Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing To License AW101 For Presidential Helo Bid  
User currently offlinevcjc From United States of America, joined May 2010, 17 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6956 times:

Boeing is going to have a press event today at noon to discuss its VXX presidential helo bid.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1248

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.

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6948 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.

User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2191 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6941 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.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12923 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6722 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"!  



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7624 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6722 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.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2191 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6661 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.  

bikerthai

[Edited 2010-06-07 12:06:45]


Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6140 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?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6021 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.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7624 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5972 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.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5962 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..


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7624 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5925 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.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 5847 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.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_VH-71_EH101_Concept_lg.jpg


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7624 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5798 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.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5717 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?


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7624 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5631 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?


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2191 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 5446 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)?

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 5419 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.

Where do you come up with this stuff??


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5405 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.
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 16):
Where do you come up with this stuff??

I was going to ask the same thing. The only thing "obsolete" about the current H-47 is that it is not composite.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7624 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5281 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 16):
Where do you come up with this stuff??

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.

Strange world we live in  


User currently offlineBlackprojects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5193 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.

We shall see what happens.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7624 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5142 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  


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 22 hours ago) and read 4702 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
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 7624 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 4619 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.


User currently offlinesasd209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 7 hours ago) and read 4580 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.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing To License AW101 For Presidential Helo Bid
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...
Wall Street Journal: Boeing To Protest KC-X Bid... posted Mon Mar 10 2008 15:36:37 by AirRyan
Boeing Hoping To Beat Lockheed For Navy Contract posted Mon Jan 5 2004 14:13:32 by Keesje
Il-96 To Be Offered For KC-X posted Fri Mar 19 2010 18:43:25 by Shmertspionem
Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎ posted Thu Mar 4 2010 10:33:40 by yazoo
Boeing, UAE Announce Order For 6 C-17s posted Wed Jan 6 2010 12:54:28 by Propilot83
Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version posted Mon Jun 15 2009 08:11:11 by Lumberton
Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada? posted Fri May 29 2009 01:34:22 by JoeCanuck
Which Boeing Model Is Best For New Air Force 1? posted Mon Mar 23 2009 18:13:34 by Nitepilot79
Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough posted Thu Jul 3 2008 18:04:39 by EBJ1248650
Dems & Boeing Supporters Blame McCain For KC-45 posted Sat Mar 8 2008 18:50:24 by Mike89406

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format