US Presidential Helicopter Bid (and Result)

[rjsquirrel]

Navy sees no performance advantage in EH-101

Maybe we could actually post the words used by the selectors, to see if the EH-101 won because it carries more payload or goes farther or is more powerful, or has a 3-engine advantage:

http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/D...4-1d3f821bf124

All quotes are the Navy's comments:

Does the EH-101 outperform the H-92? NO!
"As you know, each team starts with an existing helicopter and significantly alters this design, largely relying only on the airframe. Each team replaces the engine, rotor and drive train to meet the speed and range requirements." "Both teams did a great job of submitting proposals that were compliant with the requirements.."
Translation, nether meets the requirements today, both had to redesign a bunch. Only a fool would think one group then met the needs and the other fell short, so both helicopters performed the SAME, the EH-101 had no performance advantage. The Navy agrees, "Both the Sikorsky and Lockheed teams did an excellent job of addressing the extremely demanding requirements and defining a plan to deliver the capability for the president. Each team could deliver the required product for the president."

The selection was not based on performance, payload, weights, or three engine advantage
"The Lockheed streamlining proposal was selected because it was judged more likely to meet these government requirements on schedule, with lesser risk, and at a lower cost." "Regarding the three engines versus two, three engines obviously burns more gas per hour than two does. Those came into play. How big the gas tanks are. You can lift more because you have more horsepower. So, all the design trade-outs were very, very thoroughly evaluated. Specifically from a safety perspective, we took a look to see if in fact a three-engine platform offered potentially more safety, and we could find no data. And we operate both three-engine and two- engine aircraft that do. So that didn't turn out to be a specific advantage."

The cabin size was the dominant advantage of the EH-101
" But the overall size of the 101 clearly was a factor in terms of their capabilities." "I think Tom and I discussed in advance, the S-92 offers a cabin that's pretty comparable in size to today's VH-3D. The 101 cabin is a larger cabin, so it offers a little more flexibility. That was something that we considered. But both cabins met the requirements, so that wasn't a total discriminating factor."

They chose the LM bid because they said it could be built faster, perhaps because the fuselage was going to continue to be built in Europe, in spite of the LM promise to build it at Bell.
"The Lockheed team has less work to do to accomplish and meet those requirements, and that means they were able to offer a different cost and less -- and more manageable risk to us." "The plan is to build initially the primary fuselage components and the main rotor blades in England. We're going to build the dynamic components, including the bulk of the gear boxes, in Italy."

The Navy ignored the EH-101's five crashes and poor safety record, and will have to design out its weaknesses.
After a reporter's question about the crashes - "We are very aware of the technical issues that are being worked. We have in our plan a very focused activity to further understand and to participate in understanding the redesign activities that are going on. And it is our expectation that we're likely to carry that redesign even further as we continue to mitigate the risk areas in the aircraft."

I looked at Nick's web site once upon a time, where he published the payload and range for the H-92 and the EH-101 and it showed that the two aircraft were equal or even that the H-92 had an advantage, but I can't find that site now, does anyone have the link?

Anyway, it looks like the bigger cabin and the build in Europe were the reasons why the EH-101 was selected, not any EH vs H-92 performance advantage.

[Ian Corrigible]

Nick's site is http://www.s-92heliport.com.

And there's a useful unofficial 101 site at http://www.targetlock.org.uk/eh101/.

I/C

[Heliport]

dmanton300
Of course people would have said it was political if Sikorsky had won - that they only chose the 92 because they wanted the American President to fly in an American helicopter etc.

But, do you seriously believe politics played no part in the decision?
In particular, that the high profile support Blair and Berlusconi gave Bush over the invasion of Iraq didn't play a part?

[dmanton300]

But, do you seriously believe politics played no part in this decision?

Probably to the same or lesser degree than politics played a part in the Cyclone/Cormorant decision . . .

[rjsquirrel]

Thanks IAN, the page is a sub-page of the site you showed (found it back on previous posts on this thread):

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

He puts both payload charts side by side from the manufacturer's own brochures (he even posts the EH-101 brochures for download!)

The H-92 today seems to carry a bit more, and lots more at 200 miles or further.

[Heliport]

I posted this excerpt from the Washington Post a year and a half ago:

"People familiar with the Marine One competition say that until recently, it would have been unthinkable that a foreign-designed helicopter would be a permanent part of the fleet that carries an American president.
................... But that tradition is coming into question because of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's staunch support of the president's Iraq agenda in the face of international opposition.
Mr. Blair already has intervened on behalf of AgustaWestland, sending a letter to Mr. Bush in January that began with a hand-written "Dear George," and ended with "I hope you will look favourably on this proven 'off the shelf' product."

and added:
"A European helicopter on the White House lawn?
Watch this space."

I'm not claiming I forecast who'd win, but it did occur to me that politicians don't leak letters of that sort except by prior agreement - and unless they are either certain or at least very confident they'll be seen to be successful.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I'm not expressing any view on whether I think the best helicopter was chosen, but I did and do wonder if Sikorsky was on a loser this time whatever they offered.

[RDRickster]

I guess I'm one of the naive bunch. It would be foolish for any official in political office to put pressure on the selection process, as it always comes out in the press when you do something you shouldn't. The civilians that were involved in the process we be here long after this president leaves office, and the manpower required to make this decision is absolutely amazing. I'm sure certain views were expressed, but I don't believe the decision was that simple. Have you ever watched the Discovery channel special on the selection of the Joint Strike Fighter? That said, the comparitive slide show put out by Nick's team (some time ago), is VERY interesting...

http://www.s-92heliport.com/Post_files/frame.htm

[Visionary]

Why are we comparing performance of the 92 with the EH101, when we know that the US101 will be markedly different...

Comparing bananas with bananas


Oh and on the subject of fruit, RJSquirrel, do the grapes taste sour to you?

[Si Clik]

Trying to gauge the level of support required of a new aircraft is notoriously difficult as has been shown by C130J, Merlin and Apache. We haven't really even solved the problem with Sea Kings 30 years on. This is not somebodies FAULT but just a fact of the business were in.

Personally the VX1 decision is, I believe, a good piece of news for UK plc and if the Yanks build a better version I am sure (like the GR7) we may just buy it back.

Quantity of aircraft ordered WILL lead to a reduction in costs of unit spares and if the other orders for USAF and USCG go the same way will make the aircraft a truly global product.

Oh and for those of you who always slag this aircraft off - the US101 won this competition against the odds on MERIT.

I rest my case on all previous posts the US NAVY procurement system has proved it.

[Tourist]

Am I just being cynical in thinking that political machinations may have had a hand in the US buying a brit Helo after our long and expensive support of US foreign adventures?

I suspect they, quite rightly, think they can solve bthe problems because they are not a cottage industry

[rjsquirrel]

Gloating would suit you well, visionary, but you forgot that only Italians get to gloat in this game. The Agusta people have already eaten all the fruit grown in England, they just haven't yet bothered to toss out the rinds.

[GLSNightPilot]

DManton300 said

One has to wonder if you'd have said the same thing re politics if the S-92 had won?

Of course. I had no dog in this fight. But that's the way things work. The presidential helicopter will be selected by the president's people, in any country and especially in the US. The folks in uniform might make the wrong political decision, and that can't be permitted. When you put on a uniform, you take an oath to follow orders, and as long as the order isn't illegal, then your choices are to obey or resign, so the Navy personnel can't be blamed for this, no matter which was picked. It's a straight political decision, no matter what anyone might believe.

[Flugplatz]

Aren't we ignoring the fabled "300 lb Gorilla in the living room" here, i.e. the Lockheed Martin Co?

Sure, the designs both stem from Sikorsky and AugustaWestlands, but both of these are distinctly middle ranking when compared to Lockheed, THE worlds biggest defence contractor. A corporate behemoth such as LM isn't going to hold back in any open defence contract competition no matter where the products originate from... I am sure once they adopt that product as 'their' product, then the gloves will come off in going all out to win. I doubt that Sikorsky can match the sheer clout and political and commercial inertia that LM commands in the US defence industry; remember they beat even Boeing in both the F-22 and F-35 competitions.
LM must regard any defence work as their core-competency and they can be expected to fight tooth and nail to preserve their territory. I am sure LM executives will have repeatedly pounded on Sikorsky for the fiscal overruns and delays in the Comanche program when they put their case forward to the influential decision-makers in the VXX competition, - no-one wants to invest in a money pit.

I don't think that this should have been regarded as simply a competition between a European manufacturer and a lone US helicopter maker. I am sure LMs influence reaches a lot farther than Sikorsky's in the US Navy (unless Sikorsky has recently decided to become heavily involved in submarines, sonar etc?)

Really I am just saying that despite appearances of Sikorsky having a great advantage on home turf, they had in many ways a harder road to travel even without overt political influence one way or the other.
I am sure the S92 is a great helicopter and will be a great civilan success since it is finally, in many ways, bridging the gap between passenger airplanes and helicopters in the realms of safety, reliability, technology and all weather capability.

Keep fighting the good fight Nick!


Flug

[nimby]

RJSQUIRREL - you were nearer than you thought. Watch tonights UK news about Wastelands

[Ivor E Tower]

Click here for the BBC story

[mickjoebill]

Just returned from the states where late last week I saw a CNN business report (Lou Dobbs) mocking the decision to put "our" president in a first off the line helicopter made by a company who have never ever made a helicopter before...

The implication was that Lockheed are starting from scratch, no mention made of Augusta!

Having said that, just how different will the Bush chopper be...?

Mickjoebill

[Flight Safety]

I'm finally able to post on this subject. The transcript of the DOD press conference reads in part:

The results were, I believe, worth the effort. We were able to accomplish a great deal of risk reduction during this period of time. We built high-fidelity cabin mock-ups, outlined detailed plans for design tests and production, and there were limited flying quality demonstrations and subsystem evaluations. Both teams then submitted very thorough, high-quality proposals.

As you know, each team starts with an existing helicopter and significantly alters this design, largely relying only on the airframe. Each team replaces the engine, rotor and drive train to meet the speed and range requirements. Each team must install in a helicopter communications systems which would rival the equipment on Air Force One, a 747.

Each team must make modifications to ensure the security of the president and his team.

The extra risk reduction time has allowed each team to fully identify the required program steps, determine the risk, identify mitigation measures and define a schedule that allows us to measure our progress each day.

The requirements of the program are very demanding. The volume of work to be completed in this program is substantial. The extensive modifications to be made to the airframes and the complex equipment to be integrated into either helicopter carry substantial risk for changes in cost or schedule.

However, the need to improve the capability and security level provided to the president is urgent and demands that we move expeditiously.

Both the Sikorsky and Lockheed teams did an excellent job of addressing the extremely demanding requirements and defining a plan to deliver the capability for the president. Each team could deliver the required product for the president. However, the government team must make a best value selection, which controls the risk and cost to the taxpayer, while delivering the capability demanded by the White House mission.

Consistent with government procurement rules, the government acquisition team evaluated the proposals solely on technical, past performance, experience and cost factors. Each industry team submitted a proposal compliant with the solicitation and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. The government team evaluated the proposals solely on the merits, and the only guidance issued -- other than -- to the team was to pick the helicopter providing the best value for the presidential support mission.

I'm here to tell you the government team has completed this task of selecting a team to develop and build the new presidential helicopter. Today we are announcing the selection of Lockheed Martin to begin the system development and demonstration phase of the VXX program.

Reading carefully, it sounds as though the DOD's primary concern was that they get the program up and running and in place by 2009, as they claim a real sense of urgency for this program. At the conference, there was much mention of program "risk reduction" which I took to mean in this context, "We've selected the aircraft and team that we think has the best chance of getting an aircraft into the air on our timeline, that meets all of our technical requirements with the least risk of encountering technical or other developmental difficulties that would cost additional time and money, and stretch out the timeline".

Nick, I was able to watch the announcement, and was very disappointed with the result. However I do understand their reasons for selecting the 101 (in spite of the superb technical merits of the H92) based on their sense of urgency and strong desire to stick to the procurement timeline. They just seem to have taken the conservative approach regarding the timeline.

The following transcript Q&A emphasizes the strength of their timeline focus:

Q: Secretary Young, how does the Navy respond to the latest DOT&E report, which criticizes the acquisition strategy and schedule for the program as being too aggressive and so forth?

MR. YOUNG: I think, as I said, we recognize we have to move expeditiously because in the current world situation, the president finds himself in a helicopter that already we don't have the payload he would like to have, and we don't have the ability to add any additional equipment on the helicopter we have. This new capability will substantially enhance his ability to work while he travels, but also add security features that we can't get on the existing helicopter.

So that urgency drives us to lay out a program and march toward it, and hopefully work off the risks that we've identified through the time we've had in laying out the schedule. We need to work with DOT&E to show them how we plan to test as we go, but we can't let the traditional acquisition process impede the need to meet the president's security requirements now.

So we're working with them; understand, and they understand we have an aggressive program. They've indicated they'll work with us. And we're going to lay a lot of testing on the table as we go because we, as a Navy team, are obviously not going to put the president in a helicopter that hasn't been fully tested. And indeed, both companies' proposals will have them providing company assets to begin flight testing almost immediately. And so we're going to very quickly move to flight testing and getting experience with these helicopters.

Clearly (in my mind anyway) expediency was the driving issue, which made other considerations secondary. I feel certain that had this followed a more traditional procurement policy, the technical merits of the H92 would have been seen more favorably.

I just hope that expediency hasn't caused the Navy to overlook something safety or politically related that will bite them later.

You and many of us know that the S-92 is a world class helicopter, and in spite of this Sikorsky will sell thousands of them.

[ORAC]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sikorsky Aircraft announced Tuesday that it will not protest the Navy's decision to give the $6.1 billion contract for the presidential helicopter fleet to rival Lockheed Martin and its international partners........

Sikorsky also said Congress' investigatory arm, the Government Accountability Office, has been asked to look into the matter, and the company does not want to take action that might delay or conflict with that.

[rjsquirrel]

The AP report also said:

In a statement released Tuesday, Sikorsky said the Navy "confirmed that the Sikorsky offer was fully compliant and, in fact, had yielded the best performing aircraft. The company learned, however, that the competing bidder started with an aircraft — particularly the cabin — that more closely met the unique requirements established by the Navy, and that this was the major factor in the decision."


Flight Safety, you were concerned that maybe expediency had sacrificed safety and performance? You were right!

[BIT]

Squirrel,

not sure about your logic there...

So because the 101 had a bigger cabin and is available sooner it is less safe??

Did you never buy an auto that was a bit bigger than its competitors but had less performance? I sure did I love my SUV.

I heard the navy just didnt like the sikorsky paint job....



Roll on the CSAR selection, I like a good fight.