US101: 
Sikorsky S-92: 
Posted on 01/30/2005 7:57:07 PM PST by beaelysium
The VH-60N Whitehawk is currently in use, although the CH-53 and VH-3D are more commonly used to transport the President himself.
I briefly worked for Sikorsky several years ago and the Presidential helicopters were kept under extremely tight security any time they were in the plant for repair or upgrades.
This is disappointing...the SuperHawk is a good helicopter in its own right and IMO the Presidential helicopters should be 100% American-made. Sikorsky has been building Presidential helicopters for nearly 50 years and some consideration should have been given to that fact. Additionally, Sikorsky helicopters are the workhorses of every branch of the US military.
The only reason Lockheed had a competitor for Marine One to begin with is by licensing the US101 design from AugustaWestland! Lockheed is a good company, of course...but their dealings with military aviation in recent years have been for fixed-wing aircraft. Sikorsky is much more experienced in manufacturing and servicing military helicopters.
We have a budget deficit. The best copter for the job are the ones he's using now.
September 26, 2004
by Charles V. Pena
Charles Pena is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.
After Air Force One, the most recognizable symbol of the president of the United States of America may be the Marine One helicopter, which provides all helicopter transportation for the president both overseas and within the continental United States. In fact, there is probably more television footage of the president stepping off of Marine One and onno the White House lawn than there is of him boarding or deplaning from Air Force One. After 30 years in service, the current fleet of Sikorsky VH-3D Sea King helicopters that do duty as Marine One are due to be replaced. The Navy is conducting a competition to select a company to develop and build the new Marine One helicopters. The Navy hopes to award the contract for Marine One -- worth $1.6 billion -- in December. But an additional 400 helicopters for the Air Force, Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security may also be at stake and could mean another $8 billion to the winner. The competition, however, is being clouded by the ";buy American"; issue.
The two prime contractors vying for the Marine One contract -- Connecticut-based Sikorsky and Maryland-based Lockheed Martin -- have each been going to great pains to portray their respective teams as more American than the other. Sikorsky bills itself as the All-American Team and even dumped foreign suppliers such as China's Jingdezhen Helicopter Group, Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation of Taiwan and Brazilian aircraft manufacturer Embraer -- even though some of these companies actually helped pay for the development of the new helicopter Sikorsky is touting. The Lockheed Martin team is called US101 and includes the Anglo-Italian helicopter company AgustaWestland, Texas-based Bell Helicopter, and more than 200 other U.S. suppliers in 41 states.
Under current laws, 50 percent of a U.S. weapon system must be American-made, so both Sikorsky's All American Team and Lockheed Martin's US101 Team must meet this litmus test. But the decision on the new Marine One helicopter shouldn't have anything to do with ";made in America."; It should be about choosing the best helicopter. It shouldn't matter that all the companies on the Sikorsky team are American and their claim that awarding the contract to Sikorsky would mean ";providing jobs and a future for American workers."; Similarly, it shouldn't matter that the US101 helicopter is foreign designed by AgustaWestland, but as Lockheed-Martin claims, it ";will be built in America, by Americans with American parts.";
Concerns about foreign-supplied parts ignore the reality of a global marketplace. America imports about 80 percent of its semiconductors -- a product critical to the U.S. economy and national security -- from the Far East. What matters is the ability and reliability of the company -- foreign or American -- to deliver the product on time and at cost, something that U.S. companies do not have a monopoly on.
And claims that foreign defense firms have an unfair competitive advantage because they receive government subsidies ignore the reality that the U.S. defense industry is hardly a bastion of free-market enterprise. The fact is that the Defense Department subsidizes research and development, arguing that it would be harmful to the defense industry if contractors had to risk losing their research and development investment in systems that the Pentagon decides not to buy.
Wrapping a product in the Stars and Stripes to appeal to patriotic sensibilities is misguided. Judgments about which team's design is better should be based on objective and measurable criteria. Some important factors include speed, payload and range. How survivable are the proposed designs to small arms fire, rocket propelled grenades (used effectively in Iraq to down helicopters) and shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles? Is in-flight refueling capability critical? Is it important that the helicopter can be easily transported, either via ship or airplane? How reliable is the helicopter? Is there data for mean time between failure for the engine and other critical components? How easy is it to upgrade electronics and other equipment as technological advances are made? Is a particular design proven and ";battle"; tested under the kind of conditions it will be expected to operate in?
The point here isn't to pass judgment on whether the Sikorsky-designed helicopter is better than the AgustaWestland design or vice versa. But that judgment should not be skewed by perceptions of which helicopter is more American. It's important to remember that the federal government has an obligation to spend U.S. taxpayer dollars wisely.
Whether it's the president of the United States or a soldier on the front line, the ultimate criteria should be procuring the best, highest performing, technologically advanced and reliable equipment at the most reasonable cost. To do otherwise and simply buy American would be irresponsible and misguided patriotism.
The S-92 is still a work in progress. 101's have a lengthy (but certainly not spectacular) service and combat record. (A bird in hand is worth two in the bush?)
The Navy gave Sikorsky a few additional months to get things straightened out - they could not.
"....the Presidential helicopters should be 100% American-made....."
Good point, but does that mean that the Navy should buy an All-American made aircraft even if it does not meet all of the technical requirements?
"....Sikorsky has been building Presidential helicopters for nearly 50 years and some consideration should have been given to that fact."
Maybe some consideration was given, but again, if it did not come as close to meeting the requirements, should it still have gotten the nod, just because of a stellar past history?
"The S-92 is still a work in progress. 101's have a lengthy (but certainly not spectacular) service and combat record. (A bird in hand is worth two in the bush?)"
The S-92 itself is not a work in progress! It's in use in the civilian market and has been for a couple of years now. It was engineered to be a very safe and robust helicopter and won the Collier Trophy in 2002. I worked on a bit of the S-92 development, and would not hesitate for a second to fly in it.
The H-92 is still in the very final development stages. However, it's not as if it's still on paper - Sikorsky has several prototypes flying at the moment. It is highly safe and survivable, and uses the same safety technology used in the H-60 military Hawk variants. The Canadian Navy recently purchased a number of H-92 Cyclones for use on their Halifax-class frigates. There has to be a first application for every aircraft, but the VH-92 would not be the first military use of the H-92.
I don't get why the Navy is willing to trust an overseas worker (without a gov't security clearance) to manufacture critical components of the US101 - the current H-60 military Hawks are made in the US by American workers. Why is it acceptable to give the President anything less?
From a design standpoint I can see possible safety issues with BOTH the VH-92 and the US101. Both have vulnerabilities and strengths in different areas. Lockheed Martin is a fine company and actually does the systems integration work for Sikorsky's military Hawks. I am not disparaging them here...but it is not an easy choice and clearly my priorities were not the same as the Navy's. ;)
"It was engineered to be a very safe and robust helicopter...."
They pretty-much all are.
"....and won the Collier Trophy in 2002. I worked on a bit of the S-92 development, and would not hesitate for a second to fly in it."
It is an excellant aircraft, it just fell shy of what the Navy wanted. That is life in the defense industry.
"The H-92 is still in the very final development stages."
That is correct, and each one that is delivered gets more and more bugs worked out.
"....the Navy is willing to trust an overseas worker (without a gov't security clearance)"
The workers willl have required clearance - it's the law.
"Lockheed Martin is a fine company and actually does the systems integration work for Sikorsky's military Hawks."
That is one of our problems - we don't do systems integration, we leave that to others.
" I am not disparaging them here...but it is not an easy choice and clearly my priorities were not the same as the Navy's."
I am a loyal Sikorsky employee, but I am also a realist. (But we are STILL the pre-eminent rotor-craft creator in the world).
Gotta run.........
Don't you think China would fit under that description?
Point well made.
So why order copters now? Is there some sort of rotation schedule of when it's pertinent to replace a fleet, or is this just a boondogle?
Inquiring minds want to know.
"First production S-92 flew out of here last fall (04). I am here, I see first hand the production problems. We are already far behind schedule. That is not lost on the Navy."
Ah, didn't know that! I was at Sikorsky in 2000. Amazing, they had a prototype flying when I was there and it took until 2004 to have it go into production?!
This is why I decided to shift to one of UTC's commercial divisions. I liked helicopters but the aerospace/defense industry is far too volatile for my liking. Elevators are just as cutthroat in terms of competition but at least we don't have to worry about getting government contracts. ;-)
US101:
Sikorsky S-92:
Just as the defense department's and the cia's entrenched Democrats and bureaucrats who were threatened by the new administration, struck out at the Bush administration by leaks ala clark and his wife and other such sundry scandals like the recent strike at Condolisa Rice; so the same kind of bureaucrats within the Navy have used this contract as an opportunity to strike out at Bush.
No.
Wow 1rudeboy, you're just so... rude.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.