Presidential Helicopter

[Helowriter]

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.

[Toad-Man]

"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.

[Helowriter]

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

[Toad-Man]

"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.

[Helowriter]

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

[Helowriter]

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

[Rich]

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/1,3025,CLI1_DIV69_ETI436_PID6027,00.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.

[CTR]

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.

[Helowriter]

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

[Rich]

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

[Toad-Man]

"Helowriter" > wrote in news:1111155479.986630.189070
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> 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.
>

Comanche.

[CTR]

HW Thank you for the correction. I should have said "Asia" builds the
S-92 commercial fuselage. But remenber Sikorsky proclaimed themselves
to be the "All American Team". They are only all American however when
it suits their bottom line. If they cared so much for the welfare of
the American aerospace work force, they would have kept the commercial
S-92 work in the US also.

For the on going Army ARH RFP, Sikorsky was originally proposing a
modification of a foreign made helicopter. Again, bottom line.

CTR

[Rich]

CTR wrote:
> HW Thank you for the correction. I should have said "Asia" builds
the
> S-92 commercial fuselage. But remenber Sikorsky proclaimed
themselves
> to be the "All American Team". They are only all American however
when
> it suits their bottom line. If they cared so much for the welfare of
> the American aerospace work force, they would have kept the
commercial
> S-92 work in the US also.
>
> For the on going Army ARH RFP, Sikorsky was originally proposing a
> modification of a foreign made helicopter. Again, bottom line.
>
> CTR

When and where did they proclaim to be an "All American Team"? They
haven't done anything that most if not all other aerospace
manufacturers have done around the world..Outsource to defray and
reduce costs. They probably weren't the first and they are definitely
not the only company.... and..what "foreign made" helicopter were you
referring to...just curious?.
...and none of these companies are charities..they all care about the
bottom line...

~R

[Helowriter]

The All-American Team was important because the Government had long
insisted Presidential helo work be done in a secure manufacturing
environment crewed only by US citizens. VXX is also the helicopter for
the President of the United States, and that has some symbolic value.
All that, and concerns about crashworthiness and operating costs, went
out the window as payback to Berlusconi and Blair for their support in
OIF.

Don't take too much comfort in how Lockheed Martin values the American
aerospace worker -- they just won the Army Airborne Common Sensor
program with a Brazilian platform. The LM idea seems to be the
platform doesn't matter - it's the software that counts. Until, of
course, the Presidential platform flattens like a Merlin.

Oh, when the Comanche was cancelled, the undersecretary of the Army
admitted everyone on the contractor side had done just what had been
asked of them. The Army could never get its act, and its requirements
together.

As to Agusta Westland -- WG30.

HW

HW

[CTR]

On the back cover of the Winter 2004 Vertiflite issue is a full page
Sikorsky ad proclaiming "The All-American Sikorsky S-92...."

Again, it's Sikorsky's hypocricy that has the foul odor, not their
product.


The ARH is to be awarded this June. Ask me again then.

Have fun,

CTR

[CTR]

On the back cover of the Winter 2004 Vertiflite issue is a full page
Sikorsky ad proclaiming "The All-American Sikorsky S-92...."

Again, it's Sikorsky's hypocricy that has the foul odor, not their
product.


The ARH is to be awarded this June. Ask me again then.

Have fun,

CTR

[~R]

CTR wrote:
> On the back cover of the Winter 2004 Vertiflite issue is a full page
> Sikorsky ad proclaiming "The All-American Sikorsky S-92...."
>
> Again, it's Sikorsky's hypocricy that has the foul odor, not their
> product.
>
>
> The ARH is to be awarded this June. Ask me again then.
>
> Have fun,
>
> CTR


...call it hipocricy if you want....the foul odor smells like sour
grapes to me...disgruntled former employee maybe?...I see nothing wrong
with the ad...it is All American...all the risks were taken here in the
states...design, testing...flight testing...anything and everything up
to production launch....we might as well rip up the Chevy truck
commercials...I guarantee you there's quite a few foreign made parts
under the hood..and thats got All American written all over it...I
don't think there is a major corp. in the world that hasn't leveraged
marketing in it's best interests...

..........still wondering what the "foreign made Helicopter" was
....interesting comment..

[CTR]

Nope, never worked for Igor's company. Have admired their products
however. Worked in Aerospace for 25 years for most major airframers,
never layed off or fired. Still even exchange Christmas cards with all
my old bosses. The strength of Americas aerospace industry is in its
workers. Not the CEOs.

All the risks? Certainly not financial. Both Japan and China bought
into their contracts.

I am not saying Lockheed or the US101 is any better than Sikorsky or
the S-92. But people need to wake up and realize that the day any
aerospace CEO honestly cares about American jobs and technology is
over. I really wish I could have met some of the men fifty years ago
who did care like Larry Bell, Igor Sikorsky and John McDonnell.

By the way, I attended a conference two years ago where Curt Weldon
spoke concerning the Commanche. He said that if Sikorsky and Boeing
didn't straighten up their act, there was nothing he could do to keep
them from being canceled.

Have fun,

CTR

[Helowriter]

Oh Good Grief, I've sat through enough Curt Weldon speeches to know he
doesn't understand a lot of what he talks about. Comanche was cancelled
because the Army changed its mind. The Army validated a Cold War
requirement for more than 10 years after the Cold War, then dropped it
to fund immediate Aviation needs in OIF. Boeing and Sikorsky gave them
what they asked for.

The strength of American aerospace is in its workers -- not just the
Union guys on assembly lines, but the engineers, program managers, test
technicians, etc. That's why you don't want the design authority on
helicopters to reside offshore.

Bell seems happy to be the LM build-to-print shop for European
helicopters. LM recommended the AB139 to replace the Jayhawk in the
Coast Guard, and they'll pitch the US101 for the Air Force rescue
requirement and other contracts. That gives you assembly jobs in Texas
and software jobs in New York, but it leaves the core engineering work
off-shore. That hurts US competitiveness.

Sikorsky made safety innovations in the H-92 way beyond what was
available when the EH101 was designed. It brought in international
partners to reduce the cost of the project and to get footholds in a
perceived market. The core engineering stayed in the US, and that's
what we need to be competitive.

HW

[CTR]

HW, what Curt Weldon realized years ago is that the Commanche had
become a "Work-Fare" program for Boeing and Sikorsky. After 13 years
all the Army had to show for it's investment was two overweight
underpowered prototypes and a proposal for a block stage improvement
program. Six years ago when I was visiting Boeing in Philly, over
drinks some engineers confided in me that they never expected the
Commanche to go into production. They felt the program had become
means to develop technology (avionics, FBW controls, composites) for
future viable programs. The fact that the program went on as long as
it did surprised even them.

"The strength of American aerospace is in its workers -- not just the
Union guys on assembly lines, but the engineers, program managers, test

technicians, etc. That's why you don't want the design authority on
helicopters to reside offshore."

I agree with you fully. But in the case of the US101 and VH92, both
aircraft are already supposedly developed. All that is left is is
stuffing with the special avionics, EMI protection, counter measures,
etc. And this work was to remain in the US no matter who won.

Is the S-92 an excellent product? Yes. Was it smart to bring in Japan
as an international partner? Yes. China? Time well tell.

[Helowriter]

Sorry, the Comanche mess was the Army's fault. They never funded it
fully, never froze the requirement, and allowed the thing to consume
the entire aviation budget.

Workfare for the primes? Who's fault was that? (See what I mean about
Weldon?) Boeing and Sikorsky never fought the Army to keep the thing on
a low burner. The Army insisted it needed the Comanche up to shortly
before the cancellation.

Can you blame the guys on the program for living in the Twilight Zone?
By all accounts the Comanche air vehicles flew as advertised. The
program just never had the money to integrate the air vehicle with the
all-important MEP. Waiting to cancel the thing just when the factory
was starting up was the Army's doing.

US101 and VH-92 off-the-shelf? Trouble is, all that is left is NOT
stuffing in the special avionics, EMI protection, etc. They so
gold-plated the requirement that both aircraft had to grow to carry all
the people and systems.

Navy assistant secretary White said both aircraft needed rotor and
drivetrain improvements to meet VXX objective requirements. That means
the EH101 gets a new rotor system, a new transmission and probably FBW
controls paid for by the US taxpayer. Fixes the Italians and the Brits
needed but couldn't afford will get done on our dime. That version then
gets marketed out of Italy (and the US) to meet future requirements.

China on the S-92? They saw a potentially big market, but I think the
PRC is more risk then reward.

HW

[CTR]

But in the case of the US101 and VH92, both
aircraft are already supposedly developed

Note the emphasis I placed on "supposedly". The improvements you spoke
of have been in the works for both aircraft for years. They were added
by each company to their proposals to offer the best possible
performance. Based on what I have read, the 101 improvements are much
further along than the S-92. This was probably a factor in the
selection.

All DOD aircraft programs in my experience are over sold, under funded
and unrealistically scheduled. The Commanche if anything was better
off than most.

Look at the A-12. This Navy replacement for the A-6 was scheduled to
go from contract award to first flight of a "Production" aircraft in
less than 42 months! When it was cancelled three airfcraft were 10
months away from completion. It was the first major program to die
from fallout of the demise of the USSR. The Commanche just took
longer.

The Navy learned its lesson after the A-12 cancelation, and made sure
that the F-18E/F requirements were defined, no technology developement
was required and schedule was realistic. If they had not, there would
currently be a lot of aircraft carriers without any attack capability.

The Army is now doing the same with the ARH and LUH programs. They
cannot afford to make another mistake like the Commanche program
management did. OH-58's attrition in the Iraq and Afganistan won't
allow it. Advanced UAVs capable of performing the required missions
are a decade away at least. I predict who ever wins the ARH program,
it will be sucessful. We cannot afford it not to be.

I respect your support of Sikorsky. But if it had been a competion
between the V-22 and a US101 final assembled by Sikorsky, would you
still feel the same way?

[Helowriter]

Yep, probably. The EH101 is a bad investment on multiple fronts, and
somehow the rules of the game were twisted to arrive at this decision.
The EH101 was grounded during the competition due to a material related
mishap, and the Navy just blew past that like it was no big deal.
Something ain't right here.

My original point was the EH101 was desgined and certificated under
rules written in 1978. That means it lacks the longitudinal crash
strength built into a helicopter designed and built today under later
certification standards. Strengthening the US101 cabin to modern
crashworthiness standards will add cost, risk, and weight. Likewise,
matching the birdstrike, turbine burst, and lightning protection of a
modern aircraft will require redesign - again cost and risk. With the
US101, Presidents for the next 30 years will continue to ride above
aircraft fuel cells - again, if you had your druthers in a modern
helicopter, you'd isolate the fuel system from the passenger cabin.
Again, if you're looking for the safest aircraft to carry the
President, something ain't right here.

Add to that risk the whole question of outsourcing VH work offshore.
Presidential helo work was always subject to the highest security
requirements and performed by cleared US citizens. Now the Navy is
willing to piece out big chunks of the thing to Italy and the UK like
it's no big deal.

The EH101 has three engines 'cause it needs 'em. That means higher
operating and support costs for the life of the aircraft. Is this the
best value for the taxpayers?

I suspect after delays and overruns, the US101 will probably serve fine
in the meticulous maintenance environment of HMX-1. That doesn't mean
it was a smart buy. And if there's an accident, it may be a very
stupid one.

My Comanche comments were based on the fact that the Army validated,
re-validated, and re-re-validated the requirement for more than a
decade after the end of the Cold War. The failure was in the
procurement system, not in the people who built the helicopter. The Air
Force had the bucks to build four and fly four ATF prototypes to see
what it wanted (and they may have screwed that up too.). The Army had
to stop flying the one Comanche it had after 300 hours 'cause the
program ran out of money. Go figure.

Let's see if ARH stays on target.

HW

[~R]

Helowriter wrote:
> Sorry, the Comanche mess was the Army's fault. They never funded it
> fully, never froze the requirement, and allowed the thing to consume
> the entire aviation budget.
>
> Agreed....a creeping goal line for years doesn't help!

[CTR]

What killed the Comanche was its mission disapeared. Stealth
technology does not protect against primitive line of site weapons.
Even if the spec had been frozen five years ago and the aircraft had
been fielded, it's final flyaway cost would have made it's use
impractical in the war on terror. Even the future of the F-35 is now
questionable.

CTR

[CTR]

What killed the Comanche was its mission disapeared. Stealth
technology does not protect against primitive line of site weapons.
Even if the spec had been frozen five years ago and the aircraft had
been fielded, it's final flyaway cost would have made it's use
impractical in the war on terror. Even the future of the F-35 is now
questionable.

CTR

[CTR]

What killed the Comanche was its mission disapeared. Stealth
technology does not protect against primitive line of site weapons.
Even if the spec had been frozen five years ago and the aircraft had
been fielded, it's final flyaway cost would have made it's use
impractical in the war on terror. Even the future of the F-35 is now
questionable.

CTR

[Helowriter]

The mission - armed reconaissance - is still there.

The enemy right now is an insurgency with handheld weapons. Don't
assume all future wars will throw Army Aviation against enemies armed
only with MANPADS and RPGs.

Apaches were closed out of Kosovo in part by radar-directed threats,
and RF MANPADS in the future are not out of the question. A decade
from now, helicopters may face integrated air defenses -- probably not
the massed Soviet threat, but mobile RF and IR threats that justify
signature reduction.

The Comanche flyaway cost is another story - and that's a program
management failure. Stretching development while reducing numbers
increases unit price. That's where freezing a requirement and starting
a line helps.

The Army could have relaxed its LO requirements on the Comanche and
saved a bit. But that very highly integrated Mission Equipment Package
meant you didn't save much by just leaving things off. That in itself
may be a real lesson for future systems designers.

All of this brings us back to the original topic - the Presidential
Helicopter. What's so nutty about this is that Lockheed Martin didn't
win with the best Mission Equipment Package. The Navy just chose the
biggest box for whatever the systems will be. In the process, they
ignored 10+ years of helicopter safety advances. Given the mission,
that is truly nuts.

HW

[CTR]

HW,

Maybe we should start a new topic heading.

Why can't the mission of armed reconaissance be performed by a UAV?
The Army killed DARPA's UCAR, but their concept is the future. Even if
the Brass refuses to accept it. I agree the all the technology is not
there currenty, but in 10+ years...

Take care,

CTR

[Helowriter]

Okay, new topic. Armed reconaissance.

HW

[Kevin O'Brien]

On 2005-04-03 11:13:59 -0400, "Helowriter" > said:

> Apaches were closed out of Kosovo in part by radar-directed threats,
> and RF MANPADS in the future are not out of the question.

1. Most of what kept TF Hawk (i believe it was called) out of Kosovo
was the Army's characteristic really, really, REALLY bad staff work.

Note that where employed, the Apaches have protected the lives of the
crews but throw an Apache battalion against a hard-fighting enemy armed
with anything bigger than spitballs and the unit loses combat
effectiveness.

The Pentagon is busted. It is all about buying weapons, but every
weapon they buy is supposed to replace two others, costs five times as
much, etc. etc.

> All of this brings us back to the original topic - the Presidential
> Helicopter... The Navy just chose the
> biggest box f

2. My source (which is in Sikorsky) says that they were told that the
project required a specific piece of classified equipment which did not
fit in the S-92 airframe. Since the dimensions of the cargo compartment
are functionally identical except for length, my personal assessment of
that is: bull****.

3. You have mentioned the pending AF HH-x competition. Any of the
contenders, even the NH-90, would be a quantum improvement over the
H-60, which is currently striving hard and falling short in that role,
but the proposal seems to have been written to require the EH 101. It
looks like the fix is in.

4. The other fella mentioned Comanche as a technology program. Sikorsky
has certainly salvaged what it could from it. The rotor on the -92 and
the new rotor for the S-76D incorporate aerodynamic knowledge that came
from the Comanche project.

5. Part of the problem is the consolidation of the aerospace and
defence industry that was forced by the DOD of the nineties. An
incredibly dumb decision that put skilled people out of work and
brain-drained the industry by some fifty to seventy percent, on top of
downsizing-driven losses. Now the DOD has a cartel of two contractors
to buy from on most projects. Sikorsky is rare in hanging on to its
independence.

Can it, after a couple more contracts get dealt overseas for political reasons?

Contrast this with the UK MOD decision on a replacement for aging
battlefield and naval helicopters. They went sole-source to Agusta
Westland.

--
cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

[Helowriter]

1. I said partly - Gen. Cody mentioned the RF threat, and the Army has
yet to buy SIRFC for the Apache.

Apaches did very, very well in the fight for Baghdad and elsewhere in
OIF. And those people were using more than spitballs. Don't sell the
AH-64 short - there really is nothing to match it if it's used
properly.

2. You're right - that sounds like B.S. A foreign competition pulled
the same stunt requiring a cargo container just longer than the basic
H-92 cabin and just shorter than the cabin of the EH101. Wouldn't say
what was in it. Couldn't be repackaged. Had to go aboard.

You can always find an angle with which to rig a contest. I'm just not
sure why our military would want to play those games again for the
benefit of Agusta Westland. If the PRV competition is rigged, I would
hope for a Congressional investigation.

3. The HH-60 falls short only in that requirements (and loads) have
grown. If the fix is in for the US101, it indeed proves the Air Force
can be as stupid as the Navy. The same H-92 advantages apply -- new
generation flaw tolerance translates into ballistic tolerance. Two
engines will give you lower O&S costs than three. You can still put an
H-92 aboard a C-5 without taking big pieces off.

The NH90 is indeed a modern military helicopter. However, it is built
largely by two countries who hate our guts and apparently supported
Saddam Hussein. If politics have any role in defense procurement, the
French and Germans deserve to lose this one. If our White House is
determined to sacrifice our helicopter industry to make peace with
them, we've got real problems.

4. I'm not sure there was a lot of Comanche influence in the original
H-92 rotor system -- the broad-chord Black Hawk blade came from a
co-operative effort between the Army and Sikorsky and gave Sikorsky the
'92 blade. We'll see how much of the airfoils and tip work go on the
'76D.

5. Agreed, we are into this consolidatation frenzy and it is damaging
to the country. I do not understand US politicians and our own
aerospace companies when they cede whole market segments to foreign
competition. EADS is not going to develop a heavy lift helo for Europe
to have a free and open competition.

Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman seem to feel air vehicles
are beneath them. If they can buy a platform offshore and integrate
the systems - that's the higher calling. That is, until the US
government buys the code offshore. This insanity has to stop, but I
don't see anyone stopping it.

I would NEVER use UK MoD helicopter procurements as an example of how
to do anything.
The Royal Navy Merlin entered service 5 years late and 1.6 billion
pounds over budget -- the same team with roles reversed is building the
US Presidential helicopter.
The Royal Air Force bought Special Ops Chinooks it can't use 'cause it
can't figure out how to integrate the systems it thought it wanted.
The Royal Air Force has Apaches it can't fly 'cause it didn't get the
training system coordinated with deliveries of the real thing.

These are not examples you want to follow.

HW

[Kevin O'Brien]

On 2005-04-05 17:41:55 -0400, "Helowriter" > said:

> 1.Apaches did very, very well in the fight for Baghdad and elsewhere in
> OIF. And those people were using more than spitballs.

Yep, same as the Afghans (couldn't throw a rock -- an item in which
that nation abounds, if only there was a market they'd be rich as
Saudis, and they're much nicer chaps when they're not shooting at you
-- without hitting 14.5 or [gulp] 23mm AA. And 12.7s were literally
more common than pencils.

Their marksmanship was fortunately horrible, ignorance of or absence of
sights helped there. But if one of them got lucky and lit a copter up
it was generally time to find a nice place to park, even in an Apache.

The idea that the Apache is armored well enough to go toe to toe with
AA guns was embedded in Army doctrine. I think that fallacy (which the
WWI aviators, and the WWII fighter-bombers, and the Vietnam guys all
had to relearn) been kicked out of bed. Nothing like losing a dozen
airframes in one go, even if they do make it back to base with holes
the size of your fist in MR transmissions and whatnot.

> 2. You're right - that sounds like B.S. A foreign competition pulled
> the same stunt requiring a cargo container just longer than the basic
> H-92 cabin

I have to relook the cabin size thing, I want to be certain I have the
relative sizes of the NH90, S-92 and EH101 straight (from smallest to
largest) but Sikorsky was told that by the Navy -- something that would
not fit their helicopter needed to go on, and "sorry old boy, for
putting you through this." And Sikorsky decided not to appeal. Does
that mean they agree? Does that mean that they knew "the fix was in?"
These are the kinds of questions where execs who appear forthcoming,
change the subject.

> You can always find an angle with which to rig a contest. I'm just not
> sure why our military would want to play those games again for the
> benefit of Agusta Westland. If the PRV competition is rigged, I would
> hope for a Congressional investigation.

Well, one of the requirements is that the a/c air-refuel at 10,000 MSL.
Be difficult for any of the contenders to meet that but easiest for the
EH101.

You could argue that this is a legit requirement. AFSOC lost an HH in
Afghanistan doing the daft thing they do over there, refuel while
flying through the valleys. At night. Of course, they need to do that
because the HH60 has the unrefueled range of a spitball, so on a 150 NM
radius run (below average in Afghanistan), you are hitting the tanker
twice, once each going and coming.

Murphy's law (and the use of stateside HH units for maritime SAR) means
that you will be doing this when weather is in **** state.

If they're going to do that, they need a Chelton display, not strictly
rely on RADALT and FLIR which work OK in rolling terrain but in the
mountains, can only tell you you're going to die a couple seconds
before you hit. The Chelton displays the terrain from maps in memory.
Works even when the FLIR is choking on dust or whatever. And it's TSOd
and it's dirt cheap. So naturally the Pentagon, which is only
interested in max bennies for legions of uniformed or retired/industry
procurement wallahs, is not buying.

> 3. The HH-60 falls short only in that requirements (and loads) have
> grown.

Gotta disagree with you there. Talk to the pilots and especially the
PJs in AFSOC. The ones that never flew the H-3 or H-53 are resigned to
the 60, but it always was a mismatch with the mission. A PJ can't
properly treat a rescuee, hunched over in the back of the cabin. And on
the old Sikorskys (as on all the new contenders except, I believe, the
Osprey, which isn't a serious contender for this contract), the pilot
can get out of his seat and stretch (or be relieved by a relief pilot).
In the 60 he's pretty well stuck for the duration of the mission.

Finally, there's that short legs problem that, as I said, literally
kills people. The S-70/H-60 is a fantastic helicopter, but not in this
job.
--
cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

[Helowriter]

Don't minimize the threat in Afghanistan. The bad guys were nervy if
not sophisticated, and if they were dug-in someplace you had to go,
they were a threat. (The MH-47s brought down around Roberts' Ridge
prove that.)

No-one ever plans to go toe-to-toe with air defenses ('Case you didn't
know, the red coat thing doesn't work well). The idea is evade 'em
first, jam 'em second, and then take the hit as a last resort. Apaches
are good at evading and taking the hit - they don't have good jammers
yet. The Comanche was biased toward evading the threat - maybe too
much so.

As to the wonderful '101 - yes indeed it is wider. The mystery box of
course could fit nothing else, even though the '92 was modular and
already took two easy stretches. You could match the length of the '92
to the 101 and have a more crashworthy box without fuel under the
floor. All the PRV solutions apparently provide more headroom for PJs
to work - let's see if the requirement calls for some other magic
dimension.

I agree you want to refuel at mountain elevations - but you should look
at the full requirement, not find pockets that steer the choice
offshore. The VXX decision found the one pocket and just ignored a
generation of safety design progress, and 40+ years of US government
security regulations.

Agreed, 60's have less room and less gas in them than HH-3Es and Pave
Lows. The things were still able to get to people down in Iraq and
Kosovo. They also deploy rapidly on C-5s and C-17s without removing
the transmission, and they have the ballistic tolerance of a Black
Hawk, so they're not a total mismatch. Bigger will be better, but not
at the expense of superior ballistic tolerance, lower operating and
support costs, and all that other stuff the US military usually says it
wants.

That TERPROM-type solution assumes you've got your digital elevation
map for every place you're going to fly. You could also buy a terrain
following/terrain avoidance radar and digital map already integrated on
the MH-60K/MH-47E/CV-22, albeit for more bucks. The tradeoffs are to
be determined, but the stored terrain solution doesn't do it all.

I suspect any of the candidate aiframes will be compatible with the
MEP, but I still think it's a mistake to buy someone else's problem
(like the 101) to show how much you like them. (No one will say just
what has to be done to fix the 101 so it doesn't flatten again like
that Merlin in the UK.) Likewise, it is to our best interest to have a
viable helicopter industry, not a build-to-print shop for expensive
European engineering.

HW

[Helowriter]

Oh, and the decision on the VXX protest had to be weighed against
bigger upcoming programs. I suspect there was some worry that a messy
fight would get the customer mad, whether or not the VXX decision was
fair.

HW