Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Lockheed Martin has won the contract to produce the new presidential helicopter, beating out Sikorsky:

Quote:

The Lockheed side includes Augusta-Westland, which is majority-owned by Fionmeccanica of Italy. Their offering, the three-engine US101, is a variant of a helicopter used by the British Royal Navy and other European countries. Still, to position itself an American offering, Maryland-based Lockheed was running around the country, lining up suppliers and promising that the bulk of the craft would be built in the United States. And, in a bid to win presidential favor, Lockheed said that the airframe of the craft would be built by Bell Helicopters in Texas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/busin ... &position=

I was shocked to hear this. I thought for sure Sikorsky would win, with their "All-American" VH-92 and their long-time experience with presidential helicopters. But I'll admit I think the US101 is a prettier aircraft. It would be interesting to hear how they came to make that choice.

F-16.net Sponsor

Well, I saw the announcement live on C-SPAN and that question was asked later. They gave the standard answer of cost-value-performance aspects that played a part in the decision but didn't elaborate very much besides some performance comparisons with the Sikorsky candidate. However since Italy and the UK are major players in the contract, I tend to think maybe someone whispered in an ear or three saying "Ya know....Italy and the UK have been really loyal allies in Iraq and elsewhere. It'd be a pity if we didn't show 'em some gratitude in some small way." But that's just me speculatin' again. There will be a lot of American work done on it though. Here's the link to the US101 page.

And fear not for Sikorsky. The Marine One contract was for only 26 birds. Sikorsky has other projects that'll keep 'em busy for a long while.

I'm not one for the Whisper in the ear theory. One of the reasons why the EH101 won is listed in this article

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/j ... _1_n.shtml

LinkF-16SimDude wrote:

The Marine One contract was for only 26 birds.

Correction: 23 birds as per the Jane's link.

Politics (i.e. helping allies who support us) does not and cannot play in a source selection. The rules and grading criteria must be established and approved (at a very high level) before the request for proposal can even be released. Everything is above board to prevent protests. Of course, Congress can do anything they want and if they want to raise a stink about sending taxpayer $$ overseas then nothing can stop them.

As someone intimate with DoD acquisition practices, this award highlights an issue the USG will have to come to grips with. We claim that the acquisition process is to guarantee the best price. Not true. the process is guaranteed to be as fair as possible and do out of the way to prevent "improperness" Wink

from creeping in. That very fairness is also what forces us to accept foreign players.

I for one would prefer we do less "playing field-leveling" and pay more attention to the saying "charity begins at home". I think the USG has an obligation to creating US jobs and stimulating our own market...in the long run the country benefits more (less technology transfer, skills development, tax dollars) than saving a few bucks going overseas.

Roscoe wrote:

I think the USG has an obligation to creating US jobs and stimulating our own market..

Agree with everything ya said except this one teensy bit. Feel free to call me a "limited government wacko" if ya like, I can take it. Very Happy

While the USG has a role in market stimulation (Fed lending rates, tax breaks and incentives, etc.), it can't "create" private sector jobs outta thin air. It can however encourage the creation of jobs in the private sector (which Sikorsky is part of) by adopting polices and measures that help companies expand their market share, which creates a higher product demand, which means more production output, which means hiring more people (overly simplistic, yes, but I didn't want to type a whole screed). If you can believe the Lockheed PR folks there will be quite a bit of US manufacturing done on the new contract along with the overseas portion. So maybe it's won't be a total wash. <fingers crossed>

In a nutshell, free-market economies run best with minimal government interference, just enough to keep the engine from over-revving. Wink

OK......macro-economics 101 lesson over....back to the topic at hand!

But I think you would agree that sending major contracts overseas is counterproductive to what is in the overall berst interest to the US?

Of course.....'specially Marine One. Something that high-level should stay in the US if at all possible. If not, structure it so that the foreign team mates have minimal involvement in it. Buy licences from 'em if need be. Italy and GB are great friends but tell 'em it's nothin' personal. We're talkin' about transporting the most politcally and militarily powerful human on the planet. We need to keep it close.

Now, I was perusing some US101 stories yesterday and saw one report that the foreign elements will be involved with building the baseline airframe (to the point where it'll fly) but then that relatively empty shell will then go to Lockheed's operation in Owego, NY to be fitted out with all the presidential gizmos and gadgets, thereby keeping the foreign partners isolated from the really cosmic stuff. Kinda like the empty spines on IAF/AF F-16s fresh from the factory. . Wink

Bottom line the Lockheed copter is a better machine, all around. The same reason I ride a DL1000 Vs a Harley!! Faster, Cheaper, and better ergonomics!!

Did I read that right? A 6.1 billion dollar deal for 23 helos?

265 million per unit?

Person wrote:

did i read that right? a 6.1 billion dollar deal for 23 helos?

265 million per unit?

I wouldn't doubt it. Think of all the whiz-bang gizmos you need to have in it for the President Very Happy

!

Can I just say, the EH101 (merlin HC.3) is one real nice chopper. Got lucky enough to get a 2 hour ride in one not too long ago, real steady ride, not too much engine noise, & who can argue with 3 engines?
&...If they have to, I've seen one really move.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

The New Marine One