US Presidential Helicopter Bid (and Result)

[Heliport]

Newsday report

Lawmakers renew fight over presidential helicopter award

February 9, 2005, 8:56 PM EST

WASHINGTON

-- After a tense meeting with Navy Secretary Gordon England on Wednesday, Connecticut lawmakers said they will expand their efforts to overturn the decision denying Sikorsky Aircraft the contract to build the next presidential helicopter fleet.

The members of Congress also said the meeting re-energized them and they will try to divert some of the contract funding to Stratford, Conn.-based Sikorsky for research and development, despite Navy resistance. If that fails, they said they would try to find other money to funnel to Sikorsky so it can better compete for Air Force and Marine helicopter contracts in the future.

The nearly two-hour meeting in the Capitol building was described as a heated _ and at times loud _ interrogation of England and Navy Assistant Secretary John Young.

Two weeks ago, the Navy announced that the winning bidder for the $6.1 billion, 23 helicopter contract was Maryland-based Lockheed Martin and its international partners, including the British-Italian company, AgustaWestland. Lockheed's US101 has several components, including the main transmission and rotor blades, that will be built overseas.

The contract has triggered animated debate over buy-America issues.

"We're all pretty damn angry," said Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., who said he will hold hearings on the matter if congressional investigators find problems with the contract's security considerations.

The Government Accountability Office is investigating whether having foreign employees working on the helicopter program overseas meets the strict security requirements needed for construction of an aircraft that will carry the president.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., has already introduced legislation requiring the Marine One fleet to be entirely American made. And Sens. Christopher J. Dodd and Joe Lieberman, both D-Conn., said they will introduce a similar bill in the Senate.

While they acknowledged they did not change the Navy's decision, they said they will try to get the development money in the contract split between the two companies. The fear, lawmakers said, is that Lockheed will have an edge in future military contracts because of the government-funded research in the Marine One program.

The congressional delegation also took issue with the criteria set by the White House and used by the Navy to make the decision. They said that while the Navy agreed that Sikorsky's VH-92 Super Hawk was a better performing aircraft, the Lockheed helicopter's cabin was bigger and best fit the requirements.

Lockheed's US101 is longer and wider, and has three engines, while the Super Hawk has two engines.

DeLauro said she believes the White House deliberately set the requirements so that the contract could be awarded to the international group as a way to thank Britain and Italy for their support in the Iraq war. British and Italian political leaders lobbied President Bush to choose the Lockheed-AgustaWestland aircraft.

© Associated Press

[RDRickster]

Of course, we saw this coming. If the RFP was to be sole sourced or limited in scope, then they should have specified that the company MUST be American only. They didn't because it would have limited our choices, so Congress needs to STOP. For THIS round, at THIS time, the best aircraft won and things will quickly turn to crap if the law makers get involved. Also, I think it would actually hurt Sikorsky's reputation if this got overturned because it would be viewed as another government bail-out for big business. Absolutely ridiculous!

Motorola is no longer an American company... most of their operations are overseas. I can list hundreds of other companies that follow that model, in a global economy. Outsourcing CAN be beneficial to US companies... it reduces overhead and helps them grow within the US, which also brings jobs. I wish law-makers would be fair and balanced, instead of reactionary and full of $hit.

[Mikester540]

What do you guys think about this?
Lockheed-Martin hiring in Sikorsky's Turf..

Right in Sikorsky's backyard...

[tottigol]

That ought to squelch some of the loud noise the politicians are making.
Seems like a smart move on Lockheed Martin side, they ought to achieve at least two objectives with that move:
1) Hire experienced people
2)Deplete Sikorsky's HR qualified reservoir.

But I am happy 'cause a lot of people and families will be given the chance to retain their jobs.
I bet "All Americn" Sikorsky was ready to let go of a bunch of good folks and since they do not need to keep up their "All American" facade any longer continue in their move to expand subcontracting abroad.

[NickLappos]

tottigol,

You sound like you are bitter! Don't buy any lottery tickets using that intuition you have, your bets are wrong, there is lots of business to keep Sikorsky people fully employed. The company announced it weeks ago, and no layoffs are planned. As I recall, only Yeovill has had layoffs.

If the "All American" team was such a facade, then why did the Navy announce the need to develop the new, improved EH-101 for the President, with new rotors, transmissions and engines, sending at least 1 Billion dollars to Europe.

You gloat in this forum while your tax dollars go to another country's pilots, engineers and scientists! All Bell gets to do is to bolt together the parts they design and make in Europe, and you smile!

Strange world, Bro, especially when they announce that there is no way they will let us sell in their countries.

[Mikester540]

Nick, Remember Congress hasn't had it's way with the VXX Decision yet.

You've got the S-92, S-76D, S-76C++, CH-60S (MH-60S, or whatever it's called), MH-53X, and many other helicopters on the way! And they are all paid proudly with tax money, going to American workers. Tottigol, this kind of outsourcing is not good for anyone in the helicopter industry, don't support it!

The S-92 is already the fastest selling helicopter since launch in Sikorsky history. The helicopter's accolades speak for themselves, plus there hasn't been one crash!

Lockheed can recruit as many people as they want, but sadly, 23 helicopters will not keep food on the table.

[tottigol]

You gloat in this forum while your tax dollars go to another country's pilots, engineers and scientists! All Bell gets to do is to bolt together the parts they design and make in Europe, and you smile!

Well Mr. Lappos, it's actually none of my tax dollars, 'cause I pay my taxes in Euros.
I believe that both European countries involved in the EH-101 development have been long time Sikorsky (and Bell and Boeing........) customers and the EH-101 is actually replacing Sikorsky products in their respective Armed Forces, so how can you say that those Countries are not allowing American products in their own home turf.
You may be right about Sikorsky doing well business wise, all the better for their employees, but weren't there recent papers headlines mentioning 600 Sikorsky jobs at risk somewhere along the S-92 pipeline?
So I take back what I take about the facade and I am just saying that I am happy for those (now prospective ex) S-92 folks that will be able to keep their jobs switching over to Lockheed Martin.

[NickLappos]

tottigol,
The closed markets are England and Italy, they have both professed that they will not compete the newest medium helicopter purchases, out of protectionism for their products.

I do not recall any publicity of lost jobs, Sikorsky had been careful to avoid those words.

Regarding payment of taxes, I foolishly thought that you might be a Bell person. Even so, I am sure the US would take some tax payment from you, if you were so generous as to send it!!

N

[Ian Corrigible]

Interesting article published in the Hartford Courant on February 6th in which a 'former systems integration director' from Sikorsky claims that Sikorsky sewed the seeds of its own defeat in the VXX contest by helping-out Westland with development of the EH101 in the late 80s/early 90s.

Lu - have you been talking to the journos again....??



I/C

[Mikester540]

I read this too:
Sikorsky Helped Engineer it's own defeat
Sikorsky Helped Engineer Its Defeat
February 6, 2005

As Sikorsky Aircraft reflects on its failed, all-American bid to keep the presidential helicopter contract, it may be haunted by events that happened 15 years ago, fully known to only a handful of people.

Between 1987 and 1991, Sikorsky quietly sent high-level engineers and executives to England to help refine and market a machine known as EH101 that the Brits were building with Italian partners. The helicopter effort was struggling, and the globally expansive Sikorsky owned a piece of the British company, Westland.

EH101 eventually made it off the ground. Its latest version, US101, stunned the defense world Jan. 28, when the U.S. Navy picked it as the next Marine One, the flying Oval Office. Sikorsky, holder of that prestigious contract since the Eisenhower administration, had touted its made-in-America entrant.

Sikorsky's aid to the company that beat it out was hardly isolated. The Stratford-based division of United Technologies Corp. had, in fact, nurtured Westland Helicopters for four decades before 1987. Sikorsky sent Westland sensitive technology, licensed it to build Sikorsky helicopters by the hundreds and, in 1986, bailed out the nearly bankrupt Westland in a deal that almost toppled Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

But Sikorsky's work on the EH101 took it beyond finance and manufacturing technology, into hands-on development of a helicopter that Sikorsky was not even a partner in building. One ranking engineer, Sikorsky's director of systems integration, was assigned in May 1987 to the EH101 in Yeovil, England - a posting with no certain end-date.

He set up a testing program to identify problems in bringing the EH101's many systems together. He stayed four years, during which he called in experts from Stratford as needed. Separately, Sikorsky executives coached Westland in crafting marketing plans for the EH101.

There is no public record of Sikorsky's EH101 involvement, but the former managers confirmed and described their roles.

"I asked some of Sikorsky's key people, and I mean super-key people, to come over and make suggestions," said the systems integration director, now retired and living in northwest Connecticut, who asked that his name not be used.

Sikorsky had also licensed manufacturing to Agusta, the Italian partner in EH101, as part of its worldwide reach. Agusta, like Westland, gained valuable experience, and built on it.

"We create our competitor and the competitor comes back to eat our business," said longtime aerospace industry analyst Mark Bobbi.

Aside from the irony, the story makes it clear that the industry pioneered by Russian-born Igor Sikorsky is irreversibly, undeniably, international. The linked histories of helicopter companies around the world show that Sikorsky's made-in-U.S.A. campaign - and especially the nationalist moaning on the floors of Congress and Sikorsky's plant - is all the more out of place.

Sikorsky's entrant in the Marine One competition, VH-92, was a variation on the S-92, a whirlybird that not only has parts made overseas, but is a triumph of global cooperation. The S-92's nose section and cockpit were made in Taiwan, cabin interior in Spain, cabin structure in Japan and crucial tail parts in China.

"I don't think there's a single defense end-product that's made entirely in America," said Gordon Adams, a professor at George Washington University and former Clinton administration budget official responsible for international affairs.

Forcing an all-American creation, he said, "is just not credible as a business decision."

UTC and its chief executive, George David, pushed the all-American angle on the grounds that it was needed to meet the phenomenal security and safety requirements of Marine One - rather than as part of the nationalist, protectionist movement that David correctly, ardently opposes. David has been for years one of the nation's leaders in espousing global manufacturing.

But, politics being politics, the company came close to crossing the nationalist line if it didn't do so, and made little effort to rein in supporters who did.

In a twist on the irony, Sikorsky's involvement with overseas manufacturers stemmed partly from foreign nations' zeal to protect their homegrown industries. If you want to sell equipment here, they argued, make it over here - or better yet, let us make it for you.

In the case of Westland, the partnership started in 1947, when the industry was in its childhood. By 1967, the companies celebrated 20 years of friendship at a Stratford ceremony during which the Westland CEO called Sikorsky a key factor in Westland's European prominence. By then, Westland had built some 900 Sikorsky flying machines, including the S-61 - a variant of which is Marine One today.

In 1986, Sikorsky's purchase of 14.9 percent of a reeling Westland came amid howls in Great Britain about the loss of European self-direction in aerospace. Thatcher's defense secretary quit amid the hubbub, but as part of the deal, Westland gained more outsourced work and U.S. State Department approvals to receive sensitive Sikorsky Black Hawk secrets. It was during the Black Hawk exchange that the EH101 was developed, in the same Yeovil, England, complex.

Harry Gray, former UTC chairman and chief executive, recalls that the U.S. Defense Department wanted the Black Hawk technology transfer to happen, as it had earlier, with transfer of the F-16 fighter jet to Belgium.

"At that time that was the goal of the Department of Defense, to get common armaments," Gray said.

Gray, at 85, is still close enough to Sikorsky that he took a spin in the VH-92 two months ago in Florida, actually piloting it himself for 18 minutes. He raved about it and about Sikorsky's pre-eminence. In the broad sweep of development leading up to the EH101, Gray said, "The parent technology came out of Sikorsky."

Westland and Agusta may have learned how to make large helicopters from the Sikorsky model, but the EH101 design was theirs, with a prototype finished by 1987.

"They're a good house. I would never denigrate Westland engineering," said the systems integration director.

"Westland Helicopters has a pretty glorious history on its own," said analyst Richard Aboulafia.

The development challenge with the 101 was not poor engineering, but the melding of Italian and British cultures, with no one in charge of making sure the navigation, weapons, airframe and flight systems all came together smoothly.

By 1991 Agusta and Westland brought in a private U.S company to manage systems integration. It was IBM, the same company that had learned helicoptering in the 1970s, on the SH60B Seahawk, the Navy version of the Black Hawk. As it happened, the same Sikorsky manager dispatched to Yeovil had been the engineering manager overseeing the Seahawk.

And in yet another global tie-in, the current owner of that IBM business is Lockheed Martin, based in Owego, N.Y. - U.S. partner in the US101, the American version.

Sikorsky sold its stake in Westland in 1994 at a large profit.

Relations between Sikorsky and AgustaWestland, as the joint company is now known, grew strained only recently, industry analyst David Lawrence of Fairfield said, "when they decided to push the EH101 in the States."

Asked to comment on the long ties between the companies, Sikorsky spokesman Ed Steadham called it "the nature of the industry."

"At various times you have corporate entities that compete like crazy on one project, and then they cooperate," he said."

Added UTC spokesman Peter Murphy: "A lot has changed over these 10 years."

If anything, the global helicopter industry is all the more linked. Maybe from now on the nationalist charade will end, now that the most security-sensitive vehicle on Earth will have crucial parts - not to mention its design - from outside the homeland.

We expect protectionism from our elected officials, and they don't disappoint. On Tuesday, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3rd District, introduced a bill in the U.S. House that would force the Navy to buy Marine One copters "that are wholly manufactured in the United States," effective January 2005.

The bill will die in the House chamber.

Make no mistake, we in Connecticut shouldn't be glad Sikorsky lost. It would be a shame, and it's worth fighting, if US101 won the bid as a payback to Great Britain and Italy for their support in Iraq.

As Sikorsky sells the military version of the S-92, it will be interesting to see whether the company uses its foreign suppliers for its all-American team.

Political efforts to push for an all-American Marine One may have even hurt Sikorsky's chances, analyst Aboulafia said, as the Pentagon felt pressure to prove to allies that the nationalist pressure did not dictate politics.

"It's a global world and Sikorsky had been living it until it was `all-American,'" said Aboulafia, of the Teal Group in Virginia. "This is a company founded by a man who trained in czarist Russia and Paris. So in a sense, this was a global company from day one."

E-mail: [email protected]

[BIT]

sorry guys but...., the S92 lost. The USN has spoken....

I'm sure the lappos/rjsquirrel/zuckerman combine will go on about this until they tap their keyboards into silicone heaven. The future- Come on guys; what are your thoughts on the CSAR program with regards 101 vs 92? Maybe a new thread is required.....

Lets see how what other nations select as their VIP heli transport. Surely the USA doesnt have a monopoly on being right??

You're not obligated to win. You're obligated to keep trying to do the best you can every day.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Copter contract causes dust-up in Senate


By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


A stealthy move by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, on the Senate floor yesterday may have stolen the contract for Marine One, the president's helicopter, from Lockheed Martin Corp. and two fellow Democrats, New York Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles E. Schumer.

The Senate, without much debate and after a perfunctory voice vote, passed Mr. Dodd's amendment that bars companies wishing to build Marine One from doing business with companies from countries that are state sponsors of terrorism.

That could threaten the recently awarded contract for Marine One, which the Navy gave to a U.S.-European partnership of Lockheed Martin, the nation's largest defense contractor, and Agusta Westland.


Connecticut is home to the losing bidder, Sikorsky Aircraft, while Lockheed Martin had planned to build the helicopter at a plant in New York. Mr. Dodd charged that Agusta Westland is considering marketing to Iran and said that should concern Americans.
"There are few more sensitive and more important national security concerns than the safe transport of our nation's chief executive," Mr. Dodd said. "This measure can help protect our national security by ensuring that America's adversaries don't gain access to our nation's critically important technology."
Mr. Dodd said a better option is to keep the contract with "the all-American-made Sikorsky helicopter."

The amendment is part of the Senate's foreign affairs authorization bill and has to pass a number of legislative hurdles to take effect. Still, it was a legislative coup for Mr. Dodd, though it brought the Senate to a halt yesterday afternoon as both parties' leaders rushed to the floor to try to sort out the matter.

The contract with Lockheed Martin, which is based in Bethesda, would mean hundreds of jobs for the company's Oswego plant in New York, and Mr. Schumer was visibly angry as he announced that he would personally block all Senate business until the situation was resolved. "An amendment just passed without notice to any of us that involves a dispute about a helicopter between New York and Connecticut," he said. "I didn't know of that amendment, neither did Senator Clinton, neither did anybody else."

But a Senate source said Mr. Schumer had been on the floor the entire time Mr. Dodd was speaking about his amendment. Mr. Schumer later exchanged words with Mr. Dodd, then walked to a corner phone of the chamber to make calls. Mrs. Clinton later came to the floor, walked by Mr. Dodd's desk, and angrily wagged her finger at him.

Both New Yorkers then pleaded with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, and Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, to help them. Mr. Schumer could be heard telling the leaders Mr. Dodd was trampling the "regular order" procedures of the Senate, which usually require that amendments passed by voice are cleared with every office.

The $6.1 billion contract was awarded in January. It covers 23 helicopters, with the first to be delivered in 2009. Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky had battled fiercely for the contract to build Marine One, the designation given to helicopters used to transport presidents since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

[ORAC]

WASHINGTON (AP) - A contract for a presidential helicopter fleet prompted a heated turf fight on the Senate floor Wednesday, stalling a major spending bill in what one lawmaker called ``a sneak attack'' by a fellow Democrat.

The surprise move by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., sent New York Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer scrambling to defend a contract that will bring hundreds of defense jobs to upstate Owego, N.Y., to build the next Marine One helicopter.

Dodd objects to the Navy awarding the $6.1 billion, 23-helicopter contract to Maryland-based Lockheed Martin and its international partners instead of Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft, which has manufactured the president's helicopter fleet since 1957........

Dodd's measure would prohibit any European companies producing components of the US101 helicopter from doing business with terrorist-sponsoring states. Lockheed's international partners include the British-Italian company, AgustaWestland. Dodd's amendment might have subjected AgustaWestland to a bureaucratic nightmare of export paperwork for producing some of the US101's components......

After Dodd's legislative maneuver succeeded, Clinton and Schumer used parliamentary rules to block the entire spending measure..... The bill's prospects were uncertain even before the fight between New York and Connecticut, and neither side was willing to budge Wednesday night......

Even after the bill was shelved, the dispute brought Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner to the floor to defend the helicopter contract and criticize Dodd.

``I can assure you we will employ every parliamentary device available to us to see that this matter is rectified because this was not done in a manner consistent with what we normally do around here,'' said Warner, R-Va.

[IFMU]

National Defense Magazine -- September 2005
Safety Upgrades Could Delay New Presidential Helicopter
By Frank Colucci
The helicopter chosen to carry the nation's chief executive meets civil aviation safety requirements, but it will require modifications to satisfy more stringent military specifications, asserted officials at the Navy program office managing the effort.

Competition for the presidential helicopter replacement was heated. The Lockheed Martin/Agusta Westland US101, now called VH-71A, beat out a version of the Sikorsky S-92. Lockheed Martin's team includes AgustaWestland (aircraft design), Bell Helicopter (aircraft assembly) and General Electric (engines).

The US101 had been certified to civil standards before the current requirements-including overall crashworthiness, resistance to bird strikes and turbine burst protection-were introduced.

According to the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), certification requirements for new Navy and Marine aircraft are generally tougher than even the most modern civil safety standards. NAVAIR is a self-certifying agency and officials say they are now formulating criteria that should test the US101 to the agency's current standards.

Even though the US101 was chosen to meet an accelerated delivery schedule, testing to these criteria can take months to years, mentioned helicopter industry sources.

Citing security concerns, NAVAIR has adopted a policy of not publicly discussing vulnerabilities of the aircraft. However, how much "beefing-up" the US101 structure needs will determine the ultimate cost and risk of a program on a tight schedule.

NAVAIR accelerated the expected delivery of the initial four presidential helicopters from fiscal year 2013 to 2009, and full operational capability with 23 helicopters is slated for 2014. To meet this rushed schedule, Lockheed Martin and the Navy expect that the first variant of the VH-71A largely will be an off-the-shelf EH101 with upgraded engines and protective equipment, such as missile warning detectors and infrared countermeasures.

Future improvements will include more efficient main rotor blades, a revised tail rotor, more powerful engines, an up-rated transmission and a second cabin display. NAVAIR also expects the upgraded airframe to achieve a 10,000-hour service life, matching today's VH-60N presidential helicopter.

Once in service with Marine Squadron HMX-1, the new helicopter must give the president safe and timely transportation with "office-in-the-sky" capability. "That's a flying communications center, not just a taxi cab," explained NAVAIR program manager Doug Isleib. "The VIPs on board must have connectivity and command capability anywhere we take them."

Yet despite the emphasis on safety and high-tech systems, NAVAIR based 60 percent of the US101's technical score on helicopter cabin volume, according to the Congressional Research Service. The manufacturer's brochures show the US101 cabin to be 1 foot, 5 inches wider and 3 feet longer than the basic S-92. Sikorsky lengthened the S-92.

The wider EH101 was designed to withstand 15 g's (gravity forces) vertical impacts without major cabin deformation, according to Agusta Westland.

However, current standards specify higher crash loads with vertical, longitudinal, and lateral components.
Stephen Moss, president of Agusta Westland, insists the basic EH101 designed in the early 1980s meets all current safety criteria. Pat Deward, Lockheed Martin's US101 program manager, says the aircraft is close to modern requirements, and adds, "We'll do exactly what NAVAIR wants us to do."

Deward said the US101 will be an all-aluminum airframe. The basic EH101 structure is currently constructed with approximately 15 percent composite materials, but Lockheed Martin now plans to substitute aluminum to address crashworthiness and other requirements.

One former helicopter industry executive speculates that the redesign will require heavier frames throughout the US101 structure, and a new round of ground testing before the first presidential helicopter flies. Based on the helicopter industry's track record, that process could take three years or more.

The urgency attached to the program made the schedule a key concern for NAVAIR. Lockheed Martin and Agusta Westland delivered the sophisticated EH101 anti-submarine warfare helicopter to the British Royal Navy five years late and 1.16 billion British pounds over budget, according to a U.K. national audit office report.

Ironically, the Sikorsky S-92 that failed to win the contract already features pioneering safety innovations now required of all new rotorcraft. In 2002, it became the first helicopter civil certified under new federal airworthiness regulations.

By comparison, the EH101 was certified in 1994, when fewer regulations were in effect.
The National Aeronautics Association recognized the S-92 for its safety, performance, and efficiency with its 2002 Collier Trophy. "It was the innovations among the safety aspects that made it stand out among the other candidates," NAA vice chairman Skip Ringo recalled.

Lockheed maintains that changes to the EH101 will not delay the new Marine One. Stephen Ramsey, executive vice president for helicopter systems at Lockheed Martin, is quick to point out that the US101 now gives the U.S. government a mature air vehicle, already proven in service with the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, Italian Navy, Canadian Forces and Portuguese Air Force.

But some safety issues remain unresolved. A UK Merlin crash in March 2004 grounded the British and Canadian fleets and focused attention on cracks in the tail rotor hub. Lockheed Martin says it is working with the U.K. Ministry of Defense fixing the tail rotor problem. As of April 2005, Canadian maintenance officers could not explain the accelerated wear in other flight-critical components.

Again, to meet the aggressive schedule, Lockheed Martin officials said Agusta Westland will build four US101 pilot production aircraft in Yeovil, in the United Kingdom. Rotor blades, transmissions and other critical parts will be made in Italy and Britain.

Bell helicopter will assemble the fifth and subsequent aircraft in Amarillo, Texas. Presidential communications and protection systems will be integrated at the Lockheed Martin facilities in Owego, N.Y.

NAVAIR will not comment on the security risks inherent in manufacturing US101 components offshore, but says only the plan is in compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulations and the Procurement Integrity Act.

Navy officials say plans are underway to build a government-owned, contractor-operated presidential helicopter facility at Patuxent River, Md., so the aircraft need never be returned to an overseas factory for overhaul or modification.

The mixed fleet of VH-3D and VH-60N helicopters that currently supports the presidential mission includes 30-year old aircraft that were designed in the 1960s.

Lockheed Martin was awarded a $1.7 billion contract for the VH-71A's system development and demonstration phase. Engine tests on a contractor vehicle began in December 2004. Additional evaluations will begin at Owego with the first test aircraft, which arrived in June. Flight tests will transition to Patuxent River in 2006.

The program, worth nearly $6 billion, covers 23 VH-71 operational aircraft and three test aircraft at an expected cost of approximately $82 million per aircraft (Increment One) and approximately $110 million per aircraft in the final configuration. The VH-71A carries components provided by more than 200 suppliers in 41 states.

[SASless]

"Ironically, the Sikorsky S-92 that failed to win the contract already features pioneering safety innovations now required of all new rotorcraft. In 2002, it became the first helicopter civil certified under new federal airworthiness regulations. "

Apples to Apples? 60% of the score went to cabin volume alone?

Better get the FBI to looking into that....might be some Navair guys leaving the Government for some very cozy jobs in the near future.

[rjsquirrel]

SASless,
Even more interesting is that the S-92 was rated far superior in performance as well as safety. It went faster, farther and carried more, and hovered at higher altitudes. The S-92 cabin size was deemed entirely compliant, but inferior to the wider 101 cabin.

The supposed reason why the 101 was selected was that its schedule was judged to be 5 months better than the S-92, out of 55 months to deliver after contract signing. The head of the Navy selection committee said that the changes in the 101's fuselage to strengthen it to modern safety standards were minor strengthening (a direct quote). What he didn't say was that it would require changing the entire fuselage, every frame, because the 8 G's of forward crash strength had to be increased to 20 G's to meet the criteria that the S-92 had all along. 250% is seldom minor, unless you are a Navy engineer.

Now we see that the 101's schedule is to be delayed "months to years" because of these changes!

The inside word is that the program was a gift from Bush to Burlesconi and Blair for their support in Iraq. Note that EVERY Navy official who participated in the selection received a promotion these last several months, many directly from the White House.

[SASless]

As I said.....but having been involved in the investigation into some "rule bending" during the Cruise Missle development and testing....when the Boss says make it happen....it happens.

However, that being said.....if later on, the very same folks find themselves in cozy jobs as a direct result of that action....that could be seen as a violation of the law. As long as they take the increased retirement pay and extra pay while on active duty or working for the Government....then they are cool.

There is a reason it is called the Military Industrial Complex.....whose conduct prompted Eisenhower to warn us about it.

[Visionary]

RJS,

There was me thinking promotion was on merit, must start climbing inside a few more ar$$es and working on my brown nose.

You need to move somewhere were the grapes are not so sour!

[Ian Corrigible]

I stand to be corrected, but to me the National Defense article is a non-story. Yes, the EH101 will need substantial changes to meet the VH-71A Kestrel role, but that's what the SDD contract was for, and the S-92 would presumably have needed a similar level of development for the very specialized VXX role.

I have no financial interest in the VH-71 program, so it's just a personal view !

I/C

[Thomas coupling]

I understand this issue might come across as a major: "event horizon" by those directly/indirectly involved in the helicopter industry.

But this is just another example of political ping pong between nations, designed to encourage a collaborative front.

It could be :

cars
landing slots
oil quotas
wheat quotas
intelligence
military hardware


Look at the big picture, a cab built by 'foreigners' for the president is a big gesture by the yanks for very little hardship, I would suggest.

IF it is a thank you for IRAQ, then perhaps we should all be grateful - compare airframes to body counts, because there'd be a lot more dead yanks out there if the brits/italians weren't there.

There'll be lots more like this...JSF / cruise missile etc.....