Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Marine One Helis

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Marine One Helis

Old 16th Mar 2017, 14:46
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Marine One Helis

In Bloomberg Business Week, an excellent article published on March 14 by Garrett M. Graft reviews in detail plans to renew both Air Force One aircraft and new ones proposed for Marine One Helicopers. At present, the presidential helicopters include 11 Sea Kings, 8 White Hawks, and a number of Super Stallions and Sea Kings, which follow the President around the world in cargo aircraft, so he never has to depend on local transport.

After a lot of kerfluffle, apparently Sikorsky will be providing the new ships, the S92. The current Marine One type has been in use since 1974.

The article in Bloomberg, though long and detailed, is very amusing, and well worth a read. I wonder if any of you Rotorheads have seen it? and what do you think of the aircraft under consideration...
mary meagher is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2017, 16:24
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 665
The tale of the sea king replacement in both Canada for MHP and for "Marine One" / VXX is a long a sordid story, befitting a soap opera.

There were many long-winded threads here and elsewhere discussing the merits of the S/H-92 versus EH101 for both contracts.
SansAnhedral is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 06:15
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 602
I believe the US Marines currently operate several V-22's specifically for transporting US federal executive administration officials.
riff_raff is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 12:16
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Waltham Abbey, Essex, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 1,148
The finances expended in the provision of aircraft resources for all Presidents appear to be the biggest factor in ensuring that the UK will never get rid of the Queen!

The US President [and Presidential Heads of State in general] seem to require so much gear to get them from here to there that its a first class case for actually creating a monarchy from scratch!

Poor old Queenie [Lizzie 2] has her own helicopter, which she paid for out of her pension and can call upon some aircraft of the RAF and British Airways when they have been brushed out and polished [never more than one available].

They take off without any ceremony from the nearest available airport without air exclusion zones that ground the fare paying public and leave them in their lesser aircraft fuming as their 45 minute reserves are burned off.... and usually without ceremony.

Indeed the US Presidents announce their impending presence by the very announcement of air exclusion zones ..... [is it safe?]

Any yet the Brit Head of State seems to manage to get around the world without undue fuss, still has an old railway train set of carriages, a couple of Rolls Royces and a Land Rover ...... She even sneaks around London wearing a headscarf and wellington boots....

Now how many 747s and helicopters does it take to move a President?
PANews is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2017, 14:08
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,272
I was in Normandy when Obama visited in 2014.
I think there were fewer assets available in 1944.
What a huge operation.
I was not impressed how difficult it was to move around on June 6.
Omaha Beach cemetery...completely taken over.
Fortunately we were at Juno.
albatross is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2017, 11:22
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 73
Posts: 9,358
I'm sure I read a few weeks ago that Donald had ordered the cancellation of both new 'Air Force 1s' as they were too expensive, the implication in the article being that he thought Boeing were deliberately inflating the costs.
chevvron is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2017, 16:16
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 1,018
Way back when there was still a competition (before the Secret Service ran amok with requirements creep on the VH-71 and the re-tendered contract could only be fulfilled by Sikorsky.....) I had a look at both mock ups at Heli Expo. The 101 mock up was spacious and roomy, the S-92 however felt cramped. I dare say that the new POTUS will need to stoop to get in/out. The Merlin has become a top rate VVIP helicopter whereas the S-92 is carving a niche in SAR/Offshore work. I think that probably says a lot about the relative merits of each design....
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2017, 16:43
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 9,263
They'll need a bigger helicopter to carry the new President's ego...............
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2017, 16:53
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,272
Ike got along with a Bell 47-J.
Requirements change I guess.
albatross is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2017, 17:05
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Originally Posted by Evalu8ter
I dare say that the new POTUS will need to stoop to get in/out.
In terms of cabin height both platforms are identical (6.0 ft / 1.83 m). 45 is taller than this (as was 44), but since the aircraft's fielding date is 2020 it remains to be seen whether the first CINC flying the VH-92 will have to stoop.

The S-92's cabin is a little shorter that the AW101's (20.0 ft vs 21.3 ft), but the main difference is in cabin width (6.6 ft vs 8.2 ft), driving a 30% difference in cabin volume (700 cu. ft. vs. 970 cu. ft.).

Originally Posted by SansAnhedral
There were many long-winded threads here and elsewhere discussing the merits of the S/H-92 versus EH101 for both contracts.
To wit:
Originally Posted by chevvron
I'm sure I read a few weeks ago that Donald had ordered the cancellation of both new 'Air Force 1s' as they were too expensive
Grab some popcorn: US Air Force One replacement - President-elect Trump's view

I/C

Last edited by Ian Corrigible; 20th Mar 2017 at 11:25. Reason: Cabin volumes corrected
Ian Corrigible is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2017, 00:12
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Ian Corrigible View Post
In terms of cabin height both platforms are identical (6.0 ft / 1.83 m).

The S-92's cabin is a little shorter that the AW101's (20.0 ft vs 21.3 ft), but the main difference is in cabin width (6.6 ft vs 8.2 ft), driving a 30% difference in cabin volume (20 cu. ft. vs. 28 cu. ft.).
My basic math gives the volumes as 1,048 cu ft for the AW101, and 792 cu ft for the S-92.

Maybe 29.7 vs 22.4 cubic metres? Excuse the pedantry
John Eacott is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2017, 11:29
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
John,

Thanks for the catch. Published volumes for both platforms are 970 cu. ft. and 700 cu. ft., the difference being explained by the fact that neither cabin is of a simple 'box' layout (e.g. tapered headroom, etc.).

Cheers,
I/C
Ian Corrigible is offline  
Old 8th May 2018, 15:56
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 55
Posts: 986
VH-92 on schedule and UNDER budget.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-below-448353/

"....Cost reductions came from a small number of design changes, stable requirements and efficiencies from cost saving initiatives, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office."

Maybe something was learned after the VH-101 disaster....
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 8th May 2018, 17:58
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Posts: 840
This article from 2004 is interesting:

Sikorsky Forms VH-92 Team for Presidential Helicopter Competition

This program went ahead, and was managed by Nick Lappos. All of the work described was completed and all of the systems performed as expected and confirmed by flight test. ( For those S-92 pilots, it had the 6 force generator vibration attenuation system and was quite smooth no matter where one was seated ). I don’t think that Nick ever received the credit he should have for that project. One very fine flying machine.

I wonder what the per unit cost would have been if the VH-92 had proceeded at that point in time.
JohnDixson is offline  
Old 12th May 2018, 14:41
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 230
Originally Posted by Evalu8ter View Post
The Merlin has become a top rate VVIP helicopter whereas the S-92 is carving a niche in SAR/Offshore work. I think that probably says a lot about the relative merits of each design....
I'd be very interested in the source of this information and the fleet data you're reviewing, because it is apparent I am consulting some kind of outdated, incomplete or entirely erroneous report?
rotor-rooter is offline  
Old 12th May 2018, 16:44
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Originally Posted by mary meagher View Post
In Bloomberg Business Week, an excellent article published on March 14 by Garrett M. Graft reviews in detail plans to renew both Air Force One aircraft and new ones proposed for Marine One Helicopers. At present, the presidential helicopters include 11 Sea Kings, 8 White Hawks, and a number of Super Stallions and Sea Kings, which follow the President around the world in cargo aircraft, so he never has to depend on local transport.
You might want to check the spelling on the author's name, it's Garrett M. Graff.

Here's a link to the article by Graff:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...dy-for-takeoff

He's a good writer but sometimes gets details mixed up in his coverage of Presidential transport systems.

For example, in the article cited above he claims:

Its capabilities astounded those who flew on it. “The range and speed requirements were extreme for a helicopter,” Young says. But none ever landed on the White House lawn. All nine had their top-secret communications systems—known by the code name “Yankee White”—torn out.
For decades the Yankee White codename has referred to something other than a communications system, it seems surprising that Graff wouldn't know this from his research. Or a Google search.

Graff covers HMX-1 and other Presidential transport organizations in his recent book with a somewhat sensational title: Raven Rock: The Story of the U.S. Government's Secret Plan to Save Itself -- While the Rest of Us Die.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 12th May 2018, 22:32
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 73
Posts: 17,284
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
They'll need a bigger helicopter to carry the new President's ego...............



The previous Presidential Ego needed two aircraft to tote him and Wookie around as they rarely travelled in a single aircraft.
SASless is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 01:35
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 629
Originally Posted by sandiego89 View Post
VH-92 on schedule and UNDER budget.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-below-448353/

"....Cost reductions came from a small number of design changes, stable requirements and efficiencies from cost saving initiatives, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office."

Maybe something was learned after the VH-101 disaster....
VH-101 was only a disaster because of government bungling and interference. It was inferred that the President should fly in an American built helicopter, yet the 101 had more US content than the 92! And that was proven time and again to the bureaucrats.

Still, all worked out for AW/Leo or whatever they call themselves now. They were paid out handsomely due to the US Govt breaking signed deals and AW then "donated" the airframes to Canada for spares.

Financially it would seem that it is sometimes better to lose.
noooby is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 08:08
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 1,018
"Financially it would seem that it is sometimes better to lose" - The EH101/Merlin/Cormorant/Kestrel has plenty of history in this area. The Canadians paid substantial liquidated damages when they cancelled the initial Merlin order, subsequently buying fewer Cormorants at a higher unit price. The RAF ended up with Merlin partially due to a reneged "understanding" during the Cold War that the RN would replace their ASW Sea Kings on a "1 for 1" basis. When the Peace Dividend was demanded, the ASW Merlin buy was capped at a significantly lower number - the RAF buy was a partial amelioration. There have been plenty of "on the bus / off the bus" over VVIP birds as well - I dare say that LH have extracted some "money for nothing" out of some of those....

Rotor-rooter, Just my take on watching the relative markets and talking to players at the like of HAI and through the consultancy work I do. S-92 is, to me at least, at a more attractive size/price point for Offshore/SAR work (especially if provided by a commercial organisation with an eye on the bottom line) whereas the bigger, more expensive Merlin is preferred by more Government purchasers who are less concerned with DOCs and resale. Just my opinion chap - be delighted to hear your thoughts!
Evalu8ter is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.