Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AW Still Going To Bid VH-71 In VXX...  
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4452 times:

Look for L-3 to get in on this one...

Quote:

AgustaWestland Will Bid on New Marine One

By: Mark Huber
May 11, 2010
Rotorcraft, Defense

A spokesman for AgustaWestland (AW) told AIN that the company is still in the hunt for the U.S. VXX Presidential helicopter replacement program, commonly known as Marine One. Pier Francesco Guarguaglini, the chairman and CEO of AW parent company Finmeccanica, suggested that AW could partner with Boeing and L-3 for the contract.

The original program was canceled last year amid concerns that its costs, which had escalated past $13 billion or close to $400 million per unit, were out of control. Paired with Lockheed Martin, AgustaWestland had successfully won that competition with its AW-101.

However, last month Lockheed Martin said it would bid on the new replacement program with Sikorsky and that company’s H-92. “I can confirm we will be competing for the VXX program.

We strongly believe the (AW) 101 is the best helicopter to meet this requirement,” the AW spokesman said. Finmeccanica’s Guarguaglini last week confirmed that AgustaWestand is in talks with Boeing and L-3 to team on the VXX.

AW has successfully teamed with Boeing on several past projects, including co-built AH-64 Apaches and CH-47s for the British and Italian militaries, respectively.
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...-will-bid-on-new-marine-one-24852/

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4365 times:

Even though there was nothing in the last VX-X program that indicated those cost overruns were the fault of the AW-101, somehow I just don't see it getting selected this time, even with Boeing and L-3. There would be to much of a chance the SS and DOD would try to add the same costly features that ran the last VX-X into the ground.

Also, with the "buy US" attitude in the Congress now, because of the KC-X program, I just don't see this happening. Boeing would have to be very careful with saying the KC-X is a US jobs project and go onto support an EU helio partnership.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1675 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4349 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Also, with the "buy US" attitude in the Congress now, because of the KC-X program, I just don't see this happening. Boeing would have to be very careful with saying the KC-X is a US jobs project and go onto support an EU helio partnership.

How about a full marketing agreement between Boeing and AWIL to market, co-produce, and provide support for the AW-101 in the US and Americas?


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7053 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4303 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Also, with the "buy US" attitude in the Congress now, because of the KC-X program, I

Which buy US attitude, the one that made the DOD et.al believe that it was the right thing to do to extend the RFP bid process?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Even though there was nothing in the last VX-X program that indicated those cost overruns were the fault of the AW-101,

The mantra that the customer is always right is used by companies when they do not want the added expense of training more of their personnel to capable levels to address clients issues, the reality is that the customer is not always right, the company rules and procedures govern what is taking place.
The a/c producer does shoulder some of the blame because they allowed the client to turn their a/c into a financial boondoogle whose performance had to be upgraded while in production, they were not even able to get the right engine into the first frames, imagine that, an a/c not yet in testing having an engine redesigned for subsequent builds.
I believe they allowed that because it was never about the a/c or its capabilities, but how much money would be spent and how much made, the a/c and its use was secondary to the financial gains.

Unfortunately, some "knucklehead" allowed the cost to get out into the public domain, folks were then able to compare the cost of the helicopter to full blown a/c and the rest is history. This time around I'm sure the cost aspects will be kept much closer to the vest, somehow they will find a way to ensure that the public information released is limited or at least more "sanitized", I don't expect the program to cost any less.
Of couse my opinion only 


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4204 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I still say that all politics and national economic considerations aside....we need more booms in the air for the same money. The 767 tanker is a big improvement over the KC-135 in range, capacity and cargo carrying. It's a good bit less expensive than the A-330 based Airbus.

We aren't the smaller air forces who need to maximize the use out of their very limited fleets. If we only were going to have 5 or 10 tankers then yeah....go make Boeing and Airbus put the 777/330 up for comparison and go bigger because you have to do more with less.... but we're going to have a bunch of these things and all of our air operations require tanking....all of our allies rely on us for tanking (they contribute some, but without us it wouldn't work) and we need more booms in the air (drogues too).

This is the reason to go with 767 versus A330, and always has been. The more we can get up the more missions we can support.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4162 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 3):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Also, with the "buy US" attitude in the Congress now, because of the KC-X program, I

Which buy US attitude, the one that made the DOD et.al believe that it was the right thing to do to extend the RFP bid process?

I didn't say the DOD, I said Congress.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 4):
I still say that all politics and national economic considerations aside....we need more booms in the air for the same money. The 767 tanker is a big improvement over the KC-135 in range, capacity and cargo carrying. It's a good bit less expensive than the A-330 based Airbus.

Correct, but that comment os for the KC-X thread.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4147 times:

Maybe now that much of the developement has been paid for, AW might offer a price that is hard to resist. Opinions?


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7053 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4130 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
I didn't say the DOD, I said Congress.

Agree, but if the congress had let their feelings be known would the DOD have proceeded in the fashion that they did? Congress has been making its opinion known on the fighter gap and the financial benefit of the multi-year F-18 buy, they never passed any resolutions or anything but the DOD got the message, including Mr. Gates.

Quoting A342 (Reply 6):
Maybe now that much of the developement has been paid for, AW might offer a price that is hard to resist.

Other's may have to explain the technicalities but who exactly paid for the additional development work that was done on the a/c and how does that relate to the millions that have to be paid in penalties for the cancellation.
Would be a kicker if the customer paid for all the developments then is given a discount on purchasing the same a/c with a new price to do it all over again.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4026 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 6):
Maybe now that much of the developement has been paid for, AW might offer a price that is hard to resist. Opinions?

Perhaps they could discount the basic helio, but the mods are a different subject.

Quoting par13del (Reply 7):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
I didn't say the DOD, I said Congress.

Agree, but if the congress had let their feelings be known would the DOD have proceeded in the fashion that they did? Congress has been making its opinion known on the fighter gap and the financial benefit of the multi-year F-18 buy, they never passed any resolutions or anything but the DOD got the message, including Mr. Gates.

Well, before the 2008 selection, most members of Congress paid little attention to the KC-X program, except for McCain and those from LM CityHopper (Netherlands)">WA and AL. It was after that selection that Congress really got pissed off at the USAF 'for shipping US jobs to the EU'.

Quoting par13del (Reply 7):
Quoting A342 (Reply 6):
Maybe now that much of the developement has been paid for, AW might offer a price that is hard to resist.

Other's may have to explain the technicalities but who exactly paid for the additional development work that was done on the a/c and how does that relate to the millions that have to be paid in penalties for the cancellation.
Would be a kicker if the customer paid for all the developments then is given a discount on purchasing the same a/c with a new price to do it all over again.

Much of the former VX-X program was paid for by the USN and the SS. Remember that program was under LM management, who has a tradition of costs overruns.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic AW Still Going To Bid VH-71 In VXX...
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
VH-71 Presidential Helicopter Program In Trouble. posted Tue Nov 6 2007 07:41:30 by USAF336TFS
Any Tanker Folks Going To ATA In Dallas? posted Sun Oct 24 2004 06:08:01 by Kc330
China To Unveil Military Airlifter In Dec posted Thu Nov 5 2009 11:55:02 by Alberchico
Last Chance For The VH-71? posted Mon Sep 28 2009 11:16:01 by AirRyan
House App Comm Funds VH-71; Full Vote Next Week posted Thu Jul 23 2009 15:20:48 by AirRyan
LM Lays Off 600 From VH-71 Program... posted Tue Jul 14 2009 15:36:38 by AirRyan
Post VH-71 Options: No VH-71s, Two Helos Instead? posted Thu Jun 4 2009 15:28:22 by Revelation
Gates Calls For Termination Of VH-71 And CSAR-X posted Mon Apr 6 2009 11:52:13 by Curt22
VH-71 Purchase Being Reviewed posted Tue Feb 24 2009 07:29:18 by Curt22
VH-71 Production Bird Makes 1st Flt posted Tue Sep 23 2008 10:40:34 by Venus6971

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format