New US Presidential Helicopter requirement

[Brian Abraham]

From Aviation International News today

Navy Requests Info for Next Presidential Helicopter
The U.S. Navy on Tuesday issued a request for information (RFI) for the helicopter that will possibly begin to replace the current fleet of “Marine One” Sikorsky VH-3Ds and VH-60Ns between 2017 and 2023. The RFI follows the termination of the VH-71 presidential helicopter program by the Pentagon last year and the subsequent approval of limited funds for “technology capture” of some of the $3.3 billion spent on that program by contractors Lockheed Martin, AgustaWestland and others. A Navy spokesperson told AIN, “The Navy is still assessing the best way to capture technology obtained from the [VH-71] presidential helicopters development programs as provided for by the FY2010 Defense Authorization and Appropriations Acts.” Meanwhile, the Navy, the White House Military Office and the Office of the Secretary of Defense are working to develop options for a revised replacement helicopter program. According to a spokesman for AgustaWestland, “We are looking at the RFI and are confident that the AW101 is the right helicopter for the mission.” Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin did not immediately provide comment to AIN. Responding parties have until March 3 to submit a letter of interest and April 19 to submit their final responses to the Naval Air Systems Command.

[iuk1963]

from Flight International

New VXX competition reveals changes for US presidential helicopter
By Stephen Trimble ([email protected])


The US Navy has launched the process to buy a new presidential helicopter, nine months after deciding to cancel the Lockheed Martin (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/lockheed%20martin.html)/AgustaWestland VH-71 despite spending $3.2 billion.
A request for information issued on 16 February asks industry to submit data about potential helicopter platforms that could fulfil the VXX mission. The results will feed an analysis of alternatives that is required before launching a competition or awarding a sole-source contract.
Such reviews generally require 12-18 months to complete at a minimum, although it is possible the USN could shorten the timeframe based on the knowledge acquired during the previous VXX programme.
The 27-page RFI document suggests the navy is considering making a major change to its acquisition strategy compared with the VH-71 process.

Rather than buy a common aircraft to replace 11 Sikorsky VH-3Ds and eight Sikorsky VH-60s, the service would consider splitting the contract with a mixed fleet, the RFI says. Options under review include buying a common aircraft with two variants, or simply purchasing two different aircraft types.
The RFI discusses buying one aircraft with a fully appointed executive suite, including galley and lavatory, and a different aircraft with a full load of command, control and communications equipment.
Its proposed change appears aimed at addressing a key reason for the cost overruns and schedule delays that plagued the terminated contract for the VH-71. The navy required Lockheed to substantially redesign the VH-71 after contract award because the aircraft was not large or powerful enough to carry everything the presidential mission needed.

The original competition for the VXX contract became a heated race between Sikorsky's "All-American" VH-92 and the Lockheed team's VH-71, which is based on the AgustaWestland AW101.
The second round of bids is expected to include a challenge from Boeing (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/boeing.html), which has discussed offering a variant of its CH-47 Chinook (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/boeing%20ch-47%20chinook.html) or the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/v-22%20osprey.html) tiltrotor. However, the RFI suggests that the latter type could be disadvantaged in the new competition, as the navy requires a speed of 140kt (260km/h), or roughly half of the V-22's capability.
Meanwhile, the USN has revealed plans to invest $500 million to keep the current presidential helicopter fleet serviceable until the long-awaited replacement arrives. The VH-3Ds have been in service for nearly 40 years, while the VH-60s became operational in the late 1980s.

[GeorgeMandes]

Sikorsky, Lockheed Teaming Up
Successful Bid for Presidential Helicopter Contract Would Mark Rebound for United Technologies Unit
By PETER SANDERS

STRATFORD, Conn.—Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. and Lockheed Martin Corp., head-to-head competitors five years ago in the previous contest to build presidential helicopters, are expected to announce Monday that they are teaming up to bid on a new contract for a fleet of Marine One helicopters, according to two people familiar with the details.

Sikorsky, a United Technologies Corp. unit that had built the presidential helicopter since 1957, was handed a stunning defeat in 2005 when the contract was awarded to a European rival, AgustaWestland, which had teamed up with Lockheed on a bid. Around that time, Sikorsky also faced a debilitating strike and erosion of its market share.

But the Navy canceled that Marine One contract last June after repeated delays and cost overruns. If Sikorsky wins the new presidential-helicopter contract, it would cement the company's resurgence after a long rebuilding process.

It isn't known at this time what other companies are preparing to submit a bid. Other bidders could include Boeing Co., Textron Inc.'s Bell Helicopters and Finmeccanica SpA's AgustaWestland. It is likely to be at least a year before the Pentagon names the winning bidder.

A Lockheed official declined to comment ahead of Monday's expected announcement. Sikorsky would build the helicopter and Lockheed would provide the vast array of specialized systems within each craft.

"The opportunity to win that business is something that excites every employee at this company," Jeffrey Pino, Sikorsky's president, said during a recent interview. "It's a real source of pride among all the workers, and people here talk about it all the time."

For Mr. Pino, restoring pride among Sikorsky's work force has been a priority since he took the top job in March 2006.

"Four years ago, we were in fourth place in the industry and we had a work force that didn't get along well with management," he said.

Mr. Pino has since healed fractured relations with unions and positioned the company to take advantage of a Pentagon contract to build Black Hawk helicopters needed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sikorsky's helicopter business now ranks second, just behind the Eurocopter unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co.

A former Army helicopter pilot and executive at Bell Helicopters, Mr. Pino has seen Sikorsky's revenue spike to $6.3 billion last year from $2.8 billion in 2005. Sikorsky won the five-year, $8.3 billion contract to build a total of 537 Black Hawk and Navy Seahawk helicopters in December 2007.


When Mr. Pino took over, about 3,000 Sikorsky factory workers in Connecticut were in the midst of a six-week strike that crippled the company's production line. Once the walkout ended in April 2006, he set out to regain the workers' trust.

While touring the company's Stratford, Conn., factory shortly after the strike ended, Mr. Pino said, he noticed that many of the workers were wearing motorcycle apparel. An avid rider, he suggested a company motorcycle ride. A few weeks later, he led a motorcycle procession stretching more than a mile through various Connecticut towns.

Mr. Pino said he has sought to include workers' families in events at Sikorsky factories and keep them informed of industry and corporate happenings.

Harvey Jackson, president of Teamsters Local 1150, which represents the company's union workers, said Mr. Pino has made "a gallant and decent effort" to make sure that the improved employee-managementrelations stay intact.

The helicopter business is fragmented. Multiple global companies compete to build two-person trainers, sleek executive craft, workhorse choppers for law enforcement and medical transport, and helicopters for military use.

Sikorsky has long aimed to provide helicopters for the heavy-lift military sector, as well as large helos used in industries such as offshore oil drilling. Its rivals include AgustaWestland, Bell and Eurocopter.

Sikorsky churns out roughly 17 Hawk-family helicopters a month from factories in Connecticut, New York and Florida. As the Obama administration presses the war in Afghanistan, helicopters are the linchpin in the strategy to move troops and materiel around the country.

To clear more space for military production in the U.S., Sikorsky has moved almost all final assembly of its civilian line of large helicopters from its Stratford headquarters to a factory in Pennsylvania. The company plans to open a final-assembly plant in Poland soon to produce for European militaries.

The company has been a bright spot during the recession for UTC, which is based in Hartford, Conn. Sikorsky has added jobs in its home state as UTC's engine-maker Pratt & Whitney and aircraft-parts supplier Hamilton Sundstrand have shuttered factories and laid off workers. Since 2006, Sikorsky has added more than 1,900 jobs at its Connecticut operations alone.

Sikorsky has added about 5,600 jobs world-wide since 2006. The company's global work force now numbers approximately 17,000 employees.

Write to Peter Sanders at [email protected]

[tottigol]

Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin Announce teaming agreement to compete for the VXX Presidential helicopter program | Shephard Group (http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/rotorhub-com/sikorsky-and-lockheed-martin-announce-teaming-agreement-to-compete-for-the-vxx-presidential-helicopter-program/6154/)

Smart move on behalf of Sikorsky, tough times ahead for the AW-101 in the VXX competition.

[Blackhawk9]

It looks like the status quo will return The KC-X will go to Boeing with the KC-767 as Airbus have pulled out, CSAR-X went to Sikorsky with more later model Black Hawks Based on UH-60M and MH-60M, The army get more F model Chinooks and the VXX will go to the S-92 as the AW-101 has been pushed aside and everyone is happy , on a side note if the VXX is the S-92 watch how quick the run dry xmssn , 5 blade head and increase gross weight to 13.5 tonne are rolled out which will be good news for the civil market with role ons from the VXX program, S-92 B model anyone.

[tottigol]

CSAR-X went to Sikorsky, when?

[Blackhawk9]

The CSAR cancelled article was from Jun 09 , last months Australian Aviation had an article that as the CSAR had been cancelled the USAF was just going to buy new Blackhawks to replace the Pavehawks and modify to suit, as the UH60M already has fadec engines and glass cockpit and the MH60M has CT7-8A's fitted and flir and radar , much cheaper and easier options.

[tottigol]

The CSAR-X was to replace the Pave Lows in addition to the Blackhawks, also it aimed more to the CSAR mission rather than the SOC typical in/exfiltration one.
Something shall come up soon and I bet Sikorsky shall get the S-92 involved.

[Senior Pilot]

Boeing to offer Italian AW101 for White House helicopter
By Stephen Trimble

Boeing will secure a license to offer a US-built version of the AgustaWestland AW101 in a move that shakes up a repeat competition to replace the presidential helicopter fleet.
The proposed “Boeing 101” helicopter means the manufacturer of the US Air Force's VC-25 – sometimes known as Air Force One – will compete to supply the White House’s rotary-wing transport.
“We believe we are uniquely positioned to make the most of the [US] Navy’s significant investment in this aircraft,” says Phil Dunford, vice president and general manager of Boeing Rotorcraft.
A Lockheed Martin/AgustaWestland team previously won the presidential helicopter contract in 2004, but a series of required design changes that drove up costs led to the termination of the contract five years later.

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=25936

Lockheed has now teamed up with Sikorsky, its former rival, to offer the VH-92 to the navy for the presidential helicopter requirement.
Navy officials have launched the competitive process for the so-called VXX contract by starting an analysis of alternatives. A request for proposals is expected to follow the study phase of the contract.
Boeing’s proposal would transfer all intellectual property, data and production rights for the AW101 from Italy and the UK to the USA, the company says.
The move comes as Boeing’s supporters in Congress have attempted to legally restrict the Department to Defense from buying aircraft that have benefitted from subsidies provided by European governments.
Such subsidies have become a key issue in the debate about the competition for the USAF's KC-X tanker, with the Boeing KC-767 NewGen Tanker competing against a modified Airbus A330-200 offered by EADS North America as the KC-45.

Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/06/07/342878/boeing-to-offer-italian-aw101-for-white-house-helicopter.html)

[chopper2004]

I wonder if Boeing is successful with fighting tooth and nail with the Pentagon and White House for the 101. Then they'll have to AgustaWestland will have to aggressively sell the ICH-47F model Chinook to various NATO nations and beyond to the Middle East therefore giving Boeing a larger foothold in the rotorcraft business?

[Flyt3est]

I can't wait to see Boeing going to the Pentagon one day and argueing long and hard that they should buy american for the KC-X Tanker, then the next day go in and try and sell a European helicopter as their own... absolutely priceless :} Jeez Boeing you do indeed give substance to the long held opinion that Americans don't understand irony!! :ugh:

[Ian Corrigible]

Interesting article on Boeing's dilemma in yesterday's Av Week shownews. Haven't seen contortions like this since the last time I went to a Cirque du Soleil show. :E

Boeing has to tread carefully as it bids a European helicopter for White House lift requirement
Av Week ShowNews (http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416133050&o=ext) July 20

When it comes to tankers, Boeing is pretty clear that the European aircraft on offer to the U.S. are awful – inferior, subsidized products that will destroy American jobs and hurt the military. When it comes to Presidential helicopters though, Boeing is clear that the European aircraft on offer are by far the best products and any military, let alone any President, would be delighted to fly in them.

With its vituperative anti-Airbus rhetoric, has Boeing dug a hole for itself when it comes to bidding Anglo-Italian AgustaWestland AW101 for the U.S. Navy’s re-launched VXX “Marine 1” Presidential Helicopter competition?

After all, the AW101 was described by its competitors as a helicopter built by “socialists” in the last VXX bidding round (when the AW101 triumphed, you’ll recall) and is a program that has certainly been in receipt of subsidies (for the commercial version).

“There is no contradiction between the tanker and the helicopter programs,” Dennis Mullenberg, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space and Security, confidently tells Show News. “It’s true we’ve emphasized the need for a fair and level playing field for KC-X, but our proposed approach for the Presidential Helicopter will generate significantly more U.S. jobs than our competitors.

“The helicopter is different because it will be built in the U.S. by U.S. workers – is not an approach where the helicopter is built elsewhere, like last time. Plus the military 101 never got launch aid. So we think it is very consistent with what we’ve said about the tanker.”

It will also be interesting to watch AgustaWestland’s previous program partner tie itself in knots as it seeks to dismiss the same aircraft that it selected for – and won – the original VXX/VH-71 competition. This time around Lockheed Martin is partnered with VXX loser Sikorsky.

I/C

[rick1128]

When the KC-X is discussed, it always seems to come down to a us vs them type of discussion. What really needs to be looked at is the history of the the USAF Tankers. They are not the sexiest aircraft out there (like the fighters and bombers) but it is probably the most important aircraft in the air battle space. It is a force multiplier, that allows combat aircraft to carry more ordinance and fly longer and further. This contract really needs to properly done, because it will effect so many other mission.

Many years ago when the KC10 was ordered, it was said that it would replace the 'old' KC135. It didn't. The reason it didn't was that SAC (Strategic Air Command) had it figured out. Based on SAC's experience, they figured out that during any launch, that X number of aircraft would become mission incapable prior to completing the mission objective. And based on the fact that the tankers are the heaviest used combat aircraft, the odds are that a majority of these mission incapable aircraft would be tankers. Then the more receiving aircraft per tanker, the less likely that enough receiving aircraft will get enough fuel to complete their mission. Leading to a strong possibility of mission failure.

As for the KC-X being used for other roles, it doesn't make any sense to do that. The KC135 has an upper cargo deck, which is hardly ever used. The aircraft is too busy doing its primary mission. Refueling. And that will be the case for the KC-X. It is way too busy refueling to be used just to move trash around.

Plus one other major point. The 135 has been out there for over 50 years, day in and day out. How many 50 year old Airbuses are out there? Boeing has a track record with the Air Force for building long lived airframes. If something works, DON'T F**K with it.

And it looks like someone at Boeing HQ has dropped the ball. They already have the best large helicopter out there for moving personnel, the Chinook.

[nimby]

It may have a good load fraction but would you really want to put your President in one that often?

Chinook (or rather the BV234 derivative) was busted out of the civil pax market by a combination of vibration, awkward costs and awkward secondary safety issues. Knut Lande showed me round one at Helikopter Service and I couldn't believe the leaks, awkward access panels, tiny emergency exits and large damping masses needed. You could add deep carpets and curtains, but remember all those Sarah Palin lipstick jokes ...

This is an aircraft for hard men, not a regular ride for heads of state.

[tottigol]

I believe that Sarah Palin actually looks far better than a Chinook, she's somewhat underrated.:E

[Lonewolf_50]

So long as she rotates and vibrates, does that put her in competition for the "Fly Me, I am the President" program? :eek:

[OFBSLF]

Would a Chinook fit onto the South Lawn? It is my impression that the South Lawn landing area is not very large, and the current helicopters are already a tight fit.

[oldgrubber]

Had to laugh when I saw how much was "saved" by cancelling the VH-71
3.3 billion spent
555 million plus unspecified amount for cancellation.
8.4 billion for VH-3D rework.
Sikorsky Gets $8.4B Navy Helicopter Contract. | Planenews Aviation News (http://planenews.com/archives/14120)

SEATTLE: The U.S. Defense Department said Wednesday it will modify an existing contract with Sikorsky (http://planenews.com/ibi) Aircraft Corp. and pay the contractor $8.4 billion for the VH-3D executive helicopter special progressive aircraft rework induction.
Sikorsky (http://planenews.com/ibi), a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp., will perform the work in Stratford, Conn., for the Naval Air systems Command of Patuxent River, Md.
The department said the job is expected to be completed in August 2011.


The original phase 2 VH-71 was forecast at 13 billion at the time of cancellation but a rescue plan was suggested that would have provided phase 1 aircraft at almost the original contract cost. Surely they would still have been better than reworked VH-3Ds.
Also how much is it going to cost to make the S92 fit the contract???

[Ian Corrigible]

That VH-3D contract (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/161198-us-presidential-helicopter-bid-result-16.html#post5757979) was actually only $8.4 million.

Lockheed Martin has received two additional awards this year totaling $70 million for post-cancellation costs, and the VH-71 airframes are still being offered for sale. Rumor has it Canada may take a handful due to airframe corrosion issues with their CH-149s.

$3 billion was a drop in the ocean compared to the $1-3 trillion spent on OIF & OEF, but it would still have been political suicide for any politician (well, other than Rep. Hinchey) to back the procurement of 28 $465 million VIP helicopters during a recession.

I/C

[oldgrubber]

IC,
Millions sound more likely than billions but 8 million won't go far! This article seems to say the lower figure was a typo, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
How Much Money Did Canceling the VH-71 Save? | Defense Procurement News (http://www.defenseprocurementnews.com/2010/06/17/how-much-money-did-cancelling-the-vh-71-save/)

Update — The Associated Press and other media (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jLnbRA8KkpeQ0AeJt6mNBeQ1tAcQD9GD60OO0) corrected this report to say that it was an extension of a contract worth $8.4 million. The total contract value with the extension is over $8 billion. The point stands that there will be a cost associated with keeping the aging systems working while a new system is developed.
One of the programs that was ended as part of the Obama and Gate’s defense reforms was the new Presidential Transport helicopter. Lockheed Martin (LMT) and its Italian partner, Finmeccanica (http://www.finmeccanica.com/Holding/EN/index.sdo), had won the contract to build a new helicopter to ferry the President around replacing a fleet of venerable VH-3 and VH-60 aircraft made by Sikorsky (UTC). The program had faced cost and schedule issues due to massive requirements creep that caused the total cost to balloon. In 2009 the Navy pulled the plug (http://industry.bnet.com/government/10006332/lockheed-and-boeing-face-similar-struggles-this-year/) on the program and started over.
Because a whole new program began it meant that the existing aircraft would need to extend their planned service lives. Some in Congress, especially Congressman Hinchey (D-NY), who represented the area where Lockheed Martin was doing the work on the program argued that this decision could end up being more expensive then continuing the existing program. Lockheed and Finmeccanica did offer a reduced cost program utilizing the aircraft already purchased that could meet some of the requirements but not all of them. One aspect that was raised that there would be a cost related to continuing the use of the older aircraft as they would need to be maintained and modified to stay in use.
Today the Defense Department announced that they were awarding Sikorsky a contract (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g2NVSr0ItL4dszvr6g7vyRhe-m_AD9GCL86G0) to carry out “VH-3D executive helicopter special progressive aircraft rework induction.” This means money to overhaul and update the current fleet of VH-3 aircraft. The estimated value of this contract is over $8 billion. This is money that is needed because the President’s aircraft must be maintained to the highest standard.
This does illustrate that in some ways Congressman Hinchey was right. The money saved by ending the VH-71 will now go to keeping the older aircraft flying and starting the new program. Eight billion dollars will buy you a great deal of helicopters and capability. Not neccessarily what you wanted in the VH-71 but certainly it would go a long way to meeting the needs of that program.
Penny wise and pound foolish as my Nana use to say.


Read more: How Much Money Did Canceling the VH-71 Save? | Defense Procurement News (http://www.defenseprocurementnews.com/2010/06/17/how-much-money-did-cancelling-the-vh-71-save/#ixzz0zi75Lmne)



Cheers

[Ian Corrigible]

Oldgrubber,

Yes, it was a typo. As your article states, HMX-1 support contracts are pretty common due to the cargo carried. The $8.4 million contract was just one of seven totaling $91 million that were awarded during CY-09.

I/C

[Ian Corrigible]

If you enjoyed the Antonov An-112 bid for KC-X (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/406907-kc-x-rfp-mk-ii-merged-8.html#post5786709), you're sure to like the latest chapter in the VXX saga:

China to offer AC313 for VXX (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdi/jdi110124_1_n.shtml)

In the VXX programme, which was revived by Washington in February 2010 after being cancelled in 2009 because of cost overruns, the partnership are planning to bid with AVIC's 13-tonne AC-313 medium-lift transport helicopter, which is principally designed for civilian use.

The VXX programme is worth about USD6 billion and, if USAE-AVIC bids for the contract, it is likely to be up against the AgustaWestland AW101 and the Sikorsky S-92 medium-lift helicopters. The USN is expected to procure more than 20 platforms to replace the existing Sikorsky VH-3 and VH-60 helicopters from around 2017.

I suppose if one goes far enough back into the AC313's heritage (via the Z-8 and SA321), you do eventually discover a Sikorsky rotorhead, so expect to see the 'HMX-1 heritage' card played. :E

I/C

[Dan Reno]

Chinese stealth fighter maker may soon be flying Obama in its choppers!

February 4, 2011 – 12:55 pm By News Desk (http://truthdive.com/author/admin-2/) | Washington, Feb 4
Barack Obama and future US presidents may one day fly on Chinese made helicopters, as the United States is looking to replace the aging Marine One fleet used by its president.
China Aviation Industry Corp. known as AVIC is also developing the J-20 stealth fighter, which made its first public test flight last month. The J-20 appears to be designed to rival US F-22 Raptor, the world’s only fully operational stealth fighter
AVIC has teamed up with a California company to try to launch bids for US defense contracts, including one to supply Chinese helicopters to replace Marine One fleet.
AVIC has been in talks for more than a year with California-based US Aerospace Inc. about offering the AC-313 – China’s largest domestically produced helicopter – as the next generation of the Marine One fleet, The Wall Street Journal reports.
The AC-313, which made its first flight last year, is powered by three engines made by Pratt and Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp. and can seat up to 27 passengers and two crew members.
It is designed to compete with the likes of Sikorsky and AgustaWestland in the global market for civilian helicopters.
“It may sound ludicrous but that doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen. We want China to supply aircraft to the US because we think it makes economic sense,” said John Kirkland, a lawyer for U.S. Aerospace who is directly involved in the negotiations and authorized to speak on the company’s behalf.
The Marine One fleet consists of 19 helicopters – 11 Sikorsky VH-3Ds that entered service in 1976 and eight smaller Sikorsky VH-60Ns, which were introduced in 1989.
In 2005, the US Navy awarded a contract to supply a replacement dubbed the V-XX to a US team led by Lockheed Martin for delivery between 2009 and 2014.
By 2009, however, the cost of the program had escalated and, under political pressure, President Obama canceled the contract and asked the Navy to find a cheaper option.
The people involved in the partnership say the two companies have also been discussing putting AVIC’s new L-15 trainer jet as a candidate to replace the US fleet of Northrop T-38s, The Wall Street Journal reports. (ANI)

[SASless]

Why not up-grade the CH-53D.....it would fill the bill quite well I would think.

[Jack Carson]

The CH-53A/D was considered back in the 1970s. It was rejected, at that time, for being too large and having too significant a downwash signature.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

The Chinese have two chances of winning VXX...

F%&k all, and None!

[heli1]

What would best fit the bill is a helicopter with a rear ramp access to load luggage and stores,with good cabin space for up to 15-20 passengers and most importantly a US designed dynamic system,engines and avionics.
Oh my...fits the AC313 to a tee..and helps US-Chinese diplomatic relations.

P.S. If the Russians can buy foreign helicopters for their president why not Obama ?

[Cyclic Hotline]

From Wikipedia, the fount of all knowledge.


Following Chinese certification, the first AC313 is to be delivered to Flying Dragon Special Aviation, in 2011. Avicopter has plans to certify the AC313 for sales in Europe and the United States. The AC313 has possibly also been offered by China Aviation Industry Corp, in co-operation with U.S. Aerospace Inc, to replace the Marine One helicopter(s), used to transport the President of the United States.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicopter_AC313#cite_note-China_Military_Aircraft_Export-5) It is very unlikely that this offer will be accepted.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicopter_AC313#cite_note-China_Military_Aircraft_Export-5)

[Savoia]

So the RFP is being issued .. again!

6 May, 13

Today the Navy issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in the Presidential Helicopter Replacement Program (VXX). Proposals are due in 90 days with a goal to award a fixed-price incentive engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) contract, with production options, by mid-calendar year 2014.

US Navy seeks presidential helicopter replacement | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://helihub.com/2013/05/06/us-navy-seeks-presidential-helicopter-replacement/)

Who's willing to place a wager on Sikorsky coming through this time?

[SASless]

Why not an Osprey....it could be a Dandy for trips in the Northeast....and allow the 747's and G-5's to sit on the ramp more often....as they are overkill for short trips.

After all....the Osprey is a well proven safe aircraft isn't it?

Bell has not had a Presidential Aircraft since when....Eisenhower?

[Peter-RB]

R66 if they are lookin to save funds, after all, wouldnt do to fly the President of the USof A in some EU or perish the thought a Brit built thingy..:=

Peter-RB
Lancashire

[SansAnhedral]

Who's willing to place a wager on Sikorsky coming through this time?

With an S92? Not bloody likely.

Offerors will be highly encouraged to propose an existing, in-production helicopter platform from which the VXX will be derived. It is the Government's desire to hold development to an absolute minimum on the VXX Program and focus the program effort on integration of mature subsystems on a mature platform. While minor changes to the platform to accommodate integration of subsystems are inevitable, change to major components such as drive train, rotors, engines and basic structure is highly discouraged. In keeping with this approach, the Offerors will be encouraged to not propose any design elements that contain immature technology or that might be deemed Critical Technology Elements (CTEs).

So, does the still unfinished and unfielded IDMGB for the CH148 constitute a mature component for the platform? :ouch:

Plus, this precludes SAC from implementing their long-awaited desperately needed 5-bladed rotor for the 92 (especially at a HGW VXX iteration).

[Savoia]

Bell has not had a Presidential Aircraft since when....Eisenhower?


As far as I know the 'official' sequence of Presidential rotorcraft goes something like this:

1957: Eisenhower becomes first US President to fly in a helicopter - Bell 47J Ranger.

1958: Sikorsky CH-34 becomes 'official' Presidential helicopter.

1961: Sikorsky VH-3A replaces VH-34 (first aircraft to be called "Marine One").

1962: President Kennedy commissions 'USA' titles on aircraft livery.

1964: Bell VH-1N introduced during President Lyndon Johnson's administration; for use during visits to Vail, Colorado.

1970: Bell UH-1N used for Presidential transport (Nixon).

1976: Sikorsky VH-3D replaces UH-1N.

So, technically, the last 'official' Bell would have been one of the UH-1N's used during the Nixon administration.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-k6ZrEkRPLd8/UYf7jXaKjRI/AAAAAAAANSs/8MRui5MhFho/w595-h376/UH1N+Nixon.jpg
Bell UH-1N as used during the Nixon years

Note: I am not 100% on all of the above details.

.

[tottigol]

That looks more a USMC or USAF (more on the former given the uniform drab if glossy finish) UH-1N.

[Savoia]

Tottigol: Looking now at the air intake, it is definitely a UH-1N (ie. 212).

But .. it gets confusing because the USAF operate these ..

http://www.zap16.com/zapp/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/UH-1N_69-6608-600x275.jpg

.. also 'white tops' but not normally used for Presidential transport.


With an S92? Not bloody likely.


So the S92 has no chance?

[Lonewolf_50]

If the S-92 hasn't a chance, why would Sikorsky even bid on the project? :confused:

[SASless]

Sav,

The Air Force for sure and perhaps the Army and Marine Corps have aircraft assigned to evacuate Critical Staff in the event of Major Hostilities that would affect Continuity of Government. The USAF uses UH-1N models for that....or did anyway.

At one time the Army was using H-21's for that duty.

[Jack Carson]

HMX-1 had a small fleet of VH-1Ns to support President Lyndon Johnson’s vacation trips to Vail, CO. Once he left office they were retired.

[Grenville Fortescue]

The President’s Marine helicopter squadron received the first of 12 MV-22 Ospreys on April 5, although the president will not be traveling aboard the tilt-rotor aircraft with the checkered early flight history.

The Ospreys that join the Marine Helicopter Squadron One fleet will carry presidential support staff and the media rather than the President of the United States.

Marines will paint the Ospreys in the squadron green. The VH-3D Sea King and VH-60 White Hawks that carry the president are painted white on top and called “white tops.”

The Marines started flight operations with the Osprey on April 26, however the tilt-rotor aircraft will not start carrying reporters and presidential support staff until later in 2013, according to the Marine announcement.


http://defensetech.org/2013/05/02/first-osprey-arrives-at-marine-one-squadron/

http://th03.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/2013/126/5/8/hmx_1_marine_one_v_22_osprey_by_generaltate-d64dpgk.jpg

[terminus mos]

The V22 won't win. No " foreign" helicopter will win. It's America and the President will fly American, the S-92 will win.

[Grenville Fortescue]

The V22 won't win. No " foreign" helicopter will win.

I forgot - the V-22 is Indonesian.

[Savoia]

For SansAnhedral .. ;)

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-jdNS51GTnpQ/UYkBJIw-XcI/AAAAAAAANU8/jw5W5lIqI6E/w291-h114-no/VS92+Logo.png

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-HbpK6Yxj1uA/UYkANmSk__I/AAAAAAAANU0/ICSDTrNveHo/w600-h480-no/VH92.jpg
VH-92 .. the next Marine One?

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-CEZhcAZI6b8/UYkANIy9qgI/AAAAAAAANUw/jQNlrmiUSmI/w650-h304-no/S92+Interior+b.jpg
S-92 Cabin

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-tgrF0oTnZ6A/UYkANNiU9rI/AAAAAAAANUs/L1oqMRELWkY/w600-h398-no/S92+Interior+a.jpg
S-92 Galley

[SASless]

The Prez's new ride shall be new built....as a requirement of the contract. Even if the 53D was a candidate. Sikorsky would have to re-open the production line for the aircraft in order to meet the contract specs.

Remember how strict the maintenance policies are for the aircraft when used for the President....starts with limiting timed components to Half of their normal Life Values....surveillance of the construction process of critical components, and a total segregation of parts to be used on the aircraft.

[JohnDixson]

Thanks, Savoia.

That isn't Adobe Photoshop at work, but rather the product of the new S-92 PM at the time, a frequent poster here named Nick Lappos. The No. 3 flying test ship ( 294 ) was turned into a flying demo machine, not only with the complete interior as shown, but with a complete and functional comm/security equipment package by L-3 and associates that was fully operational, a few cockpit upgrades ( again, fully functional ) and the addition of three FG's ( force generators ) to the standard three that come with the machine, and which provided a superb ride, both up front and in the rear. That machine could have gone into the HMX-1 mission as it was. 2004. Ah, politics. Oh, almost forgot, you could buy just about two of these for one 101.

[tottigol]

Including faulty transmission and all...:ok:

[SansAnhedral]

Savoia

I remember I saw N492SA painted all green in the flesh; never saw it with a white top in reality. I recall they repainted it a gray/green camo, then brown camo for CSAR-X for a while after the VXX contract was lost in Jan '05.

Wonder if it will get another new coat of green paint here soon.

[Lonewolf_50]

tottigol, a minor point:

I seem to recall that the bolts (Ti) have been replaced by bolts (CRS), which suggests to me that the root cause issue has been addressed. (Regarding a well known failure or two).

Not interested in getting into the 30 min issue, as that's been beaten to death already. If that is an explicit spec, for this program (and I'd hope the PM at Pax River would demand that) then remedy for that current problem would be part of a mod. There are some ways to reduce heat and wear on gears that are state of the art now, but weren't ten or fifteen years ago.

[SansAnhedral]

I seem to recall that the bolts (Ti) have been replaced by bolts (CRS), which suggests to me that the root cause issue has been addressed. (Regarding a well known failure or two).

Firstly, that ignores the ongoing foot cracking issue.

The new filter housing and adapter took care of the filter leak. But tapered roller bearing loading in a transmission that simply cant handle elevated temperatures without oil film as well is still an issue in almost all SAC transmissions. One could argue they are all more susceptible to failure in LOL situations.

Simply put, plugging one leak does not make the inherent design more capable without lube from any other given (extremely remote?) cause.

If the current transmission was not an issue, SAC would not have spent the better part of the last decade desperately trying to finish up the IDMGB, which has still yet to make its appearance.

The real question is whether or not that arguably totally redesigned transmission would meet the new VXX requirement of essentially OTS certified, proven aircraft and components. Hence my earlier post.

[Lonewolf_50]

Sans, I am aware of the foot cracking issue, and believe that it's both fixable, and a lot less difficult a fix than the issue of meeting the 30 min requirement that, as stated in my post, has been done to death.

If you don't run out of oil, you don't have the problem, right? Root cause fix, and all that ...

That said, were I the PM for this program, I'd require the 30 min spec be met, or a 20 min spec, or whatever, and also require an actual demonstration.

Won't comment further on your point on gears, for the reason I stated previously regarding what current tech in gear design can offer. (As with anything, for a price ... )

[SansAnhedral]

Sans, I am aware of the foot cracking issue, and believe that it's both fixable, and a lot less difficult a fix than the issue of meeting the 30 min requirement

I wouldnt be so sure.....I recall hearing that it was a severe enough issue that they were looking into having to add straps around the station frames to get the load from the transmission and top deck crossbeams into the fuselage structure. The N-S-E-W 4 foot mounting config on the 92 seems to have been problematic with fatigue loading. The straps for the S-92X perhaps?

[Savoia]

Remember how strict the maintenance policies are for the aircraft when used for the President....starts with limiting timed components to Half of their normal Life Values..

During my final visit to the Queen's Flight (when it was still the Queen's Flight and when they were domiciled at Benson .. under the command of Grp. Cpt. Hugh Rolfe) I recall him telling me that they had a similar protocol but .. I think it was somewhere between 80-90% of the normal component life.

I wonder what the 'defensive package' will be for the next 'Marine One' and whether there will be anything 'new'.

A lingering risk (in my view) still remains vulnerability to 'shoulder launched missiles' including RPG's. Many moons ago Sikorsky said they were developing 'something' to help mitigate this risk but .. I don't know how far they got.

However, over in Israel, they recently declared that they were making some headway in this area .. see: http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/514136-slm-protection-finally-way.html

Ah, politics.

You mean the reason the entire HMX replacement programme is the almighty mess that it is? I think we all know what happened.

Our Prime Minister (the 'great' Il Cavaliere Berlusconi agreed with the British Prime Minister (whom he beat at football) that having shown George Jnr. their support in Iraq, Italy and Britain were in a position to lean upon Jnr. for a favour. Il Cavaliere agreed to Blair making the pitch on behalf of both countries whereupon Blair said something like "we've shown you our support in Iraq and I have personally taken quite a bit of heat over this .. now Silvio and I want you to do something for us .. by supporting the pitch from our Anglo-Italian concern AgustaWestland" .. whereupon George Jnr. replied .. "sure thing Tony".

Personally, I would love to see Sikorsky continue serving the USMC in this prestigious role and wish them the very best.

[SASless]

http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/thumbnail_photos/2013/May/Obama's%20Guards.png?1367958814


This is the most important part of the Defensive Package!

[Savoia]

Lol, I'm sure you're right!

[Matari]

Ah, the good ole' days:

http://cryptome.org/eyeball/prezsec/pict476.jpg

[Lonewolf_50]

Amen, Jack.

Sans, I think there are enough sharp folks at Sikorsky to figure it out, though I appreciate your point that it isn't necessarilyl a simple fix.

EDIT: huh? How did my post get in front of Jack's? The time tag is about 40 minutes early! By my clock, it posted at 1515, not 1439. ???

*cue in Twilight Zone music*

[Jack Carson]

The difference between an off the shelf S-92 and a VH-92 will be significant. Starting with a commercially certified VVIP S-92 and then adding basic the requirements for US Presidential Transport (i.e. EMP hardening, defensive avionics, ballistic protection, ……) will add significantly to the basic and all up weights of the aircraft. At some point, the basic dynamic components will have to be upgraded to meet these increases in weight.

[heli1]

....but the rules say no upgrade development is acceptable and the offer has to be already certificated so mods to the S-92 should be ruled out. Meantime may be Obama should ask why the president of Turkmenistan has just traded in his S-92 s for two EH101s,and if he's quick He could me next in lne after the rulers of Saudi Arabia !

[SansAnhedral]

The difference between an off the shelf S-92 and a VH-92 will be significant. Starting with a commercially certified VVIP S-92 and then adding basic the requirements for US Presidential Transport (i.e. EMP hardening, defensive avionics, ballistic protection, ……) will add significantly to the basic and all up weights of the aircraft. At some point, the basic dynamic components will have to be upgraded to meet these increases in weight.


....but the rules say no upgrade development is acceptable and the offer has to be already certificated so mods to the S-92 should be ruled out.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001115161/bigstockphoto_hammer_striking_nail_w_sparks_333329_answer_1_ xlarge.jpeg

[Lonewolf_50]

....but the rules say no upgrade development is acceptable and the offer has to be already certificated so mods to the S-92 should be ruled out.
That worked real well for the EH-101, didn't it? :p

I suspect that you will find, deep in the various pages and fine print, contract language and nuances that allow for "x" variation to the commercial spec to accomodate the purely military mission requirement. I hear rumor that this has happened before in acquisition. Why would this be any different?

Granted, that gives all bidders a level playing field ...

[SansAnhedral]

EH-101 didnt need a new tranmission with ELS, or additional blade!

Unless they are happy with an extremely austere VXX compared to the last go-around, I think its fairly obvious the current -92 dynamic system will be stretched beyond its capability.

[SASless]

So install a plug into the fuselage, add 53 dynamic components and call it a 92-B.

[hillberg]

Due to sequestration the next Helicopter will ba a Robinson R-44
With public input it will have the old gas tanks reinstalled.:D

[JohnDixson]

Savoia, not only do you contribute lovely photos, but your prose regarding Berlusconi/Blair struck a respondent chord. A similar assessment, absolutely unofficial, made the rounds in Connecticut.

As to an attempt to guess at how SA addresses the no-change writings, it is hard to say, especially when one doesn't have the basic document to read. I know I read the original one in 2004, as part of Nick's review team on his ( SA's ) proposal. That was one complex program plan, and responding to it in each phase was tricky with a capital T.

I might add, and am certain this will draw comment, that some very expensive water has gone under the bridge since 2005. I've seen some estimates of $3+B, and a good deal of that wound up at the AW bank. The original VH-71 program involved new main rotor, new tail rotor and new main transmission ( and of course, with a new adult sized* tail rotor comes a new tail/intermediate gearbox team ). So, some, mostly in Connecticut I am thinking, would say, " Wait a minute, DOD, our tax $ went into EH-101 design mods, so we need some relief". The guys at Westland that I have met and worked with are nothing if they are not fair, honest, intelligent and gentlemen. But a lot of them play a certain UK invented game and I bet they respond with something like: " Looks like the rule is, Play it as it Lies, Yank ". And with a smile.

* It just so happened that I was at Westland when the EH-101 was getting ready to fly and one of the pilots we were to check out in the S-70 took us around one of the completed prototype machines. Afterward, the obvious question, " What do you think?". Well, it all looked very well though out indeed, and I said so, except for one thing. " And what is that, John?". I had asked about the TR Nr and TR HP data, and I said to him that it looks as though the TR was rather too small for the gross weight, installed horsepower, power that they would shortly get from the RTM-322 etc. His response was that they ( test pilot office ) had been saying that all along but to no avail. I never did learn if they fixed that with UK or US money, but I gather it is fixed.

Hard to prophesize how this will go. Surprised no one has commented about the possibility of a combined V-22/Helicopter solution.

[heli1]

Lone Wolf et al.The rules have changed since and because of the last time when there was substantial mission creep,which added so much to the costs.This time they really do want off the shelf certified and proven aircraft and avionics etc,to avoid development delays and cost growth.

[terminus mos]

Grenville, don't you understand the significance of a full stop?

Let me spell it out again. The V22 won't win. Neither will any foreign helicopter win. Is that clearer for you?

[krypton_john]

Don't be so hard on Grenville. I reread your post, noted the full stop, and still interpreted it as G did!

[dangermouse]

John you are partially correct with regards to 101 design changes driven by the Vh71 spec, however the scope is nowhere near that you listed, and actually as AW were a subcontractor to LM for the programme I suggest that most of the money ended up in that bank account rather than in Europe.

The significant changes were limited to ;

'new' engines (a different version of the CT7 that had already been type certified

Modified structure (to account for change from Aluminium Lithium used on the EH101, coupled with increased crash requirements)

The main rotor blades, head, transmission and other aircraft systems were almost exactly the same as those that were in service or were part of the ongoing product improvement programme of the 101 and were not specifically funded by the USA.

It is true that the other changes you allude to would have been required for the increment 2 aircraft and would equally have been needed if the S92 had been selected, as any aircraft to meet that requirement (which never got very far on the drawing board) would have been a considerably more capable platform.

With regards to the Blair/Berlusconi issue this is just sour grapes from the losing side or the implication must be that the independent NAVAIR team that carried out the assessment swayed the results due to political pressure..... The platform that best met the mission was selected (as you would hope would happen and should happen in the future)

Here's some thoughts...

The 101 design and build process has already been demonstrated to meet the stringent security requirements for a VXX type programme so that doesnt have to be shown again, so although Sikorsky have the current capability for the VH3 and VH60 fleet this may not read across yet to the (proudly proclaimed) 'Team of International partners' designed/built S92 which may introduce additional risk and costs.

The USN LCS programme had two winners (i.e the precendent has been set), so if the mission can be split into two aspects (transport and communications/support) why not use two aircraft types, one for transport (101) and one for comms/support (S92), in that way everyone wins.

[Grenville Fortescue]

krypton john thanks for the support.

Have always found New Zealanders to be decent people - even looked at NZ as a possible retirement destination once, but grandchildren you understand.

terminus mos, a better way of writing it would have been - The V22 will not win, nor will any any foreign contender.

[Ian Corrigible]

The USN LCS programme had two winners (i.e the precendent has been set)
Given the amount of controversy that the LCS program has generated (leaks, fires, engine failures, hull cracking, corrosion, stability, crewing, firepower, vulnerabilities, delays, etc.), I'd advise against using that as a model of efficient procurement. :E . It's been suggested more than once that the only reason a twin-track approach was selected for LCS was in order to secure the backing of twice as many Congressmen.

Meantime may be Obama should ask why the president of Turkmenistan has just traded in his S-92 s for two EH101s
UTC is probably happy to forget Sikorsky's association with Turkmenistan's former leader, one of the few people ever to have out-crazied (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/138719-canadian-sea-king-replacement-update-6.html#post1470257) North Korea, and an unwanted stockholder distraction in terms of his lousy human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Turkmenistan) record.

This is the most important part of the Defensive Package!
With public input it will have the old gas tanks reinstalled
Both amusing jabs, but can we save the politics for JetBlast? These forums have been mercifully free of the political B/S that other sites attract, and it'd be a shame to see them degenerate into a cesspit. (That said, given the current approval ratings (http://www.people-press.org/2013/05/08/obama-maintains-approval-advantage-but-gop-runs-even-on-key-issues) of Congress, the public might prefer to see the UH-1Ns operated out of Andrews by 1 HS fitted with the Pinto-style gas tank.)

I/C

[terminus mos]

terminus mos, a better way of writing it would have been - The V22 will not win, nor will any any foreign contender.

Thanks for the English lesson Grenville. I bow to your superiority. just an English question though, is "any any" a way to stress the importance of the word any?

[Grenville Fortescue]

just an English question though, is "any any" a way to stress the importance of the word any?
......
Yes.

[Savoia]

John: Grazie, sei gentilissimo!

Sadly, I do not share Dangermouse's confidence in the US Navy's immunity to politics in fact, there is so much which goes on in government procurement which falls outside of the normally defined avenues of 'protocol' that at times it beggars belief!

Regarding VXX .. do we really think that there will be no flexibility offered to suppliers? The paperwork and tender requirements are rigid but in practice the history of those actually involved in delivering products to the US government is one in which many exceptions and exemptions .. and considerable leeway .. has been granted, often admittedly, because once 'into' an agreement the supplier (in a manner of speaking) has the client over the proverbial barrel inasmuch as while suppliers are liable for penalties due to non-performance .. the client doesn't want to 'over penalise' the supplier lest the supplier backs out completely; for aside from the dollars and cents .. there is also the matter of political face-saving which every regime keenly supports!

On a separate note .. while I am a huge fan of HMX-1 (their coordination of logistics across the globe and maintaining their standards of safety and discipline) I do sometimes wonder whether a more cost-effective 'solution' could be found for Presidential helicopter transport outside the US (such as using US military helicopters equipped with defensive systems but not perhaps specifically dedicated for Presidential use). As I say, I commend how they 'keep the show on the road' but .. it is massively expensive and I ponder the 'efficiency' of the Presidential 'out station' aircraft.

I may be wrong.

[SansAnhedral]

The paperwork and tender requirements are rigid but in practice the history of those actually involved in delivering products to any government is one in which many exceptions and exemptions .. and considerable leeway .. has been granted, often admittedly, because once 'into' an agreement the supplier (in a manner of speaking) has the client over the proverbial barrel inasmuch as while suppliers are liable for penalties due to non-performance .. the client doesn't want to 'over penalise' the supplier lest the supplier backs out completely; for aside from the dollars and cents .. there is also the matter of political face-saving which every regime keenly supports!

"The Worst Procurement in the History of Canada” - Solving the Maritime Helicopter Crisis (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2013/02/Worst%20Procurement%20in%20History.pdf)

That only happens to be the same contractor and helicopter in question for VXX :ouch:

[Savoia]

No contest from me. I do not believe any government to be immune!

Just that we were discussing the US government in this case.

[Grenville Fortescue]

Marine One bids due this Thursday (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/business/few-suitors-to-build-a-new-marine-one.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).

[SansAnhedral]

VXX Becomes One-Horse Race (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_29_2013_p0-601954.xml)

[dangermouse]

If POTUS is happy with second best (and currently second safest.... where's that 30 min capable box again?, let's ask the canucks......:ugh:) good luck to him.

at least be honest guys and say

'Our policy is only to buy American so if your'e not from here don't bother' which appears to be the reality

DM

[Lonewolf_50]

As a US taxpayer, I am fine with that, dangermouse. Since I am somewhat familiar with the security program associated with that particular executive support mission, I am even more fine with that.

More to the point, Sikorsky has been supporting the VH-3's for some decades. That program seems to have been quite successful, which includes the security end of it.

There is more to this than incremental differences in the kit. At this point in rotary wing tech, and the performance box only slightly expandable, if at all, due to the laws of physics, just what "improvement" are you getting for your money?

I wonder. :p

That said, 30 min run dry standards is a capability worth pursuing in that buy.

[PhlyingGuy]

'Our policy is only to buy American so if your'e not from here don't bother' which appears to be the reality

As we have EC's flying in the Coast Guard and Army? I don't think so....

[[email protected]]

DM - the US Govt protecting its homegrown helicopter industry by choosing the S92 is only the same as the British Govt protecting AW jobs with the Wildcat and the SAR 189 - get over it.

[henra]

DM - the US Govt protecting its homegrown helicopter industry by choosing the S92 is only the same as the British Govt protecting AW jobs with the Wildcat and the SAR 189 - get over it.

Perfectly understandable (and expected) as it is, it would have been nicer if they had been more honest about it, though.

[Hilife]

Just earlier this month the German FMD contracted for 15 EC645 T2 helicopters for their Special Forces without even hint of a competition. A done deal from day one for sure.

Stones and glass houses comes to mind.

[The Sultan]

The Canadians picked up the EH-101's now the US will pickup the undelivered Cyclones since it appears they will never enter Canadian service.

The Sultan

[SansAnhedral]

The Canadians picked up the EH-101's now the US will pickup the undelivered Cyclones since it appears they will never enter Canadian service.

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/citizen_cane.gif

[tottigol]

Mmmhh EC-645s, comparable to the Lakotas (except with a fenestron and full FADEC IIRC).... or an overweight unnamed Bell product?
Military transport helicopters, military helicopter, helicopter EC 645 - Eurocopter, an EADS company (http://www.eurocopter.com/site/en/ref/Overview_893.html)

On the same theme AW-189 or (__________) please fill the blank with non-existent comparable US product?
BTW, the UK SAR contract was awarded to a civilian company (American company incidentally) that proposed a mixed contract with (mostly) American built Sikorsky S-92s, well known (or should I say notorious) for their XMSN "run dry" properties and lighter medium/heavy twins.

Mmmhhhhh...

[PhlyingGuy]

Mmmhh EC-645s, comparable to the Lakotas (except with a fenestron and full FADEC IIRC).... or an overweight unnamed Bell product?

You mean the EC-645 which weighs more than the "overweight" unnamed Bell product? For which a military organization could typically care less about the commercially certified weight?

[tottigol]

It may weigh more, however IT WAS CERTIFIED to 8000+ lbs so it retains well over 2000 lbs payload wit full fuel, without the need to rearrange the certification specifications of a certain country.

I just realized that we are dragging this thread into a politico-nationalistic one and it detracts from the original intent of it.

[Hilife]

tottigol – If you read the OJEU LOT2 MINCAP on the DfT website, it was clear the AW139 could not meet the required tasking spec, but had BHL not included the AW189 in their bid, they - nor any other bidder with the same omission of Britishness – were unlikely to win....Simples!

Politics in state acquisitions, surely not.

[henra]

Just earlier this month the German FMD contracted for 15 EC645 T2 helicopters for their Special Forces without even hint of a competition. A done deal from day one for sure.

Stones and glass houses comes to mind.

At least they didn't even try to do a fake RFP for this one and drive bidders into costly processes.

It seems it was a bit of a deal with EC regarding the reduction of NH90 and Tigres. Yet from all we know the latter wasn't exactly the deal of the year for the .gov/.mil anyway. :(

[Teldorserious]

I just want to thank Brian Abraham for his contributions here, I just feel so much more enriched by his input into this thread.

[Brian Abraham]

SSG, it's not necessary for an OP to post continuing comment. I originated the thread because I was interested in peoples comments, not because I had a personal view.

[Ian Corrigible]

Coincidentally, AgustaWestland received the final settlement from the U.S. Government related to the 2009 VH-71 termination shortly before the summer, this payout contributing to an increase in the company's 2Q earnings.

The details of the settlement were not revealed.

I/C

[Grenville Fortescue]

The details of the settlement were not revealed.

They will be - eventually.

[Ian Corrigible]

So even though, as previously posted, AW received its last payment from the 2009 VH-71A program cancellation during 2Q 2013, the FY-14 Omnibus Appropriations bill (http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-applauds-passage-of-defense-veterans-appropriations-) includes yet another $81M for 'VH-71A Executive Helicopter Development.'

Are we still paying LockMart for the cancellation? Post-termination related expenses previously funded included "the physical inventory of contractor acquired property; proposal preparation; security; disposition of contract inventory; subcontractor settlement costs; and termination management activities," though the inventory related expenses surely went away when Canada bought (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/417523-new-us-presidential-helicopter-requirement.html#post5938124) the airframes to boost the CH-149's MC rate?

We're surely not retaining the VH-71A designation for the follow-on program?

I/C

[Ian Corrigible]

Thanks to Inside the Pentagon (http://insidedefense.com/201401242459165/Inside-Defense-Daily-News/DefenseAlert/dod-lockheed-settle-on-final-23-billion-tab-for-terminated-vh-71-program/menu-id-61.html), we now have the answer: $2.3 Bn

The settlement, finalized on Dec. 19, brings the total amount paid to Lockheed Martin to $2.2 Bn, including $2.1 Bn in net costs, $38.5 M in award fees for completed work and $51.6 M to settle the contract termination, according to Billy Ray Brown, a spokesman for the Defense Contract Management Agency.

"There were 425 disbursements made totaling $2,322,013,456.86 during the life of the [VH-71] contract," according to Brown. "There will be no further disbursements."

The VH-71 program generated an inventory of approximately 36,000 items valued at $600 M, according to Brown. Among the items were nine aircraft, eight of which were owned by the government. In March 2011, these rotorcraft were sold to Canada, along with spare parts, for $114 M, to be used in support of Canada's AgustaWestland CH-149 Cormorant search and rescue helicopters. An industry official said the former U.S. aircraft were likely to be cannibalized for parts.

I/C

[chopper2004]

Remember this National Geographic docu on HMX-1, a few years back?

check out whats on the coffee table in the CO's office :ok::E at 04:10

qH_TsCZWG1Y

Whats currently the state of play for the budget at mo for the project?

If anything appears, it be more than likely the VH-92 and maybe the CH-53K for HMX-1 support replacing the Echo in the Green Tops, I imagine.

Actually come to think of it will VXX also replace the VH-60N 'White Hawks' as well? The reason why I ask is, I thought donkeys ago, when the spec came out, it cited not only the VH-3D but the VH-60N as well???

Cheers

[chopper2004]

Navy to award contract for Marine One helicopter despite previous failure - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/navy-to-award-contract-for-marine-one-helicopter-despite-previous-failure/2014/04/22/00bb4da6-c4b5-11e3-b574-f8748871856a_story.html)

[tottigol]

Lockheed Martin has been known to aasociate themselves with the winning programs lately, beating out the two other major military contractors Boeing and Northrop Grumman in every major aviation program for the last twenty years.
The NAVY cut the requirements to fit the S-92 so that even a lesser airframe can get the job done.
It's understandable that the US helicopter industry tries to protect the only major revenue stream they are left with, since the civilian operators are choosing what the best machines really are and they are not made or designed here.

As far as 2020 for an IOC is concerned, the Pentagon may want to have a chat with the Canadian Armed Forces.