New US Presidential Helicopter requirement
So install a plug into the fuselage, add 53 dynamic components and call it a 92-B.
Prose
Savoia, not only do you contribute lovely photos, but your prose regarding Berlusconi/Blair struck a respondent chord. A similar assessment, absolutely unofficial, made the rounds in Connecticut.
As to an attempt to guess at how SA addresses the no-change writings, it is hard to say, especially when one doesn't have the basic document to read. I know I read the original one in 2004, as part of Nick's review team on his ( SA's ) proposal. That was one complex program plan, and responding to it in each phase was tricky with a capital T.
I might add, and am certain this will draw comment, that some very expensive water has gone under the bridge since 2005. I've seen some estimates of $3+B, and a good deal of that wound up at the AW bank. The original VH-71 program involved new main rotor, new tail rotor and new main transmission ( and of course, with a new adult sized* tail rotor comes a new tail/intermediate gearbox team ). So, some, mostly in Connecticut I am thinking, would say, " Wait a minute, DOD, our tax $ went into EH-101 design mods, so we need some relief". The guys at Westland that I have met and worked with are nothing if they are not fair, honest, intelligent and gentlemen. But a lot of them play a certain UK invented game and I bet they respond with something like: " Looks like the rule is, Play it as it Lies, Yank ". And with a smile.
* It just so happened that I was at Westland when the EH-101 was getting ready to fly and one of the pilots we were to check out in the S-70 took us around one of the completed prototype machines. Afterward, the obvious question, " What do you think?". Well, it all looked very well though out indeed, and I said so, except for one thing. " And what is that, John?". I had asked about the TR Nr and TR HP data, and I said to him that it looks as though the TR was rather too small for the gross weight, installed horsepower, power that they would shortly get from the RTM-322 etc. His response was that they ( test pilot office ) had been saying that all along but to no avail. I never did learn if they fixed that with UK or US money, but I gather it is fixed.
Hard to prophesize how this will go. Surprised no one has commented about the possibility of a combined V-22/Helicopter solution.
As to an attempt to guess at how SA addresses the no-change writings, it is hard to say, especially when one doesn't have the basic document to read. I know I read the original one in 2004, as part of Nick's review team on his ( SA's ) proposal. That was one complex program plan, and responding to it in each phase was tricky with a capital T.
I might add, and am certain this will draw comment, that some very expensive water has gone under the bridge since 2005. I've seen some estimates of $3+B, and a good deal of that wound up at the AW bank. The original VH-71 program involved new main rotor, new tail rotor and new main transmission ( and of course, with a new adult sized* tail rotor comes a new tail/intermediate gearbox team ). So, some, mostly in Connecticut I am thinking, would say, " Wait a minute, DOD, our tax $ went into EH-101 design mods, so we need some relief". The guys at Westland that I have met and worked with are nothing if they are not fair, honest, intelligent and gentlemen. But a lot of them play a certain UK invented game and I bet they respond with something like: " Looks like the rule is, Play it as it Lies, Yank ". And with a smile.
* It just so happened that I was at Westland when the EH-101 was getting ready to fly and one of the pilots we were to check out in the S-70 took us around one of the completed prototype machines. Afterward, the obvious question, " What do you think?". Well, it all looked very well though out indeed, and I said so, except for one thing. " And what is that, John?". I had asked about the TR Nr and TR HP data, and I said to him that it looks as though the TR was rather too small for the gross weight, installed horsepower, power that they would shortly get from the RTM-322 etc. His response was that they ( test pilot office ) had been saying that all along but to no avail. I never did learn if they fixed that with UK or US money, but I gather it is fixed.
Hard to prophesize how this will go. Surprised no one has commented about the possibility of a combined V-22/Helicopter solution.
Lone Wolf et al.The rules have changed since and because of the last time when there was substantial mission creep,which added so much to the costs.This time they really do want off the shelf certified and proven aircraft and avionics etc,to avoid development delays and cost growth.
Last edited by heli1; 9th May 2013 at 21:28.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grenville, don't you understand the significance of a full stop?
Let me spell it out again. The V22 won't win. Neither will any foreign helicopter win. Is that clearer for you?
Let me spell it out again. The V22 won't win. Neither will any foreign helicopter win. Is that clearer for you?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH71A design changes
John you are partially correct with regards to 101 design changes driven by the Vh71 spec, however the scope is nowhere near that you listed, and actually as AW were a subcontractor to LM for the programme I suggest that most of the money ended up in that bank account rather than in Europe.
The significant changes were limited to ;
'new' engines (a different version of the CT7 that had already been type certified
Modified structure (to account for change from Aluminium Lithium used on the EH101, coupled with increased crash requirements)
The main rotor blades, head, transmission and other aircraft systems were almost exactly the same as those that were in service or were part of the ongoing product improvement programme of the 101 and were not specifically funded by the USA.
It is true that the other changes you allude to would have been required for the increment 2 aircraft and would equally have been needed if the S92 had been selected, as any aircraft to meet that requirement (which never got very far on the drawing board) would have been a considerably more capable platform.
With regards to the Blair/Berlusconi issue this is just sour grapes from the losing side or the implication must be that the independent NAVAIR team that carried out the assessment swayed the results due to political pressure..... The platform that best met the mission was selected (as you would hope would happen and should happen in the future)
Here's some thoughts...
The 101 design and build process has already been demonstrated to meet the stringent security requirements for a VXX type programme so that doesnt have to be shown again, so although Sikorsky have the current capability for the VH3 and VH60 fleet this may not read across yet to the (proudly proclaimed) 'Team of International partners' designed/built S92 which may introduce additional risk and costs.
The USN LCS programme had two winners (i.e the precendent has been set), so if the mission can be split into two aspects (transport and communications/support) why not use two aircraft types, one for transport (101) and one for comms/support (S92), in that way everyone wins.
The significant changes were limited to ;
'new' engines (a different version of the CT7 that had already been type certified
Modified structure (to account for change from Aluminium Lithium used on the EH101, coupled with increased crash requirements)
The main rotor blades, head, transmission and other aircraft systems were almost exactly the same as those that were in service or were part of the ongoing product improvement programme of the 101 and were not specifically funded by the USA.
It is true that the other changes you allude to would have been required for the increment 2 aircraft and would equally have been needed if the S92 had been selected, as any aircraft to meet that requirement (which never got very far on the drawing board) would have been a considerably more capable platform.
With regards to the Blair/Berlusconi issue this is just sour grapes from the losing side or the implication must be that the independent NAVAIR team that carried out the assessment swayed the results due to political pressure..... The platform that best met the mission was selected (as you would hope would happen and should happen in the future)
Here's some thoughts...
The 101 design and build process has already been demonstrated to meet the stringent security requirements for a VXX type programme so that doesnt have to be shown again, so although Sikorsky have the current capability for the VH3 and VH60 fleet this may not read across yet to the (proudly proclaimed) 'Team of International partners' designed/built S92 which may introduce additional risk and costs.
The USN LCS programme had two winners (i.e the precendent has been set), so if the mission can be split into two aspects (transport and communications/support) why not use two aircraft types, one for transport (101) and one for comms/support (S92), in that way everyone wins.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
krypton john thanks for the support.
Have always found New Zealanders to be decent people - even looked at NZ as a possible retirement destination once, but grandchildren you understand.
terminus mos, a better way of writing it would have been - The V22 will not win, nor will any any foreign contender.
Have always found New Zealanders to be decent people - even looked at NZ as a possible retirement destination once, but grandchildren you understand.
terminus mos, a better way of writing it would have been - The V22 will not win, nor will any any foreign contender.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by dangermouse
The USN LCS programme had two winners (i.e the precendent has been set)
. It's been suggested more than once that the only reason a twin-track approach was selected for LCS was in order to secure the backing of twice as many Congressmen.
Originally Posted by heli1
Meantime may be Obama should ask why the president of Turkmenistan has just traded in his S-92 s for two EH101s
Originally Posted by SASless
This is the most important part of the Defensive Package!
Originally Posted by hillberg
With public input it will have the old gas tanks reinstalled
I/C
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
terminus mos, a better way of writing it would have been - The V22 will not win, nor will any any foreign contender.
John: Grazie, sei gentilissimo!
Sadly, I do not share Dangermouse's confidence in the US Navy's immunity to politics in fact, there is so much which goes on in government procurement which falls outside of the normally defined avenues of 'protocol' that at times it beggars belief!
Regarding VXX .. do we really think that there will be no flexibility offered to suppliers? The paperwork and tender requirements are rigid but in practice the history of those actually involved in delivering products to the US government is one in which many exceptions and exemptions .. and considerable leeway .. has been granted, often admittedly, because once 'into' an agreement the supplier (in a manner of speaking) has the client over the proverbial barrel inasmuch as while suppliers are liable for penalties due to non-performance .. the client doesn't want to 'over penalise' the supplier lest the supplier backs out completely; for aside from the dollars and cents .. there is also the matter of political face-saving which every regime keenly supports!
On a separate note .. while I am a huge fan of HMX-1 (their coordination of logistics across the globe and maintaining their standards of safety and discipline) I do sometimes wonder whether a more cost-effective 'solution' could be found for Presidential helicopter transport outside the US (such as using US military helicopters equipped with defensive systems but not perhaps specifically dedicated for Presidential use). As I say, I commend how they 'keep the show on the road' but .. it is massively expensive and I ponder the 'efficiency' of the Presidential 'out station' aircraft.
I may be wrong.
Sadly, I do not share Dangermouse's confidence in the US Navy's immunity to politics in fact, there is so much which goes on in government procurement which falls outside of the normally defined avenues of 'protocol' that at times it beggars belief!
Regarding VXX .. do we really think that there will be no flexibility offered to suppliers? The paperwork and tender requirements are rigid but in practice the history of those actually involved in delivering products to the US government is one in which many exceptions and exemptions .. and considerable leeway .. has been granted, often admittedly, because once 'into' an agreement the supplier (in a manner of speaking) has the client over the proverbial barrel inasmuch as while suppliers are liable for penalties due to non-performance .. the client doesn't want to 'over penalise' the supplier lest the supplier backs out completely; for aside from the dollars and cents .. there is also the matter of political face-saving which every regime keenly supports!
On a separate note .. while I am a huge fan of HMX-1 (their coordination of logistics across the globe and maintaining their standards of safety and discipline) I do sometimes wonder whether a more cost-effective 'solution' could be found for Presidential helicopter transport outside the US (such as using US military helicopters equipped with defensive systems but not perhaps specifically dedicated for Presidential use). As I say, I commend how they 'keep the show on the road' but .. it is massively expensive and I ponder the 'efficiency' of the Presidential 'out station' aircraft.
I may be wrong.
The paperwork and tender requirements are rigid but in practice the history of those actually involved in delivering products to any government is one in which many exceptions and exemptions .. and considerable leeway .. has been granted, often admittedly, because once 'into' an agreement the supplier (in a manner of speaking) has the client over the proverbial barrel inasmuch as while suppliers are liable for penalties due to non-performance .. the client doesn't want to 'over penalise' the supplier lest the supplier backs out completely; for aside from the dollars and cents .. there is also the matter of political face-saving which every regime keenly supports!
That only happens to be the same contractor and helicopter in question for VXX
Last edited by SansAnhedral; 14th May 2013 at 19:54.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, is anyone surprised?, really?
If POTUS is happy with second best (and currently second safest.... where's that 30 min capable box again?, let's ask the canucks......
) good luck to him.
at least be honest guys and say
'Our policy is only to buy American so if your'e not from here don't bother' which appears to be the reality
DM
) good luck to him. at least be honest guys and say
'Our policy is only to buy American so if your'e not from here don't bother' which appears to be the reality
DM
As a US taxpayer, I am fine with that, dangermouse. Since I am somewhat familiar with the security program associated with that particular executive support mission, I am even more fine with that.
More to the point, Sikorsky has been supporting the VH-3's for some decades. That program seems to have been quite successful, which includes the security end of it.
There is more to this than incremental differences in the kit. At this point in rotary wing tech, and the performance box only slightly expandable, if at all, due to the laws of physics, just what "improvement" are you getting for your money?
I wonder.
That said, 30 min run dry standards is a capability worth pursuing in that buy.
More to the point, Sikorsky has been supporting the VH-3's for some decades. That program seems to have been quite successful, which includes the security end of it.
There is more to this than incremental differences in the kit. At this point in rotary wing tech, and the performance box only slightly expandable, if at all, due to the laws of physics, just what "improvement" are you getting for your money?
I wonder.
That said, 30 min run dry standards is a capability worth pursuing in that buy.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 30th Jul 2013 at 16:03.
'Our policy is only to buy American so if your'e not from here don't bother' which appears to be the reality
DM - the US Govt protecting its homegrown helicopter industry by choosing the S92 is only the same as the British Govt protecting AW jobs with the Wildcat and the SAR 189 - get over it.