WT Forums

'Buy The Best' Is Better Than 'Buy America'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation Week & Space Technology
November 15, 2004
Pg. 90

'Buy The Best' Is Better Than 'Buy America'

By USMC Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Fred McCorkle

Having spent 34-plus years in the U.S. Marine Corps and having fought for just about every Marine aviation program has provided me with a concern that every one we select be the very best possible, not only for this great country but also for every individual who steps foot into the aircraft, either as a passenger or crewmember.

When a pilot (and for sure this one) straps himself or herself into an aircraft, one concern trumps all others: the quality and performance of the aircraft. An aviator does not consider where the wings were made or how many Americans constructed the engines, rather the concern is just that the aircraft is reliable and powerful enough to sustain flight, and that it is the very best available for the mission.

Whether for a commercial or military aircraft, these are the primary factors--performance, power, safety and reliability--that most influence the decisions of manufacturers and customers the world over. Unfortunately, for perhaps the most important air passenger in the country--the President of the U.S.--the simple decision of which is the safest, most reliable aircraft to transport him is being obscured by a political debate.

Since the Eisenhower administration, Connecticut-based Sikorsky has been building the President's helicopter fleet. And while its contract has been renewed many times in more than 45 years, Sikorsky has never competed for it. Today, for the first time, Sikorsky is vying for the contract. Its rival is a team led by Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin and joined by AgustaWestland, an Anglo-Italian helicopter manufacturer, and Bell Helicopter Textron of Fort Worth.

A dose of competition is just what our Marine One program needs. Unfortunately, Sikorsky appears not to see it this way and, instead, has waged a campaign focused not on which is the safest helicopter for the President, but which is more American.

Detailed technical specifications of each aircraft are not available publicly--nor should they be--but after thoroughly comparing what each team has been touting as the merits of their respective aircraft, I can appreciate why Sikorsky has waged this campaign.

First, much has been made about the three engines of the Lockheed Martin team's US101 aircraft versus the two engines of Sikorsky's VH-92. The redundancy of that third engine significantly widens the safety margin, especially during takeoff. If a three-engine helicopter loses a powerplant, it can continue taking off, fly to a safe location and land safely. If a dual-engine aircraft loses an engine during liftoff, it must land immediately and, in most circumstances, hard.

Second, the decision-makers in the U.S. Navy likely will appreciate an aircraft that has been thoroughly tested in the field. Nearly 100 EH 101s, from which the US101 is derived, have been delivered worldwide to five NATO nations and Japan. They have served in Iraq and Bosnia war zones and, together, have compiled more than 56,000 flight-hours and counting. Only one S-92, on which Sikorsky's VH-92 is based, has been delivered to a customer, and it has less than a tenth of US101's flight hours. In fact, the US101 program recently tested a helicopter with the actual engines that would be used on the Marine One helicopter. This puts the US101 years ahead of the competition in terms of engine development.

Third, growth capacity is a critical element of a helicopter that affects the aircraft's longevity and reliability. The US101 not only is more spacious now, but it has much more growth capacity than the competition to accommodate the additional weight from the inevitable and necessary modifications. This means more weight has less of an effect on the US101, and also that the lifespan of the fleet is extended as it can take on more weight over a longer period of time.

Unfortunately, the debate has spilled over into the political arena. Take U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). Despite strong evidence demonstrating that both the Sikorsky and US101 aircraft are fully compliant with government procurement guidelines, he requested that the Govern- ment Accountability Office look into the matter. In a rare move, the GAO replied that it didn't have the staffing to do so until January.

Ultimately, the dispute over which helicopter is more American is not only irrelevant and disingenuous, it is dangerous. Any effort to shift the debate from what is the safest and best-performing aircraft subverts our President's welfare.

I have had the privilege to fly more than 30 different models of helicopter, including both aircraft that are competing to be the next to fly the President. This experience has led me to the following conclusion: Of all the great aircraft I have flown, the EH 101 is the best and most capable helicopter ever, so it is time to put politics aside and select capability and dependability.

McCorkle was the Marine Corps deputy chief of staff for aviation during the administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Previously, he was the commander of the 3d Marine Air Wing, Santa Ana, Calif.

Politics is the only reason there still is a competition. The US101 is the clear winner, but appearantly that is not politically acceptable.

Our president should have the best helicopter available. It's the US101
Our Marines should have the best medium helicopter on the Market. That's US101.
Our Carriers should carry the best ASW helicopter on the market. That would be the US101. It can fly farther, faster, and carry twice the number of lightweight torpedoes than the Seahawk-R.
Our Coast Guard and Air Force should have the best SAR asset available. That would be the US101

"The worst football halftime show is still better than a soccer game." - Ron "Tater Salad" White.

As usual, I have a critical comment on the Colonel's remarks. I can't help it. The basic theme of his argument is that the Marines need the best aircraft, not the best American aircraft. This is rhetorical drivel. Both aircraft will be spec compliant in terms of performance and reliability, although it may take more time/money to certify one of them. That is a given. They may do that in slightly different ways, and the differences will give them fall out capabilities that discriminate the winner. His simplistic explanation of the relative merits of 2 or 3 engines is not the whole story.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>First, much has been made about the three engines of the Lockheed Martin team's US101 aircraft versus the two engines of Sikorsky's VH-92. The redundancy of that third engine significantly widens the safety margin, especially during takeoff. If a three-engine helicopter loses a powerplant, it can continue taking off, fly to a safe location and land safely. If a dual-engine aircraft loses an engine during liftoff, it must land immediately and, in most circumstances, hard.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It has been established by commercial experience that it is possible to have a two engine aircraft at least as reliable as a multi-engine. It just takes the right design features and more demonstration testing. I reiterate, both concepts can and will meet the required safety/reliability requirement. Now, since both aircraft must meet the same "engine out" requirement how can the "safety margin" be too much different between them. How can one land "hard" after losing an engine. Look at it my way. A three engine design has to fly on two engines so it has 50% excess power during normal ops. A two engine design also has to fly on one engine so it has 100% excess power during normal ops. I'd say the two engine design has some performance possibilites the three engine one doesn't because it has 33% more installed power. It also might have some appealing simplicity in the engine/transmission design. The Colonel is apparently assuming the installed power is the same between the two concepts. If that is true, one of them is way too big for the job, and that should show up in the price and operating expenses. If the Colonel really wants the best aircraft, he should objectively study the proposals from the two companies without the prejudice he has already shown favoring the US-101. Typically, the cost of meeting all the performance requirements is the major discriminator, since both designs must meet these. Minor discriminators would be things like general compexity, alternate mission stuff and yes political considerations of "buying American". If all else is equal, buy America could tip the scale. There is nothing sinister about it. Outsourcing aerospace jobs could be the next big campaign issue. It is a legitimate debate.




Edited by - a10stress on Nov 17 2004 08:36 AM

_________________
????

Thanks Stress. Nice analysis. Now Im more confused than ever. LOL But whats unusual about that. LOL

<b>DON'T BE MISLED ON HELICOPTER:</b> I read with interest the Viewpoint article "Buy the Best" by USMC Lt. Gen. (ret.) Fred McCorkle concerning the upcoming selection of the successor to the current presidential helicopter. I view this as just another "Been There, Done That" article from someone who may have flown a lot of different helicopter models but is not intimately familiar with one of the missions of HMX-1, the safe transportation of the President. As a former commanding officer of HMX-1 and helicopter pilot with almost seven years' experience in the presidential mission, I agree we should buy the best. But the best does not necessarily mean "bigger and more powerful" is better. Buying the best means buying the helicopter that best fits the mission, regardless of its origin. If "bigger and more powerful" were the standard, the squadron would be flying the VH-53 in addition to the VH-3, but that program fell by the wayside in the early 1970s when it was found to be too big and powerful to fly into the White House lawn. I have not had the privilege of flying either of these aircraft, nor do I expect to, but from reading a lot of articles and the information from both sides, I am sure both come close to meeting the technical specifications spelled out by the Navy. I hope in the selection process that the mission's pilots fly the aircraft and have an input into the selection. Landing on the White House lawn may look good on TV on Sunday afternoon but flying into the lawn on a windy, dark, overcast and rainy night is a unique experience in itself. As you approach the hover, making that jog to the left and a turn to the right to line up with the boards all the time thinking of the position of your tail in relation to the trees behind, "bigger and more powerful" really doesn't come into play. The new helicopter not only needs to meet the technical specifications for all aspects of the mission but must be easy to maintain and logistically supportable. I agree it is time to put politics aside and select the best helicopter for the mission. A lot of people will just say I am spouting the party line but that is not the case. Yes, I worked for Sikorsky Aircraft and am employed by Helicopter Support, a Sikorsky Aircraft company. But people who have known me both in and out of the Marine Corps can tell you I always say what is on my mind. (Letter to the Editor by Richard Meydag, USMC Lt. Col. (Ret.), in Aviation Week & Space Technology)



THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

PENTAGON MARINE ONE REVIEW MOVED UP A MONTH TO JAN. 13: The Pentagon's DAB now will review the Navy's presidential helicopter upgrade program on Jan. 13, the Pentagon said Monday. The change means the Navy is on track to announce its selection in late January. The acquisition review had been scheduled for Feb. 10 after two delays. But when the second delay was announced last month, officials said the Feb. 10 date was a placeholder and that the review might take place sooner. A Navy spokesman said the program has not changed since last month's announcement. He said the review process continues and the final selection remains expected in late January. (Dow Jones)



SIKORSKY TAKES SWIPE AT US101: The gloves came off Dec. 7 as executives with Sikorsky blasted their rivals in the U.S. presidential helicopter competition. Sikorsky officials scoffed at the performance characteristics of the US101 being offered by Lockheed Martin and AugustaWestland during a briefing for reporters in their headquarters, claiming the European-designed helicopter didn’t have the lift its makers claimed and that the design was antiquated. Sikorsky is offering the S-92 helicopter. “They've been kicking us, so we decided to start kicking back,” said marketing and communications VP, Bud Grebey. Lockheed Martin spokesman Greg Caires rebuffed the Sikorsky jibes, calling them “disingenuous.” (Defense News)



SIKORSKY ATTACKS US101 CREDENTIALS; MANUFACTURER EMPHASISES "BUY AMERICAN" THEME FOR ITS OWN BID, BUT FAILS TO POINT OUT SOME VH-92 FIGURES ARE PROJECTIONS: Sikorsky has unleashed a new marketing blitz in the late stages of the VXX US presidential helicopter competition, supplementing its "buy American" theme with a searing - and sometimes inconsistent - technical critique of the rival Lockheed Martin/AgustaWestland/Bell Helicopter US101. Sikorsky VXX programme manager Nick Lappos contends the VH-92 is designed to higher standards for crashworthiness, turbine burst, bird strike and flaw tolerance, can fly faster and lift more and will cost less than the current EH101. Lappos fails to mention that the US101 is being fitted with more powerful GE engines, or that the S-92's safety and cost benefits are based on projections and not operational history. Lappos also is taking aim at the US101's most obvious advantage in an executive helicopter competition - size. Although Lockheed Martin calculates the US101's cabin is at least one-third larger than that of the VH-92, Lappos now says the difference is 10% at the most. To make this point, he cites the VH-92's internal volume as 30.6 cubic meters (1,079 cubic feet). Early this year, however, Sikorsky claimed that a 1.44 meter (4.75 foot) extension to the cabin length had increased total internal volume to 26.1 cubic meters, and no further cabin growth has since been disclosed. Lappos attributes Sikorsky's new marketing offensive to a concern that the VH-92 could win the US Navy's VXX competition, but lose the marketing war. Sikorsky wants to ensure that its "all-American" marketing theme is not viewed as an admission that it makes an inferior product. That said, Sikorsky also remains vocal about its security and political concerns for a presidential helicopter design with an Italian-British heritage. Referring to the Italian roots of AgustaWestland, for example, Lappos asks: "What is a socialist country and a socialist company going to teach us about competition?" Lockheed Martin says in response that the US Navy has publicly verified that both contenders meet the technical and security thresholds required to compete for the VXX contract. (Flight International)



THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????