Lockheed Martin to Build New Presidential Helicopter

Department of Defense ^ | 28 Jan 2005 | Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)

[My2Cents]

Sorry to say it, but this new copter doesn't look as studly as the current Sikorsky VH-3D.

[kpp_kpp]

i thought i had it but now i'm confused

are we nuking for jesus or are the gay whales for jesus?

[Drago]

Counterpoint to the General in the earlier post I made...

From Fred Geier, former pilot and commander of the Marine One squadron:

---

"Lt. Gen. Fred McCorkle in his Viewpoint asserts there's a distinction
between "buy the best" and "buy American" in the contest to decide who will
build the next Marine One helicopter (AW&ST Nov. 15, p. 90). This is false
for the simple reason that on both standards, the answer is one and the
same. The Sikorsky H-92, which will be made entirely in America, beats the
foreign competitor on each of the four factors McCorkle agrees matter most:
performance, power, reliability and--most importantly--safety.
Taking the last point first, I was surprised at the general's suggestion
that the European contender is somehow safer because it has three rather
than two engines. The truth is the EH 101's third engine is there for
necessity, not convenience or redundancy. The aircraft is too heavy for two
engines to do the job, and the evidence is in the aircraft's own literature:
It can't safely take off from a confined area without all three of its
engines, period.
McCorkle omits the real safety differences. The H-92's design is 15 years
advanced over that of the EH 101. The civilian variant of the H-92 was
awarded the 2002 Collier Trophy as America's greatest achievement in
aeronautics, precisely because it sets new standards for safety, efficiency
and performance.
Amendments to the FAA's FAR 29 helicopter safety regulations during the last
decade have mandated flaw-tolerant designs. The H-92 is certified to these
latest regulations, and the EH 101 is not and cannot be. For example, the
H-92 has breakaway outboard fuel tanks rather than carrying fuel under
passengers' seats, minimizing fire risks in a hard landing. The H-92's
critical components are all robust enough to withstand scratches, dents and
damage that would cause cracks and failures on older aircraft. This factor
will enable safe operation over thousands of hours even if these problems
aren't detected. The H-92 is safe from engine turbine bursts. The EH 101 has
none of these features.
The EH 101's 56,000 flight hours initially may seem impressive, but
concluding as McCorkle does that the aircraft is "thoroughly tested in the
field" is an overstatement. According to press reports, maintenance problems
and safety concerns have markedly reduced the EH 101's utilization rates in
Canada. The Canadian government's fleet of EH 101s was grounded twice this
year alone on the discovery of tail rotor cracks. Importantly, the Canadian
government selected the H-92 over the EH 101 in a further buy of 28 aircraft
just five months ago. Also, McCorkle fails to mention the EH 101's actual
mishap record, which by my calculation is several times worse than that of
any U.S. military helicopter in its class.
The H-92 flies faster, farther and with more payload than the EH 101. It's
100% American made, a factor that is important for the President's safety
and security, not jingoism. At the most basic level, Pentagon regulations
require that anyone working on presidential aircraft have security
clearances granted only to U.S. citizens who possess "unquestioned loyalty
to the United States." Sikorsky Aircraft has 500 such Yankee White-cleared
employees. ("Yankee White" is the administrative nickname given to all
government, military and contractor personnel who have the security
clearance required to work on presidential support activities, such as
Marine One--Ed.)
It's not clear how the EH 101 will meet this requirement with its most
critical rotor and drivetrain components designed, built and sealed in
Europe by foreign nationals.
This is a process in which all will be well served, as McCorkle states, to
"put politics aside and select capability and dependability." I agree 100%.
This competition is about safety, security and performance, and not about
foreign allies or foreign trade. The dedicated professionals evaluating the
two competing offers will make their decision based on performance, not
politics. The Sikorsky H-92 is the best helicopter for all the right
reasons. It's the safest and highest performance helicopter for our nation's
and Marine Corps' most critical mission.
USMC Col. (ret.) Fred Geier was commander of the Presidential Helicopter
Squadron, HMX-1, and has been Marine One's primary pilot. He is currently a
consultant to Sikorsky Aircraft. McCorkle, the author of the Nov. 15
Viewpoint, serves on the board of directors of GKN Aerospace Services. In
May, GKN sold its 50% stake in AgustaWestland, a key member of the US101
team."

---

[My2Cents]

The Sikorsky H-92

[Finalapproach29er]

Bush is a Limey at heart. Blue English blood running through his veins.

Congress should over-ride this decision.

[Poohbah]

Congress should over-ride this decision.

Why?

[Finalapproach29er]

The reasons are self-evident. I'm not going to state them point by point.

[Poohbah]

The reasons are self-evident. I'm not going to state them point by point.

In other words, you have no reasons you can defend.

Sikorsky got a case of Boeing's Disease, and it cost them like it cost Boeing.

[Poohbah]

Bottom line: Sikorsky charged way too much and delivered way too little.

[Finalapproach29er]

Your a real patriot.

I'm embarrassed our president will ride a EU-rocopter. I'm sure you are not.

[El Gato]

Not trying to sound like a whinging democrat, but 1.7 Billion is ridiculous, I want to know what this thing can do.

The $1.7 Billion is for the R&D, not for the production. I imagine that gets you a prototype. It pays for the development of the avionics and other goodies unique to the Presidential Bird, and their (in a design sense) integration with the basic -101 helicopter. I do believe that's quite a bit less than the F-22 development cost. The timetable to deployable is a lot shorter at any rate.

[bayourod]

"well isn't anyone pissed that a Euro weenie company with ties to Lockheed got the contract over the American "

Very much so.

[El Gato]

Great, an Italian chopper as "Marine One"!! Why not stay with the 45 year tradition of Sikorsky?

There also has been a long history of cooperation between Sikorsky, Westland and Augusta. The latter two produced many Sikorsky designs over the years. Sikorsky should perhaps have reciprocated rather than going with a design based on the Blackhawk (with a larger diameter fuselage).

[sandviper]

Well he had better put in an order for hundreds of worn out birds in Iraq. I boycott EU and the prez spends billions the for a ride to camp David. I sure feel like the sucker. (;^(

[Poohbah]

Your a real patriot.

Yup. I believe that the taxpayer's money isn't there to be squandered. I do not support welfare--be it for individuals or for corporations. If US companies refuse to deliver a product that meets cost, schedule, and performance criteria, then maybe they need to spend some time out in the cold.

I'm embarrassed our president will ride a EU-rocopter. I'm sure you are not.

Actually, I am embarrassed: for Sikorsky. They had a good product; they subsequently padded their price by a huge margin, on the (wrong) assumption that they could charge whatever price they wanted, and that the Pentagon would suck it up (see the KC-767 "deal" for another fine example of this attitude).

I spent eight years in the USMC, another 6 years as a consultant to the Navy Department, and have observed the defense scene for more than 25 years. I have seen this sort of arrogance more and more in the past ten years, as mergers have taken place. Either the US defense industry sorts its act out now, or they get used to the idea of not getting much business.

[jackbill]

Five or six F-22's

[jackbill]

I always thought the pres should zip around in this bad boy:

Yes, next time that we have a RAT president.

[Rider on the Rain]

Lockeheed (sic) has never built a helicopter ever

Have you never heard of the Cheyenne?

Bell Helicopter is a team member, and they have built many.

[Redcloak]

I thought that you liked him.