ARH yet another substandard Bell performance?
Thread Starter
ARH yet another substandard Bell performance?
Or should we call this the new Bell standard?
"ARH: Bolton issues Show Cause letter; other options being studied
The US Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC) for the ARH was held Tuesday and chaired by Claude Bolton, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology/Army Acquisition Executive. As a result, Bolton issued a Show Cause letter to Bell stating that the Army had no confidence in Bell's ability to execute the ARH program.
Expect a T4C (termination for convenience) soon. This leaves the future of the program in doubt and gives weight to previous reports in rotorhub.com that a OH-58D modernisation program using a different sensor system is being considered or that the Army may extend the EC145 LUH program to include an armed scout version."
"ARH: Bolton issues Show Cause letter; other options being studied
The US Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC) for the ARH was held Tuesday and chaired by Claude Bolton, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology/Army Acquisition Executive. As a result, Bolton issued a Show Cause letter to Bell stating that the Army had no confidence in Bell's ability to execute the ARH program.
Expect a T4C (termination for convenience) soon. This leaves the future of the program in doubt and gives weight to previous reports in rotorhub.com that a OH-58D modernisation program using a different sensor system is being considered or that the Army may extend the EC145 LUH program to include an armed scout version."
Go to war in a EC-145? Is that not one of the objections posed by some of us when this program was being floated as being for domestic National Guard use only?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I told you this would happen
Everyone said the UH72 would be "domestic only." Fat chance, says I. Now the first one hasn't been on the block but about a month and already they are talking about using it in combat. If I was a betting man, I would lay odds you will see UH72's "in theater" within two years from now, doing something, I don't know what, but something.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure what the objection of going to war in a non US Vehicle. Army have been flying Sherpas ( built in Belfast ) for years , Air force will probably buy an Italian medium lift aicraft ( Spartan ) . Can the UH145 not be sufficiently armoured for a combat role ?. Or is it a matter of pride ?.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember that the OH-58 is just an extended Jet Ranger. It was not made just for the Army initialy. The first OH type helicopter Bell proposed did not make the cut. The ARH is another attempt to reengineer the same platform (OH-58) the Army replacing. The UH145 would have to be modified for the mission, however for an off the shelf helicopter it has promise.
Thread Starter
"The UH145 would have to be modified for the mission, however for an off the shelf helicopter it has promise."
Apparently so much more than Bell's little ARH given the news above.
However that was not the point of the thread, it was Bell producing yet another abysmal product in a long string of commercial/pseudo-military slapstick performers.
If I remember correctly the ARH was to be pretty much based on an off-the-shelf airframe, then the "417" idea was born and we have all seen where that one is headed during last HAI show.
What's left for Bell?
Apparently so much more than Bell's little ARH given the news above.
However that was not the point of the thread, it was Bell producing yet another abysmal product in a long string of commercial/pseudo-military slapstick performers.
If I remember correctly the ARH was to be pretty much based on an off-the-shelf airframe, then the "417" idea was born and we have all seen where that one is headed during last HAI show.
What's left for Bell?
They have taken the 206A and the UH-1 airframes about as far as they can go but I think the 47-J just scratched the surface of stretching the 47 airframe. I expect a "NEW" Bell 47-K any day now.
It is almost as if 30+ years ago the US helicopter industry came out of Vietnam and gave up advancing technology.
Standing back and looking at what has happened the only real advances by what were then the major players [regardless of whether they worked out] were the development of twin-engine airframes which are arguably most suitable for the European market. The 427/429 from Bell and the 900 from McDonnell [and perhaps the S-76].
Looking at the 'USA preferred' singles they are generally little more than a range of recycles of the Vietnam era hardware. The 206, Huey and the MD500 in a number of variations. Culminating in the debacle of the 210 then the recent loss of the 417.
Overall it is the home market not exports that have been ignored and potentially let down by the US big players. It has probably only been superb customer support that kept Bell up there in the commercial market. With the pressure of a war to spring a few gaps in the infrastructure now even the military illusion is looking shaky in the shape of the ARH.
Meanwhile the Europeans have wandered in and become accepted in a small way so that when, decades down the road, they played for the big game there was little real opposition to their presence in principle. After all 'American Eurocopter' was a name beginning in the A word. Only recently was the 30 years old AStar actually made locally in its primary market. Not quite sure how Agusta got away with it though... unless everyone got to thinking it was made in Augusta GA!
The 'all new' Messerscmitt BO105, 117 and 'Augusta' 109s paved the way ... followed by their decendants to make their mark in a commercial market, there followed local production and employment that was clearly promising to outstrip [Canadian] Bell and [Dutch] MD even before East European Sikorsky reared its head.
Probably accidentally, someone in Europe has played what turns out to have been a superb end game.
Standing back and looking at what has happened the only real advances by what were then the major players [regardless of whether they worked out] were the development of twin-engine airframes which are arguably most suitable for the European market. The 427/429 from Bell and the 900 from McDonnell [and perhaps the S-76].
Looking at the 'USA preferred' singles they are generally little more than a range of recycles of the Vietnam era hardware. The 206, Huey and the MD500 in a number of variations. Culminating in the debacle of the 210 then the recent loss of the 417.
Overall it is the home market not exports that have been ignored and potentially let down by the US big players. It has probably only been superb customer support that kept Bell up there in the commercial market. With the pressure of a war to spring a few gaps in the infrastructure now even the military illusion is looking shaky in the shape of the ARH.
Meanwhile the Europeans have wandered in and become accepted in a small way so that when, decades down the road, they played for the big game there was little real opposition to their presence in principle. After all 'American Eurocopter' was a name beginning in the A word. Only recently was the 30 years old AStar actually made locally in its primary market. Not quite sure how Agusta got away with it though... unless everyone got to thinking it was made in Augusta GA!
The 'all new' Messerscmitt BO105, 117 and 'Augusta' 109s paved the way ... followed by their decendants to make their mark in a commercial market, there followed local production and employment that was clearly promising to outstrip [Canadian] Bell and [Dutch] MD even before East European Sikorsky reared its head.
Probably accidentally, someone in Europe has played what turns out to have been a superb end game.
The issue about the "civilian" aircraft flying in combat is a serious one. The success of the Blackhawk and AH-64 and to some extent the CH-47 and CH-53 has to do with the design criteria set forth for crash worthiness and ballistic tolerance of the aircraft. Something that is not a part of the civvie requirements.
Given the choice of flying into a hot LZ in either a Huey or a Blackhawk....the Blackhawk wins hands down.
The Huey is 50's technology and the Blackhawk is '70's technology which was based upon wartime experience in Vietnam.
Given the choice of flying into a hot LZ in either a Huey or a Blackhawk....the Blackhawk wins hands down.
The Huey is 50's technology and the Blackhawk is '70's technology which was based upon wartime experience in Vietnam.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not the 500 damn it! It's crashworthy and the perfect scout helicopter, small, fast, nimble, somewhat quiet, great visibility, decent payload for its size. The EC-145 and maybe even the 407 are too much helicopter to be down low working with the troops 50 feet off the roof tops, it would be a suicide mission. You would think with modern technology the weight of all the computer **** from the 58D could be minimized to that of a desktop PC, plenty of room to spare for a minigun and rocket pods. What do I know though, I think I need more beer, thats what.
MP
Your list is nearly all military, I thought I had said home market and commercial enough times! More needed it seems. I mentioned the S76. The others are mainly beyond economic commercial use and most are the twins I was mentioning.
I am not saying I am right of course - and clearly you disagree - but its a perspective.
Your list is nearly all military, I thought I had said home market and commercial enough times! More needed it seems. I mentioned the S76. The others are mainly beyond economic commercial use and most are the twins I was mentioning.
I am not saying I am right of course - and clearly you disagree - but its a perspective.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere, Over the Rainbow
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone that thinks the 206 series isn't suited for combat, wait until you see a 58 come back with more holes in it than a cabbage sifter. Those little things are dourable as hell, and have made it home with damage that would have brought down a "combat designed" blackhawk. The Kiowa guys I work with said if they could get bring the avionics and computer crap down to 21st century size like Verbatim said, and throw the sensor on the nose, it'd be pretty much be what they want. Oh, and a bigger cockpit.
I doubt the EC145 would take the job. I believe the contract stated a single? Its also a bit larger than a 58/ARH/MH-6. If they decide to dump the ARH, the only other real option I see would be an MH-6 derivative, which is also an extension of a 1950s design. Nothing wrong with it either, though.
-Mike
I doubt the EC145 would take the job. I believe the contract stated a single? Its also a bit larger than a 58/ARH/MH-6. If they decide to dump the ARH, the only other real option I see would be an MH-6 derivative, which is also an extension of a 1950s design. Nothing wrong with it either, though.
-Mike
They have taken the 206A and the UH-1 airframes about as far as they can go but I think the 47-J just scratched the surface of stretching the 47 airframe. I expect a "NEW" Bell 47-K any day now
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KPHL
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PANews,
Your first paragraph: "It is almost as if 30+ years ago the US helicopter industry came out of Vietnam and gave up advancing technology."
Now read my list again and determine whether your above statement is correct.
If you think it is...oh well, we disagree.
Your first paragraph: "It is almost as if 30+ years ago the US helicopter industry came out of Vietnam and gave up advancing technology."
Now read my list again and determine whether your above statement is correct.
If you think it is...oh well, we disagree.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The H-6/MD500 are such a great helicopters, their design although old seems like such incredible insight was put into maintenance, reconfigurability, survivability, and simplicity. I don't know the status of MD Helicopters right now but I wouldn't be surprised if they did not get the contract only because of their recent struggles.
Rotorrookie..
Why change it? Because Bell is losing it's customer base. Eurocopter outsells Bell world wide. Several recent competitions haven't even allowed Bell to be considered, Bell 210 for example. Now the ARH is going to be taken back. The 417 program has just been cancelled. The Indian military recently dis-allowed Bell products from competition for lack of altitude performance. The EC-120 has totally taken the 206B market away from Bell. Two years ago Bell only delivered 7 new 206B-III's. Are you starting to see a trend here?
Why change it? Because Bell is losing it's customer base. Eurocopter outsells Bell world wide. Several recent competitions haven't even allowed Bell to be considered, Bell 210 for example. Now the ARH is going to be taken back. The 417 program has just been cancelled. The Indian military recently dis-allowed Bell products from competition for lack of altitude performance. The EC-120 has totally taken the 206B market away from Bell. Two years ago Bell only delivered 7 new 206B-III's. Are you starting to see a trend here?
MP
I think our 'argument' is a fine line. Almost everything we write on a forum can be pulled to pieces because we have not had enough time to consider the nuances of every word. Perhaps it was an over simplification of the situation on my part, but even some of those in your list have been sniped at in the past for being old and tired. But this is really a Bell item even if the others are being mentioned. The MD500 is fine but only really if it were selling well alongside the newer products from the same company, the trouble is that no newer products were ever developed. And Bell is similar [pending the 429].
If only I was the only one here blasting Bell for sleeping on duty!!
I think our 'argument' is a fine line. Almost everything we write on a forum can be pulled to pieces because we have not had enough time to consider the nuances of every word. Perhaps it was an over simplification of the situation on my part, but even some of those in your list have been sniped at in the past for being old and tired. But this is really a Bell item even if the others are being mentioned. The MD500 is fine but only really if it were selling well alongside the newer products from the same company, the trouble is that no newer products were ever developed. And Bell is similar [pending the 429].
If only I was the only one here blasting Bell for sleeping on duty!!
If you make a better mousetrap.....and all that!
The EC folks are doing something right whereas Bell seems to have dropped the ball.
Even the US Army is shying away from Bell....must be the VP Jobs and Board seats are better paid at Sikorsky, Boeing-Vertol, and Eurocopter. The Gen Gen's know how to make a buck after retiring.
The EC folks are doing something right whereas Bell seems to have dropped the ball.
Even the US Army is shying away from Bell....must be the VP Jobs and Board seats are better paid at Sikorsky, Boeing-Vertol, and Eurocopter. The Gen Gen's know how to make a buck after retiring.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ?
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bell's friends rescue ARH
By BOB COX
Posted on Fri, Mar. 23, 2007
Bell Helicopter, faced with losing a $4 billion Army helicopter contract, called friends in high places and gained an 11th-hour stay of execution.
A trade publication reported Thursday that Army officials decided to cancel Bell's contract to develop the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter outright but were overruled after the company received help from political supporters.
Inside Defense reported that acting Army Secretary Pete Geren, a former Democratic congressman from Fort Worth, interceded with his subordinates and gave Bell 30 days to submit a plan to fix the troubled program.
After a high-level meeting of Army officials Tuesday, Assistant Army Secretary Claude Bolton called Bell Chief Executive Richard Millman and told him that the contract was being terminated, according to several sources who declined to be identified because of their relationships with Bell and the Army. Bell officials, believing that they had not gotten a fair hearing, called area politicians. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, called Geren, the sources said.
A spokesman in Hutchison's office declined to comment on the matter. Army officials did not respond to questions.
After Geren weighed in, the Army's aviation program office transmitted a notice to Bell late Wednesday ordering the company to stop work on the program and submit a plan within 30 days "which describes a strategy that maximizes contract performance while minimizing negative cost and schedule impact to the government."
Bell spokesman Mike Cox said company officials are confident that they can address the Army's concerns and retain the contract.
"We are preparing a package that we, Bell, think represents the best path forward on the continued development of the ARH," Cox said. "Bell's commitment to the ARH remains strong."
During the next 30 days, if the Army approves, Cox said that "Bell and several of our key suppliers plan to continue development work at our own [expense]."
Bell won the $210 million contract to develop the ARH in mid-2005 with a proposal to turn its civilian model 407 helicopter into an armed aircraft capable of performing missions now handled by the Army's aging fleet of Bell OH-58D Kiowa Warrior aircraft. Four prototypes have been flown, including one that crashed in Mansfield last month, but development work is more than a year behind schedule and Bell is $100 million or more over budget.
Instead of getting enough aircraft to outfit an operational squadron by fall 2008, the Army now says it would be December 2009. And Bell has said it would lose between $2 million and $4 million per aircraft on the initial 48 helicopters at the contract price.
Brig. Gen. Steven Mundt, the Army's chief of aviation programs, said the service is ready and willing to listen to Bell's suggestions on how it will speed delivery and cut the cost. He said the cost could reach $10 million per aircraft, up from the contract price of $5.5 million for the initial 12 helicopters.
"The operative word is that the Army is 'concerned,'" Mundt said in an interview with Bloomberg News. "We fully support getting this airplane, but we want them to come to us and tell us, no kidding, what we are going to do. If it's not within the limits, we can't continue on that course. We've got to find someplace else to go."
Mundt said Bell Helicopter's contract "absolutely can be" terminated if the company can't make a compelling case.
"Our hope is that Bell is absolutely going to come with Textron and say: 'Hey, guys, sorry for any confusion. We got it. The program is good, and we're moving forward,'" Mundt said, "but we are not going to allow cost escalation like this, schedule escalation like this."
Bell spokesman Cox said the test aircraft "have accumulated over 500 flight hours in less than two years" and have "met several important milestones and won accolades from Army test pilots."
The Army contract is just one of several Bell programs of concern to military and civilian Pentagon leaders.
Inside Defense also reported Thursday that, according to internal Navy documents, Pentagon officials are planning to shift work that Bell was slated to perform on the next-generation presidential helicopter to England.
Bell is a partner in the Lockheed Martin-led team that won the contract two years ago to build a much-modified version of the AgustaWestland US101 helicopter to serve as the primary presidential transport.
AgustaWestland and Bell formed a partnership to build the helicopters, which were to be assembled by Bell in Amarillo.
Cox said he had no information about the status of the presidential helicopter program and could not comment.
Inside Defense said that given Bell's other problems Navy officials are worried about the likelihood of cost increases and schedule delays on the high-priority and highly visible program. Navy officials, the report said, now want Italian helicopter manufacturer AgustaWestland to build the helicopters itself.
The helicopters will then be turned over to Lockheed, which will install communications and defensive systems.
Navy spokesman John Milliman said he could not confirm or deny the report.
Navy officials have been openly critical of Bell for more than a year over continuing problems with costs and delivery delays on the Marine Corps H-1 helicopter program.
Three test versions of the presidential helicopter and five initial production helicopters are to be built at AgustaWestland's facilities in Yeovil, England.
The test aircraft are all scheduled to be flying this year, and the Navy's contract calls for the first five production helicopters to be ready for service by late 2009.
By BOB COX
Posted on Fri, Mar. 23, 2007
Bell Helicopter, faced with losing a $4 billion Army helicopter contract, called friends in high places and gained an 11th-hour stay of execution.
A trade publication reported Thursday that Army officials decided to cancel Bell's contract to develop the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter outright but were overruled after the company received help from political supporters.
Inside Defense reported that acting Army Secretary Pete Geren, a former Democratic congressman from Fort Worth, interceded with his subordinates and gave Bell 30 days to submit a plan to fix the troubled program.
After a high-level meeting of Army officials Tuesday, Assistant Army Secretary Claude Bolton called Bell Chief Executive Richard Millman and told him that the contract was being terminated, according to several sources who declined to be identified because of their relationships with Bell and the Army. Bell officials, believing that they had not gotten a fair hearing, called area politicians. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, called Geren, the sources said.
A spokesman in Hutchison's office declined to comment on the matter. Army officials did not respond to questions.
After Geren weighed in, the Army's aviation program office transmitted a notice to Bell late Wednesday ordering the company to stop work on the program and submit a plan within 30 days "which describes a strategy that maximizes contract performance while minimizing negative cost and schedule impact to the government."
Bell spokesman Mike Cox said company officials are confident that they can address the Army's concerns and retain the contract.
"We are preparing a package that we, Bell, think represents the best path forward on the continued development of the ARH," Cox said. "Bell's commitment to the ARH remains strong."
During the next 30 days, if the Army approves, Cox said that "Bell and several of our key suppliers plan to continue development work at our own [expense]."
Bell won the $210 million contract to develop the ARH in mid-2005 with a proposal to turn its civilian model 407 helicopter into an armed aircraft capable of performing missions now handled by the Army's aging fleet of Bell OH-58D Kiowa Warrior aircraft. Four prototypes have been flown, including one that crashed in Mansfield last month, but development work is more than a year behind schedule and Bell is $100 million or more over budget.
Instead of getting enough aircraft to outfit an operational squadron by fall 2008, the Army now says it would be December 2009. And Bell has said it would lose between $2 million and $4 million per aircraft on the initial 48 helicopters at the contract price.
Brig. Gen. Steven Mundt, the Army's chief of aviation programs, said the service is ready and willing to listen to Bell's suggestions on how it will speed delivery and cut the cost. He said the cost could reach $10 million per aircraft, up from the contract price of $5.5 million for the initial 12 helicopters.
"The operative word is that the Army is 'concerned,'" Mundt said in an interview with Bloomberg News. "We fully support getting this airplane, but we want them to come to us and tell us, no kidding, what we are going to do. If it's not within the limits, we can't continue on that course. We've got to find someplace else to go."
Mundt said Bell Helicopter's contract "absolutely can be" terminated if the company can't make a compelling case.
"Our hope is that Bell is absolutely going to come with Textron and say: 'Hey, guys, sorry for any confusion. We got it. The program is good, and we're moving forward,'" Mundt said, "but we are not going to allow cost escalation like this, schedule escalation like this."
Bell spokesman Cox said the test aircraft "have accumulated over 500 flight hours in less than two years" and have "met several important milestones and won accolades from Army test pilots."
The Army contract is just one of several Bell programs of concern to military and civilian Pentagon leaders.
Inside Defense also reported Thursday that, according to internal Navy documents, Pentagon officials are planning to shift work that Bell was slated to perform on the next-generation presidential helicopter to England.
Bell is a partner in the Lockheed Martin-led team that won the contract two years ago to build a much-modified version of the AgustaWestland US101 helicopter to serve as the primary presidential transport.
AgustaWestland and Bell formed a partnership to build the helicopters, which were to be assembled by Bell in Amarillo.
Cox said he had no information about the status of the presidential helicopter program and could not comment.
Inside Defense said that given Bell's other problems Navy officials are worried about the likelihood of cost increases and schedule delays on the high-priority and highly visible program. Navy officials, the report said, now want Italian helicopter manufacturer AgustaWestland to build the helicopters itself.
The helicopters will then be turned over to Lockheed, which will install communications and defensive systems.
Navy spokesman John Milliman said he could not confirm or deny the report.
Navy officials have been openly critical of Bell for more than a year over continuing problems with costs and delivery delays on the Marine Corps H-1 helicopter program.
Three test versions of the presidential helicopter and five initial production helicopters are to be built at AgustaWestland's facilities in Yeovil, England.
The test aircraft are all scheduled to be flying this year, and the Navy's contract calls for the first five production helicopters to be ready for service by late 2009.