Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Eads US Helicopter Deal Suspended  
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4910 times:

Due to MD's complaints, the EADS light utility helicopter deal won earlier this year has been suspended pending an investigation by Congress.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...er+contract%2c+as+US+congress.html

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7611 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4893 times:

There seems little point in doing more work on these aircraft until Congress decides if they are going to buy them.

User currently offlineMigfan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 2 days ago) and read 4888 times:

There's a shocker... Politics at work...

I think the UH-145 is just a better aircraft than the MDHI Explorer.

/M


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4851 times:

As I noted on the other thread a moment ago, I can see this deal possibly being re-bid. If there are discrepancies in the bid evaluation, the U.S. Army will take it's lumps and re-announce. There will likely be a political firestorm if it doesn't. I always thought the timing of this announcement--late Friday before a major U.S. holiday, when the Congress was out of town--very, very curious.


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4802 times:

What a bunch of political garbage - the first aircraft is already under construction and is due to be delivered this fall. Since when can the Army not decide given a certain budget what helicopter they want to buy? The MD helo was completely out of the running as they wanted nothing to do with NOTAR and it's smaller cabin; if anything Bell may have had a beef but still, they couldn't (or wasn't willing to) match the price EADS came in with the UH-145. MD's offer just never interesed the US Army for what they intended to use it for.

The only sham here is MD helicopters - I never had much to opine about them one way or the other, but this is bullsh!t and reeks of sour grapes. Who do these morons think they are? This may be the land of litigation, but you just don't sue to sell your product - people will pay more to buy the other guys product after that kind of escapade. I'm sure the Army is just giddy and apologetic just waiting to reverse their order for MD helicopters, instead. Like the report says, they even seriously doubted that the bid would send the company too far into the red ultimately raising fears that they wouldn't even be able to stay in business long enough to finish the contract.

I believe the EADS deal has some fairly powerful politicians in its district, so I wouldn't expect them to go down without a fight. WhereTF was the GAO when it came to the V-22 program?!

If the GAO says re-bid and no EADS this time, the Army will surely trump MD and just go with Bell - you can't force the Army to buy something that it does not want and whining this loud about it, MD just won't get the Army's money.

[Edited 2006-07-21 17:57:13]

User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4758 times:

Huh. This is contrary to the initial statements by MD Helicopters...that they were accepting of the outcome.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4719 times:

Contrary to some comments here, and with all due respect, MD Helicopters has made some complelling arguments for their offering. This deal did go down very quickly and, as some pointed out, the timing of the announcement was very curious. It took a few years for the US-101 to win the Presidential Transport competition and the Air Force is taking it's time on the winner for the CSAR-X competition - Next year - if I've read correctly.

All three offerings should be carefuly considered and it looks like this thing is by no means over yet. As far as the ones they've built already... I'm sure they can be sold or donated, should EADS lose the rematch.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4714 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 6):
It took a few years for the US-101 to win the Presidential Transport competition

To be fair, that was for 23 heavy lift helicopters, while this deal was for 8 light utility helicopters - a totally different magnitude of money.


User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4701 times:

Quoting Migfan (Reply 2):
There's a shocker... Politics at work...

I think the UH-145 is just a better aircraft than the MDHI Explorer.

Serious politics at work here!!! MD is behaving like the whinners at EADS.

That little rinky-dinky MD chopper is not even in the same club as the UH-145. Although IMHO, the EADS product is junk compared to a 60 which should've been the product chosen. It's already in service and it eases training & operational headaches.



MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 4553 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Thread starter):
Due to MD's complaints, the EADS light utility helicopter deal won earlier this year has been suspended pending an investigation by Congress.

Truly, truly unbelieveable.

I guess the new rule of thumb now after losing a contract is to do this.............


 hissyfit   hissyfit   hissyfit   hissyfit   hissyfit   hissyfit   hissyfit   hissyfit   hissyfit   hissyfit   hissyfit   hissyfit   hissyfit   hissyfit 


User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 4545 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 9):
I guess the new rule of thumb now after losing a contract is to do this.............

Can't win... sue




Quoting RAPCON (Reply 8):
compared to a 60 which should've been the product chosen. It's already in service and it eases training & operational headaches.

Perhaps the US Army wanted a light utility helicopter instead?

/M


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 4545 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 7):
To be fair, that was for 23 heavy lift helicopters, while this deal was for 8 light utility helicopters - a totally different magnitude of money.

Huh? The US Army is buying 322 LUHs...

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ter-in-us-defense-market/index.php

[Edited 2006-07-22 17:42:22]

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 19 hours ago) and read 4528 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 11):
Huh? The US Army is buying 322 LUHs...

D'oh, the article I was reading didnt make it clear the 16 were for early delivery.

I find it highly amusing that FG say that MDs protest include the fact that the contract is 'going to a foreign conglomerate' - simple abuse of patriotism for commercial gain.

[Edited 2006-07-22 18:26:16]

User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 18 hours ago) and read 4502 times:

Quoting MigFan (Reply 10):
Perhaps the US Army wanted a light utility helicopter instead?

If they want light, go with the 58. If they want to help the Guard/Reserve with their job, give'em a 60.



MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 4476 times:

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 13):
Quoting MigFan (Reply 10):
Perhaps the US Army wanted a light utility helicopter instead?

If they want light, go with the 58. If they want to help the Guard/Reserve with their job, give'em a 60.

What's wrong with giving them what they want?


User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 4447 times:

Quoting Art (Reply 14):
What's wrong with giving them what they want?

Let me quote the Rolling Stones: "....you can't always get what you want!"  drunk 



MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 4421 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 3):
As I noted on the other thread a moment ago, I can see this deal possibly being re-bid. If there are discrepancies in the bid evaluation, the U.S. Army will take it's lumps and re-announce. There will likely be a political firestorm if it doesn't. I always thought the timing of this announcement--late Friday before a major U.S. holiday, when the Congress was out of town--very, very curious.

This smacks of democracies where if the electorate elects the "wrong" party, the results are suspended or the election is re-run to give the electorate another chance to choose the "right" party.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4839 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 4403 times:

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 8):

Serious politics at work here!!! MD is behaving like the whinners at EADS.



Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 12):
simple abuse of patriotism for commercial gain.

Shades of the contemplated EADS action regarding the Canadian C-17 deal? But it does seem "contrived."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7215 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4264 times:

Before this thread becomes a bash, I think we should just take it as congress doing business as usual, and what goes around comes around. This one at present seems to be working against EADS, the previous one - tanker deal - worked for EADS, think we just need to let this play out.

User currently offlineMigfan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4242 times:

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 13):
If they want light, go with the 58. If they want to help the Guard/Reserve with their job, give'em a 60.

I can't get onboard with either type. The OH-58 was only good enough as a trainer, and heavily modified as a scout/FAC machine. I don't think it has the flexibility that the UH-145 can offer. So what if the UH-145 is a foreign design.

The UH-60 was much more of a maintenance pain, than it's predecessor (UH-1). The two types are far from comparible, but one did succeed the other.

/M


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4213 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 17):
Shades of the contemplated EADS action regarding the Canadian C-17 deal?

Or the Airbus action after the AI deal to buy Boeing airliners.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4186 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm unsurprised by this development. It seems that the process now includes challenges and lawsuits. If there was any impropriety then I'll be pissed. If there wasn't and this was simply the losing company trying to use the courts to stave off financial challenges then I'm going to be pissed.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 4):
The MD helo was completely out of the running as they wanted nothing to do with NOTAR and it's smaller cabin;

I don't think that either of those two issues were the main thing the Army was looking at. The MD helo is the right size and NOTAR is not a particular challenge for anyone. It appears that this contract went down to price, and EADS provided the product desired for the lowest price.

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 8):
That little rinky-dinky MD chopper is not even in the same club as the UH-145.

Yes, it is. The two helos are apparently evenly matched on capability (with both having advantages over each other) and as I said it was money.

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 8):
Although IMHO, the EADS product is junk compared to a 60 which should've been the product chosen. It's already in service and it eases training & operational headaches.

The EADS product is an extraordinairily high quality product that has been meeting just this need for years. It started out as an MBB product, and if you ever wanted to see it at work look at the skies overhead for every third air ambulance, or at old tapes of the South African Air Force rescue helos during the Mozambique flooding where they winched thousands to safety. They are excellent birds and just right for what they are going to be called upon to do for the USA. Light utility.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 12):
I find it highly amusing that FG say that MDs protest include the fact that the contract is 'going to a foreign conglomerate' - simple abuse of patriotism for commercial gain.

Well, at least they're being open about it. Plenty of companies do that behind the scenes on both sides of the pond. How do you think the Rafale got built?

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 13):
If they want light, go with the 58. If they want to help the Guard/Reserve with their job, give'em a 60.

OH-58 is too light for the job. 60 is too much.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 17):
Shades of the contemplated EADS action regarding the Canadian C-17 deal? But it does seem "contrived."

Yeah, it should make it hard for EADS to complain about MDD's reaction.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 17):
Shades of the contemplated EADS action regarding the Canadian C-17 deal?

Or the Airbus action after the AI deal to buy Boeing airliners.

So should this.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4186 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 17):
Shades of the contemplated EADS action regarding the Canadian C-17 deal?

Not even in the same ball park. The EADS helo suspension smacks of politics and MD not admitting that they can't compete. There is no doubt that EADS will deliver the product advertised--after all, it's already in operations in many countries in both civ and mil jobs.

The Canadian went with the C-17 because the EADS could not put fwd anything that's flying. All EADS has is a drawing, and an ugly one at that. The A400M is way behind the original schedule, has now been delayed even more, and there is still a lot of doubt as to whether it will perform as advertised, and whether or not the Euro nations will actually purchase it. The C-17 is here, today. I'm sure the Canadians flew the hell out of it, kicked the tires, talked to the crews, and figured out that if it was good enough for the USAF/RAAF/RAF, the doggone it, it was good enough for them. Nuff said!



MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
User currently offlineFlynlr From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 225 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4038 times:

Quoting Migfan (Reply 19):
The UH-60 was much more of a maintenance pain, than it's predecessor (UH-1). The two types are far from comparible, but one did succeed the other.

have to disagree as both a uh-60 and UH-1 Crewchief. the 60 was a dream compared to the old ass UH-1 course this was back in the 80's I love em both though.



The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3871 times:

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 13):
If they want light, go with the 58. If they want to help the Guard/Reserve with their job, give'em a 60.

Huh? I don't think you understand the whole concept behind the LUH. It was specifically intended to purchase a civilian helicopter with proven reliability. As it currently stands we're using old OH-58Cs and UH-1s to conduct stateside medivac, boarder patrol, local police assist, staff transport, etc... and because of maintenance issues, we have gaps in the coverage... so they fill it with UH-60s. And the Army HATES that. That is one -60 that could otherwise be over here in Iraq fighting the war.

The Army does NOT want a combat geared helicopter. It wants a helicopter to specifically cover stateside rotary wing aircraft demand. It's a very smart move. It's much cheaper and it's mission specialized.

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 15):
Let me quote the Rolling Stones: "....you can't always get what you want!"

That's my point, the Army DID get what they wanted.

Quoting Migfan (Reply 19):
The OH-58 was only good enough as a trainer, and heavily modified as a scout/FAC machine.

WHAT? What are you basing that on? I flew the Charlie model and it was 10x better than the TH-67 (trainer model). The helicopter is unbelievably reliable and under a competent pilot can be very deadly. The newer Delta models are heavily used over here in Iraq. Far more than the Apaches and are tied in much more closely with the ground troops than the Apache. It's a fantastic helicopter that has proven itself time and time again. So much so that it's replacement - the RAH-70 - is a modified Bell 407.

Quoting Migfan (Reply 19):
The UH-60 was much more of a maintenance pain,

Sorry, but the 'hawk is very maintenance friendly. From it's design it was intended on being so.

Compared to the Marines UH-1s, we have far higher operational readiness levels in Iraq and we have far less maintenance man hours required for every hour of flight.

-UH60


25 RAPCON : ...and my point is that regardles of the Army's wants, in the end it's up to Congress and since it's ultimately their call....."you can't always get
26 UH60FtRucker : But that still does not make sense. Even if congress chooses to replace the stateside OH-58C and UH-1s with the MDExplorer, and not the Eurocopter, a
27 Post contains links Lumberton : Looks like the protests have been "cleared" and this deal is back on track. http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/061024/arms_eads_helicopter.html?.v=1
28 Columba : At least some good news for EADS.
29 Post contains images CV990A : In the FPDS-NG reporting system, when the government awards and reports a contract, one of the 'required' fields is a field named 'Country of Incorpo
30 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Yes, a welcome relief and reason to be happy. Flightglobal also confirms the news..... http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...liver+after+LUH+protest
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Eads US Helicopter Deal Suspended
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 Wins US Helicopter Contract posted Sat Jul 1 2006 07:32:13 by BHMBAGLOCK
US Helicopter Down In Iraq posted Sun Jan 8 2006 14:35:13 by Sean377
India - US Defense Deal posted Thu Jun 30 2005 09:46:06 by HAWK21M
Airbus Fantasy - the US Tanker deal posted Wed Jan 12 2005 20:44:24 by Dayflyer
Aussies Boosts Army With $A1b Helicopter Deal posted Wed Sep 1 2004 02:14:23 by 777ER
The US Tanker Deal Again posted Sat Dec 13 2003 10:28:57 by Racko
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

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format