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.

"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.

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

"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.

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

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" 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.

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

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.