US Presidential Helicopter Bid (and Result)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been in both aircraft, if they competition is truely fair, the S-92 wins because of it's higher margin of safety. If politics come into play it could go to the EH101. I am keeping my fingers and toes crossed that it will be the S-92, it gets my vote.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The S-92 will win. It is a superior product in VXXX form. The new GE CT7-8C engines at 3000 SHP each will insure that any "power advantage" claimed by the 101 will not be a factor.
Politically, there is no way that Dubya can be seen in a foreign product no matter how much pressure the UK poodle puts on him and how much that Lockheed Martin say its not foreign but 'merican.
Nick, I don't want a tie or a hat or anything if that's ok. I already have my S-92 model anyway!!
HH
Politically, there is no way that Dubya can be seen in a foreign product no matter how much pressure the UK poodle puts on him and how much that Lockheed Martin say its not foreign but 'merican.
Nick, I don't want a tie or a hat or anything if that's ok. I already have my S-92 model anyway!!
HH
The following excerpt is from today's Rotorhub news....it makes this Yank wonder what the definition of a level playing field is on the far side of the salt water divide?
"According to Standart, the "excessively intimate relations" between BAE Systems and the Ministry of Defence in Sofia were one of the reasons for Bulgarian Socialist Party to ask for a vote of no confidence earlier this year.
The first public indications of alleged irregularities came from Air Force supreme commander General Dimitar Georgiev, who said in an interview that the way negotiations were being conducted was "predetermining the winner" regarding the deal.
Later, the press alleged that Defence Minister Nikolai Svinarov had ordered the departmental commission on the evaluation of the modernisation bids to submit to him the final report on December 3, 2002, that same day the commission itself was established. The experts managed in a record-breaking period of time to review the details of the technical offers and presentations of seven firms and recommend the minister to pick BAE Systems as a strategic partner.
Suspicions concerning the participation of Saxe-Coburg in the negotiations on behalf of BAE Systems is not the only international scandal in the dossier of the British company, Standart further said. Corruption charges in the deal for the supply of fighter aircraft for the Czech army in 2002 escalated into an international row in June, 2003. Then it transpired that the US government accused BAE Systems of "corrupt practices" after they received reports from the CIA and from a competing British arms-dealing giant. "
"According to Standart, the "excessively intimate relations" between BAE Systems and the Ministry of Defence in Sofia were one of the reasons for Bulgarian Socialist Party to ask for a vote of no confidence earlier this year.
The first public indications of alleged irregularities came from Air Force supreme commander General Dimitar Georgiev, who said in an interview that the way negotiations were being conducted was "predetermining the winner" regarding the deal.
Later, the press alleged that Defence Minister Nikolai Svinarov had ordered the departmental commission on the evaluation of the modernisation bids to submit to him the final report on December 3, 2002, that same day the commission itself was established. The experts managed in a record-breaking period of time to review the details of the technical offers and presentations of seven firms and recommend the minister to pick BAE Systems as a strategic partner.
Suspicions concerning the participation of Saxe-Coburg in the negotiations on behalf of BAE Systems is not the only international scandal in the dossier of the British company, Standart further said. Corruption charges in the deal for the supply of fighter aircraft for the Czech army in 2002 escalated into an international row in June, 2003. Then it transpired that the US government accused BAE Systems of "corrupt practices" after they received reports from the CIA and from a competing British arms-dealing giant. "
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The December issue or Rotor&Wing has an article that says the VXX decision was to be on Dec. 17th. I have been away, but have not heard of a contract award yet. Anyone have an update? Nick?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R&W is a great magazine, but their publishing cycle is not as fast as the VXX schedule change capability! The latest (final?) schedule, set about 2 months ago, has the decision being formally announced on 28 January 05.
Turkey Signs for Head-of-State Sikorsky S-92
Wednesday December 22, 3:59 pm ET
STRATFORD, Conn., Dec. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Turkish government has signed a contract for a Sikorsky S-92 helicopter to serve head-of-state missions.
Turkey joins Turkmenistan in selecting the S-92 as its head-of-state helicopter. Turkmenistan is buying two aircraft. To date, Sikorsky has orders, including options, for more than 60 S-92 helicopters, making it the most successful commercial launch in the company's history.
Sikorsky has been contracted by the Government of Canada to provide 28 military H-92 derivatives. The S-92 is also becoming popular candidate for head-of-state aircraft, with a version of the H-92 under consideration for the next-generation helicopter to serve the White House mission.
"This further solidifies Turkey's relationship with our company," said Joseph Gigantelli, regional vice president for Sikorsky. "We are pleased with the confidence Turkey has shown in our products." Turkey operates S-70 BLACK HAWK and SEAHAWK helicopters.
The S-92 provides unprecedented levels of safety and reliability, including Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Systems (EGPWS) in all civil aircraft configurations.
It is the first and remains the only helicopter in the world certified by the FAA to FAR Part 29 Transport Rotorcraft, Amendment 47, the latest U.S. safety regulations. The Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) are the European counterpart of the USA-based FAR, with similar safety regulations.
The type certification and safety capabilities place the S-92 firmly ahead of other medium helicopters in the marketplace.
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, based in Stratford, Conn., is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacturing and service. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation (NYSE: UTX - News), of Hartford, Conn.
Wednesday December 22, 3:59 pm ET
STRATFORD, Conn., Dec. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Turkish government has signed a contract for a Sikorsky S-92 helicopter to serve head-of-state missions.
Turkey joins Turkmenistan in selecting the S-92 as its head-of-state helicopter. Turkmenistan is buying two aircraft. To date, Sikorsky has orders, including options, for more than 60 S-92 helicopters, making it the most successful commercial launch in the company's history.
Sikorsky has been contracted by the Government of Canada to provide 28 military H-92 derivatives. The S-92 is also becoming popular candidate for head-of-state aircraft, with a version of the H-92 under consideration for the next-generation helicopter to serve the White House mission.
"This further solidifies Turkey's relationship with our company," said Joseph Gigantelli, regional vice president for Sikorsky. "We are pleased with the confidence Turkey has shown in our products." Turkey operates S-70 BLACK HAWK and SEAHAWK helicopters.
The S-92 provides unprecedented levels of safety and reliability, including Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Systems (EGPWS) in all civil aircraft configurations.
It is the first and remains the only helicopter in the world certified by the FAA to FAR Part 29 Transport Rotorcraft, Amendment 47, the latest U.S. safety regulations. The Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) are the European counterpart of the USA-based FAR, with similar safety regulations.
The type certification and safety capabilities place the S-92 firmly ahead of other medium helicopters in the marketplace.
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, based in Stratford, Conn., is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacturing and service. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation (NYSE: UTX - News), of Hartford, Conn.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was talking to somene at Navair today , interesting that the announcement is being made after the US Stock market closes for the day , though this is probably standard practice.
As the operator of the ORIGINAL commercial S61, my vote goes entirely to Sikorsky.
Superb products. Ideas and concepts that have driven the industry.
N301Y, S/No: 61032, Manufactured December 1960, 40,000+ hours (not the highest time by any count), been an S61L/N/currently an N short. Carson blades next month, making it an S61++.
Having operated Sikorsky, Bell, Aerospatiale, Eurocopter, Agusta, Westland, Kamov products, I'll put my money where my mouth is.
Sikorsky, all the way.
Anything else is second best.
Superb products. Ideas and concepts that have driven the industry.
N301Y, S/No: 61032, Manufactured December 1960, 40,000+ hours (not the highest time by any count), been an S61L/N/currently an N short. Carson blades next month, making it an S61++.
Having operated Sikorsky, Bell, Aerospatiale, Eurocopter, Agusta, Westland, Kamov products, I'll put my money where my mouth is.
Sikorsky, all the way.
Anything else is second best.
Just kidding old chap!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much as I'd like to think that report in the Italian press is accurate (you should see me typing with crossed fingers!) the actual announcement will be made at 5PM next Friday, 28 Jan. Till then, I will not sleep that much!
Sleep tight Nick...our government does some very strange things at times....but this time....cannot see it being anything else but the 92.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless is right Nick, get your rest, you will need it when fending off the attacks from the 101 team after they lose. No contest S92 for sure. By the way Nick, will GW fly in it? What is the delivery time?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The process is typical of a military development, with design of the systems, qualifcation and training in order. Full operational capability of the first aircraft is late 2009, and the full compliment is finished by 2014.
What the?
Well, fancy that?
Treasury and MoD clash over £3bn helicopters
TRACEY BOLES
Source
THE Ministry of Defence is on a collision course with the Treasury after it emerged that Agusta Westland is due to be confirmed as a partner in a £3bn helicopter contract without a competitive tender.
The move will be a bitter disappointment for Eurocopter, a subsidiary of European aerospace giant EADS, which is hoping to enter the UK market.
The Department of Trade and Industry has backed defence secretary Geoff Hoon and procurement minister Lord Bach in designating Agusta a strategic UK supplier whose know-how and jobs need to be preserved. Defence officials have entered talks with the firm about creating an innovative partnering arrangement where both sides sit down and discuss what products are available for the money on the table, to the exclusion of other companies.
Some £3bn was earmarked to spend on helicopters in last year’s new chapter to the defence white paper. Ministers believe Agusta, whose main plant is in Yeovil, should have the work if Britain wants to maintain the ability to design and build helicopters. The contracts would ensure the Yeovil plant’s survival for years.
But the Treasury has already threatened to block the partnering arrangement; it has raised serious questions about whether the approach will offer taxpayers value for money and favours an international competition instead.
The row could escalate into a re-run of the dispute over a £800m contract for Hawk training jets which saw Geoff Hoon forced to issue a ministerial direction against his own department so that he could award the tender to UK firm BAE Systems rather than throw it out to open competition.
Again, the move was a bid to maintain the UK industrial base in line with policy.
The helicopter contracts have not yet been awarded but negotiations have already started. The MoD regards rapidly deployable helicopters as a key capability.
Westland Helicopters’ product range includes EH101, a medium lift helicopter in civil, utility, naval and search and rescue variants; WAH-64 Apache attack helicopter for the Army; and the Lynx.
Formerly owned by both GKN and Italy’s Finnemeccanica, the UK’s GKN sold its stake to the Italian company last year but its industrial footprint remains in the UK.
Eurocopter has been pushing the MoD to take its aircraft and has even offered to invest heavily in the UK.
Treasury and MoD clash over £3bn helicopters
TRACEY BOLES
Source
THE Ministry of Defence is on a collision course with the Treasury after it emerged that Agusta Westland is due to be confirmed as a partner in a £3bn helicopter contract without a competitive tender.
The move will be a bitter disappointment for Eurocopter, a subsidiary of European aerospace giant EADS, which is hoping to enter the UK market.
The Department of Trade and Industry has backed defence secretary Geoff Hoon and procurement minister Lord Bach in designating Agusta a strategic UK supplier whose know-how and jobs need to be preserved. Defence officials have entered talks with the firm about creating an innovative partnering arrangement where both sides sit down and discuss what products are available for the money on the table, to the exclusion of other companies.
Some £3bn was earmarked to spend on helicopters in last year’s new chapter to the defence white paper. Ministers believe Agusta, whose main plant is in Yeovil, should have the work if Britain wants to maintain the ability to design and build helicopters. The contracts would ensure the Yeovil plant’s survival for years.
But the Treasury has already threatened to block the partnering arrangement; it has raised serious questions about whether the approach will offer taxpayers value for money and favours an international competition instead.
The row could escalate into a re-run of the dispute over a £800m contract for Hawk training jets which saw Geoff Hoon forced to issue a ministerial direction against his own department so that he could award the tender to UK firm BAE Systems rather than throw it out to open competition.
Again, the move was a bid to maintain the UK industrial base in line with policy.
The helicopter contracts have not yet been awarded but negotiations have already started. The MoD regards rapidly deployable helicopters as a key capability.
Westland Helicopters’ product range includes EH101, a medium lift helicopter in civil, utility, naval and search and rescue variants; WAH-64 Apache attack helicopter for the Army; and the Lynx.
Formerly owned by both GKN and Italy’s Finnemeccanica, the UK’s GKN sold its stake to the Italian company last year but its industrial footprint remains in the UK.
Eurocopter has been pushing the MoD to take its aircraft and has even offered to invest heavily in the UK.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm...maybe I'm missing something here but wasn't it the Brits who were calling on Dubya to consider buying the EH101? ... and now they are closing off their market to outside bids? Surely it is in the best interests of the taxpayers for an open and honest tendering system that strives for best value for money?
If companies are protected, that is the surest way to choke off inventiveness, innovation and efficiency.
I'm sorry, but this smacks of the discredited nationalisation of industries that occurred decades ago and dismally failed.
But then again, as I said before, maybe I missed something.
If companies are protected, that is the surest way to choke off inventiveness, innovation and efficiency.
I'm sorry, but this smacks of the discredited nationalisation of industries that occurred decades ago and dismally failed.
But then again, as I said before, maybe I missed something.
John Eacott very early in this thread posted an article from FI about this very thing.....very bright fellow this Eacott guy. Maybe we can get a comment from him on the matter now at hand?