U.S. Presidential Helicopter Cabins Made in INDIA ?????
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You ALL miss my point.
GOOD LORD! Stop with the lectures on benefits on the global market place. I work in it! I support it!
I don't care one bit what parts are made where..... That is business and better for the consumer price-wise.
MY quote:
When the solution for the New Marine One Presidential helicopter was the Lockheed Martin - AW101. Entirely sourced from the UK, Italy, and the US, the Navy helped kill the program with out of this world production security requirements. NAVY rationale; Its a Presidential aircraft. Leading cause of cost overruns.
WHY IS IT NOT AN ISSUE THIS TIME? WHAT HAS CHANGED? Is it simple hypocrisy because Sikorsky finally got the contract?
GOOD LORD! Stop with the lectures on benefits on the global market place. I work in it! I support it!
I don't care one bit what parts are made where..... That is business and better for the consumer price-wise.
MY quote:
I didn't make the rules but I know the rules that were strictly enforced the last time around and this is the polar opposite.
WHY? What has changed?
WHY? What has changed?
WHY IS IT NOT AN ISSUE THIS TIME? WHAT HAS CHANGED? Is it simple hypocrisy because Sikorsky finally got the contract?
Stop with the lectures on benefits on the global market place. I work in it! I support it!
When the solution for the New Marine One Presidential helicopter was the Lockheed Martin - AW101. Entirely sourced from the UK, Italy, and the US, the Navy helped kill the program with out of this world production security requirements. NAVY rationale; Its a Presidential aircraft. Leading cause of cost overruns.
WHY IS IT NOT AN ISSUE THIS TIME? WHAT HAS CHANGED? Is it simple hypocrisy because Sikorsky finally got the contract?
When the solution for the New Marine One Presidential helicopter was the Lockheed Martin - AW101. Entirely sourced from the UK, Italy, and the US, the Navy helped kill the program with out of this world production security requirements. NAVY rationale; Its a Presidential aircraft. Leading cause of cost overruns.
WHY IS IT NOT AN ISSUE THIS TIME? WHAT HAS CHANGED? Is it simple hypocrisy because Sikorsky finally got the contract?
I will suggest that the program setback from losing the AW101 didn't make the VH-3's any younger or less long in the tooth. A new bird does need to be procured. It appears that other eligible players tired of the game and chose not to play. (Can't say as I blame them, given what happened with AW101).
I will not comment on your overly simplistic description of the end of AW101, but the factors you cite surely contributed to it. The old requirements creep happened again, for reasons that those in the program know and I don't.
Just curious: have you written to your Congressional and Senatorial reps and inquired likewise?
Have you contacted the US DoD 1-800 Waste/fraud/abuse hotline?
If so, what was the response?
Just a note about using the net: Keyword hypocrisy in a rant in all caps is red flag material for more noise than signal.
Do you own shares in AW?
What is your vested interest in this?
@Set1SQ: thanks for setting it straight about the TR blades, I shared in the error there.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LONE-
Frustration. Sorry. I have been saying the same thing over and over and it must be my poor communication skills as to why my point is being missed.
Although I will admit, I didn't realize that "hypocrisy" was a 4-letter flag-able word. It just accurately and factually describes the situation so not sure why its considered noise? This is where we come to discus all things rotary-wing, regardless of whether you agree with the subject or not, No?
As for my stock in AW...... I have had the good fortune to fly just about everything rotary-wing (except V-22) including the S-92. The 101 is one of the best a aircraft I have ever flown. Proven itself in combat in very tough places. What happened to it, and how it was slandered, not to mention a complete waste of $3B tax payer money, has never sat right with me. Never will. I agree the VH-3 absolutely has to be replaced immediately. It's never going back to an AW101 either, but you cannot reward bad behavior by letting things just slip by without comment.
Frustration. Sorry. I have been saying the same thing over and over and it must be my poor communication skills as to why my point is being missed.
Although I will admit, I didn't realize that "hypocrisy" was a 4-letter flag-able word. It just accurately and factually describes the situation so not sure why its considered noise? This is where we come to discus all things rotary-wing, regardless of whether you agree with the subject or not, No?
As for my stock in AW...... I have had the good fortune to fly just about everything rotary-wing (except V-22) including the S-92. The 101 is one of the best a aircraft I have ever flown. Proven itself in combat in very tough places. What happened to it, and how it was slandered, not to mention a complete waste of $3B tax payer money, has never sat right with me. Never will. I agree the VH-3 absolutely has to be replaced immediately. It's never going back to an AW101 either, but you cannot reward bad behavior by letting things just slip by without comment.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Set1SQ -
Benign huh?
How's things in Stratford, Conn today?
The tail rotor blade issue is not an issue because the TRB is not made in China as you assert. The tail rotor pylon is made in China. Pretty benign
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the tail rotor (T/R) pylon for a loose or missing fastener, a crack, damage, or corrosion and adding an internal doubler to the aft shear deck tunnel assembly.
This AD was prompted by the discovery of cracks in T/R pylons. The actions are intended to detect a loose or missing fastener, a crack, damage, or corrosion on the T/R pylon and, if present, to repair the T/R pylon and install a doubler on the aft shear deck tunnel assembly or to replace the T/R pylon and install a doubler on the aft shear deck tunnel assembly.
The actions are intended to prevent failure of the T/R pylon or other T/R components, which could lead to the loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD was prompted by the discovery of cracks in T/R pylons. The actions are intended to detect a loose or missing fastener, a crack, damage, or corrosion on the T/R pylon and, if present, to repair the T/R pylon and install a doubler on the aft shear deck tunnel assembly or to replace the T/R pylon and install a doubler on the aft shear deck tunnel assembly.
The actions are intended to prevent failure of the T/R pylon or other T/R components, which could lead to the loss of control of the helicopter.
Last edited by Stinger10; 23rd Oct 2015 at 16:44.
In honesty, I share it. I am (for my own reasons) disappointed that the Presidential fleet has not been upgraded in the case of Marine 1. We have a robust rotary wing industry, and when it comes to systems integration some awesome capability on the national level. And even if the better offer is the Merlin variant, that too comes from a solid background in rotary wing production.
It's root is political. What in politics isn't hypocrisy? The older I get, the more cynical about it I become.
Not the first program to make a meal out of itself. I suppose it's wishful thinking that it will be the last. (glances nervously at the F-35 thread ...). Let's see, how many billions finally went into A-12 before that program went south? The comparison isn't very apt, as A-12 was a lot of new stuff and VH replacement was a proven bird with a whole lotta stuff for a mod.
I'll suggest that the root of the behavior lies in Congress, but I also think a few folks in DoD, DoN, and NAVAIR made errors our system is supposed to be able to identify and correct. It's not like "requirements creep" is a new term as of five years ago. 
That the cabin is made in India is well beyond the matter of how the VH replacement program self immolated. I try not to take rhetoric as substance, though that "buy America" meme can have some interesting detail behind the bumper sticker, not all of it pretty.
It just accurately and factually describes the situation so not sure why its considered noise?
As for my stock in AW...... I have had the good fortune to fly just about everything rotary-wing (except V-22) including the S-92. The 101 is one of the best a aircraft I have ever flown. Proven itself in combat in very tough places. What happened to it, and how it was slandered, not to mention a complete waste of $3B tax payer money, has never sat right with me. Never will.
I agree the VH-3 absolutely has to be replaced immediately. It's never going back to an AW101 either, but you cannot reward bad behavior by letting things just slip by without comment.
That the cabin is made in India is well beyond the matter of how the VH replacement program self immolated. I try not to take rhetoric as substance, though that "buy America" meme can have some interesting detail behind the bumper sticker, not all of it pretty.
Stinger
For those of us fortunate enough to ‘walk upon England's mountains green’, we know only too well that Remembrance Day is fast approaching.
As such this would be a fitting time to highlight to you that during WWII, the number of Indian men who joined up to fight alongside the British was greater in number than for the sum of every other Empire/Commonwealth country put together, so we Brits have much to thank the Indians for (at the time, the same could not be said for the Italians), not to mention their wonderful contribution to our language, with words like Blighty, pukka, tiffin, and for that much loved British favourite, the good old Ruby Murray.
For a nation of workers and engineers capable of building anything from the Taj Mahal to the Chenab railway bridge, let alone ICBM’s and space rockets, I don’t suppose banging rivets into a collection of sheet metals, formers, longerons and castings etc. should prove to be too taxing, especially as they have been building the cabins for close to five years now.
Add this to the S-92 airframes flaw tolerant design, HUMS monitoring and a fleet which must be fast approaching a million flight hours (so the problems have mostly already been identified), I don’t think the President has too much to fear about the quality of the cabin section whilst up and about in their very low usage airframes.
As for the main and tail rotor hubs and blades (I stand to be corrected by those from Sikorsky past and present), but it was my understanding that these were either made in-house, or within the UTC/UTAS group, so where did you get the idea that the Chinese are building the tail rotor assembly?
For those of us fortunate enough to ‘walk upon England's mountains green’, we know only too well that Remembrance Day is fast approaching.
As such this would be a fitting time to highlight to you that during WWII, the number of Indian men who joined up to fight alongside the British was greater in number than for the sum of every other Empire/Commonwealth country put together, so we Brits have much to thank the Indians for (at the time, the same could not be said for the Italians), not to mention their wonderful contribution to our language, with words like Blighty, pukka, tiffin, and for that much loved British favourite, the good old Ruby Murray.
For a nation of workers and engineers capable of building anything from the Taj Mahal to the Chenab railway bridge, let alone ICBM’s and space rockets, I don’t suppose banging rivets into a collection of sheet metals, formers, longerons and castings etc. should prove to be too taxing, especially as they have been building the cabins for close to five years now.
Add this to the S-92 airframes flaw tolerant design, HUMS monitoring and a fleet which must be fast approaching a million flight hours (so the problems have mostly already been identified), I don’t think the President has too much to fear about the quality of the cabin section whilst up and about in their very low usage airframes.
As for the main and tail rotor hubs and blades (I stand to be corrected by those from Sikorsky past and present), but it was my understanding that these were either made in-house, or within the UTC/UTAS group, so where did you get the idea that the Chinese are building the tail rotor assembly?
Lone,
For the current occupant of the Big House....a Bell 47J would be more appropriate....t it was good enough for Eisenhower.
For the current occupant of the Big House....a Bell 47J would be more appropriate....t it was good enough for Eisenhower.
UTAS has limited content on Sikorsky helicopters. Legacy Hamilton Standard supplies FCC's and AVC computers. Legacy Goodrich owns the HUMS and some air data. Legacy Sundstrand supplies almost nothing, though they did make the Raider prop gearbox in Rockford, IL. I believe Sikorsky has retained tail rotors and other critical dynamic pieces.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Add this to the S-92 airframes flaw tolerant design, HUMS monitoring and a fleet which must be fast approaching a million flight hours (so the problems have mostly already been identified), I don’t think the President has too much to fear about the quality of the cabin section whilst up and about in their very low usage airframes.
"At least 2 aircraft with TATA cabins have been delivered with misalignment meaning they cannot be fitted with a winch without significant rework and modification."
Modification of the Winch Assy or the Airframe?
Modification of the Winch Assy or the Airframe?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hilife et al: I will repeat. Personally I have no problem where things are manufactured. I live and work in the global market place. No offense intended. During the last Presidential helicopter program there was tremendous scrutiny placed on the Italian and UK suppliers. Clearly, the Navy has had a complete change in perspective THIS time.
Right from Sikorsky's website. The cabin work was shifted to TATA in India when Sikorsky tried to win the Indian VIP program:
Fact based, as was the AD about the Tail pylon (previously posted) when someone claimed it was a benign part......
Right from Sikorsky's website. The cabin work was shifted to TATA in India when Sikorsky tried to win the Indian VIP program:
•Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (7.5% - main cabin) IN YELLOW
•Spain's Gamesa Aeronautica (7% - main rotor pylon, tailcone/transition section and composite interiors),
•Peoples Republic of China's Jingdezhen Helicopter Group (2% - tail pylon and horizontal stabilizer) IN GREEN
•Taiwan's Aero Industrial Development Corporation (AIDC) (6.5% - Cockpit Structure)
•Brazil's Embraer (4% - sponsons complete with fuel system and landing gear).
•Spain's Gamesa Aeronautica (7% - main rotor pylon, tailcone/transition section and composite interiors),
•Peoples Republic of China's Jingdezhen Helicopter Group (2% - tail pylon and horizontal stabilizer) IN GREEN
•Taiwan's Aero Industrial Development Corporation (AIDC) (6.5% - Cockpit Structure)
•Brazil's Embraer (4% - sponsons complete with fuel system and landing gear).
Last edited by Stinger10; 26th Oct 2015 at 19:42.
Thanks for finding that picture, it looks similar to the one I saw years ago.
IIRC, that Green one was planned to be made in China since the late 90's or early 00's. (I'll let any Sikorsky person refine that). Back then, a lot of people (me not included) were bending over backward to be nice to Big China ... who has never liked us. On an emotional level, I get how you feel, and probably feel similarly ... I was in the opinion group who thought that the Spratly Islands were not getting enough attention in about 1992 ...
The "Government oversight" authority people are either happy, or are not, with whatever surveillance and quality plan Sikorsky has for that component. I don't recall that it was Italian or British parts makers that were the core problem in AW101 being cancelled. Whatever scrutiny they were put under seems to have been passed.
IIRC, that Green one was planned to be made in China since the late 90's or early 00's. (I'll let any Sikorsky person refine that). Back then, a lot of people (me not included) were bending over backward to be nice to Big China ... who has never liked us. On an emotional level, I get how you feel, and probably feel similarly ... I was in the opinion group who thought that the Spratly Islands were not getting enough attention in about 1992 ...
The "Government oversight" authority people are either happy, or are not, with whatever surveillance and quality plan Sikorsky has for that component. I don't recall that it was Italian or British parts makers that were the core problem in AW101 being cancelled. Whatever scrutiny they were put under seems to have been passed.
