WT Forums

WASHINGTON (Jan. 28) - Top Pentagon contractor Lockheed Martin will build the new presidential helicopter fleet, members of Congress said Friday, putting an end to a fierce competition that had both political and international overtones.

The Navy was to make the official announcement later Friday. New York and Connecticut lawmakers confirmed the award.

The $1.6 billion contract to buy 23 high-tech, high-security aircraft, is comparatively small. But it is emblematic of two important issues: the outsourcing of American jobs and the question of how open the U.S. military market is to foreign contractors.

The decision was a victory for the major campaign waged by Maryland-based Lockheed and its European partners, with the help of political leaders from England and Italy.

It was a blow to Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft, which has built the presidential fleet since 1957, and saw the contract as a point of pride.

"The US101 will provide the president of the United States with a state-of-the-art-helicopter ... an Oval Office in the sky," said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

But Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. who was at the Sikorsky plant in Stratford, Conn., expressed disappointment.

"'Made in America' should mean something," she said. "The Defense Department has some explaining to do."

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Lockheed Martin will build the new presidential helicopter fleet, the Navy announced Friday, putting an end to a fierce competition that had both political and international overtones.

The president "needs a more survivable helicopter while the nation engages in the global war on terrorism," said John Young, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, in making the announcement.

The $6.1 billion contract to buy 23 high-tech, high-security aircraft, is relatively small in the military budget. But it is emblematic of two important issues: the outsourcing of American jobs and the question of how open the U.S. military market is to foreign contractors.

Maryland-based Lockheed and its European partners had waged a major public relations campaign, with the help of political leaders from England and Italy.

The decision was a blow to Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft, which has built the presidential fleet since 1957, and saw the contract to build Marine One as a point of pride.

"The US101 will provide the president of the United States with a state-of-the-art-helicopter ... an Oval Office in the sky," said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York.

But Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Connecticut, who was in her home state at the Sikorsky plant in Stratford, expressed disappointment.

"'Made in America' should mean something," she said. "The Defense Department has some explaining to do."

For the winner the contract means millions of dollars in federal research funds, and a potential edge when the Pentagon looks to replace hundreds of search and rescue helicopters in coming years.

It also gives Lockheed the bragging rights to one of the most photographed helicopters in the world: the president's green-and-white aircraft often shown as it lifts off from the South Lawn of the White House.

Lockheed's winning entry, the US101, is based on a British-Italian AgustaWestland aircraft, now owned by Finmeccanica. The helicopter has several key components, including the main transmission and rotor blades, that will be built overseas.

Sikorsky, a unit of United Technologies Corp., and its backers argued that the VH-92 Super Hawk's all-American parts provided greater security than a helicopter built in part in other countries.

The Navy went with the longer, wider, more powerful aircraft, with its three engines, built by General Electric in Lynn, Mass. Sikorsky's Super Hawk has two engines.

Plans to replace the Marine Corps' aging presidential squadron took on greater importance after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Last year the White House pressed for an expedited bidding process because of security concerns, but Navy officials later delayed a decision, saying they needed about a year to get more information.

The companies submitted bids last February, and have waged a massive public relations campaign, complete with billboards, demonstration flights, ads and radio commercials.

Friday's loss is the second major defeat for Sikorsky is a little less than a year. Last February the Pentagon canceled the $39 billion Comanche helicopter program, which was a joint venture with Boeing Helicopters.

The company still builds one of the military's workhorse helicopters, the Black Hawk, which is being used broadly in the Iraq war. The Pentagon is expected to order hundreds more in coming years to replace current models.

"...some people will find any reason to complain. there's no pleasing some people. fuck it. living life makes more sense than thinking life. fuck it all and fucking no regrets. get over it. life moves on"

To me this is just another prime example of Bush shafting us again, sending OUR MONEY out of the country just like the jobs that are dissappearing in our job market, thanks to his idiotic policies...

Congress should step in and tell the Navy to get its priorities right. I can definately say from practical experience, that those with the egg on their hats are 90% moronic...


CAG out...

U.S. Navy Selects US101 for
Next Presidential Helicopter

On Friday, January 28 at 5 p.m., the U.S. Navy announced it had selected the US101 as the next "Marine One" helicopter for the President of the United States.

Lockheed Martin-led Team US101 will build and equip the US101 medium-lift helicopter to provide a safe and secure "Oval Office in the Sky" for the President.

A proven product, representing the lowest risk solution to the President, the US101 is a modern military helicopter equipped with triple-redundant systems – including three powerful engines – and the capacity for further capability growth over time.

The US101 helicopter program will create and sustain thousands of jobs across the United States.

CAG what would those "priorities" be? And what does Congress know about the right priorities? LOL

The US101 is a far better aircraft than the Sikorsky offering both now and for the future. If US industry wants to continue to be a player they have to do a far better job than they are doing now with bringing excellent designs to the table IMHO.

Thanks Rick.

US101 Marine One
EH101 Merlin
EH101 Cormorant
US101 Marine One


EH101 Specifications
EH101 Pictures
Links
Team US 101



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The US101 team led by Lockheed Martin was formed specifically because it has the depth of experience to give the president the safest and most advanced rotary wing platform of its kind, integrated with the most advanced mission systems, at the best value and lowest risk. The US101 team is committed to building the aircraft in America, sourcing more than 65 percent of the components from American suppliers.

Built by Bell Helicopter in Texas, integrated by Lockheed Martin Systems Integration in New York, powered by GE Aircraft Engines in Massachusetts, and supplied by American companies across 41 states, the US101 platform will sustain and create hundreds of high-technology jobs to build the next presidential and combat search and rescue helicopter fleets. The US101 also will save $2 billion in research and development costs already paid - costs the American taxpayer otherwise would have to bear. All told, the US101 will have more than 65 percent U.S. content, with 90 percent of the program's dollar value benefiting the American economy.

The mission to transport VIPs and foreign dignitaries also will be used to evacuate members of Congress and their staff from Washington in the event of a major emergency. The larger cabin provided by the US101 will significantly reduce the number of evacuation flights. The aircraft's speed and extended all-weather capabilities will enable rapid egress to a safe location.

The U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command has need for approximately 132 aircraft for combat search and rescue missions (CSAR), or personnel recovery. Traditionally, the CSAR mission has been limited to the recovery of downed aircrew from within hostile territory. However, the mission is evolving with the nature of modern warfare to enable rapid insertion and/or recovery of special operations forces. US101 Team member Lockheed Martin Systems Integration has a 30-year heritage developing and integrating systems for CSAR and special operation forces aircraft. The US101 aircraft is ideally suited for the expanded CSAR mission. Designed as a military platform to operate from sea borne vessels, the aircraft is exceptionally agile - a significant advantage for a rescue helicopter where rapid evasion is required to avoid enemy action. The US101 – the name given to the American variant of the highly successful EH101 medium-lift helicopter – was designed as a highly agile and maneuverable military aircraft. Three engines ensure maximum safety, payload and range at altitudes up to 15,000 feet. The US101 will have such reserves of power and built-in capacity to accommodate additional mission technologies and payload for years to come. Operationally proven, the EH101 platform has shown itself to be safe in countless missions from search and rescue to fleet protection. Five NATO countries have selected the EH101 platform. To date 92 operational aircraft have logged 45,000 flying hours (and counting) worldwide.

The EH101 was designed as a multi role helicopter supporting military and civilian markets. Since then, the EH101 has proven itself around the world in a variety of missions. The U.S. armed forces only have to look to the EH101 aircraft's operational track record worldwide to witness the aircraft proven multi-mission capabilities and the outlook for the future with the US101.

Since 1998, 92 EH101 operational aircraft have proved to be readily adaptable to a range of missions, from troop transport to search and rescue, and from executive transport to anti surface and anti submarine warfare.

In the Arabian Gulf during Operation Iraqi Freedom, support crew at sea transformed each of four British Royal Navy EH101 Merlin Mk 1 aircraft from their anti submarine configuration to their fleet protection utility role in just 14 hours. The role change included the complete removal of each aircraft's anti submarine warfare suite, the installation of stretchers for its medevac role, as well as the fitting of a weapons carrier and light machine gun. Rapid role change times provide task force commanders with greater flexibility to employ their airborne assets.

Team US101, which combines the collective capabilities of Lockheed Martin, AgustaWestland and Bell Helicopter Textron, was formed to develop an American variant of AgustaWestland’s successful EH101 multimission helicopter for the U.S. marketplace. Opportunities include a new Marine One fleet to fly the president of the United States, and combat search and rescue aircraft for the U.S. Air Force. Team US101 collectively brings unmatched rotorcraft expertise and experience: Lockheed Martin (prime contractor and systems integration), AgustaWestland (aircraft design) and Bell Helicopter (airframe assembly).

AgustaWestland Inc. is the U.S. subsidiary of AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, while AgustaWestlandBell is a joint venture of AgustaWestland and Bell Helicopter Textron. AgustaWestlandBell has teamed up with Lockheed Martin for the US101 helicopter program.

AgustaWestland brings together two great names in the history of helicopter design and manufacture with both Agusta and Westland each having entered the helicopter industry over 50 years ago. Agusta’s and Westland's pedigree as helicopter manufacturers dates back to the 1950s when both companies made strategic decisions to move into rotary wing aircraft production. Agusta and Westland first collaborated in the 1960s, and evolved for more than 20 years, including collaboration on the development and production of the 17-ton multi-role EH101, the largest European helicopter program ever undertaken. This association provided the platform that enabled the two companies to conclude a rapid and effective integration when Finmeccanica S.p.A. of Italy and GKN plc of the UK signed the agreement on the formation of a joint venture company in 2000.

Lockheed Martin to Build New Presidential Helicopter
Story Number: NNS050128-15
Release Date: 1/28/2005 5:06:00 PM



From Department of the Navy

WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Department of Defense announced Jan. 28 that the team led by Lockheed Martin Systems Integration, Oswego, N.Y., has been selected to build the new Presidential helicopter (VXX) based on its U.S. 101 medium lift helicopter.

This $1.7 billion, cost plus award fee contract will launch the VXX program’s system development and demonstration phase, during which the program will integrate a “system of systems” with a modern, in-production aircraft to provide the President with safe and reliable helicopter transportation.

“Today’s announcement is a significant milestone that caps an exhaustive and deliberative source selection process that carefully followed the Federal Acquisition Regulations,” said John Young, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition. “The determined effort, long hours and hard work by both the VXX Government team and the two industry teams, will ensure a high level of quality and safety for future presidents, as well as a timely, efficient and effective program execution.”

“This decision truly reflects the best value and capability for the American taxpayer who is funding it, the Marines who will operate it and the future Presidents who will fly in it,” Young added.

The fleet of helicopters (VH-3 and VH-60) that currently supports the Presidential mission includes 30-year old aircraft that were designed in the 1960s, fielded in the 1970s and no longer have the growth capability to incorporate the equipment necessary to provide suitable Presidential support in the post 9-11 environment.

“Under this replacement program, with its technology and performance improvements, a single platform will provide better savings in total ownership costs, engineering, maintenance and logistical support over the lifetime of the program,” Young said. “The president needs a more survivable helicopter while the nation engages in the global war on terrorism, and we are committed to providing it as soon as possible.”

The original Presidential Helicopter Replacement Program of record proposed an Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in 2013. The VXX program was accelerated in 2003 with a currently planned IOC in FY09

Or maybe Ive been mislead. Ill have to reread the data and anlysis Ive seen.

aJan. 28, 2005
- STRATFORD, Conn. ? Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation received word today that its H-92 helicopter was not selected as the next Marine One helicopter. The company anticipates a full debrief on the Navy's evaluation and analysis.

"Sikorsky and our All-American supplier team are disappointed with this outcome. We're honored to have flown U.S. Presidents for nearly half a century and believe we put forward an exceptionally strong proposal to continue this tradition," said Stephen N. Finger, president of Sikorsky Aircraft. "I want to extend my sincere thanks to all who worked so diligently. Everyone at Sikorsky Aircraft, as well as our partner companies across the country, should be proud of their efforts.

"I am confident in the future of the S-92," Mr. Finger added. "Sikorsky is a growing company committed to providing our customers with outstanding quality and value. We are focused on doubling our business by 2008, with a portfolio of products and aftermarket services for military and commercial customers worldwide. We anticipate achieving this goal even absent the VXX."

Published data shows that the S-92, the baseline version of the H-92, flies farther, flies faster and carries more than the EH-101. Independent data confirms that the S-92 is lower in cost and costs less to operate.

The Federal Aviation Administration and the European Aviation Safety Agency have certified the S-92 to a higher standard of safety than virtually every helicopter flying today, including the EH-101. Furthermore, since certification in December 2002, the S-92 and H-92 have won every other competition against the EH-101, including selection by the governments of Canada, Turkey, and Turkmenistan; Gulf Helicopters in Qatar; and CHC, the world's largest offshore oil operator.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, based in Stratford, Conn., is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacturing and service. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation (NYSE:UTX), of Hartford, Conn., which provides a broad range of high-technology products and support services to the aerospace and building systems industries.

Post all you the articles you want to, it wont change my opinion of European built aircraft...

Also did you realize the fact that we will not be producing the components to support the helo? The largest amount of work for any project is the support products, spares, and replacement parts that will be built OUTSIDE the US. We will not have control over any of these facilites to assure their steady flow nor control their pricing or quality. The President of the United States will be flown in a helicopter not even built in the US nor supported by spares production in the US. What type of message does that send?

And just to increase your historic Congressional knowledge, as a prime example of Congressional action, the F-14D would not have been built had it not been for the Congress reinstating the funding, after it was cut by Cheney when he was SecDef...

You shouldnt be laughing about it, sometimes they actually do things right...

And now you see why Bush waited until after the election to make the selection, because he knew that it would cause a major drop in his approval ratings. He shafted us, and you are missing it...



CAG out...


Edited by - CAG Hotshot on Jan 29 2005 8:54 PM

Of course I should be laughing. Congress never does anything right.

All their decisions are based on political expediency.

Once again "opinions" are worth more than facts. And fantasy thoughts substitute for documentation.

This statement doesnt jive with the information Ive read:

"Also did you realize the fact that we will not be producing the components to support the helo? The largest amount of work for any project is the support products, spares, and replacement parts that will be built OUTSIDE the US. We will not have control over any of these facilites to assure their steady flow nor control their pricing or quality. The President of the United States will be flown in a helicopter not even built in the US nor supported by spares production in the US. What type of message does that send?"

Such as:

"THE US101 TEAM
The US101 Team is a collaboration of Lockheed Martin Systems Integration - an experienced aerospace platform and systems integrator - with two of the world's leading helicopter manufacturers, AgustaWestland and Bell Helicopter Textron.

The Team brings a depth of helicopter design, manufacturing, systems integration and program management expertise unmatched in the industry. By combining our experiences and knowledge with the success of the EH101 platform, we bring to U.S. government forces and VIPs a helicopter solution of considerable low risk and value.

As individual companies, each brings decades of experience working on complex rotary wing programs.

The three companies have decades of experience of partnering together.

When assembled and integrated in America, the US101 will source more than 65 percent of its content from American suppliers, creating hundreds of high-technology jobs.

American taxpayers will save up to $2 billion in R&D from advanced rotary wing technologies already developed and tested on the EH101"

And:


"Team US101 will immediately begin work on the program, building on the staff and facilities already in place to support Navy-funded risk reduction activities under way since March 2004. Near-term activities involve the establishment of a secure presidential helicopter facility, including a new integration center and hangars, at an existing Lockheed Martin site in Owego, NY, and construction of helicopter assembly facilities at Amarillo, TX. Staff recruiting also is under way.

"We are proud to contribute our proven helicopter, backed by significant operational experience, to serve as the basis for the American President's new Marine One fleet," said Pier Francesco Guarguaglini, chairman and chief executive officer of Finmeccanica, AgustaWestland's parent corporation. "We are confident that the US101 will provide the best capability for the President, and we are delighted that the U.S. government has chosen to entrust Team US101 with this important responsibility."

More than 200 suppliers in 41 states support Team US101, led by Lockheed Martin with teammates Agusta Westland and Bell Helicopter Textron. Suppliers include some of America's leading aerospace companies, such as General Electric, ITT, Northrop Grumman, Kaman Aerospace and Palomar Products.

Based on the current contract schedule, the first US101 ready to transport the President is expected to be available in 2009, with the entire fleet of 23 US101 delivered to the Marine One squadron by late 2014.

Team US101 is led by Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego, which serves as the prime contractor and systems integrator for the American-built US101 aircraft, an American variant of AgustaWestland's successful EH101 multimission helicopter. The US101 team collectively brings unmatched rotorcraft expertise and experience to this program: Lockheed Martin (prime contractor and systems integration), AgustaWestland (aircraft design) and Bell Helicopter (aircraft production), while General Electric will supply each helicopter with three, 2,500 shaft-horsepower CT7-8E engines."

And:

"But the firm teamed up with American defense giant Lockheed and U.S. helicopter maker Bell Helicopter Textron and began a multifront campaign to sell an Americanized version of its EH101 helicopter.

The special Lockheed division called Team US101 poured millions of dollars into advertising and lobbying to emphasize the creation of American jobs and the bestowal of economic benefits for companies and communities across the United States, including a Mississippi company run by Choctaw Indians that will supply wiring harnesses for the US101.

The team announced that everything but the rotor blades and the transmission would be made in America, with contracts going to dozens of companies in 41 states, many of them in the politically influential states of California and Florida."


Unlike you apparently I am willing to change my "opinions" when verifiable documnetation of facts are presented. If you have info that refutes what I have presented please post it or at least direct me to it.

But opinions in and of themselves have no credibility.

And more:

"These 42 California-based suppliers are among the more than 200 suppliers in 41 states chosen to support Team US101 with key products and services necessary for the president's new Marine One helicopter fleet. Other leading American companies on Team US101 include General Electric, ITT, and Kaman Aerospace. During the course of the helicopter fleet's operational service life, 90 percent of the total life cycle costs will flow to Team US101's American suppliers, creating and sustaining thousands of jobs nationwide while building these new Marine One helicopters."

"The US101 will be built in America to fulfil the US Government’s 21st century helicopter requirements of the United States Air Force and Coast Guard in their search and rescue missions, and the Marine Corps as an executive transportation replacement for the 30-plus-year-old Marine One helicopter."




Edited by - rickusn on Jan 30 2005 07:50 AM

And this is interesting:

As far as which helicopter type will prevail, "it’s really a coin toss," Dane says. "They’re both excellent aircraft. It’ll probably come down to things that are not really related to actual aircraft performance."

That may well be. The military helicopter market is heavily politicized. Patriotic and nationalistic appeals resonate and carry considerable weight. The U.S. government tends to favor domestic firms; the Europeans do the same. This helps to explain why Borgman sounded the alarm about "unilateral disarmament."

The ‘New Paradigm’

But is this a legitimate criticism? The S-92, after all, is being built by an international consortium of companies, including the Jingdezhen Helicopter Group in the People’s Republic of China.

Sikorsky spokesman William S. Tuttle admits that international corporate partnerships reflect "the new paradigm in helicopter production," which does not correspond neatly with national boundaries. Indeed, modern-day rotorcraft typically include a wide array of international parts, systems and components, and thus cannot truly be said to belong to any one country.

But by the same token, notes S-92 program manager, Nick Lappos, "All of the aircraft’s dynamic systems and its core technologies—the transmissions, shafting, rotating controls, rotor heads and blades, for example—are designed and made in the United States by American designers and American craftsmen. We feel strongly that it’s important for the U.S. military to take advantage of this technology."

Lappos observes that the S-92 is basically a modernized version of the Black Hawk, replete with the very latest technological advances. The H-60 Hawk helicopters are a mainstay of the U.S. military.

"It would be a shame if all that investment from American taxpayers and the U.S. military were not reinvested in the future. I think that’s basically what Dean [Borgman] was saying," Lappos explains.

Not surprisingly, AgustaWestland officials dismiss Borgman’s criticism. "That dog don’t hunt, not in this day and age," says Stephen C. Moss, AgustaWestland’s chief executive in the United States. Yet, by choosing to partner with Lockheed Martin on the US101, the company implicitly acknowledges either the validity or resonance of Borgman’s concern about "unilateral [industrial] disarmament" by the United States.

"It’s a global economy and a global marketplace," declares Stephen Ramsey, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for aerospace systems. "We participate [in the economy] on a global basis and seek partnerships throughout the world that bring the best technology and the best products to the United States."

Ramsey’s comments are telling, because Lockheed Martin is the world’s premier systems integrator and one of the top U.S. defense contractors. The company also has considerable military helicopter experience, performing systems integration work on the Air Force HH-60D CSAR helicopter; Army Special Operations MH-60K and MH-47E; Air Force Special Ops MH-53M; and Navy MH-60R, MH-60S, and the SH-60B LAMPS Mk III.

Lockheed Martin has more than 250 international partnerships in more than 30 countries; international sales account for 23% of all business. For the helicopter industry, one partnership of late stands out: Lockheed Martin-AgustaWestland.

The two companies teamed up on the US101 last summer after more than a decade of working together on the Royal Navy Merlin HM Mk 1, the maritime variant of the EH101.

The ten-year agreement is a major coup for AgustaWestland. The company believes it absolutely must have American design and manufacturing "buy-in" to the EH101. Otherwise, it fears, the U.S. military will not procure the aircraft. American parts, systems and components already compose about 30% of the EH101. The proposed US101 would have at least 65% American content, Ramsey says.

Perhaps more important than the absolute number or share of U.S.-manufactured parts, though, is the nature of the work being performed by Lockheed Martin.

"Just because an aircraft has parts and components from many countries doesn’t mean that it lacks a particular national character," says Dr. Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Virginia. "The most important skill in aircraft manufacturing is systems integration. If an airframe isn’t integrated here, then we can’t continue to be world-class leaders."

Thompson says he thinks "Borgman is essentially right" about unilateral disarmament in the defense and aerospace sectors if the United States opens its markets to foreign-made aircraft. However, he says that because Lockheed Martin is performing systems integration work on the US101, the aircraft is, for all practical intents and purpose, an American product.


So is this:

Who's More American Becomes Selling Point

On March 10, Sikorsky, during a helicopter demonstration for the press at Dulles International Airport, announced that it had lengthened the cabin space of its proposal, the VH-92, by almost five feet by rearranging components. The change makes Sikorsky's proposal "almost as big" as Lockheed's.
Sikorsky representatives also trumpeted their "All-American VH-92 Team," comprising Connecticut-based Sikorsky, New York-based FlightSafety International, Texas-based L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, Illinois-based Northrop Grumman, Iowa-based Rockwell Collins, and Texas-based Vought Aircraft Industries.

By comparison, Lockheed-led "Team US101" March 11 said it had selected more than 200 companies in 41 states to supply components and systems for the US101 helicopter. Executives also claimed they would create up to 100 jobs at a facility in Patuxent River, Md., to support the presidential helicopter program.

"Collectively, Team US101 and its industrial partners will create and maintain thousands of technical and manufacturing jobs in the United States," Stephen Ramsey, Lockheed Martin's US101 vice president and general manager, said in a statement. "We will import jobs by building, integrating, and maintaining in the United States a helicopter that currently is manufactured abroad."

And that is precisely Sikorsky's point about its rival. The Lockheed Martin team includes AgustaWestlandBell, a joint venture between AgustaWestland and Bell Helicopter Textron. AgustaWestland is owned jointly by Italy's Finmeccanica and the United Kingdom's GKN.

Lockheed maintains that its presidential aircraft would be built in Texas while its electronic systems would be installed in Upstate New York, creating or keeping "hundreds" of jobs in those two well-populated states alone.

Nevertheless, Sikorsky claims its "all-American" pitch is more relevant for security considerations involved in building and maintaining the helicopter suite for the president of the United States. "We don't know how to do this mission with foreign suppliers. I'm sure it could be done...it would be risky to do it," Sikorsky Senior Vice President Jeff Pino told reporters during the helicopter demonstration event.


Spat Started Early

Sikorsky's original team was made up of companies from China, Taiwan, Spain, Japan, and Brazil. But in June 2003, Lockheed Martin criticized Sikorsky for marketing its plan for Marine One as "all-American" when the majority of its helicopter would be foreign-made. Lockheed Martin stated at the time that its own EH101--renamed US101 for the Marine One program--would include at least 65 percent U.S. content.
Then, on Jan. 7, Sikorsky fired back by announcing its wholly American team for its presidential proposal. Meantime, its foreign partners would continue to support Sikorsky on civilian versions of the helicopters (81 FCR 48).





Edited by - rickusn on Jan 30 2005 08:34 AM

And this:

"If Lockheed Martin/Bell Helicopter is the sweepstakes winner, Marine One will be built at Bell's assembly plant in Amarillo.

And, in the process, that will add as many as 300 more jobs to Bell's work force that totals more than 750 employees at this time."

And isnt this interesting:

Sikorsky must rue the day it picked the S-92 to demonstrate its commitment to global cooperation.

After Eurocopter’s successful development of the EC-120 with Singapore and China, Sikorsky decided to take globalization a step further, recruiting a really global team to develop and produce the S-92. The rationale remains a good one: risk-sharing partners across the globe shoulder some development costs, produce major components at costs lower than Sikorsky’s, and facilitate local sales.

Sikorsky drew together manufacturers from four continents to help develop the S-92. They include Aerospace Industrial Development Corp. of Taiwan, Embraer of Brazil, Gamesa of Spain, Jingdezhen Helicopter Group/CATIC of the People’s Republic of China, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan. Major subcontractors include GE, Rockwell Collins and Hamilton Sundstrand.

No helicopter has had a more geographically diversified industrial team, and no U.S. helicopter has had a more international flavor. But the S-92’s globalization has now turned around to bite Sikorsky where it hurts.

As the maker of the U.S. Army’s Blackhawk and its U.S. Navy derivatives and the longstanding supplier of presidential helicopters, Sikorsky thought it had a clear run at replacing the elderly VH-3Ds of the squadron that flies the president, the U.S. Marines Corps’ HMX-1.

Yet as the U.S. Navy prepares for the start this fall of the VH-3D replacement competition, Sikorsky finds itself vying with a foreign-designed helicopter for the "Made in the U.S.A." label that is an unstated requirement for aircraft that transport the U.S. president.

Is the S-92 more, or less, American-made than the AgustaWestland EH-101 that is also contending to replace the VH-3D? Through clever marketing (its contender is called the US101) and links with Bell Helicopter and Lockheed Martin, AgustaWestland has come up with U.S. credentials at least as good as the S-92’s. Bell built the helicopter that first carried a president from the White House lawn in 1957. It would build the US101 if AgustaWestland wins the competition, and Lockheed Martin, as prime contractor and systems integrator, would be responsible for the program and delivery of the US101.

Forgetting that those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, Sikorsky dismissed the US101 as "foreign," implying it should not be allowed to carry the president.

Lockheed Martin and its partners, however, had done their homework. They declared in mid-June that the US101 would include at least 65% U.S. content, while most of the S-92 would be produced outside the U.S.

The S-92’s use of major components from China, Taiwan, Japan, Brazil and Spain "should eliminate . . . the erroneous assertions that the S-92 is an ‘American’ helicopter and the US101 is a ‘foreign’ helicopter," said Steve Ramsey, vice president, aerospace solutions for Lockheed Martin Systems Integration.

Sikorsky replied that 82% of the S-92 is U.S.-made, and that could be boosted to 100% at the government’s request. "Our competition cannot do that, ever," a spokesman said.

One can only wonder how the S-92’s international partners view the prospect of being dropped so abruptly from the program. Prospective overseas customers who thought they were looking at an international program must also have been surprised to see the S-92 suddenly revealed as a U.S.-made product.

If Sikorsky’s ploy looks a bit desperate, it’s because the U.S. military is looking to buy 300–400 similar helicopters in the coming decade, and whoever wins the VH-3D replacement could gain an edge in that race.

Undoubtedly, Sikorsky shot itself in the foot by attacking its competitor on U.S. credentials rather than merits. Sikorsky officials also must be wondering whether their willingness to drop foreign partners has not destroyed the "global" sheen they spent years putting on the S-92.


And this:

"Pentagon officials yesterday said that initially about one-third of the US101 would be built in Europe, including the fuselage and rotor blades in Britain and gearboxes in Italy.
But the bulk of work will be in the United States. AgustaWestland's U.S. offices are in Reston. Lockheed Martin's Systems Integration unit, which put the deal together, is based in Owego, N.Y., and Bell Helicopter, another partner, is based in Texas. Dozens of companies, from Maine to California, are tapped as suppliers.
In the end, the Navy said it based its decision strictly on technical merits, not political considerations. Lockheed's product required less work to meet Pentagon specifications, making it more economical, Mr. Young said. "There are no political influences in this," he said."




Edited by - rickusn on Jan 30 2005 08:40 AM

If I'm not mistaken, The US-101 was going to be the replacement if the Osprey permanately tanked.

One of the options apparently yes.

Personally I think the CH/MH 53 Super Stallion would be the best choice. Indeed many aviators in the USMC and USN think so also. The USN is eliminating its MH 53s and replacing them with the much less capable MH 60S helos in "the pursuit of the single-airframe "grail".".

The USMC has decided to build new Super Stallions vice remanufacturing existing airframes. So building even more should be an economical cost effective endeavor.

But alas the USMC is adamant that the Osprey be built.

CAG:

As for the F-14D program below is the scenario. Even if Congress did restore the 12 FY 91 conversions I say big deal. The conversion airframes were not "0" houred. Meaning that most of the time there were only enough aircraft to fill out two squadrons and then often with only 8 aircraft. The 37 new build Ds are now between 13 and 15 years old. And the 38 new build Bs are between 15 and 17 years old.
They have been hard worked. Maintenance is reportedly a nightmare. Spares for the two different variants is problematic. These 75 aircraft are barely enough to fill out four squadrons. And if any of these aircraft have been lost over the years that would stress the pipeline even further.

"Versions:
F-14A - Production aircraft
F-14B - New General Electric engines and minor avionics upgrades (previously F-14A+)
F-14D - Major digital avionics upgrade, APG-71 radar, new ejection seats and improved self defense measures "


"F-14A Production version. 557 aircraft delivered from October 1972 to March 1987."


"The first production aircraft was rolled out on March 23, 1990. Grumman had hoped to deliver at least 12 "new-build" F-14Ds to the Navy every year through 1998, while also remanufacturing many of the earlier F-14As to F-14D standards. However, in 1989 Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had decided that the entire F-14D program should be terminated in an economy move. Newspaper and TV advertisements did nothing to persuade Cheney to change his mind. However, the Navy still wanted more F-14Ds, and Secretary of the Navy H. Lawrence Garrett issued a strong appeal for at least 132 "new-build" F-14Ds from 1992 onward. Secretary Cheney turned this proposal down flat, and went a step further in March 1991, and deleted all F-14D production funds from the FY 1992 budget. This was a catastrophe for Grumman, stopping Tomcat production in its tracks and forcing massive layoffs at the company.

The F-14D entered fleet service in July 1992 (too late for the Gulf War). The F-14D was originally intended to have entered service with VF-51 and VF-111. However, this proposal was abandoned when VF-11 and VF-31 moved to Miramar from Oceana. These two units then converted to the F-14D in July of 1992, and VF-2 converted to the F-14D in early 1993. VF-51 and VF-11 reverted back to the F-14A. The conversion of VF-1 to the F-14D was abandoned when only half complete-the unit was disbanded in late 1993.

Only thirty-seven of the planned 127 new-build F-14Ds were completed. The last of these new-build F-14D was delivered to the Navy on July 20, 1992. Another 18 F-14Ds were produced by conversions of existing F-14As, these planes being redesignated F-14D(R) upon completion of the conversions. A total of 104 F-14D(R) conversions were originally planned, but the program was cut way back in the 1989 budget reduction. The six F-14D(R) aircraft of FY90 were spared the axe, but 98 planned conversions funded between FY91 and FY95 were cancelled. However, the 12 FY91 F-14D(R) conversions were later restored. The last F-14D(R) conversion was delivered in November of 1994.

Failure to get support for keeping the F-14D production line open and the inability to attract any interest in advanced multi-role versions of the Tomcat forced Grumman into a merger with Northrop, which took place in May of 1994.

A total of 55 F-14D new-builds and conversions were produced. This was enough to equip only three front-line squadrons. These F-14D-equipped squadrons are VF-2 "Bounty Hunters", VF-11 "Red Rippers", and VF-31 "Tomcatters". In addition, part of the Pacific Fleet training unit VF-124 is equipped with F-14Ds. First to become operational with the F-14D was VF-11 in July of 1992. A few prototype and early test F-14Ds have been redesignated NF-14Ds and serve with some dedicated test units. The shortage of F-14Ds was so severe that VF-11 had to transition back to the F-14B in late 1996."


Here is whats left:

Fighter Squadron


Squadron
Aircraft
Location
Wing (*1)

VF-31 (*3)

AJ Tomcatters
F-14D
NAS Oceana, VA.
COMSTRIKFITWINGLANT

VF-32 (*4)

AC Swordsmen
F-14B
NAS Oceana, VA.
COMSTRIKFITWINGLANT

VF-101 (*2)

AD Grim Reapers
F-14A/B/D
NAS Oceana, VA.
COMSTRIKFITWINGLANT

VF-103 (*5)

AA Jolly Rogers
F-14B
NAS Oceana, VA.
COMSTRIKFITWINGLANT

VF-213 (*6)

AJ Black Lions
F-14D
NAS Oceana, VA.
COMSTRIKFITWINGLANT

(*1) COMSTRIKFITWINGLANT : Commander Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic
(*2) FRS : Fleet Replacement Squadron, will disestablish in FY2005 (Sep.30, 2005)

(*3) VF-31 will transition to FA-18F in FY2006
(*4) VF-32 will transition to FA-18F in FY2006
(*5) VF-103 will begin transition to FA-18F in February 2005.
(*6) VF-213 will transition to FA-18F in FY2006



Edited by - rickusn on Jan 30 2005 4:09 PM

Edited by - rickusn on Jan 30 2005 4:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Post all you the articles you want to, it wont change my opinion of European built aircraft...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


Steady CAG. Keep your powder dry for the USAF tanker "competetion". This Marine 1 job has mostly US value added work. As far as I know, the only substantial items that are coming from Europe are the transmission and rotors. Granted, these are the essential technologies for rotorcraft but not the whole job. The avionics integration is probably 25% of the work, detail parts and final assembly another 30%, engines 20% They did pretty well on US content, so I recommend calm. Save your political capital for the tankers. I am more interested in preserving the integrity of the procurement process. I want to know that the best proposal won, period. If these damn contracts are rigged, why the hell are people working their asses off to meet the stated criteria. If all you have to do is hire the right lobbyist, then the techincal people have nothing to do, and might as well stay home. I don't understand how anyone can cry foul here without seeing how the two proposals fared head to head against the selection criteria. Company statements about their product's superiority must be discounted. I suggest you investigate the performance items that they don't mention for insight into their weaknesses.

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?"

_________________
????

Stress my thoughts exactly. You are far more erudite than I. LOL

Some older news on Tomcats but appropo I think:

By JACK DORSEY, The Virginian-Pilot
© September 9, 2004

VIRGINIA BEACH — The last five of the Navy’s oldest F-14 Tomcats will head to the “bone yard” Sunday, retiring to the dry desert floor of Arizona to join thousands of other aging war birds.

About 80 younger models of the F-14 remain at Oceana Naval Air Station, but all will be gone by about August 2006, replaced by F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets.

The “thirtysomething” A-model F-14 jets from the Checkmates of Fighter Squadron 211 will mark the beginning of the end of the Tomcat family, which totaled 632 aircraft during the past 32 years.


Cmdr. C.J. Deni, the squadron’s skipper, will lead the last flight to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, near Tucson, where the jets will be available for wartime recall.



See the complete Pilot, exactly as in print
- View stories, photos and ads
- E-mail clippings
- Print copies
Log in or learn more


Email this Page
Print this Page
Get Email Newsletters


“We are the last true fighter squadron in the Navy,” Deni said Wednesday as his five Tomcats showed off in a formation fly-by over Oceana. “There no longer will be any more fighter squadrons. They will be multi-mission strike fighters from now on.”


Developed as a premier fighter for strictly an air-to-air mission to protect the carrier battle group, later versions of the F-14, known as B, C and D models, evolved in the early 1990’s to carry air-to-ground munitions. By the mid-1990’s, precision-guided weapons were added and the aircraft took on more of a strike mission, Deni said.

However, the A-models remained a fighter. They were never given the global positioning system (GPS) weapons the younger models had, which better supported the battlefield commanders.

Deni’s squadron, which retired its five other planes earlier, will now begin learning to fly and maintain the F/A-18 F Super Hornet.


The entire squadron of about 250 air crews and maintenance personnel will begin leaving in October for Lemoore Naval Air Station, 40 miles south of Fresno, Calif., for six months of training. Their 12 two-seat models are already waiting for them on the flight line, Deni said.

When they return with the planes in late March, or early April, they will be known as the Checkmates of Strike/Fighter Squadron 211.

While the younger Tomcat models still have plenty of life in them, Deni said they have become too costly to operate. In the last few months it required between 65 to 80 man hours of maintenance to keep an F-14 flying for just one hour. By comparison, the Super Hornet requires between 10 and 15 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight, he said.

Senior Chief Petty Officer Vaughn Ransom has been taking care of the F-14s since 1982, working on probably 75 different planes over the years.

He has hand-picked their maintenance crews and pulled solutions to vexing problems “out of our heads,” not computers. But he seems ready to let them go and join the Super Hornet community.

An engine change can take 16 to 18 hours on an F-14 if all goes well, he said. The Super Hornet’s engines can be replaced in less than two hours.

Trouble shooting isn’t by guess work. It’s simply a plug-in to a computer to find the cause.

Yet, for Lt. Cmdr. Mark Sullivan, the squadron’s former maintenance officer, flying his plane into retirement will be a sad day.

“We’ve always called the Tomcat the big sexy fighter,” Sullivan said. “I’m going to miss manning up that aircraft and watching that sight behind the boat. There is nothing more challenging than flying the F-14 on an aircraft carrier.


“They call it 'the turkey’ because that’s kind of what it looks like when it comes into land. It’s ungainly. It’s big. It’s tough. It’s predictable.”

The Tomcat was never the most forgiving plane to a pilot who tried to push it farther than it was intended, Sullivan said. The Super Hornet, while slower, won’t allow a pilot to abuse it in the same way.

The Super Hornets are easier to fly than the Tomcats, Sullivan said.

“And they should be,” he said. “They are safer to fly, but I will miss a little bit of the challenges. I had a plane that was pretty much as smart as I was.

“If I am doing something wrong, the Super Hornet will not let you put yourself in extremes. It’s a little smarter than me.”

Sullivan has put more than 2,000 flight hours and 13 years in the Tomcat and insisted on taking his plane on the last flight.

“I’d rather take it to the bone yard than the scrap yard, where is would be torn apart,” he said. “At least there they will be ready to fight again on the front line if we need them.”

Oceana is expected to acquire a total of 120 F/A-18 single-seat E and twin-seat F Super Hornets.

It has 145 F/A-18 single-seat C Hornets now.

Still, all your posts do not change my opinon on Euro Aircraft/Rotorcraft...

The US President should be flying in a US designed and built rotorcraft, not a Euro one. I also believe that the fact that the main drive train, which usually requires the majority of spares, being controlled by a foreign government(s) gives us the same ranking as a third world country, but I guess you all missed that one? <img src=icon_smile_question.gif border=0 align=middle>

As far as to WHY Congress makes there decisions, political expediency, payoffs, etc, was never my contention, just the fact that for whatever reason, they do occassionally do things right.

As for the tanker situation, I really dont have all the facts yet. Just alot of opinons. So I reserve my thoughts on that mess until farther into the future...


CAG out...