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

Leonardo Helicopter - Ties to the Russian State

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

Leonardo Helicopter - Ties to the Russian State

Old 11th Mar 2022, 16:27
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Alles ‹ber
Posts: 309
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by rotor-rooter
Should the requirement become focused on political and economic rationale (which isn't in any way unreasonable), rather than the best value from a capability/supportability standpoint, then it becomes impossible to eliminate any OEM, as each demonstrates their ability to partner or team with another if it benefits their mutual interests.

There seems to be limited consideration of the presence of Boeing in the UK, already supporting the fleet of Chinook and Apache helicopters in service. All OEM's have beneficial partnerships all over the world, principally to allow access to markets that might otherwise be politically difficult to penetrate, including some contemporary examples:
  • Sikorsky/Eurocopter LUH-72A (H145)
  • Boeing/Sikorsky Commanche and S97 Raider
  • Bell/Boeing V-22
  • Lockheed Martin/AW VH-71 (EH101)
  • Boeing/Leonardo MH-139A
  • AW/Boeing AH-64D
And historical licence manufacture of platforms and associated powerplants including;
  • License built aircraft manufacturing relationships between Bell, Sikorsky, Boeing and Westland, Agusta, Sud Aviation, Aerospatiale, Dornier, and others.
  • Licence built engine manufacturing including General Electric, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls-Royce, MTU, Alfa Romeo (Avio), ITP, Piaggio, and others.
Many OEMs already outsource basic airframe manufacture, so the likelihood of a new-build airframe manufacturing capability for the UK may be more tenuous in order to expedite the manufacturing process. So utilizing an imported airframe to complete in the UK, at least to start, is the most likely scenario to get the programme moving as expediently as possible. Just within the existing partnerships, you can see the range of options that are currently available - which doesn't limit any additional ones that might be created. Airbus is working on resolving how to manufacture the H175M airframe without Chinese content, but the 139 Airframe is already manufactured in Europe. The S70i is manufactured in Poland, so the only real outsider currently would be the Bell 525, but they have the opportunity and time to consider options for this as well.

The opportunity for the UK to determine and select the best platform, coupled with the ability to generate a significant amount of manufacturing and MRO capability in the long term is an extremely attractive political proposition for the UK helicopter industry, and the OEMs all know this. In the good old days, there were all kinds of offsets and weird industrial "benefits", many of which had no relevance to the procurement, however, this is a tremendous opportunity for UK business to drive the support capability to a UK solution - and although the UK is a member of NATO, it is no longer a member of the EU, and needs to take this opportunity to benefit the UK in the long term as a primary goal. It is worth considering the recent German CH-47F/CH53K competition which had no offset requirements at all, but both OEM's platforms involved full direct engagement with German industry because this was a mutually beneficial driver in the selection of the platform. Unfortunately, neither side seemed to be able to provide a solution within the customer's budget and the procurement was terminated, only to be challenged in court by Lockheed Martin who failed to convince the Judge that this was done illegally. So now the selection is looking for a US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) solution, as a means of managing full life cycle program cost. The current UK CH-47F procurement is an FMS case, so it remains highly likely that FMS solutions will feature, if nothing else, as a means of maintaining control of the budget!
Great post, thanks for taking the time.

I've found the general feeling for which cab will be the NMH depends on which crewroom you go for a brew in. Of course, none of those people are making the decision, they are just the end users, so probably won't even be asked for their thoughts on what is required.
trim it out is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2022, 06:29
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 200
Received 12 Likes on 9 Posts
Just for the record, Boeing did not partner with Sikorsky on the S-97 Raider, nor are they partnering with them on Raider-X. Some of the data generated by S-97, though, is used on SB>1 Defiant (and its successor Defiant X) on which the two are partnering .
Commando Cody is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2022, 10:11
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by rotor-rooter
Should the requirement become focused on political and economic rationale (which isn't in any way unreasonable), rather than the best value from a capability/supportability standpoint, then it becomes impossible to eliminate any OEM, as each demonstrates their ability to partner or team with another if it benefits their mutual interests.

There seems to be limited consideration of the presence of Boeing in the UK, already supporting the fleet of Chinook and Apache helicopters in service. All OEM's have beneficial partnerships all over the world, principally to allow access to markets that might otherwise be politically difficult to penetrate, including some contemporary examples:
  • Sikorsky/Eurocopter LUH-72A (H145)
  • Boeing/Sikorsky Commanche and S97 Raider
  • Bell/Boeing V-22
  • Lockheed Martin/AW VH-71 (EH101)
  • Boeing/Leonardo MH-139A
  • AW/Boeing AH-64D
And historical licence manufacture of platforms and associated powerplants including;
  • License built aircraft manufacturing relationships between Bell, Sikorsky, Boeing and Westland, Agusta, Sud Aviation, Aerospatiale, Dornier, and others.
  • Licence built engine manufacturing including General Electric, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls-Royce, MTU, Alfa Romeo (Avio), ITP, Piaggio, and others.
Many OEMs already outsource basic airframe manufacture, so the likelihood of a new-build airframe manufacturing capability for the UK may be more tenuous in order to expedite the manufacturing process. So utilizing an imported airframe to complete in the UK, at least to start, is the most likely scenario to get the programme moving as expediently as possible. Just within the existing partnerships, you can see the range of options that are currently available - which doesn't limit any additional ones that might be created. Airbus is working on resolving how to manufacture the H175M airframe without Chinese content, but the 139 Airframe is already manufactured in Europe. The S70i is manufactured in Poland, so the only real outsider currently would be the Bell 525, but they have the opportunity and time to consider options for this as well.

The opportunity for the UK to determine and select the best platform, coupled with the ability to generate a significant amount of manufacturing and MRO capability in the long term is an extremely attractive political proposition for the UK helicopter industry, and the OEMs all know this. In the good old days, there were all kinds of offsets and weird industrial "benefits", many of which had no relevance to the procurement, however, this is a tremendous opportunity for UK business to drive the support capability to a UK solution - and although the UK is a member of NATO, it is no longer a member of the EU, and needs to take this opportunity to benefit the UK in the long term as a primary goal. It is worth considering the recent German CH-47F/CH53K competition which had no offset requirements at all, but both OEM's platforms involved full direct engagement with German industry because this was a mutually beneficial driver in the selection of the platform. Unfortunately, neither side seemed to be able to provide a solution within the customer's budget and the procurement was terminated, only to be challenged in court by Lockheed Martin who failed to convince the Judge that this was done illegally. So now the selection is looking for a US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) solution, as a means of managing full life cycle program cost. The current UK CH-47F procurement is an FMS case, so it remains highly likely that FMS solutions will feature, if nothing else, as a means of maintaining control of the budget!
Sikorsky has contract to support Reagan Test Site UH-72A but didnít help in development with them Eurocopter bringing it into the US Army

cheers
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2022, 12:34
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by chopper2004
Sikorsky has contract to support Reagan Test Site UH-72A but didnít help in development with them Eurocopter bringing it into the US Army

cheers
Thanks, Commander Cody for the correction to the Raider programme, it was an example rather than something I am intimately familiar with.

Chopper 2004, the winning bid for the LUH-72A utilized Sikorsky's Government contracting resources to win this bid. I won't get into the relationships between the Sikorsky management and Bell, I'll let you figure this out yourself, but the information I provided is from first hand accounts and conversations directly with me. Sikorsky had no product for this specific requirement, but you may be able to determine who might, and the motivation they might have in this arrangement.

I would agree that this appears to be a very unusual arrangement, and for a long time I never really shared this information with many people. But I assure you that it is factual, and is in fact totally verifiable from US Government sources in documents published on Wikileaks.
rotor-rooter is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2022, 14:02
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Land of the Angles
Posts: 348
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chopper 2004, the winning bid for the LUH-72A utilized Sikorsky's Government contracting resources to win this bid. I won't get into the relationships between the Sikorsky management and Bell, I'll let you figure this out yourself, but the information I provided is from first hand accounts and conversations directly with me. Sikorsky had no product for this specific requirement, but you may be able to determine who might, and the motivation they might have in this arrangement.
Clearly SAC had way more than a foot in the door with the US DoD procurement office, but as I recall, SAC had no Ďseriousí intention of bidding a platform for the LUH program.

It was Eurocopter, who, out of the blue, approached SAC to ask if they would team up with them in order to bid the 145, as Eurocopter had never won a US DoD contract and thought that having Sikorsky on-board would add credibility to their bid. Clearly it did.

The plan was that American Eurocopter would build the airframes and Sikorsky would manage the TLS, something they already did on a massive scale for other US Mil platforms.

As for SAC/Bell link-up, it was a source of amusement at the time, that SACís top three execs (JP, SE & CB) were all ex Bell.
Hilife is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2022, 06:15
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 200
Received 12 Likes on 9 Posts
There's such a game of musical chairs going on with these companies. Earlier, one of the reasons Bell slowed work on Tilt-Rotors outside of the V-22, including selling off the -609 was that they hired avery high ranking executive, who didn't like Tilt-Rotors,--from Sikorsky.

Another anecdotal story is that when United Technologies decided it didn't want to deal with helicopters anymore, one company that was very interested in picking it up was Textron. In would have been a nice fit and its product line would have blended in well with one of Textron's other companies...Bell helicopter. US Gov't opposed that apparently on antitrust grounds. What they didn't count on was that the only other large helicopter manufacturer, Boeing, wouldn't be interested. However, some of the European companies were very interested. Suddenly, by frowning on the Bell idea, they inadvertently created a situation where a major US defense resource could become a subsidiary of a European defense company, with all the issues that could raise.

So Lockheed essentially became the "White Knight",

IIRC.
Commando Cody is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2022, 11:07
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 233
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Behave yourself Milo - no one believes that an OEM would design a battlefield helicopter with a tricycle undercarriage. The fact that it has naff-all military orders highlights that. It was a compromise design from start - Master of nothing in particular - although I hear the O&G guys like it so go figure.....
JulieAndrews is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2022, 15:45
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And just in time, here's the very latest OEM partnership! Any bets that France is also about to announce a H-47 order as well? Airbus has long supported all the other OEM platforms in the Bundeswehr inventory, but got left out of the Sikorsky CH-53 replacement selection, which they now seem to have remedied by teaming with Boeing. You really couldn't make this stuff up.

https://helihub.com/2022/03/28/boein...k-partnership/

Boeing and Airbus sign strategic H-47 Chinook partnership

28-Mar-2022 Source: Airbus Helicopters

Boeing [NYSE: BA] and Airbus Helicopters today signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to partner on the H-47 Chinook in support of Germany’s Schwerer Transporthubschrauber (STH) heavy-lift helicopter requirements.

“We are pleased that Airbus Helicopters has joined our team of strategic partners on the H-47 Chinook program for Germany, and together we will provide the strongest offering to the Bundeswehr,” said Mark Cherry, Boeing vice president and general manager, Vertical Lift programs. “The Chinook has been the preferred heavy-lift helicopter in Europe for decades and a cornerstone of all kinds of NATO operations. It is the only heavy-lift capable of providing Germany immediate interoperability with allied nations and is significantly more powerful, versatile and agile than any other aircraft in its class.”

The new partnership between Boeing and Airbus aims at bolstering German defense readiness while supporting German industry and economic growth. The partnership will draw on the strengths and combined expertise of the world’s leading aerospace companies to deliver advanced capability, readiness and innovative solutions as part of the German Chinook industry offering.

“Torbjorn (Turbo) Sjogren, Vice President, Boeing Global Services, International Government & Defence and Wolfgang Schoder, General Manager of Airbus Helicopters in Germany, signing the MoU in Philadelphia”.

“Building on decades of experience as a partner of the Bundeswehr, Airbus Helicopters is excited to join Boeing’s Chinook Germany industry team and to partner with Boeing on delivering maximum operational availability to the Bundeswehr,” said Wolfgang Schoder, General Manager of Airbus Helicopters in Germany. “The H-47 Chinook is a proven, mature program in service with many of our allies, and is the optimum solution for Germany with an excellent price-performance ratio.”

The partnership agreement builds on the existing Chinook partnership team consisting of AERO-Bildung GmbH, CAE Elektronik GmbH, ESG Elektroniksystem- und Logistik-GmbH, Lufthansa Technik, Honeywell Aerospace and Rolls-Royce Deutschland. Boeing is committed to working with German industry on aircraft sustainment, including post-delivery modifications and installations, aircraft maintenance, supply chain services, training and logistical support, as well as the potential for sub-systems Maintenance Repair and Overhaul work.

“The partnership with Airbus Helicopters reaffirms our commitment to strengthen cooperation with German industry,” said Dr. Michael Haidinger, president, Boeing Germany. “With our Chinook offering and together with our German industry partners, we will create more than 500 highly skilled jobs in-country, all in direct support of the Bundeswehr’s heavy-lift mission requirements.”

As chosen by eight NATO nations – Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Canada and the United States of America – the Chinook has proven its unique capabilities and mission readiness in several theatres and has delivered on many other mission requirements, including Air-to-Air refueling, Medevac, troop transport, search and rescue and humanitarian and disaster relief, and special operations. Chinook Air-to-Air refueling operations have spanned the globe and the number of tanker hook ups, behind a variety of tanker aircraft is estimated to be in the 10.000’s. Read more at
https://helihub.com/2022/03/28/boein...k-partnership/
rotor-rooter is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2022, 19:18
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 233
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Helivert hasnt been 'Leonardo-washed' yet
JulieAndrews 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 or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.