Apparently they will license and build the helicopter from AgustaWestland. Lockheed already announced it is leaving its teaming arrangement with AgustaWestland to bid the S-92 with Sikorsky.
Interesting on several levels:
- Lockheed must have known something that prompted them to leave AgustaWestland
- What benefit does AgustaWestland get (besides royalites) if Boeing does all the work?
- Its an interesting development when you consider Boeing's legislative actions around KC-X.
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1115 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5457 times:
AWIL and Boeing have an existing relationship, as AWIL does license a number of Boeing designs for a few of their customers (WAH-64's for the British, CH-47 Chinook for the Italians, etc). Looks like this cooperation is going the other way.
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1628 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5450 times:
Quoting vcjc (Thread starter): - What benefit does AgustaWestland get (besides royalites) if Boeing does all the work?
"all the work" would probably be final assembly and mission equipment installation. There is still lots of sub-component work to be done; I presume in Italy
AgustaWestland and Boeing cooperated on the Italian C-47 Chinook. With this announcement, one can assume that they are "comfortable" working with each other.
Boeing is also hedging it bet that the C-47 is too big and the V-22 throw up too much dust.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10572 posts, RR: 21 Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5231 times:
Quoting vcjc (Thread starter): Lockheed must have known something that prompted them to leave AgustaWestland
Purely speculation, but maybe they thought it was swimming against the tide to have a non-US partner?
Quoting vcjc (Thread starter): What benefit does AgustaWestland get (besides royalites) if Boeing does all the work?
That's really their only choice, if they want to get a slice of the US DOD budget.
Quoting vcjc (Thread starter): Its an interesting development when you consider Boeing's legislative actions around KC-X.
It'll be interesting to see how they segway from selling the "US Tanker" to the "EU Helo"!
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5231 times:
Another way to look at it is that Boeing is no longer run by engineers, designers or innovators but rather by accountants and financial gurus.
The march of progress in the helo arena will not be poineered by Boeing, maybe LM and Sikorsky will ensure that future innovations in helicopter technology is not limited to one design concept, unless the Commanche fiasco has made them all "gun shy".
How exactly does Boeing intend to reduce the cost of the aircraft, if they purchase the intellectual property they have to re-coup that cost which will be in addition to all the other wonderfull enhancements previously proposed in the last contract, and yes I expect them to remain since they were added after the award of the contract, the folks who pushed for them were not "terminated" only the contract.
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1628 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5170 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 4): How exactly does Boeing intend to reduce the cost of the aircraft,
Having worked with some of these bean counter, I can assure you there's a lot of different types of beans to consider . . . like off-set agreements (for the Italian Chinook?) etc . . .
Quoting par13del (Reply 4): The march of progress in the helo arena will not be poineered by Boeing,
True, the Chinook is an old design. But Boeing did buy into what I would bet as the future of rotor-craft aviation: Look up A160 Hummingbird.
Quoting par13del (Reply 4): Another way to look at it is that Boeing is no longer run by engineers, designers or innovators but rather by accountants and financial gurus.
True, we don't run the company, we just try our best to do what they tell us . . . the impossible.
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4451 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4649 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 4): How exactly does Boeing intend to reduce the cost of the aircraft, if they purchase the intellectual property they have to re-coup that cost which will be in addition to all the other wonderfull enhancements previously proposed in the last contract
Well, hadn't the U.S. Government already paid for all those research and development, and thus in essence own the rights to them? Would the Government then charge Boeing for their adoption --- considering the POTUS would be the ultimate beneficiary?
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4530 times:
Boeing is working with EADS on a Chinook / CH53 replacement. We good / them bad guys thinkers must be panicking
Boeing adopting the 101 seems a pragmatic move. It was selected over others because of space, speed, range and engine redundancy. Those haven't changed. Loads of late additional requirements and bad program management killed the project.
Boeing can make a quick fresh start using everything done/ learned instead of making a cold start with a less suitable platform.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4481 times:
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 6): Well, hadn't the U.S. Government already paid for all those research and development, and thus in essence own the rights to them? Would the Government then charge Boeing for their adoption --- considering the POTUS would be the ultimate beneficiary?
The Government paid for research and development of the existing frame, this was not third party research of the physics of helicopter flight, but as usual, I could be wrong. The program shut down cost and its provisions is what we need to see.
Quoting keesje (Reply 7): Boeing can make a quick fresh start using everything done/ learned instead of making a cold start with a less suitable platform.
The AW101 has already been in service for a few years, but you already know that if Boeing does a clean sheet project it will be less suitable platform, I guess technology has no where to go as the ultimate helicopter has already been made
Innovation is gradually being lost in industries since most are now run by financial gurus who value a sure thing to make money versus the greater potential breaking new ground, our history is full of such but going forward creative thoughts are also going to be controlled.
The purchase is still under question as Boeing has not won the new RFP, if they do not, what will they do with the "intellectual property"? Existing users of the AW101, will they be able to source replacements from Europe of will they have to go to Boeing, numerous questions still abound, this is not yet a Marine 1 a/c.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4471 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 8): The AW101 has already been in service for a few years, but you already know that if Boeing does a clean sheet project it will be less suitable platform, I guess technology has no where to go as the ultimate helicopter has already been made
Do you suggest a clean sheet design for the marine 1 RFP ? Not sure that will cost effective, meet the EIS deadlines..
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4434 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 9): Do you suggest a clean sheet design for the marine 1 RFP ? Not sure that will cost effective, meet the EIS deadlines..
The US needs a clean sheet helicopter design to continue their relevance in the helicopter industry after the cancellation of the Commanche product.
Marine 1 is simply a helicopter with POTUS onboard, it should not drive the future of the industry, for POTUS needs the current fleet is not falling out of the sky and new build VH-60's can also be used as a stop gap. The US priorities at present are for new Search and Rescue a/c for multiple services, those requirements more than anything should drive the designs, the presidential fleet will amount to less than 10% or less of the entire production run, so in reality, those requirements should be secondary, as for the EIS, that at present is political and subject to change as the previous EIS was multiple times with the delays and massive cost overruns.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4356 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 10): The US needs a clean sheet helicopter design to continue their relevance in the helicopter industry after the cancellation of the Commanche product.
I can see that. However it seems Boeing made a business case & concluded adopting an existing design and developping for the US market was lower risk. I understand Hawk derivatives have a low cabin, is noisy has and has twin engines making it less desirable for moving heads of state.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4307 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 11): However it seems Boeing made a business case & concluded adopting an existing design and developping for the US market was lower risk
My point exactly, lower risk = less innovation.
Quoting keesje (Reply 11): I understand Hawk derivatives have a low cabin,
Another sure thing
Quoting keesje (Reply 11): and has twin engines making it less desirable for moving heads of state.
So 3 engines are now the preferred choice for head of state or is this your desired mandatory requirement in a RFP to ensure that only certain frame qualifies
Heading over to another thread, it appears that the obsolete tandem rotor technology that Boeing pushed in its Chinook design is being ressurected.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4226 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 12): So 3 engines are now the preferred choice for head of state or is this your desired mandatory requirement in a RFP to ensure that only certain frame qualifies
Three engines allows it to complete the mission after an engine failure in most cases. A twin engined heli goes for the nearest landing spot. With a head of state of head on board this is also the procedure, but not preferred obviously.
Do you think the next AF1 will be a twin or a 4 hauler your desired mandatory requirement in a RFP to ensure that only certain frame qualifies?
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4140 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 13): Three engines allows it to complete the mission after an engine failure in most cases. A twin engined heli goes for the nearest landing spot. With a head of state of head on board this is also the procedure, but not preferred obviously.
I never took the 3 engine push seriously since the helo is usually used for less than 30mins at a time, so all the excess range, cabin size for comfort, ability to broadcast as if on the VC25 simply drove up the cost and ultimately led to its cancellation.
Quoting keesje (Reply 13): Do you think the next AF1 will be a twin or a 4 hauler your desired mandatory requirement in a RFP to ensure that only certain frame qualifies?
How many 4 haulers exist that qualify, one is a derivitive the other new build, to me the length of time in service before qualification dates back to when a/c reliability was still in question, makes no difference. The new requirement for 3 a/c is more interesting, does it favour a twin?
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1628 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3955 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 12): My point exactly, lower risk = less innovation.
As with anything with respect to POTUS, will the Secret Service accept anything of higher risk when a lower risk alternative is available? Let the folks at the pointed end of the spear adopt the innovation. POTUS will use when the technology is proven. (This is from an airframe point of view. I'm sure POTUS is using lots of other types of innovation where "crashing" only requires a re-boot)
Quoting par13del (Reply 12): obsolete tandem rotor technology that Boeing pushed in its Chinook design is being ressurected.
Obsolete, but still one of the best all around heavy lift still being ordered by armed forces around the world. (India next)?
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3928 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 12): Heading over to another thread, it appears that the obsolete tandem rotor technology that Boeing pushed in its Chinook design is being ressurected.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6226 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3914 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 12): Heading over to another thread, it appears that the obsolete tandem rotor technology that Boeing pushed in its Chinook design is being ressurected.
I guess I took all those folks to heart who derided the CH-47 when Boeing won the CSAR competition, in spite of folks like yourself who have seen the a/c in action providing expert opinion.
Now that "someone" else has decided to team with Boeing to build a new "CH-47" the a/c may now be "modern" enough to actually compete or heaven forbid, win another round for a CSAR.
Blackprojects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3702 times:
So Boeing will build the EH-101 in the us after the US dod killed of the Lockheed version for presidential helicopter?!?
BP enters the twi-light Zone how many are sitting still shking there head and saying D.................oh!? how long before boeing tries to sell them to the us military and gates say"s no and Boeing gets a white (green) Elephant on there hands.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3651 times:
Quoting Blackprojects (Reply 19): So Boeing will build the EH-101 in the us after the US dod killed of the Lockheed version for presidential helicopter?!?
BP enters the twi-light Zone how many are sitting still shking there head and saying D.................oh!? how long before boeing tries to sell them to the us military and gates say"s no and Boeing gets a white (green) Elephant on there hands.
Well if we look at it logically, folks said the EH101 was the best frame for the CSAR and presidential fleet, and at least on the VIP fleet side it won the competition, so one down.
Secondly, a lot of folks are saying and seeing the push by the Air Force, DOD and others to give the tanker RFP to a non-Boeing frame, remember that the main genesis of this RFP is for an off the shelf a/c, how many producers are there of large commercial a/c in the US, one and that is Boeing, so a competition is meant to do what simply, lower the cost? If the nation has one OEM and they need a military product in the billions, we are supposed to believe that the only way they can get a fair price is to go overseas, thankfully other nations don't follow that trend of thinking.
Boeing's decision is curious and probably comes from the tanker side where they may be getting the feeling that folks just don't want their equipment - CSAR, tanker, etc. - so they are hedging their bets. Problem is that this a/c already won the competition to fly POTUS around, so the foreign content, design, assemble in the US makes no never mind, on top of that they are aiding EADS in building a Chinook replacement, so are they setting themselves up to be a subsidary of EADS assembling their a/c in North America?
Hhhhhmmmmmmm
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4935 posts, RR: 9 Reply 21, posted (2 years 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3211 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 8): The purchase is still under question as Boeing has not won the new RFP, if they do not, what will they do with the "intellectual property"? Existing users of the AW101, will they be able to source replacements from Europe of will they have to go to Boeing, numerous questions still abound, this is not yet a Marine 1 a/c.
Boeing have the rights to make the heli in the US, but if you want to buy helis made in the EU for whatever reason (like a better price) I don't see how they could prevent that.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3128 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 21): Boeing have the rights to make the heli in the US,
And if the US does not select their entry then what, it appears as if they have purchased the rights even though they do not have a customer for the product.
One must admit that this is different from the current way of doing business, get a client and use his money to fund your R&D and uktimately production. If the politicians on the Hill really have it in for Boeing those helo's will never be built as they will ensure that Boeing does not win any RFP.
sasd209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 633 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3089 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 11): and has twin engines making it less desirable for moving heads of state.
Twin engines have (and continue to do so) moved heads of state for over 50 years, when for a majority of the time a 3 engine option has been available yet never utilised. What, in the year 2010, suddenly makes a 3 engined helicopter so needed for short ranged missions like VIP transportation? Of course it allows for more flexibility in an 'engine out' situation, but are you really saying that an engine out in any VIP situation would not result in an immediate landing? I submit that be it a VH-3D, a 'VH-101', or a VC-25 with the POTUS on board; that A/C is landing at the nearest aerodrome ASAP and the passengers transferred to another A/C in any type of engine out situation.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2010, 17 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1115 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4451 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4935 posts, 
From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 633 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
