Leonardo Helicopter - Ties to the Russian State

[Baldeep Inminj]

I just saw this online. Very interesting and I wonder what the implications could be for their current and future business? I imagine it will not help their bid for the RAF Puma replacement!

https://www-somersetlive-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/leonardo-helicopters-russia-rostec-rosneft-6745975.amp

[JulieAndrews]

yep - long-term investors and proud of their associations with Russia and supporting 'the interior'
I wonder how long the webpage will stay up ?
Leonardo & Russia (https://www.leonardo.com/en/global/russia)

Hats off to Tomas Molloy at SomersetLive for exposing what 'those in the know' have known for years - which added to the unpleasantness of their NMH efforts.
The methods and ethics of AW/LH over the years have provided many Mcenroe Moments - 'come on, you cannot be serious??'
"Note that our presence in the Russian market is solely for civilian helicopters.

"Leonardo's UK-based business does not trade with Russia."

That's ok then, we believe you !!!!
I imagine LH rampant PR machine might be looking to take it easy for the forthcoming months - watch this space.

That said, they might be right - about the 'civilian helicopter' quote - look at the problem they are having fixing weapons to the AW139 'Grey Wolf'
They seem to be admitting that you cannot 'weaponise' civvy aircraft - so repainting the AW189 might be all is available?

[heli1]

Airbus has even bigger stake in Russia ,with EC135 and EC120 in service plus their airliners. Again,both companies only sell civil aircraft to commercial and private Russian operators ( tho admittedly Russia state ownership can influence their use). Difficult to see how you can simply close the door overnight

[rotor-rooter]

I would anticipate that the aviation media will take the opportunity at Heli-Expo to get full details from Airbus and Leonardo on their plans to extricate themselves from this situation in Russia, and maybe take a close look at China as well? As major suppliers to the US Government, I'm sure that any action will be closely scrutinized by this Customer as well.

[Baldeep Inminj]

Leonardo are also partnered with Babcock in a 50/50 joint venture to bid for the Canadian Future Aircrew Training contract. I can foresee a LOT of scrutiny from Canada into their business with these revelations.

Russia is now so toxic that even a whiff of involvement will have potential customers looking elsewhere, and quite rightly so.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

I really, really wanted to post:
"Leonardo in partnership with Babcock? If you wanted to define 'toxic', you couldn't really do a better job than that."
...but then I thought better of it, because of reasons.

[Milo C]

They seem to be admitting that you cannot 'weaponise' civvy aircraft - so repainting the AW189 might be all is available?

The AW189 is actually the civil version of the AW149, military project aimed to bid in a contract in Turkey. Once lost it was recycled for SAR UK and, why not, O&G.

[Doors Off]

I would anticipate that the aviation media will take the opportunity at Heli-Expo to get full details from Airbus and Leonardo on their plans to extricate themselves from this situation in Russia, and maybe take a close look at China as well? As major suppliers to the US Government, I'm sure that any action will be closely scrutinized by this Customer as well.

Plus, they should be really examining Sikorsky, Bell and Robinson for their vast sales in China.

[CGameProgrammerr]

Nobody is sanctioning China; that would be insane. We are not at war with them, nor are they at war with anyone else. They're trying to maintain relatively friendly relations with Russia because that's important for them due to numerous reasons, but that doesn't make them an enemy.

[Tickle]

yep - long-term investors and proud of their associations with Russia and supporting 'the interior'
I wonder how long the webpage will stay up ?
Leonardo & Russia (https://www.leonardo.com/en/global/russia)

It's gone!

[finalchecksplease]

It's gone!

Nothing goes once on the internet:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220121161812/https://www.leonardo.com/en/global/russia

[heli1]

Actually China is at war....with India over disputed boundary in north east Himalayas and with ethnic tribesmen being imprisoned and forced to recant their religious beliefs.....so just as bad as Putin!

[rotor-rooter]

Plus, they should be really examining Sikorsky, Bell and Robinson for their vast sales in China.

We aren't talking about sales, we're talking manufacturing capability and knowledge transfer. Airbus has been manufacturing helicopters in China for years in full partnership with the Chinese government. I suggest you research the recent reaction to removing reliance on Chinese manufactured parts in order to provide an offer for the Puma replacement. My comment is based on easily accessible facts.

[rotor-rooter]

Nobody is sanctioning China; that would be insane. We are not at war with them, nor are they at war with anyone else. They're trying to maintain relatively friendly relations with Russia because that's important for them due to numerous reasons, but that doesn't make them an enemy.

At no time did I suggest that we are war with China, but you appear to hold a limited perception of the sanctions that are already in place regarding all types of technology and products, think 5G phone technology for example.

I would suggest you do a little research on the International Trade in Arma Regulation (ITAR) and the current US export requirements for all kinds of technology and equipment. There are a huge number of individual organizations that are already sanctioned within China and Russia and they can easily be identified.

For some time now, Dual Use (military and commercial) items require an Export License and the current provision is "Presumed Denial", I'll let you figure out how to interpet that. With the current global situation, it appears highly likely that ITAR will be expanded beyond the original signatories, to include a much greater number of nations and technologies, hence my original comment.

[jimf671]

The emerging picture for Russian aviation has been examined by Mentour on youtube. He examines principally the situation for FW airlines but there may be similar implications for helicopter companies.

General situation for sanctioned Russian aviation.

Is Russia about to nationalise ...

[trim it out]

I just saw this online. Very interesting and I wonder what the implications could be for their current and future business? I imagine it will not help their bid for the RAF Puma replacement!

https://www-somersetlive-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/leonardo-helicopters-russia-rostec-rosneft-6745975.amp
Love how that article links to another piece, published two weeks ago, where the shadow procurement minister was lobbying Parliament for the NMH to be built in the UK. So either Leonardo (Somerset) or Airbus (Wales), both of whom have links to Russia?

[JulieAndrews]

Clears throat - Trim it Out - are you seriously suggesting that Airbus and Leonardo are the only options? If that is the case then you have demonstrated your susceptibility to crass PR very well.
You need to get out more ;-)

PS, The Rt. Hon MP in question has been briefed - didn't want him to be accused of 'misleading' Parliament.....

[trim it out]

Clears throat - Trim it Out - are you seriously suggesting that Airbus and Leonardo are the only options? If that is the case then you have demonstrated your susceptibility to crass PR very well.
You need to get out more ;-)

PS, The Rt. Hon MP in question has been briefed - didn't want him to be accused of 'misleading' Parliament.....
Quite right. We'll probably end up with something American, not even built in the UK under license :E

[minigundiplomat]

For all the lectures by Frau Merkel and the Europeans over the past decade or so, both Airbus and Leonardo have become quite feral; the low point being EASA being leant on to unground the 225 before a root cause had been fully established.

[rotor-rooter]

Quite right. We'll probably end up with something American, not even built in the UK under license :E

Should the requirement become focused on political and economic rationale (which isn't in any way unreasonable), rather than the best value from a capability/supportability standpoint, then it becomes impossible to eliminate any OEM, as each demonstrates their ability to partner or team with another if it benefits their mutual interests.

There seems to be limited consideration of the presence of Boeing in the UK, already supporting the fleet of Chinook and Apache helicopters in service. All OEM's have beneficial partnerships all over the world, principally to allow access to markets that might otherwise be politically difficult to penetrate, including some contemporary examples:

Sikorsky/Eurocopter LUH-72A (H145)
Boeing/Sikorsky Commanche and S97 Raider
Bell/Boeing V-22
Lockheed Martin/AW VH-71 (EH101)
Boeing/Leonardo MH-139A
AW/Boeing AH-64D

And historical licence manufacture of platforms and associated powerplants including;

License built aircraft manufacturing relationships between Bell, Sikorsky, Boeing and Westland, Agusta, Sud Aviation, Aerospatiale, Dornier, and others.
Licence built engine manufacturing including General Electric, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls-Royce, MTU, Alfa Romeo (Avio), ITP, Piaggio, and others.

Many OEMs already outsource basic airframe manufacture, so the likelihood of a new-build airframe manufacturing capability for the UK may be more tenuous in order to expedite the manufacturing process. So utilizing an imported airframe to complete in the UK, at least to start, is the most likely scenario to get the programme moving as expediently as possible. Just within the existing partnerships, you can see the range of options that are currently available - which doesn't limit any additional ones that might be created. Airbus is working on resolving how to manufacture the H175M airframe without Chinese content, but the 139 Airframe is already manufactured in Europe. The S70i is manufactured in Poland, so the only real outsider currently would be the Bell 525, but they have the opportunity and time to consider options for this as well.

The opportunity for the UK to determine and select the best platform, coupled with the ability to generate a significant amount of manufacturing and MRO capability in the long term is an extremely attractive political proposition for the UK helicopter industry, and the OEMs all know this. In the good old days, there were all kinds of offsets and weird industrial "benefits", many of which had no relevance to the procurement, however, this is a tremendous opportunity for UK business to drive the support capability to a UK solution - and although the UK is a member of NATO, it is no longer a member of the EU, and needs to take this opportunity to benefit the UK in the long term as a primary goal. It is worth considering the recent German CH-47F/CH53K competition which had no offset requirements at all, but both OEM's platforms involved full direct engagement with German industry because this was a mutually beneficial driver in the selection of the platform. Unfortunately, neither side seemed to be able to provide a solution within the customer's budget and the procurement was terminated, only to be challenged in court by Lockheed Martin who failed to convince the Judge that this was done illegally. So now the selection is looking for a US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) solution, as a means of managing full life cycle program cost. The current UK CH-47F procurement is an FMS case, so it remains highly likely that FMS solutions will feature, if nothing else, as a means of maintaining control of the budget!

[trim it out]

Should the requirement become focused on political and economic rationale (which isn't in any way unreasonable), rather than the best value from a capability/supportability standpoint, then it becomes impossible to eliminate any OEM, as each demonstrates their ability to partner or team with another if it benefits their mutual interests.

There seems to be limited consideration of the presence of Boeing in the UK, already supporting the fleet of Chinook and Apache helicopters in service. All OEM's have beneficial partnerships all over the world, principally to allow access to markets that might otherwise be politically difficult to penetrate, including some contemporary examples:

Sikorsky/Eurocopter LUH-72A (H145)
Boeing/Sikorsky Commanche and S97 Raider
Bell/Boeing V-22
Lockheed Martin/AW VH-71 (EH101)
Boeing/Leonardo MH-139A
AW/Boeing AH-64D

And historical licence manufacture of platforms and associated powerplants including;

License built aircraft manufacturing relationships between Bell, Sikorsky, Boeing and Westland, Agusta, Sud Aviation, Aerospatiale, Dornier, and others.
Licence built engine manufacturing including General Electric, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls-Royce, MTU, Alfa Romeo (Avio), ITP, Piaggio, and others.

Many OEMs already outsource basic airframe manufacture, so the likelihood of a new-build airframe manufacturing capability for the UK may be more tenuous in order to expedite the manufacturing process. So utilizing an imported airframe to complete in the UK, at least to start, is the most likely scenario to get the programme moving as expediently as possible. Just within the existing partnerships, you can see the range of options that are currently available - which doesn't limit any additional ones that might be created. Airbus is working on resolving how to manufacture the H175M airframe without Chinese content, but the 139 Airframe is already manufactured in Europe. The S70i is manufactured in Poland, so the only real outsider currently would be the Bell 525, but they have the opportunity and time to consider options for this as well.

The opportunity for the UK to determine and select the best platform, coupled with the ability to generate a significant amount of manufacturing and MRO capability in the long term is an extremely attractive political proposition for the UK helicopter industry, and the OEMs all know this. In the good old days, there were all kinds of offsets and weird industrial "benefits", many of which had no relevance to the procurement, however, this is a tremendous opportunity for UK business to drive the support capability to a UK solution - and although the UK is a member of NATO, it is no longer a member of the EU, and needs to take this opportunity to benefit the UK in the long term as a primary goal. It is worth considering the recent German CH-47F/CH53K competition which had no offset requirements at all, but both OEM's platforms involved full direct engagement with German industry because this was a mutually beneficial driver in the selection of the platform. Unfortunately, neither side seemed to be able to provide a solution within the customer's budget and the procurement was terminated, only to be challenged in court by Lockheed Martin who failed to convince the Judge that this was done illegally. So now the selection is looking for a US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) solution, as a means of managing full life cycle program cost. The current UK CH-47F procurement is an FMS case, so it remains highly likely that FMS solutions will feature, if nothing else, as a means of maintaining control of the budget!
Great post, thanks for taking the time.

I've found the general feeling for which cab will be the NMH depends on which crewroom you go for a brew in. Of course, none of those people are making the decision, they are just the end users, so probably won't even be asked for their thoughts on what is required.

[Commando Cody]

Just for the record, Boeing did not partner with Sikorsky on the S-97 Raider, nor are they partnering with them on Raider-X. Some of the data generated by S-97, though, is used on SB>1 Defiant (and its successor Defiant X) on which the two are partnering .

[chopper2004]

Should the requirement become focused on political and economic rationale (which isn't in any way unreasonable), rather than the best value from a capability/supportability standpoint, then it becomes impossible to eliminate any OEM, as each demonstrates their ability to partner or team with another if it benefits their mutual interests.

There seems to be limited consideration of the presence of Boeing in the UK, already supporting the fleet of Chinook and Apache helicopters in service. All OEM's have beneficial partnerships all over the world, principally to allow access to markets that might otherwise be politically difficult to penetrate, including some contemporary examples:

Sikorsky/Eurocopter LUH-72A (H145)
Boeing/Sikorsky Commanche and S97 Raider
Bell/Boeing V-22
Lockheed Martin/AW VH-71 (EH101)
Boeing/Leonardo MH-139A
AW/Boeing AH-64D

And historical licence manufacture of platforms and associated powerplants including;

License built aircraft manufacturing relationships between Bell, Sikorsky, Boeing and Westland, Agusta, Sud Aviation, Aerospatiale, Dornier, and others.
Licence built engine manufacturing including General Electric, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls-Royce, MTU, Alfa Romeo (Avio), ITP, Piaggio, and others.

Many OEMs already outsource basic airframe manufacture, so the likelihood of a new-build airframe manufacturing capability for the UK may be more tenuous in order to expedite the manufacturing process. So utilizing an imported airframe to complete in the UK, at least to start, is the most likely scenario to get the programme moving as expediently as possible. Just within the existing partnerships, you can see the range of options that are currently available - which doesn't limit any additional ones that might be created. Airbus is working on resolving how to manufacture the H175M airframe without Chinese content, but the 139 Airframe is already manufactured in Europe. The S70i is manufactured in Poland, so the only real outsider currently would be the Bell 525, but they have the opportunity and time to consider options for this as well.

The opportunity for the UK to determine and select the best platform, coupled with the ability to generate a significant amount of manufacturing and MRO capability in the long term is an extremely attractive political proposition for the UK helicopter industry, and the OEMs all know this. In the good old days, there were all kinds of offsets and weird industrial "benefits", many of which had no relevance to the procurement, however, this is a tremendous opportunity for UK business to drive the support capability to a UK solution - and although the UK is a member of NATO, it is no longer a member of the EU, and needs to take this opportunity to benefit the UK in the long term as a primary goal. It is worth considering the recent German CH-47F/CH53K competition which had no offset requirements at all, but both OEM's platforms involved full direct engagement with German industry because this was a mutually beneficial driver in the selection of the platform. Unfortunately, neither side seemed to be able to provide a solution within the customer's budget and the procurement was terminated, only to be challenged in court by Lockheed Martin who failed to convince the Judge that this was done illegally. So now the selection is looking for a US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) solution, as a means of managing full life cycle program cost. The current UK CH-47F procurement is an FMS case, so it remains highly likely that FMS solutions will feature, if nothing else, as a means of maintaining control of the budget!

Sikorsky has contract to support Reagan Test Site UH-72A but didn’t help in development with them Eurocopter bringing it into the US Army

cheers

[rotor-rooter]

Sikorsky has contract to support Reagan Test Site UH-72A but didn’t help in development with them Eurocopter bringing it into the US Army

cheers
Thanks, Commander Cody for the correction to the Raider programme, it was an example rather than something I am intimately familiar with.

Chopper 2004, the winning bid for the LUH-72A utilized Sikorsky's Government contracting resources to win this bid. I won't get into the relationships between the Sikorsky management and Bell, I'll let you figure this out yourself, but the information I provided is from first hand accounts and conversations directly with me. Sikorsky had no product for this specific requirement, but you may be able to determine who might, and the motivation they might have in this arrangement.

I would agree that this appears to be a very unusual arrangement, and for a long time I never really shared this information with many people. But I assure you that it is factual, and is in fact totally verifiable from US Government sources in documents published on Wikileaks.

[Hilife]

Chopper 2004, the winning bid for the LUH-72A utilized Sikorsky's Government contracting resources to win this bid. I won't get into the relationships between the Sikorsky management and Bell, I'll let you figure this out yourself, but the information I provided is from first hand accounts and conversations directly with me. Sikorsky had no product for this specific requirement, but you may be able to determine who might, and the motivation they might have in this arrangement.Clearly SAC had way more than a foot in the door with the US DoD procurement office, but as I recall, SAC had no ‘serious’ intention of bidding a platform for the LUH program.

It was Eurocopter, who, out of the blue, approached SAC to ask if they would team up with them in order to bid the 145, as Eurocopter had never won a US DoD contract and thought that having Sikorsky on-board would add credibility to their bid. Clearly it did.

The plan was that American Eurocopter would build the airframes and Sikorsky would manage the TLS, something they already did on a massive scale for other US Mil platforms.

As for SAC/Bell link-up, it was a source of amusement at the time, that SAC’s top three execs (JP, SE & CB) were all ex Bell.

[Commando Cody]

There's such a game of musical chairs going on with these companies. Earlier, one of the reasons Bell slowed work on Tilt-Rotors outside of the V-22, including selling off the -609 was that they hired avery high ranking executive, who didn't like Tilt-Rotors,--from Sikorsky.

Another anecdotal story is that when United Technologies decided it didn't want to deal with helicopters anymore, one company that was very interested in picking it up was Textron. In would have been a nice fit and its product line would have blended in well with one of Textron's other companies...Bell helicopter. US Gov't opposed that apparently on antitrust grounds. What they didn't count on was that the only other large helicopter manufacturer, Boeing, wouldn't be interested. However, some of the European companies were very interested. Suddenly, by frowning on the Bell idea, they inadvertently created a situation where a major US defense resource could become a subsidiary of a European defense company, with all the issues that could raise.

So Lockheed essentially became the "White Knight",

IIRC.

[JulieAndrews]

Behave yourself Milo - no one believes that an OEM would design a battlefield helicopter with a tricycle undercarriage. The fact that it has naff-all military orders highlights that. It was a compromise design from start - Master of nothing in particular - although I hear the O&G guys like it so go figure.....

[rotor-rooter]

And just in time, here's the very latest OEM partnership! Any bets that France is also about to announce a H-47 order as well? Airbus has long supported all the other OEM platforms in the Bundeswehr inventory, but got left out of the Sikorsky CH-53 replacement selection, which they now seem to have remedied by teaming with Boeing. You really couldn't make this stuff up.

https://helihub.com/2022/03/28/boeing-and-airbus-sign-strategic-h-47-chinook-partnership/

Boeing and Airbus sign strategic H-47 Chinook partnership

28-Mar-2022 Source: Airbus Helicopters

Boeing [NYSE: BA] and Airbus Helicopters today signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to partner on the H-47 Chinook in support of Germany’s Schwerer Transporthubschrauber (STH) heavy-lift helicopter requirements.

“We are pleased that Airbus Helicopters has joined our team of strategic partners on the H-47 Chinook program for Germany, and together we will provide the strongest offering to the Bundeswehr,” said Mark Cherry, Boeing vice president and general manager, Vertical Lift programs. “The Chinook has been the preferred heavy-lift helicopter in Europe for decades and a cornerstone of all kinds of NATO operations. It is the only heavy-lift capable of providing Germany immediate interoperability with allied nations and is significantly more powerful, versatile and agile than any other aircraft in its class.”

The new partnership between Boeing and Airbus aims at bolstering German defense readiness while supporting German industry and economic growth. The partnership will draw on the strengths and combined expertise of the world’s leading aerospace companies to deliver advanced capability, readiness and innovative solutions as part of the German Chinook industry offering.

“Torbjorn (Turbo) Sjogren, Vice President, Boeing Global Services, International Government & Defence and Wolfgang Schoder, General Manager of Airbus Helicopters in Germany, signing the MoU in Philadelphia”.

“Building on decades of experience as a partner of the Bundeswehr, Airbus Helicopters is excited to join Boeing’s Chinook Germany industry team and to partner with Boeing on delivering maximum operational availability to the Bundeswehr,” said Wolfgang Schoder, General Manager of Airbus Helicopters in Germany. “The H-47 Chinook is a proven, mature program in service with many of our allies, and is the optimum solution for Germany with an excellent price-performance ratio.”

The partnership agreement builds on the existing Chinook partnership team consisting of AERO-Bildung GmbH, CAE Elektronik GmbH, ESG Elektroniksystem- und Logistik-GmbH, Lufthansa Technik, Honeywell Aerospace and Rolls-Royce Deutschland. Boeing is committed to working with German industry on aircraft sustainment, including post-delivery modifications and installations, aircraft maintenance, supply chain services, training and logistical support, as well as the potential for sub-systems Maintenance Repair and Overhaul work.

“The partnership with Airbus Helicopters reaffirms our commitment to strengthen cooperation with German industry,” said Dr. Michael Haidinger, president, Boeing Germany. “With our Chinook offering and together with our German industry partners, we will create more than 500 highly skilled jobs in-country, all in direct support of the Bundeswehr’s heavy-lift mission requirements.”

As chosen by eight NATO nations – Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Canada and the United States of America – the Chinook has proven its unique capabilities and mission readiness in several theatres and has delivered on many other mission requirements, including Air-to-Air refueling, Medevac, troop transport, search and rescue and humanitarian and disaster relief, and special operations. Chinook Air-to-Air refueling operations have spanned the globe and the number of tanker hook ups, behind a variety of tanker aircraft is estimated to be in the 10.000’s. Read more at https://helihub.com/2022/03/28/boeing-and-airbus-sign-strategic-h-47-chinook-partnership/

[JulieAndrews]

Helivert hasnt been 'Leonardo-washed' yet (https://www.helivert.aero/en/about/#:~:text=HeliVert%2C%20a%20joint%20venture%20between,the%20R ussian%20and%20CIS%20markets.)