If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Presidential Helicopter
Politics and payback aside, is anyone else upset by the fact that the
Navy chose a less-safe, lower-performance helicopter to carry the President of the United States? For starters, the S-92 and EH101 were designed a generation apart as far as flaw-tolerant design and birdstrike and turbine burst protection. For the next 30 years or so, the US101 will still seat the President above aircraft fuel cells. Also like an earlier generation of helicopters, the EH101 structure does meet current crashworthiness requirements for forward impact strength. Strengthening the core EH/US101 up to the latest standards will put cost and risk into the VXX program, just what the Navy said it was trying to avoid. Every part of a US Presidential helicopter is handled with special care in a high-security environment. After a half-century of Presidential service, a proven VH secure manufacturing and support infrastructure with hundreds of skilled US citizens carefully cleared for access to Presidential aircraft will be phased out. The new US101 secure organization will start from scratch to include foreign workers in facilities offshore. More risk and cost. Hopefully, the news media keeps an eye on this deal. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Helowriter" wrote in news:1110895207.080893.269810
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: For starters, the S-92 and EH101 were designed a generation apart as far as flaw-tolerant design and birdstrike and turbine burst protection. For the next 30 years or so, the US101 will still seat the President above aircraft fuel cells. Also like an earlier generation of helicopters, the EH101 structure does meet current crashworthiness requirements for forward impact strength. Strengthening the core EH/US101 up to the latest standards will put cost and risk into the VXX program, just what the Navy said it was trying to avoid. I think you'll find that the selection of the US-101 was precisely to minimise programme risk. The selection team thought that the Sikorsky capability vs the required updates to the S-92 were riskier than those needed for the US-101 in the hands of Lockheed Martin & friends. toad. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Yep, that's what Assistant Secretary Young said. But what's the risk of
totally redesigning the EH101 structure to meet modern crash strength requirements? What's the risk of setting up a Presidential manufacturing and support mechanism offshore? If they both needed rotor and drivetrain changes, the risk is in air vehicle development, and I think they minimized the risk for Lockheed Martin. Take a look at the BBC picture of the Merlin flattened after a crash from a 20 ft hover and ask yourself where the risk is. HW |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Helowriter" wrote in news:1110978868.256502.231550
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: Yep, that's what Assistant Secretary Young said. But what's the risk of totally redesigning the EH101 structure to meet modern crash strength requirements? What's the risk of setting up a Presidential manufacturing and support mechanism offshore? If they both needed rotor and drivetrain changes, the risk is in air vehicle development, and I think they minimized the risk for Lockheed Martin. Take a look at the BBC picture of the Merlin flattened after a crash from a 20 ft hover and ask yourself where the risk is. HW And that demonstrates how little faith there is in Sikorsky's ability. The Mil. has been burned enough by Sikorsky over-spends. They're voting with their feet for a solution that they think is less risky in the hands of a supplier they think can meet time and budget constraints... Time will tell if the analysis on this is correct. The USA vs non-USA is just a distraction Sikorsky thought up to try and win despite their project management deficiencies. toad. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The Merlin in the UK was delivered five years late and 1.6 billion
pounds over budget, and Lockheed Martin was the systems integrator. If we're to believe recent news, the F-22 and JSF are way, way, way over budget with no end in sight. Oh, the phrase "cost overrun" was actually coined for a Lockheed program -- the C-5 Galaxy. The USA "distraction" questions whether it is wise to move some of the most highly secure work long done by specially cleared US citizens to Italy and the UK. Sikorsky has delivered Black Hawks to the US miltary on schedule and in budget for successive multi-year contracts. Lockheed Martin has not designed and built a helicopter since the Cheyenne in 1969. If choosing Lockheed Martin is the military voting with their feet, they're going to need time to get their feet out of their mouths. HW |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The Merlin in the UK was delivered five years late and 1.6 billion
pounds over budget, and Lockheed Martin was the systems integrator. If we're to believe recent news, the F-22 and JSF are way, way, way over budget with no end in sight. Oh, the phrase "cost overrun" was actually coined for a Lockheed program -- the C-5 Galaxy. The USA "distraction" questions whether it is wise to move some of the most highly secure work long done by specially cleared US citizens to Italy and the UK. Sikorsky has delivered Black Hawks to the US miltary on schedule and in budget for successive multi-year contracts. Lockheed Martin has not designed and built a helicopter since the Cheyenne in 1969. If choosing Lockheed Martin is the military voting with their feet, they're going to need time to get their feet out of their mouths. HW |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I'm sure the media will keep an eye on this. It's a crying shame.
Based on the response from SAC management (link below)....I would imagine there is something brewing... http://www.sikorsky.com/news_archive...ID6027,00.html ~Rich Helowriter wrote: Politics and payback aside, is anyone else upset by the fact that the Navy chose a less-safe, lower-performance helicopter to carry the President of the United States? For starters, the S-92 and EH101 were designed a generation apart as far as flaw-tolerant design and birdstrike and turbine burst protection. For the next 30 years or so, the US101 will still seat the President above aircraft fuel cells. Also like an earlier generation of helicopters, the EH101 structure does meet current crashworthiness requirements for forward impact strength. Strengthening the core EH/US101 up to the latest standards will put cost and risk into the VXX program, just what the Navy said it was trying to avoid. Every part of a US Presidential helicopter is handled with special care in a high-security environment. After a half-century of Presidential service, a proven VH secure manufacturing and support infrastructure with hundreds of skilled US citizens carefully cleared for access to Presidential aircraft will be phased out. The new US101 secure organization will start from scratch to include foreign workers in facilities offshore. More risk and cost. Hopefully, the news media keeps an eye on this deal. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The hypocricy with Sikorsky waving the American flag in their failed
attempt to win the Presidential Helicopter contract was that the comercial production S-92 fuselage is to be assembled largely in China. That is why Sikorsky needed to get Vought on contract to assemble the Presidential version proposal. I admire Sikorskys products. But their marketing turned my stomach. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Stabilize your stomach and remember Lockheed Martin is the one who so
subtly changed the designation of their helicopter from EH101 to US101. LM was also a lot more aggressive about using politicians -- Senators Schumer, Hillary, et al -- to campaign for their aircraft. The New York Congressional delegation admits it lobbied intensively -- as did the Italian government -- for the EH101. Point is, S-92 design authority -- the expertise and legal authority to make changes -- remains in the US. EH101 design authority on the US101 apparently remains in Italy. Sikorsky pulled sheet metal and composite work back into Vought because Presidential helo work has long been performed exclusively in secure facilities by US citizens. Lockheed Martin is going to have gears, flightcontrols, etc made offshore. That discards 40-odd years of rigid security requirements just to buy a less safe aircraft. Oh, the commercial S-92 fuselage is made in Japan. The tail fin comes from China. HW |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Helowriter wrote: Stabilize your stomach and remember Lockheed Martin is the one who so subtly changed the designation of their helicopter from EH101 to US101. LM was also a lot more aggressive about using politicians -- Senators Schumer, Hillary, et al -- to campaign for their aircraft. The New York Congressional delegation admits it lobbied intensively -- as did the Italian government -- for the EH101. Point is, S-92 design authority -- the expertise and legal authority to make changes -- remains in the US. EH101 design authority on the US101 apparently remains in Italy. Sikorsky pulled sheet metal and composite work back into Vought because Presidential helo work has long been performed exclusively in secure facilities by US citizens. Lockheed Martin is going to have gears, flightcontrols, etc made offshore. That discards 40-odd years of rigid security requirements just to buy a less safe aircraft. Oh, the commercial S-92 fuselage is made in Japan. The tail fin comes from China. HW ....and the dynamic components are made in-house (blades...drive train...)..where they should be!..(I'm sure this isn't over..Stay tuned!) ~Rich |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flying high: Lockheed wins presidential helicopter contract | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 11 | February 8th 05 02:20 PM |
Flying high: Lockheed wins presidential helicopter contract | [email protected] | Rotorcraft | 0 | January 30th 05 03:48 AM |
Lockheed wins Presidential helicopter contract | Tiger | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 29th 05 05:24 AM |
Musings of a Commercial Helicopter Pilot | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 6 | February 27th 04 09:11 AM |
Musings of a Commercial Helicopter Pilot | Badwater Bill | Rotorcraft | 0 | February 25th 04 06:39 PM |