US Presidential Helicopter Bid (and Result)
Fallen off the wagon have we, Nick? What happened to your Teetotalling ways?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shays seeking review of rule governing president's helicopter
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays said Monday that he has asked for a federal review of rules that appear to disqualify groups with foreign workers from building and maintaining the presidential helicopter.
He questioned whether the regulations would affect a current bidding contest for the new presidential helicopter by Stratford, Conn.-based Sikorsky Aircraft and a team including Maryland-based Lockheed Martin and British-Italian helicopter consortium AgustaWestland. The contract for the Marine One fleet would be worth about $1.6 billion.
Shays, R-Conn., said he asked the General Accountability Office to examine Department of Defense regulations stipulating that "all persons directly associated" with the manufacture, repair and maintenance of the president's helicopter fleet must meet the "highest Defense Department security clearance requirements."
The clearance requires "all relevant personnel to be citizens of the United States who are not married to non-citizens and who possess unquestionable loyalty to the United States," Shays said.
Steve Ramsey, a vice president at Lockheed Martin, said his company's proposal for the helicopter will meet all security requirements. He said 90 percent of government funding for the US101 aircraft would go to U.S. suppliers and the rest to suppliers in the United Kingdom and Italy, two of America's allies.
"It's going to be an American helicopter," Ramsey said.
The US101 presidential helicopter would be built by Bell Helicopter in Amarillo and Fort Worth, Texas, he said.
A Sikorsky spokesman said the company believes the only way to meet the security requirements is to do all the work on the presidential helicopter in the United States.
"How are you going to build, design, manufacture and maintain the presidential aircraft with foreign content is not a question Sikorsky will have to answer," said Ed Steadham, a company spokesman.
The Pentagon is considering replacing 19 Sikorsky Sea King helicopters, some dating back to 1974, with 23 new US101s made by the Lockheed Martin group. Sikorsky is pitching its VH-92 Super Hawks for the new presidential helicopter.
"Sikorsky makes the only all-American helicopter and it seems to me that, given Department of Defense rules, this should be an important part of the decision-making process," Shays said.
Shays said he was surprised to learn of the rules, which were brought to his attention by industry representatives.
"We want to know the history of the rule," he said.
Shays, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, said the GAO report will not likely be completed until after the contract is awarded in December.
Navy Secretary Gordon England said in April that the Pentagon will make its choice based on the technical merits of the two proposals.
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays said Monday that he has asked for a federal review of rules that appear to disqualify groups with foreign workers from building and maintaining the presidential helicopter.
He questioned whether the regulations would affect a current bidding contest for the new presidential helicopter by Stratford, Conn.-based Sikorsky Aircraft and a team including Maryland-based Lockheed Martin and British-Italian helicopter consortium AgustaWestland. The contract for the Marine One fleet would be worth about $1.6 billion.
Shays, R-Conn., said he asked the General Accountability Office to examine Department of Defense regulations stipulating that "all persons directly associated" with the manufacture, repair and maintenance of the president's helicopter fleet must meet the "highest Defense Department security clearance requirements."
The clearance requires "all relevant personnel to be citizens of the United States who are not married to non-citizens and who possess unquestionable loyalty to the United States," Shays said.
Steve Ramsey, a vice president at Lockheed Martin, said his company's proposal for the helicopter will meet all security requirements. He said 90 percent of government funding for the US101 aircraft would go to U.S. suppliers and the rest to suppliers in the United Kingdom and Italy, two of America's allies.
"It's going to be an American helicopter," Ramsey said.
The US101 presidential helicopter would be built by Bell Helicopter in Amarillo and Fort Worth, Texas, he said.
A Sikorsky spokesman said the company believes the only way to meet the security requirements is to do all the work on the presidential helicopter in the United States.
"How are you going to build, design, manufacture and maintain the presidential aircraft with foreign content is not a question Sikorsky will have to answer," said Ed Steadham, a company spokesman.
The Pentagon is considering replacing 19 Sikorsky Sea King helicopters, some dating back to 1974, with 23 new US101s made by the Lockheed Martin group. Sikorsky is pitching its VH-92 Super Hawks for the new presidential helicopter.
"Sikorsky makes the only all-American helicopter and it seems to me that, given Department of Defense rules, this should be an important part of the decision-making process," Shays said.
Shays said he was surprised to learn of the rules, which were brought to his attention by industry representatives.
"We want to know the history of the rule," he said.
Shays, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, said the GAO report will not likely be completed until after the contract is awarded in December.
Navy Secretary Gordon England said in April that the Pentagon will make its choice based on the technical merits of the two proposals.
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last time I checked....and Nick correct my math here....90% is 10% less than 100%.....and just as one cannot be a little bit pregnant....either you are 100% American or you are not. (by the definition given). And....it wouid seem to me....if 10% of the work goes to the UK an Italy....then it sure ain't American. Sorry, Chaps....as I was told in the Lakers Pub in Redhill.....".... to the Manor, One must be born!"
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless,
It is hard to be 100% of anything, but the numbers keep flying around!
The "US"-101 will always have rotor heads, rotor blades, transmissions and critical components made in Yoevil and Milan, regardless of the funny math that comes out of Lockheed lawyers.
It is my opinion that a watch with the works made in Japan and the band, case and hands made in Chicago is a Japanese watch.
The issue is clearly not understood by Lockheed. It is surely about security and safety of the president. If the rotor blade is made in Italy, can the Italian worker be assured to have "unquestionable loyalty to the United States"? Same for those who cut the gears in the transmissions.
It is hard to be 100% of anything, but the numbers keep flying around!
The "US"-101 will always have rotor heads, rotor blades, transmissions and critical components made in Yoevil and Milan, regardless of the funny math that comes out of Lockheed lawyers.
It is my opinion that a watch with the works made in Japan and the band, case and hands made in Chicago is a Japanese watch.
The issue is clearly not understood by Lockheed. It is surely about security and safety of the president. If the rotor blade is made in Italy, can the Italian worker be assured to have "unquestionable loyalty to the United States"? Same for those who cut the gears in the transmissions.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Harwich
Age: 65
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope anyone manufacturing any part of any aircraft has unquestionable loyalty to the customer. How would Luigi or Mario know this blade or that was intended for any particular ship?
If the rotor blade is made in Italy, can the Italian worker be assured to have "unquestionable loyalty to the United States"?
I'm pretty sure that more than a few U.S. citizen are not very "loyalty" to G. Bush...
Nick can correct me if I am wrong...but I always heard that parts bound for the Presidential aircraft were segregated throughout the process....and when installed on the aircraft were only allowed to go to half life before being removed and then were placed into the normal parts inventory for military aircraft.
In this day and age....we have lots of folks that wish our President harm...like Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, Osama, Zarqawi....Cat Abdul Islam Stevens.....Terry McAulliff.....so no offense to our Italian and British allies intended here.
In this day and age....we have lots of folks that wish our President harm...like Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, Osama, Zarqawi....Cat Abdul Islam Stevens.....Terry McAulliff.....so no offense to our Italian and British allies intended here.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The phycal phinger. Or, who made those parts.
The "US"-101 will always have rotor heads, rotor blades, transmissions and critical components made in Yoevil and Milan, regardless of the funny math that comes out of Lockheed lawyers.
If the rotor blade is made in Italy, can the Italian worker be assured to have "unquestionable loyalty to the United States"? Same for those who cut the gears in the transmissions.
Another point to consider is that many of the high value dynamic components have catastrophic failure modes that were never considered in the Merlin / Cormorant applications. If these parts are not redesigned by Lockheed or Bell they could very well end up on the US 101.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is half life?
You are correct. A number of my friends are flying, and have flown, at HMX-1. The parts are definitely half-lifed, and I am pretty sure they are segregated as well.
The engineers calculate the stresses that a component will see during its’ operational life and then they add in a safety factor to establish how long that part can be used in its’ design application. If they determine that the part is lifed at 5000 hours then the half-life is 2500 hours.
In establishing the life the engineers make a lot of assumptions in that the part is 100% perfect. Manufacturing defects, human error and a whole host of things can result in decreased reliability.
When they calculate the reliability and safety of an operating system one of the things that enters into the calculation is that parts will be replaced before the reliability or safety are effected.
The reliability and safety calculations are arrived at by the manipulation of numbers. To show the operational safety of a system catastrophic failures that would result in loss of life or loss of the system the analyst can show that the safety of the system is 10e9 or better and in some cases as good as10e18.
Because the loss of a blade is catastrophic the failure rate of the blade has to be greater than 10e9 and from a manufacturing and design point of view this is impossible yet this figure is used in the overall calculations. What protects the presidential helicopter is maintenance and to a lesser extent the continuous exchange of parts. However Murphy’s’ law is still waiting to reveal itself.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
I have to be honest I would not qualify SACs delivery of our S-92 this year as a "Slam Dunk". I honestly hope they have better success in the future at meating delivery schedules. As you know Nick I am a big S-92 fan but I guess the hastles I have had to deal with this year with the numerous delivery delays of our S-92 have taken a toll.
I have to be honest I would not qualify SACs delivery of our S-92 this year as a "Slam Dunk". I honestly hope they have better success in the future at meating delivery schedules. As you know Nick I am a big S-92 fan but I guess the hastles I have had to deal with this year with the numerous delivery delays of our S-92 have taken a toll.
Slightly OT, but the Royal Flight used to apply the same half life principal to aircraft used for flying Royalty. We then had the mind boggling application of this "rule" when Chuck had to be transferred from a frigate (he was Guns 2, IIRC) to Eagle for lunch. Although 826NAS was less than 2 years into operating brand new Sea Kings, it was all too difficult to establish which of the fleet met the half life criteria.
End result? Bosun's Chair transfer at sea for the heir to the throne, with the same old bit of cable used to support the chair that had been used for the past 5 years. Not sure that was the best, but it got a bit of a laugh 
Similar dramas when he learnt to fly in a Wessex V, "his" cab was kept especially for him, plus Dayglo panels all over for high vis. Prince Andrew obviously wasn't so important, routine cabs off the Flypro; especially in the Falklands
End result? Bosun's Chair transfer at sea for the heir to the throne, with the same old bit of cable used to support the chair that had been used for the past 5 years. Not sure that was the best, but it got a bit of a laugh
Similar dramas when he learnt to fly in a Wessex V, "his" cab was kept especially for him, plus Dayglo panels all over for high vis. Prince Andrew obviously wasn't so important, routine cabs off the Flypro; especially in the Falklands
Lu,
In all derference to your experience and educational background...but I assure you...I would rather fly around in one of HMX-1's aircraft than some of OLOG's clapped out 212's with max life components.
You can probably rest assured the folks at HMX-1 have anything they want or need to do the work...and have plenty of time to do it...get all the schools....and have to be the very best at what they do....unlike some of the operations I have flown at.
In all derference to your experience and educational background...but I assure you...I would rather fly around in one of HMX-1's aircraft than some of OLOG's clapped out 212's with max life components.
You can probably rest assured the folks at HMX-1 have anything they want or need to do the work...and have plenty of time to do it...get all the schools....and have to be the very best at what they do....unlike some of the operations I have flown at.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JunglyAEO,
I never got around to posting the data, I will when I get back from this latest trip.
I have the comparitive data (the respective brochure charts from each manufacturer) and can email it to you in the meantime, if you wish.
shoot me a PM with your email address and I will send it to you.
I never got around to posting the data, I will when I get back from this latest trip.
I have the comparitive data (the respective brochure charts from each manufacturer) and can email it to you in the meantime, if you wish.
shoot me a PM with your email address and I will send it to you.
What a load of old cobblers....Why must the Good Old US of A constrain itself to such archaic and ponderous precurement strategies. Stuff the Trades Unions, buy the best cab for the job?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hueymeister,
I agree. Imposing protectionist measures implies that the US of A is prepared to buy second best.
As the sectors for Marine 1 are quite short, perhaps payload isn't that important, but size does matter!
g33
I agree. Imposing protectionist measures implies that the US of A is prepared to buy second best.
As the sectors for Marine 1 are quite short, perhaps payload isn't that important, but size does matter!
g33
Look what happened with the HH-65 (Dauphin): must have an American engine (LH-101) to get the contract, but actually maybe it would be better with the engine it was originally designed with (TM Arriel). Years later they are retrofitting it with the latest Arriel in the face of fierce opposition from the pro LH-101 protectionist lobby (so what about the multiple power unit failures; at least it's an American engine!).
The whole concept is bizarre. The UK military fly British aeroplanes, British Helicopters, French helicopters, American helicopters, American aeroplanes, British aeroplanes and don't give a toss where they came from; they just fit the bill (up to a point).
Does anyone seriously believe that there are safety issues with a product's origin (well, a European product)?
The whole concept is bizarre. The UK military fly British aeroplanes, British Helicopters, French helicopters, American helicopters, American aeroplanes, British aeroplanes and don't give a toss where they came from; they just fit the bill (up to a point).
Does anyone seriously believe that there are safety issues with a product's origin (well, a European product)?