Lockheed Martin to Build New Presidential Helicopter

The Department of Defense announced today that the team led by Lockheed Martin Systems Integration, Owego, 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 that currently supports the presidential mission includes 30-year old aircraft that were designed in the 1960’s, fielded in the 1970’s and no longer has 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 in 2013. The VXX program was accelerated in 2003 with a currently planned IOC in fiscal year 2009.

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."

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.

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.