the mark, I think.......

Outwest

22nd Dec 2004, 15:47

The December issue or Rotor&Wing has an article that says the VXX decision was to be on Dec. 17th. I have been away, but have not heard of a contract award yet. Anyone have an update? Nick?

NickLappos

22nd Dec 2004, 16:55

R&W is a great magazine, but their publishing cycle is not as fast as the VXX schedule change capability! The latest (final?) schedule, set about 2 months ago, has the decision being formally announced on 28 January 05.

Outwest

22nd Dec 2004, 22:07

Thanks for the update Nick. Will be watching the news on the 28th.
Cheers

Cyclic Hotline

23rd Dec 2004, 02:43

Turkey Signs for Head-of-State Sikorsky S-92
Wednesday December 22, 3:59 pm ET

STRATFORD, Conn., Dec. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Turkish government has signed a contract for a Sikorsky S-92 helicopter to serve head-of-state missions.

Turkey joins Turkmenistan in selecting the S-92 as its head-of-state helicopter. Turkmenistan is buying two aircraft. To date, Sikorsky has orders, including options, for more than 60 S-92 helicopters, making it the most successful commercial launch in the company's history.

Sikorsky has been contracted by the Government of Canada to provide 28 military H-92 derivatives. The S-92 is also becoming popular candidate for head-of-state aircraft, with a version of the H-92 under consideration for the next-generation helicopter to serve the White House mission.

"This further solidifies Turkey's relationship with our company," said Joseph Gigantelli, regional vice president for Sikorsky. "We are pleased with the confidence Turkey has shown in our products." Turkey operates S-70 BLACK HAWK and SEAHAWK helicopters.

The S-92 provides unprecedented levels of safety and reliability, including Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Systems (EGPWS) in all civil aircraft configurations.

It is the first and remains the only helicopter in the world certified by the FAA to FAR Part 29 Transport Rotorcraft, Amendment 47, the latest U.S. safety regulations. The Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) are the European counterpart of the USA-based FAR, with similar safety regulations.

The type certification and safety capabilities place the S-92 firmly ahead of other medium helicopters in the marketplace.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, based in Stratford, Conn., is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacturing and service. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation (NYSE: UTX - News), of Hartford, Conn.

widgeon

21st Jan 2005, 22:33

I was talking to somene at Navair today , interesting that the announcement is being made after the US Stock market closes for the day , though this is probably standard practice.

Phil Kemp

22nd Jan 2005, 03:49

As the operator of the ORIGINAL commercial S61, my vote goes entirely to Sikorsky.

Superb products. Ideas and concepts that have driven the industry.

N301Y, S/No: 61032, Manufactured December 1960, 40,000+ hours (not the highest time by any count), been an S61L/N/currently an N short. Carson blades next month, making it an S61++.

Having operated Sikorsky, Bell, Aerospatiale, Eurocopter, Agusta, Westland, Kamov products, I'll put my money where my mouth is.

Sikorsky, all the way.

Anything else is second best.

Brasky

22nd Jan 2005, 04:11

When Sikorsky loses the bid, they can be secure in the knowledge that Lappos speant too much time posting on PPRUNE rather than promoting their product!

;) Just kidding old chap!

NickLappos

22nd Jan 2005, 04:13

Much as I'd like to think that report in the Italian press is accurate (you should see me typing with crossed fingers!) the actual announcement will be made at 5PM next Friday, 28 Jan. Till then, I will not sleep that much!

Brilliant Stuff

22nd Jan 2005, 15:51

Good Luck to both.

I am unable form any opinion on either since I have not the necessary knowledge.

SASless

22nd Jan 2005, 16:05

Sleep tight Nick...our government does some very strange things at times....but this time....cannot see it being anything else but the 92.

Outwest

23rd Jan 2005, 01:23

SASless is right Nick, get your rest, you will need it when fending off the attacks from the 101 team after they lose. No contest S92 for sure. By the way Nick, will GW fly in it? What is the delivery time?

NickLappos

23rd Jan 2005, 01:52

The process is typical of a military development, with design of the systems, qualifcation and training in order. Full operational capability of the first aircraft is late 2009, and the full compliment is finished by 2014.

Cyclic Hotline

23rd Jan 2005, 05:03

Well, fancy that?

Treasury and MoD clash over £3bn helicopters

TRACEY BOLES
Source (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/business.cfm?id=83902005)

THE Ministry of Defence is on a collision course with the Treasury after it emerged that Agusta Westland is due to be confirmed as a partner in a £3bn helicopter contract without a competitive tender.

The move will be a bitter disappointment for Eurocopter, a subsidiary of European aerospace giant EADS, which is hoping to enter the UK market.

The Department of Trade and Industry has backed defence secretary Geoff Hoon and procurement minister Lord Bach in designating Agusta a strategic UK supplier whose know-how and jobs need to be preserved. Defence officials have entered talks with the firm about creating an innovative partnering arrangement where both sides sit down and discuss what products are available for the money on the table, to the exclusion of other companies.

Some £3bn was earmarked to spend on helicopters in last year’s new chapter to the defence white paper. Ministers believe Agusta, whose main plant is in Yeovil, should have the work if Britain wants to maintain the ability to design and build helicopters. The contracts would ensure the Yeovil plant’s survival for years.

But the Treasury has already threatened to block the partnering arrangement; it has raised serious questions about whether the approach will offer taxpayers value for money and favours an international competition instead.

The row could escalate into a re-run of the dispute over a £800m contract for Hawk training jets which saw Geoff Hoon forced to issue a ministerial direction against his own department so that he could award the tender to UK firm BAE Systems rather than throw it out to open competition.

Again, the move was a bid to maintain the UK industrial base in line with policy.

The helicopter contracts have not yet been awarded but negotiations have already started. The MoD regards rapidly deployable helicopters as a key capability.

Westland Helicopters’ product range includes EH101, a medium lift helicopter in civil, utility, naval and search and rescue variants; WAH-64 Apache attack helicopter for the Army; and the Lynx.

Formerly owned by both GKN and Italy’s Finnemeccanica, the UK’s GKN sold its stake to the Italian company last year but its industrial footprint remains in the UK.

Eurocopter has been pushing the MoD to take its aircraft and has even offered to invest heavily in the UK.

Ogsplash

23rd Jan 2005, 06:06

Hmmm...maybe I'm missing something here but wasn't it the Brits who were calling on Dubya to consider buying the EH101? ... and now they are closing off their market to outside bids? Surely it is in the best interests of the taxpayers for an open and honest tendering system that strives for best value for money?

If companies are protected, that is the surest way to choke off inventiveness, innovation and efficiency.

I'm sorry, but this smacks of the discredited nationalisation of industries that occurred decades ago and dismally failed.

But then again, as I said before, maybe I missed something.

SASless

23rd Jan 2005, 12:30

John Eacott very early in this thread posted an article from FI about this very thing.....very bright fellow this Eacott guy. Maybe we can get a comment from him on the matter now at hand?

Helisnake

25th Jan 2005, 08:41

The US101 gets my vote every time. A better looking safer flying aircraft all round. Dubya should be proud to fly in such a machine!!!:ok:

ZH844

25th Jan 2005, 16:09

The word this side of the pond suggests that the S-92 has won the bid? Anybody care to confirm this rumour?

If so then well done to Igor and his team - George Dubbya can't be worng can he?

rjsquirrel

25th Jan 2005, 16:55

Talk about closed helicopter markets and monopolies, here is Agusta-Westland's appeal to the law suit filed in EU courts against Italy for their failure to compete the helicopter programs of the recent past. Recall that Finnmechannica is owned 32% by the Italian government, so this should be no surprize:

“The appeal is based on the fact that the Italian Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza [financial police], which are among the services to which helicopters will be supplied, are officially military entities and as such open competition is not required,” said the company source. “Additionally, after Sept. 11, the Italian government decided all such equipment for homeland security organizations would be considered as military and therefore subject to the same conditions.”
The Interior Ministry then issued its July 2003 decree reaffirming the legitimacy of sole-source sales for all the services involved. It is this decree — which also covers contracts for the Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza — which has now been challenged by the Rome court.
“The Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza may have military roles, but undertake civil roles using civil helicopters, and we have contested the sole-source buying of helicopters which are not exclusively for military use,” said lawyer Mazzeo. “Documents used in court by the Italian state suggest the ruling affects a total possible buy of 250 helicopters for over 1 billion euros in the long run.”
(AgustaWestland Duels To Keep Italy’s Helicopter Orders - Defense News, Jan. 3, 2004)

Now, what was that about fair competition regarding the US Presidential helicopters?

Helisnake

28th Jan 2005, 09:12

For those that are very interested the long awaited result of this fiercley fought competition can be seen live on www.pentagonchannel.com at 10p.m. GMT.

And may the best aircraft win:ok: (As long as it is european in origin - not russian:= )

flyer43

28th Jan 2005, 09:21

Since when did the USA become a part of Europe??

SASless

28th Jan 2005, 11:45

Flyer43...

Whenever there is a need to defend it against aggressors.

flyer43

28th Jan 2005, 17:40

Very droll......!

emsgoof

28th Jan 2005, 20:43

Just watched on the evening news that the EH101 was selected over the S92.

dmanton300

28th Jan 2005, 21:07

I'm surprised!

widgeon

28th Jan 2005, 21:08

Well congrats to the winner , bit of a shock .

handysnaks

28th Jan 2005, 21:08

Yup The DoD Briefing says it's the US 101!:oh:

tottigol

28th Jan 2005, 21:08

Excuse my sarchasm

I've deleted the rest of your offensive post.
Next time you pretend to be clever, learn to spell sarcasm. Your attempt might be slightly (but only slightly) more convincing.

Heliport

Jackonicko

28th Jan 2005, 21:10

"Lockheed Team Wins Presidential Chopper
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a surprise move, the U.S. Navy has chosen a trans-Atlantic team led by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) to build a new U.S. presidential helicopter fleet, a congressional source familiar with the decision said on Friday.

The decision was a stunning setback for Connecticut-based United Technologies Corp.'s (UTX.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Sikorsky Aircraft unit -- which for nearly 50 years has built and maintained the green and white "Marine One" helicopters that fly the president."

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Release
On the Web:
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20050128-2037.html
Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131 Public contact:
http://www.dod.mil/faq/comment.html
or +1 (703) 428-0711
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_ No. 094-05
IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 28, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed Martin to Build New Presidential Helicopter
___________ The Department of Defense announced today that the team led by Lockheed Martin Systems Integration, Owego, N.Y., has been selected to build the new presidential helicopter (VXX) based on its U.S. 101 medium lift helicopter.
_
___________ This $1.7 billion, cost plus award fee contract will launch the VXX program’s system development and demonstration phase during which the program will integrate a “system of systems” with a modern, in-production aircraft to provide the president with safe and reliable helicopter transportation.
_
___________ “Today’s announcement is a significant milestone that caps an exhaustive and deliberative source selection process that carefully followed the Federal Acquisition Regulations,” said John Young, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition._ “The determined effort, long hours and hard work by both the VXX government team and the two industry teams will ensure a high level of quality and safety for future presidents, as well as a timely, efficient and effective program execution.”_
_
___________ “This decision truly reflects the best value and capability for the American taxpayer who is funding it, the Marines who will operate it and the future presidents who will fly in it,” Young added.
_
___________ The fleet of helicopters that currently supports the presidential mission includes 30-year old aircraft that were designed in the 1960’s, fielded in the 1970’s and no longer has the growth capability to incorporate the equipment necessary to provide suitable presidential support in the post 9-11 environment.
_
___________ “Under this replacement program, with its technology and performance improvements, a single platform will provide better savings in total ownership costs, engineering, maintenance and logistical support over the lifetime of the program,” Young said.__ “The president needs a more survivable helicopter while the nation engages in the Global War on Terrorism, and we are committed to providing it as soon as possible.”
_
___________ The original Presidential Helicopter Replacement Program of record proposed an initial operating capability in 2013._ The VXX program was accelerated in 2003 with a currently planned IOC in fiscal year 2009.__
_
___________ For more information, please contact Navy Public Affairs at (703) 697-5342.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

widgeon

28th Jan 2005, 21:19

fuselage and blades in Yeovil Mgb in Italy , good job it has 3 donks otherwise the 66% Us content would be a problem. Interesting 3rd engine was not a factor.

Twinact

28th Jan 2005, 21:21

Gobsmacked, simply gobsmacked.

Looks like the Yanks have been sold a pup just as we were with SH variant !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Our condolences, hope the special relationship survives when they realise.:oh:

Visionary

28th Jan 2005, 21:33

Well done Team US101 :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:

ZH844

28th Jan 2005, 21:36

Just seen the news, best helicopter won without a doubt!

The US101 is the best helicopter in its class and provides the best value for money.

Igor and his boys seem very quiet, perhaps they should of concentrated on the S-92's merits instead of rubbishing the competition!

Good to see Geroge B climbing into a Merlin on the White House lawn......:ok:

Duncan Bucket

28th Jan 2005, 21:42

Well done 101, finally some good news for Merlin

ZH844

28th Jan 2005, 21:43

As I sit here waiting for the slagging off to begin I must say that the DoD's decision just goes to prove that the Merlin helicopter is the best in its class.

Any negative posts from now on will just be sour grapes!

Well done AW now sort our Merlins out please!

:ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:

Duncan Bucket

28th Jan 2005, 21:47

It appears that our White elephant is good enough for dubya ....:ok:

ShyTorque

28th Jan 2005, 21:49

I think Lu might have something to say about this...... Has George W rang him yet? :E

Visionary

28th Jan 2005, 21:53

Glad to see that the guys that have never flown in it still continually try to slag it off...

Now if only Boeing could sort out the CH47 for the RAF eh

Jackonicko

28th Jan 2005, 21:54

Hmmm yes. After all they could have bought a nice reliable helicopter from US industry. Like the Chinook HC3 or the Apache......

HOSS 1

28th Jan 2005, 21:57

What a shame.

I sure wish I had a gloating limey here to help me with my anger management issues...

Hoss

nimby

28th Jan 2005, 22:18

... I'm biased, but ...

I've had hopes for this day since I saw the enthusiasm Lockheed Martin had for the product. I've worked with salesmen for years, but these guys spoke with the evangelical enthusiasm of true believers.

It's a great honour and responsibility to fly any Head of State and doubly so when the country involved is a much respected ally. In the past AgustaWestland has had the priviledge of providing and supporting Her Majesty's helicopter fleet, transport for the Italian President and VVIP aircraft for other nations. (Ironically, most of these aircraft were based on Sikorsky products, but much improved to meet the higher level requirement of the role). I'm confident my colleagues will follow in the footsteps of their forebears and discharge their role within this Lockheed Martin programme dilligently and with pride.

I am also confident that whilst either platform would have done the job, the US101 will do it better. I have stood in it, it's roomy, classy, robust, clever and has real presence ... Just what the Commander in Chief needs. (Huge presence - You should have seen 6 EH101s in tight formation over Yeovil during the development programme!)

On a very parochial note, I am also very pleased that a number of jobs are secured here, and many more created throughout the USA. Well done Team US101.

Nimby, Yeovil

Helisnake

28th Jan 2005, 22:21

As I said the US101 gets my vote every time. After so much hard work we deserved it:ok: :ok: :ok:

RDRickster

28th Jan 2005, 22:51

I just heard on the news the Lockhead Martin and the Consortium beat out Sikorsky for the Presidential Marine One fleet. Any confirmation?

pr00ne

28th Jan 2005, 23:07

ZH844

"Well done AW now sort our Merlins out please!"

Isn't the prime contractor on the Merlin Lockheed-Martin? Are they not responsible for the logistics support just as they were on the C-130J?

Echo your congrats though, that is one SIGNIFICANT contract award.

How ironic eh? The replacement for the Sea King, as US design licence built in the UK, is now a UK design licence built in the US!

Cross-eyed

28th Jan 2005, 23:13

http://www.dod.mil/contracts/2005/ct20050128.html

Cross-eyed

28th Jan 2005, 23:21

WASHINGTON, Jan. 28 /PRNewswire/ -- Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today applauded the decision by the Department of Defense (DOD) to award Lockheed Martin the $1.6 billion Navy contract to deliver the next generation of presidential helicopters.

The winning bid means Sikorsky, a company with a checkered history that has supplied presidential helicopters without competition since the Eisenhower presidency, will be replaced."Today taxpayers avoided what could have been another helicopter sinkhole had Sikorsky won the contract," CAGW President Tom Schatz said.

"Twenty years ago, Sikorsky's Comanche seemingly had it all: dazzling graphics, wide political support and great promise. However, the helicopter never materialized; $8 billion later, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mercifully discontinued the project in February, 2004."Sikorsky's bid for the Marine One contract was riddled with red flags signaling the strong possibility of another Comanche-style disaster.

Sikorsky proposed a Marine One fleet based on its S-92 commercial helicopter. The first S-92 helicopter promised in July 2001 was not actually available until late 2004, three years behind schedule. Furthermore, Sikorsky admitted that the modifications for the proposed presidential version were still in the "development phase.""Thankfully, DOD learned its lesson and chose not to head down the same expensive and ultimately fruitless road it took back in 1985," Schatz continued.

The long-postponed debate between the two contractors was often clouded by Washington spin. Sikorsky draped its contract bid with American flags, insinuating that Lockheed presented a less "American" choice. The Lockheed team includes some foreign owned companies, but the vast majority of manufacturing will still be done by American workers with American parts.

Some members of Congress with a parochial interest in supporting Sikorsky have suggested introducing legislation to overturn the decision."Congress must stay out of this," Schatz said. "DOD showed common sense by choosing a contractor that is expected to stay on budget and on schedule. With a record $427 billion budget deficit predicted for fiscal 2005, taxpayers deserve to have costs stay on the ground."

Citizens Against Government Waste is the nation's largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.

Citizens Against Government Waste CONTACT: Tom Finnigan or Lauren Cook of Citizens Against GovernmentWaste, +1-202-467-5300Web site: http://www.cagw.org/

Fortyodd

28th Jan 2005, 23:41

Never has my gob been so smacked!!!!!
......................and it's not even April 1st!!!!!
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

No doubt the bars in Yeovil will have done a roaring trade this evening!!!

Fortyodd

28th Jan 2005, 23:54

White elephants soon to be available in Presidential Green........................apparently

Lu Zuckerman

29th Jan 2005, 00:23

To: Shy Torque

I think Lu might have something to say about this...... Has George W rang him yet?

I have an unlisted number.

Well if Nick won't say anything about this travesty I will.

The US-101 will have to undergo major design changes to achieve the same build standard of the S-92. The EH-101 transmission is designed to have the mast shear in the event of a transmission seizure. There is a strong possibility that this was never demonstrated to prove the concept. If this test was performed using the actual components then I stand corrected. The energy to effect this fracture is the stored energy in the rotor system. This energy must bottom out the dampers in order to have a mechanical lockup with the rotorhead and develop the torque necessary to fracture the shaft. The dampers according to their manufacture will not withstand the compressive forces and will fracture under the load applying an extreme side load on the elastomeric bearings resulting in possible loss of control.

The safety hazard analyses did not consider catastrophic failures of a single component that would cause loss of control of the helicopter. Three EH-101s have suffered single point catastrophic failures resulting in loss of the helicopter. Even though the catastrophic failures were not noted in the Safety Hazards Analyses (SHA) the CAA and the RAI certified the EH-101 and soon the FAA will certify it. In order for the EH-101 / US-101 to be properly certified the SHA will have to be redone resulting in a lot of design changes.

When I worked on the program Agusta and Westland were using different computers that could not talk to each other. In other words each company was preparing their respective Reliability, Maintainability and Safety Hazards Analyses on computer formats that could not be joined to provide a cohesive analysis. Westland was supposed to develop a program that would allow joining of the two systems. I was on the program for two years after the decision to create the program and during that time the program was never developed.

A similar situation existed within Agusta where the engineering department had a different computer system than the product support departments so they could not communicate with each other and engineering refused access to their computer by product support.

We’ll see what transpires when Lockheed Martin comes to realize what I have stated above.

There is a lot more I can say but the last time I said it I got hit with a lawsuit.

dmanton300

29th Jan 2005, 00:24

No doubt the bars in Yeovil will have done a roaring trade this evening!!!

Probably a little late in the evening for it to make much difference tonight, but I'll be in Yeovil tomorrow evening and will raise a glass to my ex-company . I wish them well and am not THAT bitter about my redundancy!

The Sultan

29th Jan 2005, 02:16

Lu,

Why don't you build something instead of bitch about your better's designs. Throw 1000 rocks and you might hit one or two in your career, but professionals only target real problems.

The Sultan

SASless

29th Jan 2005, 02:45

My heart felt sympathies to Nick and the Sikorsky team....I know they are very disappointed and rightfully so.

:(

I could sing Hosannahs too if I knew a 6.1 Billion dollar contract was in contest.....certainly would not let facts or data get in my way of praising my product.

Lu Zuckerman

29th Jan 2005, 03:23

To: The Sultan

but professionals only target real problems.

The "professionals" at Bell and Lockheed Martin will encounter many "real" problems before the US-101 ever sees an olive drab Marine Corps livery.

:E :E

Shawn Coyle

29th Jan 2005, 04:48

A closely fought contest between two very capable machines.
Nick deserves full marks for not only putting his side of the situation in very clear, professionally balanced terms here on this forum, but also in all the other public arenas. I'm doubly impressed that he was able to contribute to many other discussions here at the same time. Not many other senior program people could or would do the same thing.
I don't know any of the 101 team personally (maybe I do, but they're hiding it), but you can be sure they were working flat out like the Sikorsky team.
And like many other things, it wasn't just one aspect that would have made the difference. I remember speaking to Nick about what won the Commanche bid for the Sikorsky-Boeing team, and he said it wasn't just the airframe, but it was the integrated logistics support, the engineering approach, the computer architecture, and so on.
Hopefully we'll find out the main reasons.
Nick- my commiserations
Team 101 - my congratulations.

Flying Lawyer

29th Jan 2005, 06:29

I admit I've got mixed views on the result.

On a patriotic level, I'm obviously pleased for the British aerospace industry and workforce but, on the other hand, think taxpayers' money should be spent on home products whenever possible as a matter of policy and principle.

Did the best helicopter win? I don't know enough to express a view, but all the reports I've read about the 92 in Rotorheads and elsewhere have been extremely favourable.

Did politics play a part? Politics plays a part in everything to do with governments.
Does anyone seriously believe White House politics played no part in this decision? In normal times, it would have worked to Sikorsky's advantage as the American manufacturer but, after the British Prime Minister has spent so much time running around the world playing obedient lapdog to George W? And staying loyal to him even when much of what was said has been discredited and turns out to be untrue? Maybe we at least got something in return for Blair's blind loyalty.

On a personal level, I'm disappointed for Nick. He's a good friend and I know he worked so hard heading Sikorsky's bid - I saw it for myself when visiting him.
Many people assumed Sikorsky would automatically win because theirs was the American contender to fly the American President - I did. Nick never thought that, and always said there were many factors which might cause it to go either way.

I heartily agree with Shawn's comments. I would have understood if Nick had said he was taking a break from Rotorheads but, even when doing one of the most pressured and high-profile jobs he's done in his distinguished career, Nick still made the time to continue his contributions to this forum. I can't imagine many such senior company executives doing that.

Congratulations to Team 101.
Disappointed for you Nick - you couldn't have done more.

Lee Jung

29th Jan 2005, 06:57

Now - An Italian company's design built under license in the US.

How much work/income will the Yeovil economy get as the maximum possible has to be spent on assembly/sub-contractors in the US?

This is not a gripe, I'm genuinely interested being a native.

The word from an ex-sqn mucker who was on VH-1 was thay they were mightily impressed by the 101, particularly 'the smoothness of the ride', with the active vibration reduction working.

Good on ya Bush, hostages freed and helicopter bought in the same week.

Apologies to the families of the Black Watch for having to pay for it.

Hueymeister

29th Jan 2005, 07:59

AW are getting the blades plus ancilliaries contract according to SKY news.
Ok it's only 23 aircraft, but it's a major win over the Sikorsky bid.

HM

toplad_22

29th Jan 2005, 10:12

Now that the yanks have bought Merlin I suppose the Mk1 can kiss goodbye to it's long awaited spares as Agusta/Westlands will be bending over backwards to please it's new best friend !!!

CRAN

29th Jan 2005, 10:35

Nick,

My sincerest condolences about the result of the competition. I have always been an admirer of the S-92, both from a technical and a program standpoint and I am absolutely convinced that it is a better helicopter than the EH101.
I like a number of other contributors believe that Sikorsky has been plopped-on from a great height so that George could say thank you to Tony. In the end it was nothing to do with helicopters, technology, engineering or fitness for purpose (in the broadest sense). It came down to politics.

Hold you head up high though; the S-92 is a fine machine and will dominate the civil and military markets for years to come. In a real competition, without political bias, the S-92 will win hands down, every time and the future will show this. Whatever you do, don’t take it personally. I think the decision for this contract was made a long time ago and nothing anyone at Sikorsky said or did would have made any difference.

Best Wishes,
CRAN
:ok:

Team US-101,

Well done, I know this certainly couldn't have come at a better time for Westland and Yeovil. Now make hay while the sun shines…

CRAN
:E

Postman Plod

29th Jan 2005, 13:01

I geuss the next question is - what about the other US contracts?

Was this purely payback for support during the war (thanks for your support, heres a contract for 23, but dont even think you'll get anything else, its not American enough) or does the Merlin really stand a chance??

Tynecastle

29th Jan 2005, 13:42

Cran,
Why don't you sit back and see what envolves with the 92 and 101.
As I stated in a previos post, where would the 76 be nowadays if it wasn't for Bond and Lloyds, they made the 76 into the aircraft it is today, not Sikorsky.

RDRickster

29th Jan 2005, 14:33

Shawn,

Well said... well said, indeed. There have been a LOT of harsh comments made during this thread, from both sides of the isle. Hip, hip, hooray for Nick's professionalism during the banter. In reviewing some of the previous posts, it's clear that many preconceptions were a bit off...

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=161198&perpage=15&pagenumber=12

KENNYR

29th Jan 2005, 14:48

It will be interesting to see Canada's reaction having just ordered a whole fleet of Sikhorsky H92's. It seems that Canada is the only Military customer right now. Good news for the Merlin though!

twinstar_ca

29th Jan 2005, 16:08

don't foget we have the cormorant here as well as the 92 coming...

hyd3failure

29th Jan 2005, 16:10

Fantastic news and a sincere congratulartions to the Guys at WHL. Thoroughly deserved. The right aircraft at the right price. Well done all concerned.

Now hopefully they can win the order for F.Lynx and the future of Britains helicopter industry will be assured.

NickLappos

29th Jan 2005, 16:30

Well, now that I have overcome the crash of my computer and the whack in the head from the US navy, I can post!

While I am surely disappointed, I am not embittered, since it would do no good! Pilots, perhaps more than most types of folks, are realists, since one learns fairly early on that arguing with the oil pressure gauge will not make the ground slow its onrush! We deal with it, and march on.

Things I do know as fact, not just as opinion:

1) The S-92 (H-92) carries more and goes farther than the EH-101, with today's engines or tomorrow's.
2) The safety standard of the two is separated by a full generation of helicopter technology
3) The selection was based on many factors, perhaps many that have little to so with helicopters.
4) My customer has spoken, and (like that oil pressure gauge) he speaks compellingly.

There are many battles in the future, the history of any product is not written by one selection.

Tynecastle, I must disagree with your statement that somehow two Brit operators "made" the S-76. If you are saying that the 76 is better than it ever was, I agree, and if you are saying that it was influenced by professonals who fly it and help spec it out I agree. If you think those two companies have cornered the market on brilliance, I have a very nice bridge across the Hudson River, one owner, few miles, that I would like to sell you!

To all ppruners:

You are a great bunch, thanks for the support, for the understanding and for the merciful use of small rapiers!