Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
columba
Topic Author
Posts: 5281
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:11 am

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a surprise move, the U.S. Navy has chosen a trans-Atlantic team led by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) to build a new U.S. presidential helicopter fleet, a congressional source familiar with the decision said on Friday.

The decision was a stunning setback for Connecticut-based United Technologies Corp.'s (UTX.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Sikorsky Aircraft unit -- which for nearly 50 years has built and maintained the green and white "Marine One" helicopters that fly the president.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=7471490&src=rss/businessNews

I never thought that it would be the US 101. Sad day for Sikorsky.
But I think it is great news for Agusta/Westland and Lockheed...maybe a good sign for EADS as well.

[Edited 2005-01-28 23:16:02]
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:20 am

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=7471490&src=rss/businessNews

Wow. I figured the Sikorsky S-92 was all but a lock. Maybe because it's a bit bigger.

[Edited 2005-01-28 23:21:39]
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:49 am

This is unfortunate.

With the obstructionist posistions that the European builders of the Eh-101 have taken in recent years on spreading freedom in the middle east, they should not be awarded with this contract.
 
MidnightMike
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:09 am

From what I heard the Lockheed Martin was the better helicopter.....
 
JA54123
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:15 am

This is not near as bad as it might seem! The Helo will be built in Amarillo, TX (300 new jobs in addition to the eventual 1,700 we will have have working to assemble the V-22 Osprey here) and the avionics, engines, ect will all be American supplied and built(42 states to be exact have suppliers located in them). According to the DOD, 90% of the dollars spent on the project will go to American companies. Agusta (Italian) & Westland (British) only design the aircraft. Lockheed-Martin/Bell-Textron have modified the design to use American components and fit our needs. So all in all, not so bad after all.
 
GDB
Posts: 14480
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:44 am

I have to say L-188, you've just displayed a startling level of ignorance, considering EH-10I is an Anglo-Italian design, who happen to have troops in Iraq.
Sikorsky, a representative of whom made some utterly paranoid remarks about 'security' recently, maybe they lost out for employing a total numbskull like him in their PR/marketing.

I wonder had the same decision been made if the 2004 election gone the other way, whether a load of bile would have been heaped on the administration for being 'unamerican' or 'Traitors'?
I reckon so, so how to explain this? From an 'America First' administration writ large.
Those pinko, commie Eurotrash making a better helicopter? Never!

Sikorsky didn't mention that the S-92 is largely assembled from foreign components, including such staunch US allies as China, and recent members of the US shitlist like Spain.
Of course a US military S-92 would replace much of this with local contractors, which is exactly what the US-101 will do.
GE engine already on Italian EH-101's.

It is thought this will lead to a larger US order for new CSAR choppers, however if Sikorsky don't get the lawyers out over the VIP order and generally throw a sour grapes hissy fit, they might have a good chance at that.
Which would deflect some political flak from the pork barrel brigade who lost out here.
 
echster
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sat Jan 29, 2005 10:07 am

No surprise to me. I love American planes and helos as much as everyone else, but from what I've read and been told by my helo buddies, the US101 is vastly superior to the S92. This will take a lot of pressure of the US Air Force who have quietly been leaning to the US101 for their CSAR and SpecOps platform.
 
scottieprecord
Posts: 1208
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sat Jan 29, 2005 11:58 am

I love how the Liberal Media of America plays this out to look like Queen Elizabeth and Tony Blair persuaded the President to choose the US101 over the S-92. The fact that the 101 is a much better helicopter and is more suited for the job was only mentioned one short time during the whole segment on ABC.

-Mike
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sat Jan 29, 2005 12:21 pm

GDB, There is such a thing as National Pride you know.

And Agusta and Westland are now part of Eurocopter.

 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:50 pm

OK... well I am a little flabbergasted, but there is an element of logic here.

THis helo is from an Anglo-Italian corporation, and Tony Blair personally pleaded the case to President Bush. We owed these guys big time, and this may have been a case of doing a favor to friends.

Undoubtedly the US-101 is a larger and heavier helo with three engines offering the enhanced feeling of comfort for those who worry about that sort of thing.

I think that Sikorsky is feeling the heat for not developing a new helicopter instead of a derivative product that lacks the size and speed of its competition.

I am a big supporter of Sikorsky, but I can see the logic for this administration to push for the selection of an airplane that helps our allies and is constructed in a state that voted for the admin.

I hope that Sikorsky can get more contracts for the S-92, but they, and Bell, need to develop some new products if they expect to remain competitive with Eurocopter and Agusta.
 
knoxibus
Posts: 640
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:59 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sat Jan 29, 2005 4:15 pm

Well that does not come as a surprise, I was really interested in this tender and read lots of articles in AW & ST prior to the decision.

From reading the facts, one does have to admit that the US 101 was slightly ahead, especially in terms of engines.

Arguments from the S-92 team that 3 engines is better than 2 kind of amazes me, no wonder they lost.

L-188, it's ok to have national pride, but at least try to bring some factual arguments.

"spreading freedom in the middle east" type of arguments is not helping your case. Especially about the fact that USA is not doing anything in Lebanon and Syria, but French troops are doing their works in Afghanistan...

And since when Agusta/Westland is part of Eurocopter, could somebody help me on this, I did a search on the net and could not find anything?
 
GDB
Posts: 14480
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:54 pm

I'm not sure that Augusta/Westland is a part of Eurocopter, but then Eurocopter have a manufacturing presence in the US, already with a large penetration of police and homeland security fleets.
IBM and Boeing were a contractor on EH-101 systems, at least for the UK forces machines.
 
matt777
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 8:55 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sat Jan 29, 2005 10:29 pm

AugustaWestland is owned 100% by Finmeccanica which is all Italian. (The same company that holds 90% share of the cruise ship building market) They have factories in Italy and in Britain (former Westland industires) and in the US.

http://www.repubblica.it/2005/a/sezioni/esteri/augusta/augusta/augusta.html

" the Pentagon said that the production will be done in the factories in Owego, New York (31 %), Amarillo, Texas (27%), in UK (21%), and of Agusta in Italy in Cascina Costa province of Varese (15 per cent), the resting 4% will be manufactured in other minor US factiories.
Production of helicopters will be finished by 2014. At a price of about $70 Million each."

Heads of state of Italy, Japan and UK already use this "state-of-art" (as Hillary Clinton said) helicopter, and now it is the time for the American President.

I personally give my compliments to Augusta for designing a great helicopter that make us all proud of being Italian.

Regards.
 
strudders
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:39 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sat Jan 29, 2005 11:09 pm

HI Matt77

Agree with most of what you say, but I must point out that the EH 101 is the largest collaborative helicopter project in history, and therefore some compliments should also be paid to the UK and the US in producing a formidable product.

Best Regards

Strudds
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8139
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:37 am

I think one of the reasons why the US101 derivative of the EH101 won the competition was the fact the EH101 design is a well-proven design, mostly because Augusta/Westland spent many years "ironing out all the bugs" of the EH101 design.

The helicopter will be very quiet, reasonably fast and be well-equipped to handle the operations of the Presidential fleet. This helicopter could be of interest to the US Army for a quiet helicopter for Spec-Ops that is larger than the MH-60 versions used now.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20323
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sun Jan 30, 2005 1:01 am

With the obstructionist posistions that the European builders of the Eh-101 have taken in recent years on spreading freedom in the middle east, they should not be awarded with this contract.

Yes, those damn Brits and Italians, how dare they support us in "spreading freedom and democracy" (is that the PC term for war these days?) in the World, and then expect their superior product to be chosen in a fair competition. Oh wait, they did, and they did.

Try spitting the sour grapes out of your mouth before you speak  Big grin

Still, a surprising win none the less. OK, now for the tankers! [ducks  Smile]
 
Cadet985
Posts: 2268
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:45 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sun Jan 30, 2005 1:03 am

With AgustaWestland now part of the team with Lockheed, I gotta say I'm a little upset. I think any helicopter that might be called "Marine One" should be built ONLY by American companies. Not that AgustaWestland doesn't have fine helicopters, I think it's a matter of supporting our own corporations that are having financial problems now. I am now forced to wonder, who will build the next Air Force One - Airbus?
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8139
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sun Jan 30, 2005 1:27 am

Actually, Westland has a long, long history of building helicopters. Didn't they get their start by building the Sikorsky Sea King under licence?

But Westland really came into its own with the superb Lynx helicopter, a helicopter with extraordinary manueverability and used extensively by European armies.

That's why when the EH101 was designed Westland paired with Augusta, another European company with a long history of excellent helicopter design.
 
strudders
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:39 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sun Jan 30, 2005 1:38 am

Cadet985

I would hope that the best product won the bid, I would hate to think that it was chosen to protect jobs.

I can understand your views on patriotism but please make no doubt that propping up companies in this form is not the way to protect them. Demanding quality, high specification and economical use of resources is the key. I would hate to think that your President is being flown around in a aircraft that was not the best available out there but was some sort of compromise. I am absolutely 100% sure that if an American product was available, that met the same spec, then it would have been chosen. There was not and therefore you have a joint collaboration aircraft in this role. I am also sure however, by the time it has been "fitted out" there will not be much that is not US stamped on it somewhere!

Very Best Regards

Strudds  Smile
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20323
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sun Jan 30, 2005 4:14 am

I am now forced to wonder, who will build the next Air Force One - Airbus?

Yes, the VC380 will look fantastic!  Big thumbs up

by the time it has been "fitted out" there will not be much that is not US stamped on it somewhere!

I expect it may say "Assembled in the US." Most of it will have "Made in China" or "Made in Japan" or "Made in ..." stamped on it. You get my drift.
 
Wiggidy
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:06 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sun Jan 30, 2005 4:55 am

Even though it is Anglo-Italian in design it will be built here in the US, for all the uber-patriots out there. I also find it rather amusing that for its marketing they pushed the "US"-101 name and the fact that it is an american helicopter more than anything about its capabilities.
Personally I love this helicopter, the s-92 is just a little too old school for me. I hope the NH-90 is also selected for use here in the US. Sikorsky missed the target on this one, lets hope boeing can take a clue and not miss out on the KC-767. just my 2 cents,
-Wes
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:29 am

I doubt that the NH-90 will be selected over the S-92 for any US military contracts, and I doubt that we will order more US-101's, although this contract makes it easier for them to get the SAR gig.

The US-101 is being manufactured by two of our strongest allies (with final assembly and some parts here) in the Coalition and if this is our way of thanking them, then I am ok with it. It is a very good helo, and I wish that Sikorsky had something else they could have presented, but they did not as they went for the derivative.

 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sun Jan 30, 2005 11:18 am

Yes, the VC380 will look fantastic!

Not nearly as sharp as the 747-400ER my friend!  Big thumbs up

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/search/photo_search.php?id=00003006

 
echster
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sun Jan 30, 2005 11:25 am

This is an unedited transcript of the breifing at which the contract was awarded. There are a few points which I have placed with bold-face, underline, or italics.


STAFF: Okay, thanks, everybody, for coming to today's announcement on the source selection of the presidential helicopter. In a moment I'll introduce the two people who will be speaking with you today.

If I could, just at the beginning, we only have about 30 minutes to do this, and a topic that has a lot of interest. I'd like to keep this single subject: the presidential helicopter.

With that I will introduce -- the announcement today will be made by Secretary John Young, he is the assistant secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition. After he's completed his announcement, Mr. Tom Laux will also be available. He is the program executive officer who will be responsible for oversight of the presidential helicopter.

So, with that, Secretary Young.

MR. YOUNG: Well, I thank you all for joining us today. I'd like to make a brief statement, then I'll turn this back over to you for questions.

I know there have been a mix of reporters covering today's event, some who have been covering this story for quite some time, others who have come to the story more recently. So before I get to our source selection decision, I'd like to briefly review how we got to this point.

We first solicited proposals in December of 2003 for an April 2004 source selection. The source selection team reviewed the initial proposals and determined that a contract award could not be made based on the initial offers. Industry and the government needed further discussions to evaluate the requirements and their impacts on the respective helicopters.

Both teams and the government needed time to understand the key technology, integration, weight and performance risk items; define plans to reduce each risk; and outline a realistic schedule. Thus, the source selection was delayed for the benefit of both teams and the government, seeking to commit taxpayer dollars only to a program we understood very well.

Detailed updates of those February proposals were received this past November, anticipating a December 18th source selection. While both industry teams turned in quality proposals, there were areas of concern again. Using a model typical of major Navy source selections, we continued discussions, outlining the government's specific concerns with each of the offerers. The ultimate goal of this process is to get the best quality proposal from each team with a thorough government understanding of each proposal. This process ensures the best decision for the taxpayer. Thus, for each team to address the final areas of concern, the Navy-Marine Corps team extended the proposal final submission period and shifted the source selection announcement to today.

The results were, I believe, worth the effort. We were able to accomplish a great deal of risk reduction during this period of time. We built high-fidelity cabin mock-ups, outlined detailed plans for design tests and production, and there were limited flying quality demonstrations and subsystem evaluations. Both teams then submitted very thorough, high-quality proposals.

As you know, each team starts with an existing helicopter and significantly alters this design, largely relying only on the airframe. Each team replaces the engine, rotor and drive train to meet the speed and range requirements. Each team must install in a helicopter communications systems which would rival the equipment on Air Force One, a 747.

Each team must make modifications to ensure the security of the president and his team.


The extra risk reduction time has allowed each team to fully identify the required program steps, determine the risk, identify mitigation measures and define a schedule that allows us to measure our progress each day.

The requirements of the program are very demanding. The volume of work to be completed in this program is substantial. The extensive modifications to be made to the airframes and the complex equipment to be integrated into either helicopter carry substantial risk for changes in cost or schedule.

However, the need to improve the capability and security level provided to the president is urgent and demands that we move expeditiously.

Both the Sikorsky and Lockheed teams did an excellent job of addressing the extremely demanding requirements and defining a plan to deliver the capability for the president. Each team could deliver the required product for the president. However, the government team must make a best value selection, which controls the risk and cost to the taxpayer, while delivering the capability demanded by the White House mission.

Consistent with government procurement rules, the government acquisition team evaluated the proposals solely on technical, past performance, experience and cost factors. Each industry team submitted a proposal compliant with the solicitation and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. The government team evaluated the proposals solely on the merits, and the only guidance issued -- other than -- to the team was to pick the helicopter providing the best value for the presidential support mission.

I'm here to tell you the government team has completed this task of selecting a team to develop and build the new presidential helicopter. Today we are announcing the selection of Lockheed Martin to begin the system development and demonstration phase of the VXX program.


As I discussed above, the government's requirements were very challenging. The Lockheed streamlining proposal was selected because it was judged more likely to meet these government requirements on schedule, with lesser risk, and at a lower cost. This effort will deliver a new helicopter that provides essential improvement in the range, speed, communications capability and survivability necessary to efficiently and securely transport the president of the United States.

I want to thank the industry teams for the tremendous thought and effort they dedicated to presenting very good proposals to deliver new capability for the president. I'm also grateful for the long hours devoted to the risk-reduction and source-selection efforts by Tom Laux, the program executive officer who will join me, and the VXX Program Office, led by Colonel Frank Mazur. The government acquisition team and both offerers have put forth an incredible effort to get us to this announcement. They worked a lot of holidays and weekends through the Christmas period, and I want them to know that I appreciate very much what they've done, and I know the White House does as well.

And so with that I've completed the statement and would be happy to ask Tom to join me and take questions if you have them.

Yes, ma'am?

Q: There was -- in the six months leading up to this, both companies have done an awful lot of briefings to reporters, and in it the theme kept coming back: "made in America, team USA." And Sikorsky really emphasized their all-American team. Augusta Westland and Lockheed Martin obviously has more prominent foreign participation. Did that figure in at all to your decision?

MR. YOUNG: That's really not a factor in the source selection because both teams were required with their proposal to submit a certification that they were compliant with the applicable provisions -- statutes and regulations, as I said, included in the "Buy America" provisions. Both teams have done that, and beyond that it's not a factor in the source selection.

Q: Can you bound the value of the program in terms of what the SDD phase is roughly going to be worth, and then what the total program for 23 choppers is going to be worth?

MR. YOUNG: The cost to go in the program is, in research and development, which includes the procurement of three test aircraft, five pilot production aircraft, which form the increment-one initial capability to be delivered in 2009, and also three of the increment- two aircraft as a low-rate procurement purchase. That's $3.5 billion of effort, to be followed by procurement of the remaining increment-two aircraft, 15 helicopters, for $2.5 billion. So the cost to go to the government is $6 billion -- $6.1 billion.

Q: One-point-seven of $6 billion is committed today?

MR. YOUNG: Committed on the contract today.

Q: Can I ask you one quick follow-up on work shares? How much work will be done in Italy and the United Kingdom?

MR. YOUNG: Not sure. Do we want to -- I don't -- let me ask Tom to take a shot at some of the pieces of that. We didn't ask for that kind of breakdown.

MR. LAUX: In their proposals, Lockheed advised us that they were going to send approximately -- two-thirds of the work was going to be done in the United States and approximately one-third of the work was going to be done overseas, split between the U.K. and Italy.

Q: What overseas will be? Components or parts of the helicopter -- fuselage? Any sense of that?

MR. LAUX: The plan is to build initially the primary fuselage components and the main rotor blades in England. We're going to build the dynamic components, including the bulk of the gear boxes, in Italy.

Q: Secretary Young, how does the Navy respond to the latest DOT&E report, which criticizes the acquisition strategy and schedule for the program as being too aggressive and so forth?

MR. YOUNG: I think, as I said, we recognize we have to move expeditiously because in the current world situation, the president finds himself in a helicopter that already we don't have the payload he would like to have, and we don't have the ability to add any additional equipment on the helicopter we have. This new capability will substantially enhance his ability to work while he travels, but also add security features that we can't get on the existing helicopter.

So that urgency drives us to lay out a program and march toward it, and hopefully work off the risks that we've identified through the time we've had in laying out the schedule. We need to work with DOT&E to show them how we plan to test as we go, but we can't let the traditional acquisition process impede the need to meet the president's security requirements now.

So we're working with them; understand, and they understand we have an aggressive program. They've indicated they'll work with us. And we're going to lay a lot of testing on the table as we go because we, as a Navy team, are obviously not going to put the president in a helicopter that hasn't been fully tested. And indeed, both companies' proposals will have them providing company assets to begin flight testing almost immediately. And so we're going to very quickly move to flight testing and getting experience with these helicopters.

Yes, sir?

Q: There were about $77 million given to each team for risk- reduction efforts throughout last year. What did that money go to? What exactly were these risk-reduction efforts?

MR. YOUNG: I'll let Tom offer details.

MR. LAUX: The bulk of the money was to identify those key technologies which are crucial to identifying and, obviously, mitigating the risk in going forward. So there were a number of trade studies that were done. In addition, as Secretary Young pointed out, we did build high-fidelity mock-ups -- obviously, the cabin is an essential part of this procurement. We did continued trade studies for the engine development and the main rotor blade developments, the dynamic components required for the increased performance between this aircraft and what each offer is currently marketing.

Q: How many aircraft overall and the total price?

MR. YOUNG: The objective of the program is 23 aircraft. And then, as I -- the cost to go on that program is about $6.1 billion, split between research and development and procurement.

Yes, ma'am?

Q: Thanks. One of the things that came up during the lead-up period was that some versions of the 101 in Canada and the U.K. were grounded at various times because of problems with a tail rotor piece that kept cracking. The Merlin in the U.K. crashed and was grounded for four months in Canada. They're still on some type of flight restriction while they try and figure out what's causing this. How did that factor into your decision?

MR. LAUX: We are very aware of the technical issues that are being worked. We have in our plan a very focused activity to further understand and to participate in understanding the redesign activities that are going on. And it is our expectation that we're likely to carry that redesign even further as we continue to mitigate the risk areas in the aircraft.

Q: So you're going to redesign this part from scratch, then, so that you don't have to worry about this concern? Is this one of the parts that's going to be replaced?

MR. LAUX: It's not going to be redesigned from scratch. There's a healthy amount of design work and testing and qualification and understanding that has gone into the current configuration. We're looking for more robustness than the current design has, and we're going to work towards that end.

MR. YOUNG: Yes, ma'am, on --

Q: Two questions. One, Sikorsky made very clear with reporters before the competition was announced that this was a competition for global dominance in the marketplace, for lack of another way of putting it. Can you give us a sense of how you think this decision impacts the industrial base? And also, secondly, the Italian prime minister was here today. Did Secretary Rumsfeld discuss this with him?

MR. YOUNG: I'll take the last one first. I don't know what Secretary Rumsfeld discussed with him. I think at the appropriate time, later in the day, Secretary Rumsfeld was made aware of the decision.

This is a program to build 23 helicopters and comply with a very stringent requirement in terms of payload range, speed and the features the White House needs in a helicopter to support the president.

These requirements are not likely to be duplicated elsewhere, so I don't really see this -- I see this as a fairly unique opportunity. And to give you one example, the Air Force is anticipating a combat search and rescue helicopter competition. Well over a year ago, Tom and the team sat down and talked with the Air Force to see if there were opportunities to do these things jointly. I'm typically a fan of that. But the requirements are very different in this space, and so the decision was there was no real opportunity to have a joint program here. And so the Air Force program will proceed. I expect Sikorski and others to be extremely good competitors for that program. This very specialized program is going to be one based on the ability to deliver within a very tight time schedule against pretty stringent requirements.


Q: Can you say what Lockheed Martin did since December 18th in their approach to the bid that helped gain your confidence in their approach?

MR. YOUNG: Well, I don't think a lot changed in that extension period. It was just we had areas of concern we communicated to both teams, and we're probably not able to talk about that, but both teams had to make amendments, if you will, to their proposals to get across that last hurdle of us clearly understanding what they were proposing and us understanding exactly what they said they'd do so we could evaluate them.

And again, the proposals were very good. Both teams could deliver this product. It's a matter of assessing, frankly, against those stringent requirements and the schedule that the White House has asked us to meet. Both teams started with helicopters, and the Lockheed team probably started with a helicopter that needed less -- they more closely met the requirements we had laid out, and that allowed them to table less work that had to be completed to get to the finish line and deliver a product.

And that was certainly a factor in the source selection decision.


Yes, sir?

Q: Can I ask you, during the public debate between the companies over the past year, a lot's been made of the fact that the Sikorsky helicopter had two engines, the Lockheed entry had three, and was a larger helicopter. Were those two things factors in the decision?

MR. YOUNG: Why don't I let Tom talk about this?

MR. LAUX: The factors had to do, from a performance perspective, how far can you go and how much can you carry; range/payload kinds of questions. And obviously, there are trade-offs with the sizing of the aircraft and the rotor to accomplish that.

Regarding the three engines versus two, three engines obviously burns more gas per hour than two does. Those came into play. How big the gas tanks are. You can lift more because you have more horsepower. So, all the design trade-outs were very, very thoroughly evaluated.

Specifically from a safety perspective, we took a look to see if in fact a three-engine platform offered potentially more safety, and we could find no data. And we operate both three-engine and two- engine aircraft that do. So that didn't turn out to be a specific advantage. But the overall size of the 101 clearly was a factor in terms of their capabilities.

MR. YOUNG: I think Tom and I discussed in advance, the S-92 offers a cabin that's pretty comparable in size to today's VH-3D. The 101 cabin is a larger cabin, so it offers a little more flexibility. That was something that we considered. But both cabins met the requirements, so that wasn't a total discriminating factor.

Yes, ma'am?

Q: You said there's some specific technologies in this helicopter, like security, communications, things that the president required. Is that technology available today in the military sector, or is that new technology entirely that has to be developed from scratch?

MR. YOUNG: You want to offer --

MR. LAUX: Sure.

We have a technology insertion plan. We're certainly taking advantage of everything that's available today and will be integrated with the known technologies. Over time we expect to be able to further integrate and collapse, if you will, four boxes into three, that kind of thing, as we go. But there are no communications technologies development as part of this program right now. We're starting off with stuff -- equipment that's within the state of the art today.

MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir, in the back?

Q: I have two questions for you.

One is on the security clearances. There was some question whether Lockheed's team could get enough people with the high security requirement. Is the government going to do anything in particular to facilitate that and to help them get the workforce?

And the second one being, you talked about cost and indicated that the Lockheed bid was lower cost, and intuitively the 101 is a more expensive platform with the additional engine. So can you kind of bound for us what you're talking about in cost? Are you talking program cost, fly away cost, what cost?

MR. YOUNG: Can I take -- I'll take the second one and tell you, you know, on the cost factor, what I said was we had a stringent requirement, two helicopters that had to be modified to meet that requirement within a time frame. Lockheed started at a point that was closer to the requirements and let them -- they had less work to do, so that obviously let them bid a cost that was potentially lower.

I don't really want to say any more about the cost differential between the two teams because the bulk -- more of the cost is in the development, the integration of the subsystems. The basic cost of the helicopter, we believe the pilot-production aircraft are about $75 million a copy, then to be modified. The increment-two aircraft are about $87 million a copy. They have more capability, and the modifications to the engines and all. And the helicopter with all the modifications we estimate to be approximately $110 million a copy.

MR. LAUX: You asked about security and if we're going to facilitate Lockheed's clearances. Absolutely.

They're now our industry partner, and we're going to do everything we can to facilitate the personnel that they need to get the clearances and get them deployed into the right places.

The secretary asked me to amplify regarding the staffing plan that Lockheed submitted -- they've identified the number of personnel in each of the locations, including Italy and the U.K and the various U.S. locations. We've identified at each of those places the number of security personnel appropriate to the activity that's going on to make sure that we have the appropriate oversight and the protections that are required for this very sensitive mission.

Q: Can you say how many of the people are overseas?

MR. LAUX: I don't think it's appropriate to comment on the specifics of the security at this time.

MR. YOUNG: Yes, ma'am?

Q: Congress is already starting to react. Senator Lieberman called this decision, quote-unquote, "outrageously wrong," and says he will fight to right this wrong, that it's just a, you know, slap in the face to Sikorsky, which has earned the right. What do you say to the sort of political fallout that is already happening on Capitol Hill?

And then also, if you could clarify the numbers -- the 6.1 -- is 6.1 the total figure, of which 1.7 is a piece? Or is it more than that?

MR. YOUNG: We're awarding a contract today valued at $1.7 billion to Lockheed Martin. We believe the cost to go in development is about $3.5 billion. We've already spent some funds on the program, as was noted. And then the cost to go in procurement is about $3.6 billion -- in development -- $2.5 billion in procurement for a total cost to go to develop the helicopter system and deliver the 23 airframes and fully modified at about $6.1 billion.

Q: So it's 1.7 plus 6.1.

MR. YOUNG: Yeah. And within the -- you know, the cost within R&D beyond the contact value, the government has allocated funds for government tests, government activities. There are some government-furnished items that go on these helicopters. And then we have funds against anticipated software and other hardware issues that we've got to deal with as we go through development.

Q: Okay. I'm sorry. Do you --

Q: So it's almost 9 billion --

MR. YOUNG: No, it's 6 period --

Q: Okay.

MR. YOUNG: Six-point-one (billion dollars) to go -- costs to go -- total program costs to deliver the entire program -- 3.6 (billion dollars) in R&D and 2.5 (billion dollars) in procurement. And some of the R&D funds buy the initial helicopters.

Q: So it isn't 1.7 (billion dollars) plus 6.1 (billion dollars); it's 1. --

MR. YOUNG: One-point-seven (billion dollars) is within the 3.5 (billion dollars) -- 3.6 (billion dollars) of R&D costs.

Q: And then if you can just get to the political fallout and "outrageously wrong" –

MR. YOUNG: As I commented, within the government procurement rules and regulations, we conducted a best value competition. Both teams did a great job of submitting proposals that were compliant with the requirements, compliant with the statute and regulations. And so the burden on us was to evaluate the proposals and make a best value recommendation for the helicopter to serve the presidential mission.

I don't -- we don't have a lot of flexibility to drive it in any direction based on politics or industry aspects, as long as people comply. And that was the case.

So I come back to the point we're prepared to say, and it's difficult to talk a lot further. Given the requirements and given the schedule, both teams started with very capable helicopters and explained to us what modifications they needed to make to meet those requirements. The Lockheed team has less work to do to accomplish and meet those requirements, and that means they were able to offer a different cost and less -- and more manageable risk to us.

So we believe it's a good source selection decision. We're obviously going to immediately debrief the industry teams, and we'll make information available to members of Congress that are interested. I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion.
But I think the team has spent a lot of time. That was the importance of that risk reduction phase, so both teams provided schedule, both teams understood fully what we were asking of them, we understand fully what they're proposing, and we were able to assess very well their cost, their risk and their likelihood of succeeding.

And we think both teams would succeed, as I said in my statement, but at some point you have to discriminate and choose the best value, and that's the decision the team made.

Q: Can I follow up on that? It's been widely reported that both Prime Minister Blair and Prime Minister Berlusconi spoke to the president and urged him to buy this helicopter. Can you just say for the record, was there ever any contact from the White House or from any politicians, when you were making your decision - that influenced the decision in any way?

MR. YOUNG: Well, that's a broad question. I regret to report to you the president did not call me about this helicopter.

Q: (Laughs.)

MR. YOUNG: And beyond that, I'll tell you no one at the White House has contacted me. We provided some initial briefings about how we were proceeding with the program, made sure we understood their requirements. We told them some requirements that were tough to meet and talked that through, just as I do in my Navy programs with the Navy requirements community. But at the end of the day, once we agreed on those, we marched. And I got no other vectors from the White House to pick -- to do anything other than pick the best value choice for the mission. And that's what we did.

So I don't believe there are any political influences in -- I mean, there are not political influences in this. And I can tell you I have not been asked by anyone to pick a particular one. I was not the source selection authority, so that there wouldn't be a political appointee making this decision.

A member of my team was the source selection authority.

We have a very rigorous process in the Navy. There's a Source Selection Evaluation Board. Tom outlined previously to Secretary England there are about 100 technical experts in various fields that sit on that board, evaluate the proposals and assess them. That's fed up to a Source Selection Advisory Committee that consisted of flag officers and SES, senior executives in the government. They evaluated that information, had a chance to reassess any information or evaluate the recommendations made by that and coalesce them down to a scoring. That scoring was recommended to a source selection authority who made the final decision, and again had chances to review, ask questions, do as they will.

So we have a three-tiered process. I would suggest to you it's fairly isolated from political influences and others. It's evaluation on the technical, past performance, experience, and cost factors, and they were weighted in various ways. And out of that comes a scoring and a decision as to the best value for the government.


STAFF: We've got time for one more question.

MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir?

Q: Can you -- first, can you give us a better sense of how this helicopter will expand the president's capabilities when he's in the air? What kind of things can he do -- will he or she be able to do that he or she – he can't now?

And also, is there going to be a significant difference between the early, the first -- the 2009 helicopters, the first tier, whatever, and the second one, a significant difference in capability?


MR. YOUNG: Let me say a few things and then open it to Tom to expand, because I think we have some good things to tell you there.

There are differences. Increment one is a desire to respond to an urgent need to get a more capable helicopter in the hands of the president. That helicopter, though, will come with about -- a range of about 250-mile range capability, which is -- the current VH-3D, to put that in context, has a range of about 100 miles. Currently, while it was designed to carry 16, it's generally been limited now to carrying 10. And so -- and that's because of the equipment that's been added over time. You all know what kind of communications capability is out there, and the White House desires to have real-time communications capability that Tom can probably expand on.

The increment-two helicopters come with more capability and push that range up to 350 nautical miles. So we get significant real-time capability for communications, dramatically enhanced range. The VH-3 is about a 114-knot helicopter; this helicopter will be a 140-knot helicopter with 14 passengers and four crew. So in every area we expand the capability for the president to meet his mission and work while he's doing that.


Tom, maybe you want to add some more details.

MR. LAUX: I would simply amplify what the secretary said regarding the range and the payload. That buys flexibility that allows the currently developed technology to be installed on the aircraft, which we cannot do because we are so severely weight-limited with the existing platforms that we're flying.

So as the security needs change over time, we can address those by adding to the aircraft as opposed to adding and subtracting, which is the mode that we're in right now. We will continue to be able to carry the passengers on board. The communications not just for the president, but also for the passengers on board -- more and more today everybody needs to have real-time communications. That has been substantially increased. And the ability to do all these things all at the same time is really what adds to the complexity of the communications system and the capability that we're now going to have with the 101 platform.

Q: Will this be ready in time for President Bush to take a ride on it? You say fiscal '09, but that could theoretically still --

MR. YOUNG: Well, we anticipate being -- having this available for the president in October of 2009. That's the current schedule we've laid out.

STAFF: Okay. Thanks a lot, everybody, for coming. Appreciate it.
 
VgnAtl747
Posts: 1333
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 3:59 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Sun Jan 30, 2005 11:41 pm

The Lockheed plant that will outfit Marine One is about 20 minutes from my house. It's a very big deal for the local economy.
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1576
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Mon Jan 31, 2005 7:45 am

The spec for a US Presidental helicopter is that it safely transport the VIPs and serve as a symbol of the nation.

EH101 crash record:
21 Jan 1993 Italian PP2 lost in accident due to rotor brake malfunction. Flight testing suspended.
7 April 1995 PP4 written off in a crash after tail rotor control-rod failure.
27 Oct 2000 Crash of a Merlin HM.1 due to rotor brake malfunction leads to temporary grounding of all UK Merlins.
30 Mar 2004 Merlin HM.1 from 824 squadron Royal Navy crashed during take-off from RNAS Culdrose

S-92 crash record:
None
The S-92 was designed based upon lessons learned with the UH-60/SH-60, which has excellent crash survivability features.

EH101 parent companies:
Westland (UK)
Agusta (Italy)
These two companies merged, as AgustaWestland and are now owned by Finmeccanica, an Italian government owned holding company.

S-92 parent company:
Sikorsky (USA)
Sikorsky is owned by United Technologies, a share-holder owned company.

By parent companies, I mean those that funded and conducted the design and development of the helicopter. Actually, Westland and Agusta received substantial state support in the EH101 development. The S-92 was a private venture. It uses dynamic components from the UH-60/SH-60 series, which were developed with US government funding.

When the contract award was delayed until after the US election, I figured that the contract was going to the EH101. The KC767 decision was delayed in a similar fashion...
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:19 am

The KC767 was delayed because of a scandal...
 
bennett123
Posts: 10929
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Mon Jan 31, 2005 10:33 am

Aeroweanie

I read that the S92 is still under development.

Please can you tell me when the first flight was, and how many are currently flying.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:40 am

The S-92 was certified on December 17, 2002.

http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,3036,CLI1_DIV69_ETI890,00.html

You could have just checked out A.net resources as well, although it's not quite up to date.

https://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=361
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:51 am

I would not put a controversy on the aircraft selection because of it's safety record. We all know that there have been a few 747 loses. It's just that these particular aircraft get extra special TLC. I wouldn't be surprised if some components on these aircraft were over engineered as well.
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1576
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Mon Jan 31, 2005 1:35 pm

Bennett123:

The S-92 first flew in Dec 1998. The first production items were recently delivered to PHI. I don't know how many are flying, but I'd guess that its about a dozen.

Both the S-92 and EH101 are FAA certified. You can see the TCs at:

S-92A: R00024BO awarded Dec 2002 (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/7cd106795a8eee0086256f1f00693e71/$FILE/R00024BO.pdf)

EH101: for some reason, it has two TCs: H80EU for the EH101-300 awarded Nov 25 1994 (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/5b1bd1ed0537eefe85256715005cce76/$FILE/H80eu.PDF)
and H81EU awarded the same day for the EH101-500 (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/f775bf547dfd90f785256715005d2366/$FILE/H81eu.PDF)
 
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1576
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Mon Jan 31, 2005 2:08 pm

Boeing Nut:

The US Secret Service would disagree with you. When it comes to transporting the President, they want to see that the aircraft or helicopter has a very clean safety record. I'm surprised that they approved the EH101. There has been one crash of a VH-3 and one of a VH-60. In both cases, the accident investigations were incredibly thorough.
 
greaser
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:09 pm

Is this contract even final?? Does congress have to approve?
Anyway, no matter who wins, the beloved Sea King will only be stuck in a muesum from 2009 on...
 
bsergonomics
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 5:07 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:43 pm

Just to straighten out a few facts:

The EH101 was designed and built by European Helicopter Industries (EHI), a joint venture between Westlands and Agusta.

(Legend) It was supposed to have been called the EHI-01, but a secretary misread a handwritten note and typed it up as the EH101. And the name stuck.

The Merlin ASW programme was dreamt up by the UK and Italian governments, using the EH101 as the base aircraft, with a Thomson-Marconi Active Dipping Sonar (ADS) etc., to be managed by EHI. The programme did not run smoothly, so IBM won the contract to be the Prime Contractor.

IBM then sold their aeronautics division to Loral, who were then bought by Lockheed Martin. The specific part was Lockheed Martin ASIC, based at North Harbour (just outside Portsmouth), UK (Note: they have now moved to Havant).

There is an omission the crash list provided by AeroWeanie, that of PP7, which rolled after the loss of tail rotor function. It was repaired and brought back to the flight test programme.

However, it must be noted that all of these crashes involved the Merlin, of which 44 were built. The Merlin is a much heavier aircraft than the base EH101 (in the order of two tonnes heavier). This extra weight was cited several times during the crash investigations, placing extra stress on the tail rotor mechanisms.

Changing tack somewhat, there is the aspect of single pilot operations. I don't know if the S-92 is certified for single pilot operations, but the Merlin certainly is. This need stems from early consultations, that revealed that there were insufficient berths on the Type 23 frigate to sleep all of the intended crew. Since the guys in the back seats were indispensible, it was decided to chop one of the pilots. The end result is a fantastic aircraft that is simple to fly and with excellent performance.

I must confess that I haven't yet read the spec for the US101, but features such as the flotation bags must also provide extra "Nice to have" back-up systems.

Innovations such as the BERP rotorblades provide an already fine airframe with the ability to compete with new designs for many years to come.

As for the politics, it seems that this has cropped up far too many times recently. In light of the multinational make-up of most aircraft these days, it is really only the systems integrator that flies the national flag. Since, in this case, that is Lockheed Martin, I don't think that there can be too many arguments.

In the end, the US President will get the best helicopter. Enjoy!
 
voodoo
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 12:14 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Mon Jan 31, 2005 7:33 pm

Blair and Berlosconni (sp?) got some payback for once.
Too bad Conn. (Sikorsky) is a blue state I guess.
 
grom365
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:49 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:10 am

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is the fact that these decisions are not made based solely upon the technical merits. These contracts are awarded based upon the concept of "best value."

Now, before I get flamed, here are the official criteria (in no particular order):
- technical solution (typ 5-15 sub-requirements)
- cost
- schedule
- program management
- past performance
- risk
- legal & contractual compliance

The actual weighting of these criteria are subtly different from competition to competition, and are never publicized outside the source selection authority. But the weighting is established such that excellent performance in any one category does not automatically guarantee award.

Thus, for any contract award, it is possible that team X received a lower technical evaluation than team Y, yet still wins because the evaluation in the other categories was that much better. [Not to say - or imply - this happened here!]

While it may be impossible to completely eliminate bias in the decision-making process - we are dealing with human beings, after all - the final, written evaluations for all criteria must substantiate the decision. In the event of a protest, these evaluations are entered into evidence in federal court. It should be noted that the USN has not had an award decision overturned in decades, if at all.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6036
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:32 am

Article about this in Aviation Week & Space Technology:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/LHVXX01315.xml

No surprise that Lieberman is pissed.
 
GDB
Posts: 14480
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:33 am

Comparing the S-92 platform, which has only flown fairly recently compared to the EH-101, ignores the active service Merlin's have been involved in, RAF ones in Bosnia, RN ones in Iraq in 2003, aside from Canadian service, which will often be in demanding conditions too.
By the time the US-101 starts to appear, other users such as Denmark and Portugal, will have service under their belt, the Japanese Police already have one, the Maritime Self Defence Force will follow.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6036
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Tue Feb 01, 2005 2:08 am

It's not like the S-92 is all-new. It's an enlarged S-70, which has performed in the ASW and VIP transport role for years.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:14 am

The Canadian ones have had issues with cockpit windows working loose.

And I seem to remember one having to cut it's rescue swimmer loose after a technical malfunction.
 
echster
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:09 am

A few observations:

AeroWeanie - I would venture to say the Secret Service had no say in selection. This is a military aircraft bought, flown, and maintained by the US Marine Corps. Also, I think it highly unlikely the Secret Service has the aeronautical engineering personnel capable of making this decision.

Greaser - I don't know if the contract is final, but it has been announced and posted to the Pentagon's website (defenselink.mil). I can't find it off-hand, but I believe part of the funds have been appropriated and the rest will need to be appropriated in the future. Congress will have a say but Lieberman and the Sikorsky backers won't have the votes to block this...and probably don't have the votes to delay it either.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6036
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:40 am

Echster:

You are sorely mistaken if you think the Secret Service did not have a say in this process.
 
GDB
Posts: 14480
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:09 am

If the Secret Service did have a say, clearly the paranoid rantings that Sikorsky came out with just before selection, cut no ice.

Another factor to consider, growth, apparently the current VIP fleet are much more limited now, what with weight growth of additonal equipment over the years.
This is one area where US-101 could well have had an edge.
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1576
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:35 am

I guess we'll soon see the President of the US traveling around in a US assembled Mercedes Benz (marked as a Daimler Chrysler product).
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6036
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:05 am

AeroWeanie:

I guess that would be the case if he drove around in a stretch Chrysler 300C, as those are just US-assembled Mercedes-Benz E-Class automobiles (though with a different engine.)
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:39 am

So the U.S. bought some foreign helicopter, the Marines also bought the Harrier, built by Douglas but UK design;the T-45 Goshawk built by Douglas UK design. C-23 Sherpa built in Ireland, USCG Falcons and Daulphins that are French built. The T-6 is a Swiss design. and how many of our NATO allies use U.S built equipment, all of the them even the French(E-3F, KC-135F). If Sikorsky made a helicopter as good or better as the EH-101 than making just another Blackhawk on steroids than they would have gotten the contract. Sikorsky will still have a presidental contract with the VH-60's which are easier to transport in a C-5 than the EH-101 and will be there for some time.
 
Wiggidy
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:06 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:50 am

I do think it is rather ironic however that everytime the US buys a foreign aircraft, they tweak it or change the name in some way so that they can call it American. Like the Harrier changed from Hawker Sidley to Douglas, even with the AV-8A which was almost purely british. Yet take the Hercs in the RAF, theyre still lockheed, along with foreign F-16s (and my god theres alot of those). The AV8B, with a redesign by BAe and McDonald, became primarily a US airplane according to Janes and other US sources anyways. The same is going to be true with the US-101, almost the entire design is anglo/italian with US engines and avionics I believe, yet they will call it an American helicopter. Why is this so important here in the US that everything has to be ours in some way? Is it politics or purely pride? Just my 2 cents,
-Wes
 
bennett123
Posts: 10929
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:40 pm

Wes

I have been thinking the same for some time.

To add a few more examples, how many F4 were sold to Germany/Spain and the UK, and how many F104's. Perhaps someone can tell me the differences between and Canberra B2 and the B57A.

I think that the big difference is that some things are flowing the other way, and people are sore about it.
 
Wiggidy
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:06 am

RE: Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper

Thu Feb 03, 2005 1:46 am

Bennett123, I think you're right. We (Americans) are supposed to be the superpower, so I suppose we dont like buying defense hardware from "smaller" nations. The fleet air arm modified their f-4s way more than the USAF modified their B-57s or the USMC their harriers, yet they are still McDonald phantoms. Something thats also been on my mind for some time,
-Wes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos