European Closed Helicopter Markets

[rjsquirrel]

In light of the healthy debate about US policies and competition in the Presidential selection, how do those energetic ppruners who were so gloating square these words with the US selection?


British Protectionism: "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." (7 December 2004
Flight International )

Italian Protectionism: "...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" (Defense News, Jan. 3, 2004)

I hear rumors that the US Congress is considering a bill to stop funds for contracts
already let where the country of origin espouses such policies. Might be bad times in Yeovil, yet again.....

[tottigol]

Unfortunately there isn't a single American product that at this time would stand a chance of winning any competition for those specific users.
No American made and designed helicopter can compete with the the A.119 and the A.139 (really) or A.109E in their respective categories.
As a matter of fact, Bell is now building some of those under license. Now, THAT's a tough reality the American Industry has to deal with.
I'll give you though, that some of Italy's public use fleets (Forestry Service, National Fire Fighters and Finance Guard) have largely outgrown the practical use of their aircraft with the addition of totally unwarranted types, or when those types may have been acceptable for service, they were equipped way beyond acceptable standards.

[rjsquirrel]

Clearly, tottigol, you miss the point. You can't "stand a chance of winning a competition" if there is no competition.

[Eurobolkow]

I agree that the general principle should be one of open and fair competition for all but unfortunately we live in a world where protectionism of one form or another exists and in some cases quite rightly.

Surely one can see the logic (at least from a Government point of view) of a closed loop where taxpayers money is used to purchase locally maufactued equipment, thereby securing other jobs in that country and ultimately more tax revenue??

Obvoiusly many outside forces and agreements for fair trade influence the process and if the internal market is small to begin with then there is more benefit to a country to open its markets for the chance at competing in a much larger market.

Perhaps we will see Bell or Sikorsky commit to building aircraft in France for example and take a fight to Eurocopter on their own doorstep. :D

[anjouan]

Wow rjs,

It really upset you that a European helicopter won the Presidential helicopter bid (though, as a non-American, I agree that the S92 is a much better machine, as I'm sure commercial sales figures will prove).

But come on, man, as eurobolkow says, when are Sikorsky or Bell going to set up a European operation, the same as Eurocopter and Agusta have done in the USA?

Look at the US military. What European helicopters do they have? A few Dauphins and Agusta 109s for the Coastguard and little else. Look at UK military and see what helicopters they have - lots of Bell 412 Griffons, Apache Longbows, Chinooks, S61s and even the old Westland Wessex and Whirlwind were Sikorsky derivatives.

American protectionism is normally done behind closed doors by a few of the good Ole Boys making secret decisions. Both America and Europe are equally protectionist in their own ways (as well as equally corrupt) and I don't see that as likely to change in my lifetime. The only shame is that one of the few new American helicopters (the S92) lost out to an older design. It's about time American helicopter manufacturers came up with some innovative new civil designs (S92 is the only one which comes to mind) to compete with what Europe now has to offer.

[CRAN]

I hear from a senior manager at Westland that Agusta are currently 'evaluating' the usefulness of continuing to have a design capability at Yeovil, with the likelihood being of major cuts in in technical staff there.

CRAN:{

[212man]

Protectionism I can buy; it may not be correct but it is understandable. My gripe with the previous thread was that protectionism was hiding behind the cloak of enhanced safety.

By all means sell an aircraft as being all American, or all European, on the basis of enhanced employment and trade, but don't try to say that one country makes safer products than another (well, not one of the major manufacturing companies anyway) or that somehow the workers in country X are less trustworthy and conscientious in their job than those in contry Y.

Hey, say it if you want to, most of us live in free countries, but don't be surprised if it gets peoples backs up (especially if they are from country X!)

[SASless]

212man,

Could you put names and places into that last post....somehow the lawyerese lost me....granted I am easily lost these days.

Are you addressing your complaint towards:
a) Nick Lappos and the Sikorsky team
b) Lockheed and the non-Sikorsky team
c) All of the above
d) None of the above but all of the posters that supported the Sikorsky entry

[212man]

SASless,
I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, though we have all read the various view points on the thread concerning the 92/101 contest. I was trying to avoid being personal and just addressing the basic premis that protectionism is one concept, relative safety of an aircraft versus another, based on their country of construction, is another.

Anyway, we in the UK are not biased; the queen flies in an American helicopter!

[NickLappos]

212man,

Your blinders underwhelm me.
Exactly what in the statement "the process is not a formal competition, with the key consideration being to establish a policy that protects AgustaWestland" makes you think that British policy is otherwise?

And where do you think you read about inadequate safety being a point in the VXX ? I suggest you try to find one quote of any kind that said that. I happen to know that your electronic mouth runs a lot farther than the facts, my friend.

PS Try to avoid the uncommon error of confusing safety with security, which was the actual point that was pressed. I know the distinction might be a fine one for you, but give it a wing.

[Heliport]

Independent Online Hoon set for conflict over £3bn helicopter deals

Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, is heading for fresh controversy over his handling of the purchase of military equipment - this time concerning plans to spend £3bn on new helicopters.

The Ministry of Defence is considering offering the lion's share of contracts for replacing the armed forces' ageing Lynx, Puma and Gazelle fleets to AgustaWestland. The Italian-owned company employs more than 4,000 people in Yeovil, Somerset.

A final decision on how the £3bn budget will be spent over 10 years will be made in the summer. But officials are now assessing whether the Defence Industrial Policy - a joint initiative by the MoD and Department of Trade and Industry - will allow the Government to enter into exclusive talks with AgustaWestland on the grounds that it will safeguard UK jobs.

The news will anger Eurocopter, owned by the Franco-German defence group EADS, which has submitted its own helicopter proposals to the MoD.

Meanwhile, Sikorsky, the helicopter company owned by America's United Technologies, is also interested in bidding for contracts. Upsetting Sikorsky could have damaging knock-on effects for AgustaWestland. Last month it was part of a consortium that broke Sikorsky's stranglehold over the supply of the iconic US presidential helicopter fleet. The decision has yet to be ratified by Congress, and industry sources said that any exclusive deal between AgustaWestland and the MoD would be used as ammunition by Sikorsky to have the presidential deal thrown out.

Today's news may also anger the Chancellor, Gordon Brown. In 2003 he became embroiled in a row with Mr Hoon over the decision to award the UK defence company BAE Systems a contract to supply the RAF with the Hawk trainer jet, without considering rival bids.

An MoD spokesman said: "We need to balance economic, industrial and military factors when making the assessment. We expect to make an announcement on the final procurement strategy by the middle of the year."

[SpotterFC]

Ah the Hawk - couldn't allow a little thing like the factory being in your mates constituency get in the way could we?

Oops, sorry - Internal Monologue Caption

[Muff Coupling]

As Moses descended from the Mount with laws written in tablets of stone..you can bet FLynx will be ordered in stone. Tony cannot go to the polls with 4000 ish jobs under threat from the UK'sonly hel manufacturer..well I use the term UK very loosely of course.

Just remember..it was supposed to be £10bn over 10 years..that was the smoke and mirrors anouncement that Gordon made. So just what happened to the rest
:confused:

[SASless]

Gosh Heliport....does this article say what I thought it did? If the UK does not buy Sikorsky this time....Nick and his bunch will go to the moronic twits in our congress.....screaming foul.....the Politicians will wave the Stars and Stripes....mutter something about it ain't cricket....send the new but undelivered President's helcopter back to Westland.....give the contract to Sikorsky....Hoon, et al, will then have to explain why British squaddies are riding around in too fancy an aircraft while Bush is confronted with having to ride in a second class piece of iron. What if Bush vetoes that act....keeps the second best aircraft as USMC 1....and Hoon, et al, buys British leaving Sikorsky completely out of the market except for the 3500 Blackhawks, 92's and Super Stallions that are flying all over the world and haulling several hundred thousand troops and dozens of foreign heads of state.

Is that what that article says really?:confused:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Gotta keep GKN/WHL/AugustaWestland/whateverthey'recalled this month in business to keep supporting all of those (cough) Westland Apaches the British army is still trying to get to work properly.

Seriously, is it really that controversial that any government, so long as it doesn't end up too much out of pocket doing so, will try and support it's own defence industry? One could certainly argue that HMG's track record of doing so is somewhat chequered, but the principle of trying to do so is hardly odd.

G

[ppheli]

Italian Protectionism: "...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" (Defense News, Jan. 3, 2004)

Well, that just shows how :mad: biassed Defense News are in reporting that! Are they not aware that the European Commission have taken Italy to court over this very matter? Fair reporting would have mentioned that! See European Commission press release here, dated July 2004 (http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/875&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en)

That, of course, would ensure that other companies get a chance to bid - such as Eurocopter ;) even if the tendering process looks at factors outside the technical ability of the helicopter - whether that be introduced by the country doing the choosing or the manufacturer doing the bidding. Why, for example, do Sikorsky go to great lengths to set up other work contracts to sweeten their bids so much (eg. you choose us, and we'll ensure your country gets $S million other work as a result) - perhaps you might like to comment on whether that is fair, rjsquirrel?

Please remember that the UK Royal Air Force did buy Bell 412s - particularly noting that they did not buy Agusta-Bell 412s....

[Vfrpilotpb]

If Politicians are involved in any form of Election, they will look after their own and offer anything to us the great British Public, the people with the shortest memory's of all time.

Vfr:mad:

[PTT]

Probably because if we buy the thing which is best for the job it will not be British, which will damage the British economy, which will in turn damage the British capability to maintain what military capability we have even further. If we buy British made products then we keep British jobs, have more British people (and corporations) paying tax, which helps to pay for the maintenence of a British military capability, dwindling though it might be.

You just cannot afford to have a military if you don't have an effective economy - unforunately our economy is massively leeched upon by the welfare state.

And before I get jumped on too hard, I am one of the people operating the sub-standard kit we have today.

[hyd3failure]

We are buying 2 aircraft carriers which are not built by the British. The froggies are kindly building them for us.

And nobody could argue that Westlands was a British company...nope, thats got Iti written all over it.

The reason is simple....VOTES

[Jobza Guddun]

"Probably because if we buy the thing which is best for the job it will not be British, which will damage the British economy, which will in turn damage the British capability to maintain what military capability we have even further. "

True enough, but what about licence production of the right kit though? For example, the Japanese built their own F-4's and F-15s (the only country to do so), and numerous countries are building, or have built, the F-16. Do we have the clout to buy and build from abroad, or is it simply politics that keep us struggling with inadequate kit?

[Archimedes]

Hyd3,

I think Thales are designing CVF (or leading on it), but isn't the building to be done in the UK? In the constituency of one G.Brown MP?

[hyd3failure]

Oh there will be many, many sub contractors and no doubt lots of British Industries will benefit and its pleasing to see that Rosyth may well benefit - Rather them than Hapag-Lloyd !!!!!

But at the end of the day Thales are the prime contractors and they are French. Why not let BAe build the ships...

Oh, Yeah. Sorry forgot. BWoS were too busy. Order books too full for that week !!!!

[tucumseh]

"........what about licence production of the right kit though? Do we have the clout to buy and build from abroad, or is it simply politics that keep us struggling with inadequate kit?"


The only significant licensing arrangement I've had dealings with is Sea King, from Sikorsky. (Insisted on long ago, and paid for, by MoD. Politics). God, we suffered. Nothing wrong with the aircraft itself, but we were tied to expensive, long lead, spares. We were a minor user, so bottom of the food chain every time. Could never predict when spares would arrive, and to what standard - regardless of what contracts said. Cost a fortune, and eventually we bought it out (cheaply, as luck would have it).

In my experience, the real problem with buying from abroad is the procurer (usually DPA in the first instance) seldom learns from experience to set up UK based support facilities in advance. Time and again that has been the solution to support problems. In avionics especially, by all means buy abroad but never, never, agree to anything being supported abroad. Your turn round times go out the window. Never mind the prime equipment, the first thing in the contract is a maintained set of secondary masters and an agreement that we appoint a UK Design Custodian. Works every time. (Ask your typical MoD PM to explain that one. Most wouldn't know what it means). That's why a little company in Gateshead called Joyce Loebl are so highly thought of. They specialise in supporting US-built kit for us, faster, better, more cheaply. (Heard that slogan somewhere before). Never once let me down in nearly 30 years. Neither have Westlands actually.

We used to have to submit a "Crown Eagle" to explain why we were not recommending French companies in the tender list. I once wrote "Because the only one who could possibly do it is crap, and WILL let us down". Produced historical evidence, and the contract went to the UK company I recommended, who delivered on time. As a result, RN SK6s actually flew for most of the 90s. (You'll never know how close you were to not!). The source of the problem? A single component bought from the US. The company (Westinghouse) pulled the plug with no warning. Low volume, didn't want to know. The UK company did the business - and gained much more because of their ingenuity.

Yes, I agree there are UK companies with poor track records, but MoD PMs used to have the authority to deal with them. That is, don't give them contracts if they let you down more than once. (That doesn't mean to say Joe Bloggs' with 20 factories is blacklisted because one factory didn't deliver - just that one factory, or perhaps that one product range. More often than not they'd ask what we thought they could do to improve, they'd implement change, and it's back on the list). Upset industry nowadays and it's disciplinary action. I'd say most companies deliver what is specified and what we are prepared to pay for. If you specify low, and don't have money - well that's not entirely their fault.

[rjsquirrel]

ppheli,

Your silly anger is misplaced, the Defense News article that was excerpted had the full details of the suit, so they did their job.
The quote is from the Agusta position that feels that such protectionism is entirely OK, a position that the Italian government agrees with (you know who the italian government is, don't you? They are the owners of Agusta-Westland Helicopters).

Your point is also off base, because you would have us believe that:

1) the court case is the way to establish open markets (it is not)

2) that the court case will be lost by Italy (who fight to keep the market closed) - no such assurance!

3) That just because one purchase was open means that it ok to close others. Either the UK is competitive or it is not, you don't get to chose when to be fair.

[212man]

Nick,
I was in agreement that the initial post was demonstrating protectionism, and was saying it was understandable for a number of reasons. The same is true for any country. The point I was trying to make was ; state it openly, not behind other excuses.

Here's a quote that led to my mis-understanding of your company's position. I have no axe to grind or desire to drag out the subject, but you did ask (I agree you use the word security, but also safety. Obviously I confused the two.)

Sikorsky Program Director Nick Lappos said, “The VH-92 is not just to fly the president, but it represents the first of a new generation of medium-lift helicopters for the U.S. military.” He added that the VH-92 meets the highest standards for safety and security, and reinforced Sikorsky’s “all-American” argument, pointing out that virtually all of the helicopter’s components—from the transmission and rotor blades to the sophisticated navigation and communications systems—will be made in the United States by American workers, most of whom have top-secret security clearance.

Noting that any helicopter serving a U.S. president must meet top security requirements and that “core vital components of the US101 will be made overseas,” Lappos asked, “How do you get top secret clearance for a guy making rotor blades overseas? Is the product manufactured and maintained in an environment that assures the safety and security of the president?”

[SASless]

212man,

The salient point for the VH competition is security...as it has been since the inception of the Presidential helicopter. Take a visit to the HM-1 Squadron area in the DC area. You will note big signs telling of the "Use of Deadly Force Authorized". That is the level of importance placed upon maintaining security of the President and his conveyances.

The "all American" concept does not necessarily suggest safety concerns per se are the issue....the safety aspect as to un-cleared persons working on sensitive items for the aircraft has always been an issue. Those folks have to have a security vetting by our government before they lay hands on the items.

Per our security requirements....it requires American hands. That was the issue that got obscured in the argument.

[pr00ne]

Hyd3failure,

It is a Thales (UK) design that has been chosen as CVF, designed in the UK. It will now be engineered and developed by a BAES/Thales consortium with integration of the entire project by KBR, who are a US firm.
I think that makes it about as British as you can get!

Jobzaguddun,

What about licence production? Been done, in the sixties, when a whole raft of indigenous (and mainly impractical and ill-conceived) aircraft projects were cancelled we had the Sea King licence built by Westland, well over 50% of the F-4K/M Phantom was built in the UK in addition to the RR engines.
Prior to that the Wessex was a licence built S-58, the Whirlwind was a licence built S-55, the Sioux was a licence built Bell 47, so Westland have quite a history here, as too do their new Italian owners who licence built Bell 47’s Sea Kings, Chinooks, Bell 204/205’s Bell 212’s et al.

Tucumseh,

“the first thing in the contract is a maintained set of secondary masters and an agreement that we appoint a UK Design Custodian.”

Sorry, but that may have worked in the era of the C-130K but in the age of the C-130J it is absolutely impossible. NO OEM will release software source codes, LMAS will not even give them to the US military so UK MOD can go whistle. This is what is a real worry over F-35 and is taking up so much time to try and negotiate at very senior political level, and that’s as a Tier 1 design partner!

If you buy from overseas you are stuck as any OEM will earn ten times the amount from through life support as they will from the original sale of the kit.

[hyd3failure]

OK,OK....maybe Thales is a UK company...but if it is then why is it called Talis and not Thales..?????

I have to disagree on your point ref "NO OEM will release software source codes". This happens all the time.

...i.e. lets say you want to build a simulator. you get a simulator company to build it BUT they need the source codes and they get them from the OEM. It's gonna cost ya.... in fact its gonna cost ya big time BUT it can happen. The OEM will quite easily and freely sell the source codes as long as they retain the IPR. There are plenty of other examples of source code being available.

[BossEyed]

OK,OK....maybe Thales is a UK company...but if it is then why is it called Talis and not Thales..?????

Because that's how the name is pronounced in Asia Minor (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Thales.html) :D

Thales Group Press Release (http://www.thalesgroup.com/press/press_releases/?pageID=&CON_TEXTE=&keysel=CON_TITRE&DEB_ANNEE=2000&key=&LAN_ID=1&y=8&x=9&CON_TITRE=&TOPIC=&index=3)

[Toxteth O'Grady]

BUT they need the source codes

No they don't!

Go study the difference between source and executable code, stimulation vs. emulation, porting and platform re-hosting. Oh and while you're at it take a look at ARINC 610.

:cool:

TOG

[pr00ne]

Hyd3failure,

Sorry, but IPR is what counts here, you try getting the source codes for the C-130J out of LMAS, or for that matter the many other avionic OEM's who supply black boxes to aircraft like the J, this is where DARA came unstuck when they tried to get Sealand set up as a centre of excellence for avionic overhaul.

As to simulation, in the case of the J LMAS subcontracted Reflectone to provide the simulation service, MOD didn't get a look in.

[hyd3failure]

well I'm sorry to disappoint you all but I have experience of retrieving source codes from OEM and it is possible. I know for a fact that both Thales and Wastelands will release source codes..... at a price. (at a big price)


Of course they will. All defence companies (nay all companies) are out to make money and if they have a product that someone wants to purchase they will sell it.

[tucumseh]

prOOne

In saying secondary masters, I was really referring to hardware. Wouldn't use the term wrt software. However, I have experience managing, for example, Litton 211 Omega, for which Ferranti (Edinburgh) wrote the software updates every 2 years for changes in the geomagnetic field. (On BBC Bs!). In time, Litton became agitated at their lack of foresight, and asked for the (big) total support contract back. Demanded, actually. Refused, on the grounds they had no UK facility at the time and had shown no committment to supporting our (RAF's) software configuration, which many years past had, by necessity, gone off at a tangent to the US's. The benefit of having a design custodian. But your point is well made as more and more companies are getting wise to the money they can make from UK MoD.

[pr00ne]

HYd3Failure,

Of course all defence companies are out to make money, and that is precisely WHY they will not release source codes for new equipment. It is worth far far more to them to support in service kit than it is to sell it in the first place!
Of course there will be exceptions, as there are to all rules, but as a general point they are locked in stone with the OEM's.

[hyd3failure]

Well, maybe we are going to have to differ here but I have been heavily involved in 2 major contracts with the MOD and industry. One with WHL and the other with Thales and with both contracts the company SOLD the source code to another company (AMS).