Quote: Gates told the House Appropriations defense subcommittee he is intrigued by the notion of buying one helicopter for routine presidential travel and another for emergencies.
Under the idea, one model would carry presidents from the White House to Andrews Air Force Base, Md., where they leave on most Air Force One flights. The second would be an "escape helicopter," Gates said.
The secretary said he only heard about the plan "this morning."
Not sure why this makes sense. POTUS may be at the White House or Andrews and need to escape. Two kinds of helos will almost certainly cost more than one. I think a more sensible approach is to scale down the VH-71 wishlist. I cetainly don't see why the POTUS would need to broadcast live TV from a helo. He could be flown to a studio and/or VC-25A that already has video capabilities.
Also,
Quote: Gates said the Pentagon likely will not purchase the increment-one VH-71s because they would each cost $485 million if the military bought 23 increment-one helicopters; that cost would rise to $1 billion a copy if the department bought only nine.
Plus, he said, the Pentagon has concluded the increment-one helicopters only have "a 10-year lifespan" and were not designed to have new capabilities added as they age.
I expect we'll be hearing a rebuttal from Jackonicko very soon...
Jackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 446 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2719 times:
JDW reported that: "Orsi (CEO of AW and a respected engineer in his own right) insists that the aircraft meets requirements, having passed its Critical Design Review in February 2007, and NAVAIR flight clearance in July 2007. He energetically denied that the VH-71 is limited to a ‘five to ten year life’, pointing out that the basic AW101 aircraft has a 10,000 flying hour life and that a plan of activities has been agreed and contracted to demonstrate that the VH-71’s service life can be increased to at least 10,000 flying hours.")
This is equivalent to a 30 year life. There's no need for any mods or improvements to give a longer life, only to demonstrate that the VH-71A (a standard AW101) has the same airframe life as, um, err, a standard AW101..... and that the airframe already inherently has that longer life.
On topic, HMX-1 has more than one type because the VH-3 isn't sufficiently air portable, while the VH-60's tiny cabin makes it sub-optimal for the role. The obvious solution is to get a single type that is big enough to be comfortable (and to take the VH-3 comms kit) and yet which is still air transportable on a C-17.
Like the Increment 1 VH-71.
Both types are obsolescent and becoming progressively harder to support. Both types have major shortcomings that are addressed in the Increment 1 VH-71.
The sensible solution is to bite AW's hand off and accept their offer to supply 19 Increment 1 VH-71As within the headline cost of $6.5 Bn - at least $3.1 Bn of which has already been spent.
To get even better VFM, select a CH-71 to meet CVLSP and an HH-71 to meet son-of-CSAR-X.
That's exactly my point in which I am so irritated that we just cut the program all together. Cut the program in half and do away with increment 2 and 3, but there was no need to cut it all and just park the nine increment 1 aircraft which are nothing but superior in every fashion to the existing VH-3D and VH-60's.
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 2): To get even better VFM, select a CH-71 to meet CVLSP and an HH-71 to meet son-of-CSAR-X.
Are they even going to re-bid CSAR-X anytime soon? No doubt the HH-71 is the best platform there as well because hey, let's face it - there isn't a better modern rotary-winged design out there in the entire world. Spare me the ignorant thump chesting, the US has sold out to China like a 2 dollar crack whore and doesn't have much of a leg to stand on in that argument.
Jackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 446 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2645 times:
To be fair, I suspect that there are US alternatives for CVLSP - I see no reason why a vanilla S-92 could not do that job adequately, nor even a Bell 412 at a pinch! Though the advantages of commonality with the HMX-1 fleet might dictate that a US101 would not be a more cost effective solution.
But the CSAR-X is a more difficult problem. If the USAF needs a post Cold War CSAR platform then you need a fast, quiet, helicopter with a large cabin, easy access, and good winching characteristics. You need that platform to be quickly and easily air deployable. That is an almost perfect description of the H-71/US101, and it assuredly is not a description of either the Chinook (a great heavy lift helicopter - but far from quiet) nor the S-92.
If you think that you can always mount a Scott Grady style rescue - with a massed fleet of aircraft for suppressing enemy defences and with enough assets to 'fight in' and 'fight out' rather than slipping in in a more covert fashion, then perhaps you could use a Chinook, if you can get it into theatre and operational quickly enough. Most CSAR/JPR SMEs would agree that such a scenario is no longer representative of the way that CSAR and JPR is undertaken.
The worry is that the US DoD has actually decided to do away with CSAR altogether as a primary and dedicated role, and that it will instead use SOF to do the job, and will beef up SOF aviation (especially MH-47G) for CSAR and today's wars.
Perhaps Lockmart should be pushing an MH-71 - it would certainly make a useful adjunct to the MH-60 and MH-47.
Revelation From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3980 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2617 times:
Quoting Revelation (Thread starter): Quote:
Gates said the Pentagon likely will not purchase the increment-one VH-71s because they would each cost $485 million if the military bought 23 increment-one helicopters; that cost would rise to $1 billion a copy if the department bought only nine.
Ok, we have 23 * $485M = $11.2B.
Also 9 * $1B = $9B.
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 2): The sensible solution is to bite AW's hand off and accept their offer to supply 19 Increment 1 VH-71As within the headline cost of $6.5 Bn - at least $3.1 Bn of which has already been spent.
How do you get 19 helos for $6.5B which is $342M each when SecDef Gates is using $485M each?
Even if we throw away the $3.1B already spent, you end up with $179M each, which doesn't seem to be a bargin for what is supposedly an off the shelf airframe.
Jackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 446 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2588 times:
Revelation,
How do you get 19 helos for $6.5B which is $342M each when SecDef Gates is using $485M each?
Because Gates is clearly using the estimated $11.5 Bn figure required to complete the programme as originally scoped, including delivery of Increment 2 aircraft. Because Gates is, in short, wrong.
That should not come as a major shocker, as thus far, almost everything that Gates has said about VH-71 (price, service life, etc.) has been demonstrably wrong.
$6.5 Bn is the total programme cost for a fleet of 19 Increment 1 VH-71As, according to Orsi, including the five already delivered, and including the test vehicles and development activity completed to date.
That's a unit programme cost of $342 m for the 19 operational aircraft (assuming the TVs, the lease of AV1 and TV1 are all included), up from the original planned unit programme cost of $282 m.
Much of that cost is the cost of bloated NAVAIR bureaucracy, and the infamous new tower at Pax River.
If you want to buy off-the-shelf new VIP Merlins then you'd pay about €50 m ($70 m) each, fully specced. (India was paying €400 m for 12 basic aircraft, €600 m including unspecified 'extra kit' for the role). That would include an initial spares and support package.
Now the VH-71A will be more expensively kitted out than India's VVIP helicopters, of course, but even allowing for the VH-71 costing twice as much as the Indian VVIP machine, you're paying a massive amount is programme costs, over and above the unit price of the aircraft themselves.
That's because you have a bloated procurement system that's not suited to the procurement of small numbers of aircraft.
Stitch,
If you want to carry a triple hook underslung load at 18,000 ft up an Afghan mountain, then buy a Chinook, but for routine transport tasks, the bog-standard Merlin's hot and high performance has proved to be entirely satisfactory, and the GE engined VH-71A is a rocket ship among Merlins.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Reply 8, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2558 times:
Gates taking heat on a now daily basis on decision to axe the VH-71 program from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress, as well as the Italian PM...
Objections To VH-71 Cancellation Grow Louder
Jun 5, 2009 Aviation Week By Bettina H. Chavanne
Quote:
AgustaWestland and parent Finmeccanica continue to consider the termination of the VH-71 as a pure political decision of the new Obama administration and without any operational or even financial foundation. Alternatives could prove both less secure for the President and costlier, industry officials suggest.[/quote]
Revelation From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3980 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2510 times:
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 7): Because Gates is clearly using the estimated $11.5 Bn figure required to complete the programme as originally scoped, including delivery of Increment 2 aircraft. Because Gates is, in short, wrong.
That should not come as a major shocker, as thus far, almost everything that Gates has said about VH-71 (price, service life, etc.) has been demonstrably wrong.
I am very disappointed in SecDef Gates then. He was asked what the cost would be for the Increment 1 aircraft, and so he misled Congress, which is a serious issue in my book. I hope he was merely mistaken instead of intentionally misleading Congress.
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 7): That should not come as a major shocker, as thus far, almost everything that Gates has said about VH-71 (price, service life, etc.) has been demonstrably wrong.
$6.5 Bn is the total programme cost for a fleet of 19 Increment 1 VH-71As, according to Orsi, including the five already delivered, and including the test vehicles and development activity completed to date.
That's a unit programme cost of $342 m for the 19 operational aircraft (assuming the TVs, the lease of AV1 and TV1 are all included), up from the original planned unit programme cost of $282 m.
Much of that cost is the cost of bloated NAVAIR bureaucracy, and the infamous new tower at Pax River.
If you want to buy off-the-shelf new VIP Merlins then you'd pay about €50 m ($70 m) each, fully specced. (India was paying €400 m for 12 basic aircraft, €600 m including unspecified 'extra kit' for the role). That would include an initial spares and support package.
Now the VH-71A will be more expensively kitted out than India's VVIP helicopters, of course, but even allowing for the VH-71 costing twice as much as the Indian VVIP machine, you're paying a massive amount is programme costs, over and above the unit price of the aircraft themselves.
That's because you have a bloated procurement system that's not suited to the procurement of small numbers of aircraft.
I certainly can believe that.
Also as you said, they tend to use new procurement programs to cover the cost of totally unrelated items. The B2 program was used to fund a myriad of things that had nothing to do with the B2, thus the $2B per airframe "cost".
AgustaWestland and parent Finmeccanica continue to consider the termination of the VH-71 as a pure political decision of the new Obama administration and without any operational or even financial foundation. Alternatives could prove both less secure for the President and costlier, industry officials suggest.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2410 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2493 times:
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 2): On topic, HMX-1 has more than one type because the VH-3 isn't sufficiently air portable,
I thought that the VH71 was even larger that the VH3, so if the VH3 is not sufficiently air portable how come the VH71 is?
As I said in the last thread, the requirements for the replacement POTUS helicopter needs to be rewritten, regardless of which a/c gets submitted or even wins, the current reqs have got to go, if they remain, how long before the sercet service requires some massive upgrades to the BEAST which just went into service.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15927 posts, RR: 64 Reply 11, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2491 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 10): I thought that the VH71 was even larger that the VH3, so if the VH3 is not sufficiently air portable how come the VH71 is?
The VH-71 is longer, taller and heavier then the VH-3. It may be wider, as well. I would therefore expect the VH-71 to need more break-down then a VH-3 in order to fit in a C-5 Galaxy.
XT6Wagon From United States, joined Feb 2007, 1823 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2489 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11): The VH-71 is longer, taller and heavier then the VH-3. It may be wider, as well. I would therefore expect the VH-71 to need more break-down then a VH-3 in order to fit in a C-5 Galaxy.
I believe it was said in the CSAR-X that they had the requirement for 3hr teardown for C5 AND C17 changed to C5 *OR* C17 for this very reason. The C5 needs more of the driveline pulled off to fit in the lower celings of the C5.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15927 posts, RR: 64 Reply 13, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2487 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 12): The C5 needs more of the driveline pulled off to fit in the lower celings of the C5.
But the C-5 has a taller ceiling then the C-17. The C-5 is 4.1m all the way across, while the C-17 is that tall only aft of the wing root (and is 3.8m forward of it).
If it's good enough for Her Majesty, it should also be good enough for His Excellency. Quite fitting for an "escape" helo, and may likely not have a problem with this.....
Quoting Stitch (Reply 13): while the C-17 is that tall only aft of the wing root (and is 3.8m forward of it).
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 163 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2449 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
The VH-71 is longer, taller and heavier then the VH-3. It may be wider, as well. I would therefore expect the VH-71 to need more break-down then a VH-3 in order to fit in a C-5 Galaxy.
The Sea King folded is 14.56m long, 4.95m wide, and 4.88m high.
The S-92 folded (in the CH-148 Cyclone configuration) is 14.37m long, 4.72m wide, and 4.70m high.
The AW101 folded is 15.75m, 5.60m wide, and 5.30m high. It's not that much bigger than the others, and it is technically, C-17 transportable.
Well it would have to be. Otherwise it's just an Eastern seaboard runabout. That would not fulfill the purpose of the program -- a globally deployed aircraft for POTUS, who does a lot of travel.
The public is satisfied that the B2 is special and serves a purpose of scaring people like North Korean leaders and Pakistani hill-dwellers. It's an important piece of kit. Bad guys worry about it during the night.
The POTUS helicopter is a glorified limousine contract. It's not strategic. It is not a big deal, and should not cost billions of dollars. One billion -- for the whole system -- is more like it.
If it costs more than $200 million per aircraft, the public simply will not accept it. So it would not accomplish the mission of serving the President. This is the story of the VH-71.
Beta From United States, joined Nov 2006, 190 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2172 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 16): The POTUS helicopter is a glorified limousine contract. It's not strategic. It is not a big deal, and should not cost billions of dollars. One billion -- for the whole system -- is more like it.
If it costs more than $200 million per aircraft, the public simply will not accept it. So it would not accomplish the mission of serving the President. This is the story of the VH-71.
Nothing against this President, but it's time the President to fly with what he has, not what he (or his entourage) wishes he'd have. If grunts on the ground have to make do with bare-bone, ancient kits, so does the commander-in-chief has to share some of that. I find it rather humorous and ironic that we should go to China to ask to borrow $ billions from the PLA so that we could kit our President's helicopter fleet as flying Rolls-Royce. Only in America!
Quote: "The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) expressed its disappointment in the Navy’s management of the VH-71 presidential helicopter program and recommended DOD continue with procurement of Increment 1 helicopters.
The committee supports a new acquisition plan that could include two helicopters. But with costs potentially spiraling to $17 billion for that option, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report, the committee 'strongly suggests' DOD continues with procurement of the current Increment 1 helicopters for use as 'normal transport.'"
Does "normal transport" mean it would not be transporting the POTUS? If so, those Increment 1 helos could probably go into record books as the most expensive regular choppers ever! And wasn't it mentioned above that five airframes were already fit for VH-71 duty? It shouldn't be too difficult or expensive to "missionize" those -- just don't go way over the top.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Reply 20, posted (5 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1724 times:
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 19): "The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) expressed its disappointment in the Navy’s management of the VH-71 presidential helicopter program and recommended DOD continue with procurement of Increment 1 helicopters.
Since the House is the one writing out the checks, it's nice to see something come out of Congress that doesn't further piss away taxpayer's monies.
Quote:
“By endorsing Increment One, the House Armed Services Committee sent a strong message to the rest of Congress and the Pentagon that wasting the incredible investment in the VH-71 program is unacceptable.
But can you believe there are those elected representatives that actually think Obama is a military aviation expert now, as well? Spending the money to finish the buy on increment one VH-71's instead on keeping the current antiquated Sikorsky HMX fleet in business is all but a blatant handout to Sikorsky and a gross dereliction of taxpayer money.
Quote:
Still, other committee members say the bill honors both the President's and DoD request to do away with the embattled helicopter. Mississippi Democrat Gene Taylor, who chairs the relevant subcommittee for the project, says the language has no real meaning when it comes to allocating money. “We both know the difference between ‘directs’ and ‘strongly recommends,’ ” Taylor said. He said President Obama has no objections to the helicopters currently serving as "Marine One" when he is on board.
And if this is the reasoning behind canceling the VH-71, then people need to go to prison for wasting $4 BILLION in taxpayer money while they supposedly "figured out" what the requirements were while on the taxpayers dime. Which requirements changed other than the name of the company making the aircraft? My ASS!!!
Quote:
But soaring costs and long delays caused Defense Secretary Robert Gates to end the program. He said the aircraft no longer met the necessary requirements, and would not be in service long enough to justify building them.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2410 posts, RR: 3 Reply 21, posted (5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1623 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 20): And if this is the reasoning behind canceling the VH-71, then people need to go to prison for wasting $4 BILLION in taxpayer money while they supposedly "figured out" what the requirements were while on the taxpayers dime. Which requirements changed other than the name of the company making the aircraft? My ASS!!!
Well, some heads rolled on Boeings initial 100 tanker lease deal, lets see what happens when Boeing's not involved.
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 163 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1600 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 21): Well, some heads rolled on Boeings initial 100 tanker lease deal, lets see what happens when Boeing's not involved.
Some heads rolled because there was corruption and severe conflict of interest. The head of USAF procurement, Darleen Druyun, was found to be giving and inflating contracts to Boeing, plus passing confidential information from a competitor. She was doing to to give her daughter and her fiancée a job at Boeing, then, during the KC-767 negotiations, she was doing it again, padding the contract so she could get a job at Boeing once she retired from the Air Force. In the subsequent trial, it was discovered that because of Darleen Druyun, the deal would have overcharged the USAF by $6 billion dollars.
Revelation From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3980 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (5 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1494 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 20): But can you believe there are those elected representatives that actually think Obama is a military aviation expert now, as well? Spending the money to finish the buy on increment one VH-71's instead on keeping the current antiquated Sikorsky HMX fleet in business is all but a blatant handout to Sikorsky and a gross dereliction of taxpayer money.
It's interesting that you see everything through political eyes, and even more interesting that all you see here is the relatively small potential handout to US-based Sikorsky as opposed to the relatively huge potential handout to LM and a few EU-based companies whose countries were key partners in the invasion of Iraq. Or maybe you see it but choose to ignore it?
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Reply 24, posted (5 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1483 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 23): and even more interesting that all you see here is the relatively small potential handout to US-based Sikorsky
Small handout to Sikorsky? In the recent Aviation Week Paris 2009 special issue dated 15 June, 2009 the "service life extension of the existing (HMX) fleet is estimated at $4.5 billion." Note that the existing fleet is comprised of all Sikorsky aircraft. And that's taxpayer money invested akin to throwing singles at your favorite pole dance at your local genetelmen's club.
So let me get this straight, let's piss away $4.5B to Sikorsky in the mean time while we contemplate how we can award them the rematch HMX bid which would be anywhere from $10B on the very low side to a much more likely $20B, just so Sikorsky can stay in the HMX business? I must have missed that part of the recent $787 billion Federal Stimulus bill.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 23): as opposed to the relatively huge potential handout to LM and a few EU-based companies whose countries were key partners in the invasion of Iraq.
Maybe I'm just one who doesn't view Western Europe (U.K., Germany, Italy, Spain, and France) as opponents and instead view their products as every bit as welcome in our U.S. military as our own?
Hell, if we couldn't buy Western European military products the Marines never would have bought Harrier jump jets, M-240 machine guns, or Beretta pistols.
Face reality, the Sikorsky S-92 is a good platform but it's wholly inferior in every shape, form, and fashion to the H-101 platform: the VH-71 is the best rotatory winged aircraft available in the entire world, bar none. Forgive me for siding with the best product for the mission.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2410 posts, RR: 3 Reply 25, posted (5 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1480 times:
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 22): Some heads rolled because there was corruption and severe conflict of interest. The head of USAF procurement, Darleen Druyun, was found to be giving and inflating contracts to Boeing, plus passing confidential information from a competitor. She was doing to to give her daughter and her fiancée a job at Boeing, then, during the KC-767 negotiations, she was doing it again, padding the contract so she could get a job at Boeing once she retired from the Air Force. In the subsequent trial, it was discovered that because of Darleen Druyun, the deal would have overcharged the USAF by $6 billion dollars.
Just a note, I believe that if they look hard enough, they can probably find the equivalent of Darleen in this project, I really do not believe that all the excess funds are so neatly aligned that no conflict of interest or other shennigans exist, I could be wrong but I doubt it. We will all know if it is finally cancelled, if not cancelled, we will never know.
26 Revelation: The cost we are paying is because the last administration wanted 20+ flying TV studios, dining cars, etc, each costing more than VC-25A, leaving the
27 DEVILFISH: Well, this shows it could be done..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/base/util/106295_1.jpg .....and not too shabbily at that, either. Probably fo
28 Jackonicko: "as opposed to the relatively huge potential handout to LM and a few EU-based companies whose countries were key partners in the invasion of Iraq." Wh
29 AirRyan: What color is the sky in your world? Those numbers and figures were printed in Aviation Week and obtained directly from the horse's mouth - Congress
30 Par13del: I'll leave the rest for as you say it is provocative and unless some big mouth politician says something it can never be proven, no need to continue
31 Revelation: Not saying it wasn't the best choice, but am saying it's documented fact that both Blair and Burlesconi (sp?) lobbied Bush directly on the matter. To
32 Jackonicko: Of course heads of state lobbied for their industry - but that doesn't mean that the contract was awarded as a thank you or to appease them. And conti
33 Revelation: It also doesn't mean it wasn't a factor. That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, and entitled to call me on it, but still doesn't mean I have
34 AirRyan: Find a print issue of the 2009 Paris Air Show dated June 15th, it has a price tag of $12 on it because it's thick copy. Jackonicko has pointed out th
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3980 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 446 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2410 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 3163 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 163 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 