Marine One Woes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marine One Woes
WASHINGTON -- A Government Accountability Office report says the first five Marine One helicopters the U.S. Navy is buying from Finmeccanica's AgustaWestland unit are overdue, overweight and overbudget.
The GAO's latest overview reported the weight gain as at least 1,200 pounds over the original limit, and the first phase of the program on track to cost about 18% more than projected.
Assistant Navy Secretary Delores Etter downplayed the report's significance, saying that all aircraft programs struggle with weight and that the Navy is working through those challenges on VH-71.
Maybe the political choice wasn't the best choice?
The GAO's latest overview reported the weight gain as at least 1,200 pounds over the original limit, and the first phase of the program on track to cost about 18% more than projected.
Assistant Navy Secretary Delores Etter downplayed the report's significance, saying that all aircraft programs struggle with weight and that the Navy is working through those challenges on VH-71.
Maybe the political choice wasn't the best choice?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KPHL
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the political choice wasn't the best choice?
Wasn't there a report that the EH101 cabin size was the big deciding factor? If so, not sure how that would be a political factor.
Matthew.
Over-weight, over due, and over budget.....hmmmm....so what else is new about a Marine aircraft? Perhaps the President should ride in the Osprey.....after all it is "safe" enough for a Mud Marine to ride around in.
Anyone heard about a very large new Hangar complex being built at NAS Pax River to house the new helicopter program? That is being kept very low key.
Anyone heard about a very large new Hangar complex being built at NAS Pax River to house the new helicopter program? That is being kept very low key.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: By the A&P
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One is very fed up with government purchasing. This is supposed to be America, land of the free (market economy) However, when the government chooses to buy an aircraft and goes with a reliable manufacturer (Boeing) as opposed to someone who has plagued them with problems ("Lockheed" for the US101), they are forced to reopen bidding because this is not "fair." (Yes, Lockheed may have less than stellar performance with the VH-71, but this would not affect their performance for the CSAR-X US101? 
)
Pardon the thread drift, but it's all related in the end.
)Pardon the thread drift, but it's all related in the end.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
helopat
VH-71 is the designation of the EH101 variant being developed for the USMC Marine One Presidential transport fleet.
I don't know where 71 comes from.
Matthew Parsons
It's possible it was just a coincidence that such a valuable/high profile American contact was awarded to AgustaWestland rather than Sikorsky just after our Prime Minister not only took us into President Bush's war on Iraq but scampered around the world encouraging other world leaders to join in.
Anything is possible.
VH-71 is the designation of the EH101 variant being developed for the USMC Marine One Presidential transport fleet.
I don't know where 71 comes from.
Matthew Parsons
It's possible it was just a coincidence that such a valuable/high profile American contact was awarded to AgustaWestland rather than Sikorsky just after our Prime Minister not only took us into President Bush's war on Iraq but scampered around the world encouraging other world leaders to join in.
Anything is possible.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 60
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spoke with an EH101 test pilot last night and he said that some of the wish list items being asked for is causing the aircraft to go over budget. One of the things is a second safe. You heard right a bloody safe! Got to keep those codes safe. The current Marine One hasn't got a safe. WTF, over. Anyway the two safes certainly would add weight!
Not to mention the decor change that will occur if a certain female politican wins the office in '08. The drapes and furniture colours are sure to change. The image of her hubby having to ride in the number 2 seat will be some mitigation to a bad deal.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South of the North Pole
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASLess - yes, we have heard about the hangar complex - Rotorhub.com ran this story on 28th January 2005 - the $36M obviously refers to the initial tranche with the target max being $84M
US Navy awards $36M contract to build Presidential Helicopter Programs Support Facility at NAS Patuxent River
Hensel Phelps Construction Co., Chantilly, Va., is being awarded a $36,800,000 firm-fixed price contract for the Presidential Helicopter Programs Support Facility at Naval Air Station (NAS), Patuxent River. This contract will be incrementally funded as authorized by Congress with the initial funding today; the total contract amount is not to exceed $84,422,000. Work will be performed in Patuxent River, Md., and is expected to be completed by July 2006. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Phase I was competed via the NAVFAC e-solicitation website with 12 offers received, and based on the results of the technical evaluation, three of the 12 firms who submitted Phase I proposals were invited to participate in the Phase II competitive negotiation process. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command Washington, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N40080-04-C-0161).
Source: US Dept of Defense
=================
Flying Lawyer - the "71" is merely part of an ongoing numerical series which has in recent years featured.........
AH-66 Comanche - now consigned to history
TH-67 Creek - the NTH "new training helicopter" aka Bell 206
MH-68 Stingray - the HITRON Coast Guard interdiction heli aka A109E
??- 69 omitted from sequence
AH-70 - ARH "Armed Reconnaissance helicopter" based on the Bell 407
VH-71 Kestrel - VXX presidential helicopter aka EH-101
UH-72 Lakota - Army LUH "light utility helicopter" program - aka EC145
US Navy awards $36M contract to build Presidential Helicopter Programs Support Facility at NAS Patuxent River
Hensel Phelps Construction Co., Chantilly, Va., is being awarded a $36,800,000 firm-fixed price contract for the Presidential Helicopter Programs Support Facility at Naval Air Station (NAS), Patuxent River. This contract will be incrementally funded as authorized by Congress with the initial funding today; the total contract amount is not to exceed $84,422,000. Work will be performed in Patuxent River, Md., and is expected to be completed by July 2006. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Phase I was competed via the NAVFAC e-solicitation website with 12 offers received, and based on the results of the technical evaluation, three of the 12 firms who submitted Phase I proposals were invited to participate in the Phase II competitive negotiation process. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command Washington, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N40080-04-C-0161).
Source: US Dept of Defense
=================
Flying Lawyer - the "71" is merely part of an ongoing numerical series which has in recent years featured.........
AH-66 Comanche - now consigned to history
TH-67 Creek - the NTH "new training helicopter" aka Bell 206
MH-68 Stingray - the HITRON Coast Guard interdiction heli aka A109E
??- 69 omitted from sequence
AH-70 - ARH "Armed Reconnaissance helicopter" based on the Bell 407
VH-71 Kestrel - VXX presidential helicopter aka EH-101
UH-72 Lakota - Army LUH "light utility helicopter" program - aka EC145
The reason there is a ???-69 is because logically this should have been allocated to the preisdential EH101 but it was not felt appropriate,given Mrs Clinton as a possible passenger. VH-70 was missed because too like S-70 ,hence the next number in the list...VH-71.
Incidentally if the VH-71 is overweight,where would that have put the smaller S-92 ???
Incidentally if the VH-71 is overweight,where would that have put the smaller S-92 ???
Incidentally if the VH-71 is overweight,where would that have put the smaller S-92 ???
-- IFMU
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the weight growth is due to the need to completely redesign the fuselage, because the EH-101 simply falls far short of US military crashworthiness. The fuselage needs to be beefed up from 8 g's to 20 g's forward, and from 15 g's to 20 g's downward, for example.
Since the original US101 proposal was for hover IGE only on increment 1 (first batch) the increase in weight simply hits a hard stop, where the aircraft cannot take off if the weight increases further.
While it seems counter intuitive, the H-92 was rated by the Navy to have considerably MORE performance and safety than the US-101, by a large factor. I have a copy of the ratings given each, as calculated and de-briefed by the Navy. OTOH, the 101 was rated far superior in cabin width and comfort, s that there was a virtual tie, and the 5 month shedule "advantage" assessed for the 101 made it the choice. That 5 months has been eroded ina cloud of problems, allknown from the outset:
Redesign of the 101 to meet milspec - esp every frame of the fuselage
Need for cleared people (still a MAJOR problem)
Inability to fly the foreign military aircraft because the Navy hadn't cleared the airworthiness
Inability of the 101 team to understand the massive EMP, comms, and systems designs for the Presidential mission
Vast under-estimating of the weight of Presidential furnishings and soundproofing, where the 101 used standard VIP weights
I saw the weights and performance that the 101 team published for their brochures. It is now time that the smell of brewing coffee has hit home!!
Since the original US101 proposal was for hover IGE only on increment 1 (first batch) the increase in weight simply hits a hard stop, where the aircraft cannot take off if the weight increases further.
While it seems counter intuitive, the H-92 was rated by the Navy to have considerably MORE performance and safety than the US-101, by a large factor. I have a copy of the ratings given each, as calculated and de-briefed by the Navy. OTOH, the 101 was rated far superior in cabin width and comfort, s that there was a virtual tie, and the 5 month shedule "advantage" assessed for the 101 made it the choice. That 5 months has been eroded ina cloud of problems, allknown from the outset:
Redesign of the 101 to meet milspec - esp every frame of the fuselage
Need for cleared people (still a MAJOR problem)
Inability to fly the foreign military aircraft because the Navy hadn't cleared the airworthiness
Inability of the 101 team to understand the massive EMP, comms, and systems designs for the Presidential mission
Vast under-estimating of the weight of Presidential furnishings and soundproofing, where the 101 used standard VIP weights
I saw the weights and performance that the 101 team published for their brochures. It is now time that the smell of brewing coffee has hit home!!
An old Cowboy saying...."It ain't bragging if you have done it." holds here.
Nick was the " Man" on the V-71 project for Sikorsky thus I reckon he ain't bragging....merely relating some facts.
Politics is a part of every military aircraft competition.
Nick was the " Man" on the V-71 project for Sikorsky thus I reckon he ain't bragging....merely relating some facts.
Politics is a part of every military aircraft competition.
My point is it is easy to slag off the opposition and I am sure Westlands would have an equal or greater list of perceived 'defects' on the S-92. The Navy had all the facts and chose the helicopter that most suited their needs (of which I understood cab volume and smoothness of ride to be the deciding factors). Of course all military procurement decisions are highly political but I simply don’t believe for a second that the Navy would have settled for the weaker competitor as some sort of concession to Tony Bliar for his support in Iraq... especially not on a program as important as Presidential Transport!
As far as the weight issues go, will the new 1000kg increase to AUW on the Danish Mk512s also be available to the VH-71 (giving MAUW of 15600kg)?
As far as the weight issues go, will the new 1000kg increase to AUW on the Danish Mk512s also be available to the VH-71 (giving MAUW of 15600kg)?
I had the sales pitch from the Westlands guys a while back (I didnt buy one!) and I understood the increased AUW was possible due to the favourable HUMs data they had collected thus far. Therefore it shouldn't have any adverse effect on fatigue life.