Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EADS Wins US Helicopter Contract  
User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7581 times:

http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional...25765390.xml&storylist=alabamanews

You might need to register to read the story but it's super simple with no personal info and free.

Here's a few short excerpts:

Quote:
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) � The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. will manage a U.S. military helicopter assembly operation potentially worth $3 billion out of Huntsville, the company announced Friday.

The contract to build up to 352 UH-145 helicopters for the military's light utility helicopter program was awarded to the EADS Friday. The helicopters will be assembled by the company's American Eurocopter facility in Columbus, Miss.

It's the company's first major military contract.

"When EADS North America was created four years ago, we committed to in-source U.S. jobs of high value, bring the best technology to America, and contribute to homeland security," said Ralph D. Crosby Jr., EADS North America's Chairman and chief executive, said in a statement. "The UH-145 will enable us to deliver once again on all three promises."

It's becoming more and more clear that the US military is allowing real competition for its contracts. In the long run this is good news as it will force US companies to be more innovative and efficient.

The tanker competition could be very interesting. An EADS win for that would bring Alabama up to 3 major EADS facilities. Definitely not something I would have predicted a few years ago.


Where are all of my respected members going?
93 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7581 times:

More loss of independence for the US. At least it's not a real force multiplier or a complete weapons system they'll have to get permission from Paris and Berlin for to use when needed.


I wish I were flying
User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7577 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 1):
More loss of independence for the US. At least it's not a real force multiplier or a complete weapons system they'll have to get permission from Paris and Berlin for to use when needed.

True, but when you look at the entrants it's hard to argue that this wasn't the strongest one. Very good payload, range, etc. and the truth is MBB came up with the best system for helicopter medical transport a long time ago and this is a major part of the intended use.



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7543 times:

Great news indeed - I think it is a very good helicopter for the U.S. Army and it shows that there is a real competition on the U.S. Military market.
U.S. companies can not be too sure to get a contract with the military any more.
But I believe it also shows that the most U.S. helicopter manufactureres such as Bell and Sikorsky have not been very innovative over the last decades.
It is the third big helicopter that went to European companies (the new "Marine 1" helicopter won by Agusta/Westland, the border patrol helicopters won by EADS and now this one, too)



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7509 times:

Well I certainly prefer a US military equipped by US manufactured equipment* -

That said: I also prefer my tax dollars get the best bang for the buck, and in this case, the EADS bird is the best by test.

Furthermore, I also prefer the soldiers in the field get the best possible equipment and if that means contracting outside the US, because US companies are not innovative or are lazy (because they've become comfortable getting US military contracts) then that ok too.

Whatever is best for the troops . . . that is the bottom line.

*Yes, I know it's going to built in Columbus, and by US workers (Mississippi workers of course  scared  wink  ).

BHMBAGLOCK, got a picture of this new bird? And how much more Gov't $$ can they stand in Huntsville!? I oughta move back there - closer to my Mom!


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7509 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 1):
More loss of independence for the US.

 confused 

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 1):
At least it's not a real force multiplier or a complete weapons system they'll have to get permission from Paris and Berlin for to use when needed.

If the USAF operated KC-30s, how exactly would France and Germany be able to stop them being operated as the US sees fit? banghead 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinePlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6807 posts, RR: 77
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7446 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 1):
More loss of independence for the US.

How exactly?

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 1):
At least it's not a real force multiplier or a complete weapons system they'll have to get permission from Paris and Berlin for to use when needed.

Examples?


PH



Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7432 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 4):
BHMBAGLOCK, got a picture of this new bird?

Here are some pictures of it:
http://www.uh-145.com/about/about_gallery.htm



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7420 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 5):
If the USAF operated KC-30s, how exactly would France and Germany be able to stop them being operated as the US sees fit?

By cutting off the parts supplies everytime the US and France or Germany disagreed on some international issue.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7203 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7404 times:

AncFlyer
"Furthermore, I also prefer the soldiers in the field get the best possible equipment and if that means contracting outside the US, because US companies are not innovative or are lazy (because they've become comfortable getting US military contracts) then that ok too."

KC135TopBoom
"Quoting Scbriml (Reply 5):
If the USAF operated KC-30s, how exactly would France and Germany be able to stop them being operated as the US sees fit?

"By cutting off the parts supplies everytime the US and France or Germany disagreed on some international issue."

If you cannot use it, how does having the best equipment help the troops? With all the worlds military now being run as a business, everyone is going to the Just In Time method for production and spare parts, no more extended inventory.

The way to influence a foreign power is now through its suppliers wherever they may be, amazing the more things change the more they remain the same. The U-boats of WW1 and WW2 proved that it was a viable strategy, wonder what was done to prevent that from happening again?

Another question, should the US now set up its version of EADS / AIRBUS to protect and ensure that it has a viable helicopter industry going forward? Purchasing all these helicopters from EADS / AIRBUS means that there will eventually be no deisgn knowledge in the US, assembly is only a part of the problem, take a note from the Eurpoeans here. Instead of asking Boeing / MDD and Lockheed to set up assembly plants in Europe to preserve jobs, they created Airbus to ensure home grown talent.

As you say, just a thought.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7399 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 5):
If the USAF operated KC-30s, how exactly would France and Germany be able to stop them being operated as the US sees fit? banghead



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
By cutting off the parts supplies everytime the US and France or Germany disagreed on some international issue.

Beat me to it, KC135TopBoom! I hope we get 100% control over the logistics pipeline here or some communist lawyer in France will file suit to restrict our use of these helos.  duck 



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7389 times:

Quoting Columba (Reply 7):
Here are some pictures of it:

Thanks!!!

I wonder how long that cushy leather look interior will be Standard Issue?


Quoting Lumberton (Reply 10):
I hope we get 100% control over the logistics pipeline here or some communist lawyer in France will file suit to restrict our use of these helos.

When that happens, we seize the factory and all it's assets in Shitbird, Mississippi

Problem over.

[Edited 2006-07-01 13:37:25]

User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7380 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 11):
Thanks!!!

I wonder how long that cushy leather look interior will be Standard Issue?

I wondered if the quad bike comes with delivery of the helo  Wink
Could be an option for overcrowded highways, take the helo, land near to your destination, take the bike out and go where ever you want to go.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7373 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
By cutting off the parts supplies everytime the US and France or Germany disagreed on some international issue.

This is utter protectionist tosh. So the USAF won't keep any spares?

The KC-30 is based on the A330. Plenty of US airlines operate it, so no problems getting spares for the basic plane. All the militarisation of the A330 would be done in the US, so how can France or Germany interfere with the supply line?



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7349 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 5):
If the USAF operated KC-30s, how exactly would France and Germany be able to stop them being operated as the US sees fit?

By cutting off the parts supplies everytime the US and France or Germany disagreed on some international issue.

If it really works that way, some countries might seriously reconsider buying further US made aircraft, helicopters and other defense material.

http://www.boeing.com/ids/a_to_z.html
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=20&sc=400


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7328 times:

BTW, does anyone else find the timing of this announcement curious? A late announcement on Friday , before a long weekend when Congress will be out for the holiday next week? Congress can still kill this, or hold it hostage to other "terms"....


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineAGC525 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 989 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7310 times:

My company has been using the EC-145 for a while now and although I haven't flown on on yet, I hear they're pretty awesome. But nothing beats the Dauphins we used to have.

http://alecbuck.com/airambulance/mediagallery/album.php?aid=355&page=1



American Aviation: From Kitty Hawk to the Moon in 66 years!
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7203 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7284 times:

Keesje
"
If it really works that way, some countries might seriously reconsider buying further US made aircraft, helicopters and other defense material."

Apparently, they do, especially after seeing what the US did with Iran and the military that the Shah built from US equipment.

Notice how the majority of other Arab countries started buying from more than one vendor.


User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7284 times:

This is not a completely new idea to U.S. Military spending. What about the USCG? They have been using European aircraft for awhile, Dauphin, Falcon. There had to be some reason to justify the spending while suitable alternatives were available.

Who were the competition? Huey II, Agusta AB139, UH-1Y?

The flow of parts and the indemnity of buying from a foreign supplier has been thought out. The U.S. would not allow itself to fall prey to it's own tactics.

/M


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7285 times:

Quoting MigFan (Reply 18):
This is not a completely new idea to U.S. Military spending. What about the USCG? They have been using European aircraft for awhile, Dauphin, Falcon. There had to be some reason to justify the spending while suitable alternatives were available.

Except . . . .

The USCG is not part of the DoD except in a time of war . . . do the DoD had nothing to do with it.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7274 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 19):
The USCG is not part of the DoD except in a time of war . . . do the DoD had nothing to do with it.

Technically correct, but it represented a signficant order nonetheless to a U.S. armed service, which the Coast Guard certainly is.

I still think this order has a long way to go before I see these things flying around Fort Hood. As I noted earlier, the timing of the announcement is curious. Congress hasn't even begun to weigh in on the politics except for a few reps from the states where EADS says the assembly will take place. Look for a lot of smoke and fire in the coming months.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7270 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 19):
The USCG is not part of the DoD except in a time of war . . . do the DoD had nothing to do with it.

Touche'

O.K, an aircraft called the "Harrier". It would be nice to see what one would look like in USCG colors. McDD eventually bought the design to fix it and corner the re-supply options. A similar tale could be told about the T-45.

/M


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7256 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The UH145/EC145 is based on the BK117 which is about the most popular civilian medevac chopper in the US , so its certainly well suited to the program requirements and a large civilian logistical base is present already in the US.

The US Army and other services has had no problems buying non US equipment for years and especially since most of this chopper is going to be assembled in the US and likely to end up mostly being sourced from US suppliers I see no reason why people should be concerned about an "embargo"! Which has never happened between NATO nations anyway. I'd be more concerned about those 155mm light howitzers, the 57mm guns for the littoral combat ships, the Stryker vehicles etc coming from "foreign" suppliers, all those non US sourced parts in the Evolved SeaSparrow Missile would stop that program dead in its track with any embargo etc etc etc. In case some of you missed it the Japanese just recently put a spanner in Pac 3 missile production by delaying supplies of Japanese composite components to Raytheon to make a point to the US about getting more Japanese involvement in TBM defense. AFAIK the Europeans have never done that or even threatened it, and I was with the DoD for 3 years in London coordinating such programs and still hear from people involved.
The Europeans have a much better way to truely hit US combat capabilities than this fleet of UH145s being grounded in the continental US! But they aren't likely to ever do it, or be truely capable of doing it - not unless your disagreement lasts for many years, whereas you can bet good money some of our other "allies" will be more than happy not only to mess up our programs but give out our technical secrets to true enemy nations.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7246 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 22):
In case some of you missed it the Japanese just recently put a spanner in Pac 3 missile production by delaying supplies of Japanese composite components to Raytheon to make a point to the US about getting more Japanese involvement in TBM defense.

I did miss this. Could you please provide a link to more info? Thanks.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7232 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 20):
but it represented a signficant order nonetheless to a U.S. armed service, which the Coast Guard certainly is.

Considered the 5th Armed Force of the US at this point, they were US Law Enforcement Agency, with powers of arrest, search, seizure, etc and not subject to Posse Comitatus as are the active military forces . . .

Irrelevent really . . .

As was aptly pointed out this would be the first procurement of fireign made materiel for the US Armed Forces . . .

[Edited 2006-07-01 16:27:59]

25 Post contains images Thorny : " target=_blank>http://www.uh-145.com/about/about_ga...y.htm Yech! Sure didn't win the contract on looks...
26 Columba : It does not look too bad. The EC 145 and the smaller Ec 135 are great helicopters that have a great performance and due to their large cargo doors th
27 Post contains images BHMBAGLOCK : Absolutely not! This minor spanking will in a few years result in better products from US manufacturers without doubt. This is the very power of free
28 Thorny : Eh. That photo really looks like they put lipstick on a pig to me. Oh, no argument about the aircraft's performance. It was clearly the right machine
29 L-188 : Well I have been told that the only other helicopter that entered that competition was the Bell-222 and we would have been buying those from Canada.
30 Columba : Don´ t know what you are having against it. It is a clean, streamline design and it is having the right proportions.
31 L-188 : Sorry but the older BK117 had a better profile IMHO also.
32 BHMBAGLOCK : Not if a second line is opened. Price yes, cost unlikely. However, I do agree that 777 is looking good. You were told wrong, four entries were made.
33 L-188 : Actually I was referring to the competition where the USCG picked up the HH-65
34 Post contains links CTR : I wish EADS the best of luck in pleasing the US military with the EC-145. I have flown and on a worked a little with the 145. In its class there is cu
35 BHMBAGLOCK : On a second look, you obviously were. My mistake. One of the great things about a true COTS competition is that the gov doesn't have to worry about a
36 Trex8 : can't find it on AWST on line but its page 23 in their June 26 print edition
37 L-188 : The problem with selling off surplus isn't if they are based on a FAA type cert. Where the problem comes in is documenting any repairs made to the ai
38 BHMBAGLOCK : I read somewhere that this is part of the plan for this program. Should be interesting to see how it works out.
39 Post contains images NoUFO : As far as I know, Dauphins are fuel-guzzlers compared to the EC145. Indeed. The EC145 is not a military but a paramilitary helicopter at best. Our po
40 AirRyan : As I understand it according to the June 19th issue of Aviation Week, thye said that the EC-145 "if selected, American Eurocopter's 18-month plan wou
41 BHMBAGLOCK : First delivery is due in November this year! From the info below it sounds like the plan is to have as much made in the US as possible as soon as pos
42 Post contains links AirRyan : Here we go... http://www.eurocopterusa.com/Media/P...sDetail.asp?ID=36&ID2=FeatureStory
43 Glideslope : This is a good contract. The EC145 is the best out there for this mission. Having a good working relationship with EU Vendors may be very helpful down
44 DL021 : I'm happy about the selection of this aircraft. I've seen these helos working as medevacs and they have lifting capacity and speed. If I had to equate
45 Post contains links and images UH60FtRucker : Sikorsky did not bid for this contract. They're quite busy with the new Mike model transitions for our 'hawks. Not really... two of the four manufact
46 CTR : UH60, I think you are quoting me out of context. If the 145s are used in the military the same as in commercial EMS operations, I think the DOD will
47 BHMBAGLOCK : Actually they're a major part of the winning bid.
48 MigFan : What if they are needed abroad? What happens if they do have to go into combat. Shaping a purchase around a defined set of future actions seems very
49 UH60FtRucker : CTR - sorry, I messed up and accidently quoted you when I wanted to quote someone else. If you read my response, you'll see it had almost nothing to
50 Halls120 : The Falcons were POS's, tupperwolf not much better. The sole reason the Coast Guard bought those aircraft was because the price was right. The Falcon
51 AirRyan : The Bell 412 being offered for the Army LUH was actually an otherwise winning bid - it just happened to cost about $1m more per copy and so the Army
52 Columba : My statement was being more general. The last "new" helicopter being developed was the S-92 which is partly based on the "Blackhawk".
53 Post contains images AutoThrust : They US Military has just bought the best, most economic Helicopter in the World from the biggest Helicopter Manufacturer in the World. No way Eurocop
54 MigFan : That is a trend that continues to this day, HC-235... If need-be, we could manufacture our own spares. What is the deal with that fear any how? Thing
55 Trex8 : the day NATO allies (or at least those in Old Europe, I'm not sure we have enough track record for those in New Europe) cut off supplies to the US wil
56 Post contains images AutoThrust : Exactly What a BS! America needs Europe as Europe needs America. Before that would happen the rest of the world would be in war. I'm getting the feel
57 Post contains images DL021 : It has been addressed, but it's also interesting to see the alliances US contractors are making on some of these bids....Lockheed allied with Agusta/
58 BHMBAGLOCK : I think we have a language/idiom issue here. Trex8 was saying that, realistically, spares will be a problem when hell freezes over. It was humor, not
59 DL021 : I get the feeling that a good bit of misunderstanding between the US and Europe comes from people not getting the humor or idiomatic syntax on both s
60 GDB : Trex8 is right on this, you may not see quite how paranoid this stuff-not on this thread really, but worse from some US lawmakers, looks outside. L-18
61 Halls120 : That purchase is going to haunt the Coast Guard. The US already suffers from a shortage of aircraft to perform the MPA mission, and they the Coast Gu
62 MigFan : I cannot comment either way, the CN-235 seems to be a poular choice for many air arms world-wide. Maybe the C-130 is too much of an operational burde
63 DL021 : Purely a cost consideration. The operational burden is not much more for a Hercules than it is for the smaller airplane....it's the $20-30 million pe
64 AutoThrust : Oh, my apologizes. My English is far from to be good and that could be indeed a misinterpretation of my side. I dont have the time to search articles
65 L-188 : El Darado Canyon? Not really what I think we are talking about is denial of airspace but rather parts support.
66 JarheadK5 : Comparing the overflight of one sovereign nation by armed warplanes belonging to another sovereign nation for the purpose of bombing a third sovereig
67 LongbowPilot : Personally I think this is a travesty. It is unpatriotic and rude to turn a blind eye to your own country's business like that. Sure, good money good
68 Pyrex : Is it hipocrisy every time a European country buys military hardware from the U.S.?
69 Post contains images AirRyan : Viva la France! No, that's simply being sensible!
70 GDB : I'm not disagreeing with you DL021, just highlighting how things are being 'seen' and not just by the 'usual suspects'. France had every right to not
71 Halls120 : The Coast Guard has been flying the C-130 successfully for decades. The decsion to purchase the CN-235 was driven by purchase price only. Just as it
72 Columba : What about the F-16s, C-130s, F-18s, F-35s, M-16s, etc....you have been sold to European nations ? There is a latin phrase "do ut des", it means "I a
73 LongbowPilot : Like I said, you decide whether it is a hypocracy or not. IMHO the hypocracy, is not the product or the fact we are buying it from a foriegn dealer, b
74 VirginFlyer : Can we please keep the political commentary out of this as much as possible - if you want to have a broad discussion about the politics of military eq
75 AirRyan : Does anyone really think France would have shot down US aircraft if they would have flown over France than? In that regard, I still think the US shou
76 GDB : I don't see how the linkage is made about 'shooting down' F-111's, not that Mirage 2000's could not do so. No, the US did what it had to do, ask, for
77 DL021 : I'm betting that the French airliner being blown up was in response to what happened in Chad and the French did not want to further antagonize the Lib
78 Post contains links AirRyan : MD helicopters CEO not happy at all with US Army's decision... http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?C...9476-6dd3-461e-9c2d-86d983c84a0d#d Stems from th
79 BHMBAGLOCK : " target=_blank>http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?C...a0d#d Very interesting and surprising. I'm actually really shocked that no site visits were par
80 DL021 : But you gotta admit...that was a good "Ron Burgundy" reference.....
81 Post contains images AirRyan : I missed it at first but now that you mention it, that was pretty good! Looking forward to his next movie!
82 Post contains images Scbriml : Losers seldom are happy with the result.
83 DL021 : Anyone up on the differences and the specifics that gave the EC the edge over MD?
84 BHMBAGLOCK : Rear clamshell doors are very useful for loading litters. The advantage of the high tail rotor over most models certainly didn't apply vs. the NOTAR.
85 DL021 : OK...that makes sense. The doors probably do give it more useful space, and the NOTAR is an advantage in noise as well as safety, but the high mounted
86 Lumberton : MD isn't likely to be happy, as will members of Congress when they return from the holiday recess. This deal still has a way to play out I fear. Agai
87 Post contains images AirRyan : If that is what the US Army wants than who are the numbnuts on the hill, many who haven't ever even served to say differently? If Congress tries to b
88 CTR : The same specific reason that AiRyans UH-72 was never even proposed: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ From what I have read a
89 Post contains images UH60FtRucker : So do I. But the truth of the matter is, from the very beginning, the Army was very direct with the vendors: "EAD's EH145 is the bird to beat." The A
90 Kellmark : Just some thoughts about this whole helicopter and US-EU thing. First, from what I have seen, the EADS product, based on a well proven and capable des
91 DL021 : I think there will be a serious difference between the COTS contract for this helo and a specialty tanker program. The established German helicopter d
92 Columba : I agree with you that the best product offered should be taken whether it is European or American made. I also agree that especially Germany and Fran
93 Post contains links Lumberton : Not claiming that I saw this coming, but the deal is being investigated. Farnborough: MD's ‘sham’ claims stall work on EADS UH-145 LUH helicopter
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic EADS Wins US Helicopter Contract
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...
Eads US Helicopter Deal Suspended posted Fri Jul 21 2006 12:14:03 by RichardPrice
US Helicopter Down In Iraq posted Sun Jan 8 2006 14:35:13 by Sean377
Oint Consortia Bid Wins Galileo Satellite Contract posted Mon Jun 27 2005 18:44:28 by Airbuzz
Eads Wins Brazilian Contracts Worth $723M posted Tue May 3 2005 00:08:51 by PPVRA
Airbus Want US Tanker Contract posted Sun Oct 17 2004 16:18:59 by KL911
US Helicopter Crash In Afghanistan posted Sun Jan 20 2002 09:09:18 by Singapore_Air
Another US Helicopter Down? (11/06/01) posted Tue Nov 6 2001 13:33:12 by LY744
CNN: US Helicopter Crashed In Afghanistan posted Sat Nov 3 2001 01:34:51 by LY744
US Helicopter Shot Down?!? posted Sat Sep 22 2001 11:07:04 by Fightingfalcon
Eads Confident On Share Of US Air Tanker Deal posted Mon Sep 18 2006 12:12:54 by Columba

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format