A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Rotorcraft
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Presidential Helicopter



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 15th 05, 03:00 PM
Helowriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 16th 05, 12:07 AM
Toad-Man
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old March 16th 05, 02:14 PM
Helowriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 17th 05, 03:38 AM
Toad-Man
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old March 18th 05, 03:18 PM
Helowriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 18th 05, 03:18 PM
Helowriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 18th 05, 06:57 PM
Rich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 20th 05, 03:10 AM
CTR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 21st 05, 03:51 PM
Helowriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 21st 05, 06:24 PM
Rich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Flying high: Lockheed wins presidential helicopter contract [email protected] Naval Aviation 11 February 8th 05 03:20 PM
Flying high: Lockheed wins presidential helicopter contract [email protected] Rotorcraft 0 January 30th 05 04:48 AM
Lockheed wins Presidential helicopter contract Tiger Naval Aviation 0 January 29th 05 06:24 AM
Musings of a Commercial Helicopter Pilot Badwater Bill Home Built 6 February 27th 04 10:11 AM
Musings of a Commercial Helicopter Pilot Badwater Bill Rotorcraft 0 February 25th 04 07:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.