Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The EH-101 Repacement For Marine One - When?  
User currently offlineGh123 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 11 months 7 hours ago) and read 5314 times:

I read somewhere that the Merlin Helicopter was selected over the S-92 to perform the function of Marine One.

When is this aircraft going to be made and what is going to different about it?

How do you Americans feel about this - pissed that a European ride was chosen over a Sikorsky?

Thanks in advance.

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 7 hours ago) and read 5293 times:

Quoting Gh123 (Thread starter):
How do you Americans feel about this - pissed that a European ride was chosen over a Sikorsky?

Certainly wasn't pissed, I would just assume see Marine One as an S-76 or better yet, an EC-145. I realized these are not big enough, but would still be cool.

It is kind of strange that this does not really matter to me, but if Air Force One was replaced with an Airbus, it would fly all over me.

M


User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1556 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 7 hours ago) and read 5286 times:

Quoting Gh123 (Thread starter):
How do you Americans feel about this - pissed that a European ride was chosen over a Sikorsky?

I for one feel PISSED that the US Military would ever use an aircraft from another country. What's next - an Airbus as AF1? USAF MiG's? The US Government needs to support the companies we have here - not the companies of foreign countries - even if we are allies with that nation.

Marc


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 7 hours ago) and read 5266 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 2):
I for one feel PISSED that the US Military would ever use an aircraft from another country. What's next - an Airbus as AF1? USAF MiG's? The US Government needs to support the companies we have here - not the companies of foreign countries - even if we are allies with that nation.

The US taxpayer (or any nations, for that matter) are best served when the government acquires goods and services that offer the best quality, reliability, and value for the dollars spent. Just as the domestic economy is best served when consumers purchase the best value for money be it a car, a boat, a TV, whatever. It isn't the governments' job to prop up inferior producers.

If domestic suppliers can't compete on value for money, on quality, on reliability, then they need to improve in all areas. If they don't, the market will squeeze them out.

Simple as that.

Something Studebaker didn't learn, or American Motors. Neither are around any more. But the Japanese manufacturers did. The early Hondas, Toyotas, Datsuns (now Nissan) all had _lots_ of problems. But these were resolved and now consumers perceive these cars to offer best value for money, and hence the Japanese companies are beating the collective Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler brains in.

Same thing in aerospace.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3526 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 5275 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 2):
I for one feel PISSED that the US Military would ever use an aircraft from another country. What's next - an Airbus as AF1? USAF MiG's?

USAF already has a number of MiGs... 15s, 17s, 21s, and 29s perhaps others by now. They also had a small quantity of Antonovs and they charter the occasional AN124. Then there's the T-6 Texan II a US built variant of the swiss PC-9. A PC-12 (another Swiss aircraft) Squadron stood up recently....

Let's see what else... The Navy / Marines have US built variations of the Brits Hawk & Harrier.

I guess you're pretty pissed, huh?



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6878 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 5273 times:

Let's not forget the Aeritalia G222 transport (in the ANG?), the IAI Kfir's for adversary trainers...
Then as ZANL188 said...
the Hawks, Harriers, PC-9, and then the J-PATS contenders were dominated by non-US designs.

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3526 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 5270 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 5):
Let's not forget the Aeritalia G222 transport (in the ANG?), the IAI Kfir's for adversary trainers...

I forgot about those guys but I beleive both are out of service by now.

Another I had forgotten about was the Shorts C-23 Sherpa which at one time was inservice with both the US Army & Air Force.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 4 hours ago) and read 5219 times:

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 4):
USAF already has a number of MiGs... 15s, 17s, 21s, and 29s perhaps others by now. They also had a small quantity of Antonovs and they charter the occasional AN124.

These along with the IAI Kfir's were used for evaluation and aggressor training. Don't forget one or a few more Mi-24 Hinds.

The USAAF also had Zeros, Focke Wulfs, Me-262s and Me-109s. All captured.

The point being, is that those don't count since they aren't a mainstay of our air forces but were acquired in one way or another so that we can get a look at what our would be enemies are producing.

They're quite different from the T-6 Texan IIs and what not.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3526 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 3 hours ago) and read 5200 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 7):
The USAAF also had Zeros, Focke Wulfs, Me-262s and Me-109s. All captured.

The point being, is that those don't count since they aren't a mainstay of our air forces but were acquired in one way or another so that we can get a look at what our would be enemies are producing.

Yeah that's why I didn't bring up the WWII types and in retrospect I should have left out the MiG-15s which were all captured I believe.

But the rest were bought or bartered. The MiG-29s, as I recall, were bought because they were wired for nukes and were going for bargain basement prices.

The guy said....

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 2):
USAF MiG's?

... not elaborating on bought, bartered, captured, mainline, etc...

Come to think of it I believe either the Army or USAF has some Mi-8s... and then there's the whole Slingsby (?) T-3 misadventure....



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 5175 times:

I doubt any President will fly in the EH/US-101 until the tail rotor half hub problem has been definitively solved.
As for "foreign" products, the very notion of this is outdated. The aerospace world is every bit as global as car manufacturing, & with some domestic production offsets there's no product that would be disqualified due to foreign content.



Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 1 hour ago) and read 5169 times:

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 3):
The US taxpayer (or any nations, for that matter) are best served when the government acquires goods and services that offer the best quality, reliability, and value for the dollars spent. Just as the domestic economy is best served when consumers purchase the best value for money be it a car, a boat, a TV, whatever. It isn't the governments' job to prop up inferior producers.

While I agree with you, there are many Airbus cheerleaders on Anet that will plainly express their preference that European airlines ought to be buying Airbus planes in order to provide jobs for Europeans.

Protectionism is also alive and well on the other side of the Atlantic.....


User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 1 hour ago) and read 5156 times:

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 4):
The Navy / Marines have US built variations of the Brits Hawk & Harrier.

Didn't McDonnell Douglas purchase the Harrier design? The Soviet types in USAF/US Army inventory are for threat simulation and analysis. Would it not be the best training to train against the real thing?

I think the VH-71 will be a good aircraft, but I think it should have been an American design. I do not think AF1 will be represented by an Airbus design.

Sorry...


User currently offlineGh123 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months ago) and read 5156 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 2):
I for one feel PISSED that the US Military would ever use an aircraft from another country

The Harrier Jump Jet - British.

But WHEN will these Merlins be made for Pres. flight?


User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1556 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months ago) and read 5148 times:

Quoting Gh123 (Reply 12):
The Harrier Jump Jet - British.

The original design might be British, but the AV-8B is manufactured by McDonnell Douglas.

http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.ns...024dd8525626e0048ccf7?OpenDocument


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3526 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months ago) and read 5147 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MigFan (Reply 11):
The Soviet types in USAF/US Army inventory are for threat simulation and analysis

They have operational roles as well...



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months ago) and read 5144 times:

As a show of program progress, Lockheed (Prime contractor) is scheduled to land a EH-101 in "near" VH-71 configuration on the White House lawn next month. Actual service introduction is still almost two years off. Avionics development, not airframe.

BTW GH123, the USMC AV-8A and AV-8C were basically all Brit. However the latest and greatest Harrier airframe the AV-8B (your GR-MK5) is 60% Yank.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5130 times:

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 14):
They have operational roles as well...

Care to elaborate?


User currently offlineGreg3322 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 205 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5107 times:

What about the US Coast Guard aircraft?

HU-25 Guardian - French
HH-65 Dolphin - French
MH-68A Stingray -Italian

Greg


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5042 times:

Eurocopter also sold some UH-145 to the US Army recently. However a bit overshadowed with other news, 350 or something. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2310321&C=america
However all these exports are totally overshadowed by the US weapon exports to Europe.


User currently offlineGh123 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5038 times:

http://www.uh-145.com/index.htm

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13211 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4980 times:

AV-8B was indeed a US spec, 2nd generation Harrier, but as a joint project with BAe-which made it's adoption-with many modifications, by the RAF inevitable.

AV-8A's were delivered straight from Hawker's factory in Kingston, West London.
Over 100 of them.

Cadet895-approve of the adoption of the Merlin engine for the P-51?

Go beyond aircraft, the current US medium machine gun is Belgium-after decades of putting up with the contempory, but inferior, M-60.
The gun on the M1 tank is a German design, the armour from British developments.
The previous 105mm gun, was British.

The current 105mm light gun is British, as is the 81mm mortar.
Both were procured in the 80's to replace US products of a similar calibre.

Some US warships have an Italian 76mm gun, the Swedish Bofors 40mm and Swiss 20mm, were mainstays on warships and other applications from WW2 onwards.
F-35 will have a Mauser developed 27mm.

20 years ago, the US Army brought a French developed battlefield C3 system.

German MP-5 weapons are maintstays of US (and just about every other) Special Forces).
The current US service pistol is an Italian design.

The LAV wheeled vehicles of the US Marines-Swiss design, Canadian built.

I could go on and on.

See the problem with 'Not Invented Here'?

My understanding of EH-101, is that in it's 'Marine One' version, will start to enter service 2012-13.
This helicopter is in daily, operational, combat zone use with the RAF in Iraq.

[Edited 2006-10-30 20:46:33]

User currently offlineGh123 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4963 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):

Good post - welcome to my respected user list!


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3526 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4928 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MigFan (Reply 16):
Care to elaborate?

Nope, but there are sources in the media... with pix as I recall....

edit: here's a source from the horses mouth.... Note the aircraft evacing from Hurlburt AFB includes Mi-8s. Nuff said...

http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?storyID=123008662

[Edited 2006-10-31 00:27:21]


Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineStudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4905 times:

Quoting Gh123 (Thread starter):
How do you Americans feel about this - pissed that a European ride was chosen over a Sikorsky?

For this particular job, yes I'd say that it does indeed look bad. Maybe it'll wake up the US manufacturers and it won't happen again. As long as he's not ridin' around in a stretch (insert non-US car of your choice)... I'm okay.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 3):
If domestic suppliers can't compete on value for money, on quality, on reliability, then they need to improve in all areas. If they don't, the market will squeeze them out.

Simple as that.

Something Studebaker didn't learn, or American Motors. Neither are around any more.

This next part is off topic a little, but a nerve was touched, and the truth needs to be known!!! I think someone needs to do some homework...
American Motors is kinda sorta still around~ maybe not in name, but in spirit- they're called JEEPs!!!
Where Studebaker is concerned~  box 
Trust me when I say that the reason that Studebaker is not around has NOTHING to do with a poor quality, unreliable product. I should know~- I own five of them! One has been a daily driver for me for the last 15, count 'em- 15 years!!! I got her when she was already 25 years old- and yet she drives on~ she looks pretty darn good for her age, too! Will your new car last that long? I say no. Try getting the parts you need for it in ten years (let alone 40)!!! It'll be cheap Hong Kong pot metal by then...  bomb 

I can't speak for AMC, but I know that Studebaker had MAJOR management and Union problems. The product was not the problem. Some of the things that are common place nowadays were pioneered by Studebaker. Oh, and by the way- the company that bought Studebaker is still around, they just didn't want to build cars anymore...



Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4898 times:

Quoting StudeDave (Reply 23):
Where Studebaker is concerned~ box
Trust me when I say that the reason that Studebaker is not around has NOTHING to do with a poor quality, unreliable product. I should know~- I own five of them! One has been a daily driver for me for the last 15, count 'em- 15 years!!! I got her when she was already 25 years old- and yet she drives on~ she looks pretty darn good for her age, too! Will your new car last that long? I say no. Try getting the parts you need for it in ten years (let alone 40)!!! It'll be cheap Hong Kong pot metal by then... bomb

Hi Dave-

Sorry if I hit a nerve....my Dad owned a 47 bulletnose and a 55 Commander.
He loved them and was a lead mech at the time for AC, so he knew his stuff mechanically. I recognize that they were technically advanced in many ways: seat belts, for one thing, were available, indirect dash lighting, several other safety and tech features. Also Raymond Loewy designed some nice looks for Stude.

However, management and union culture issues are part of the overall value for money equation -- bad labour/mgmt relations hurt production, drive up costs, also parts availability, and on. That's one of the things that needs to be solved to keep going and rise to the top.

I still turn my head when I see a Stude...



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
25 CTR : GDB, Some of the best machines ever to take to the sky (or the road) have been Anglo-American crossbreeds, P-51D, AV-8B, AC Cobra, GT40, Sunbeam Tiger
26 GDB : CTR, I totally agree, international co-operation, at least from the UK perspective, does not have just to be within Europe. I think that although many
27 Prebennorholm : Talking about foreign products in the USAF inventory the B-57 Canberra should not be forgotten.
28 Post contains images Alasdair : Indeed not! Good spot The original EE design served well in Vietnam if I recall correctly, and the WB-57 is still flying. And as for the rest of the
29 WrenchBender : The first Test Vehicle was delivered to Pax River Nov 05 (leased Italian Navy) used to train pilots and maintainers. 3 more Test Vehicles to follow in
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic The EH-101 Repacement For Marine One - When?
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...
Marine One - Always Decoy? posted Wed Jun 21 2006 16:42:25 by Flybulldog
New Marine One? posted Fri Apr 14 2006 19:34:16 by MNeo
EH-101 Problems posted Tue Sep 20 2005 00:01:33 by MissedApproach
Marine One Questions. posted Wed Dec 1 2004 21:29:45 by CX747
Air Force One And Marine One posted Mon Nov 1 2004 03:35:44 by Bushcheney2004
Marine One posted Sun May 9 2004 18:49:02 by VirginA346
Marine One Replacement? posted Sat Apr 3 2004 07:39:46 by Shaun3000
Did The 48th FW Deploy For "Enduring Freedom"? posted Thu Dec 27 2001 01:00:51 by CX747
Fighter With The Highest Landing Speed. Which One? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 22:29:05 by Art
Looking For The Red Flag Accident Video posted Fri Oct 20 2006 21:35:14 by RichardPrice

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format