# Look who is flying the EH 101



## 54/102 CEF (28 Jan 2005)

Well Gene Cretin must be saying I told ya so! Dem crafty Americans!

G Bush will be swanning around the skies in the US NAVY VIP Version of the EH 101

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/28/presidential.helicopter.ap/index.html

The troubles is - the cancellation fees the Fiberals paid must surely apporach the costs the US would have incurred.......

I tink I smell a rat Gene!


----------



## Blue Max (29 Jan 2005)

It will be interesting to see who gets their aircraft order filled first, US Marines or Canadian Navy? :-\


----------



## bossi (29 Jan 2005)

Okay - that does it - I'm screaming mad now ... 
(the cancellation of the EH101 is one of my hottest hot buttons ... those smarmy little snot-nosed Liberal Party puke-faced fartcatchers who are not accountable to the Canadian electorate and whose  vote-seeking greed which corrupts Canadian policies ... are nothing short of Quislings ...)


----------



## Sam69 (29 Jan 2005)

Blue Max said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see who gets their aircraft order filled first, US Marines or Canadian Navy? :-\



Since the "Canadian Navy" hasn't ordered any 101s.... I would guess the US Marines will have theirs first. But maybe I am misreading your point? Did you mean to say it will be interesting to see if the Marines get their 101s before the CF gets their 92s? If so, I would put my money on the Marines. I suspect they will have their order filled quite quickly because: a) the 101 is already in full production (unlike the "H"-92) and b) I understand the 101 production line is not operating at capacity ATM.

Sam


----------



## jmacleod (29 Jan 2005)

The purchase of the 101 American Helicopter by the USN for use by the US President is a very
serious blow to United Technology Sikorsky, who only have one purchaser of their SH-92
helicopter, to be known as the "Cyclone". Sikorsky would have been keyed into absorbing all
development costs between the Canadian purchase and the US Navy purchase (now gone)
and will have problems meeting contract delivey dates because of this. The irony is that there
is a follow on purchase for several hundred new helicopters by the US Army, Coast Guard &the USAF who want 132 S&R aircraft. The reason that CF bought the F-18A "Hornet" (a USN fighter) was
that the development costs based on the original Northrop YF-17 (F-18L"Cobra") were borne on
behalf of the Canadian purchase by the U.S. Navy, which the "Hornet" became a naval fighter.
Meanwhile, the EH101 Cormorant consortium are busy sueing the Government of Canada. 
MacLeod


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Jan 2005)

The US101 was selected as payback for UK and Italian help in Iraq, pure and simple. This is a small order and unlikely to be repeated.


----------



## Inch (29 Jan 2005)

macleod, the H-92 is known as the Superhawk. Cyclone is the Canadian Forces designation for the new MHP, not Sikorsky's and if we got 101's, we would have called them Cyclones, not Cormorants.

I agree, it is a serious blow to Sikorsky, I'm still optimistic that the first Cyclone will be on the ramp in Shearwater no later than Dec 2008.


----------



## jmacleod (29 Jan 2005)

I differ with Tomahawk 6 - there is nothing pure or simple in the international aerospace defence
business - the lead contractor on the US101 American Helicopter is Lockheed Martin, in partnership
AugustaWestland, now owned by the Italian firm Finmeccanica SpA, and partnered with Bell 
Helicopters, Northrop Corporation with production in Texas and customization in New York (Griffis
Air Park, Rome NY). Sikorsky and Boeing lost billions of potential business in the cancellation of
the now-defunct Comanche stealth helicopter. The engines in the Presidential helicopter (3)
are from GE Company, Lynn Massachusetts. United Technologies has thus lost access to $39 billion
on the cancelled Comanche program, and $6 billion on the Presidential helicopter Project, with
their "European competition" actually located in the United States, plus the loss of UT Pratt&
Whitney Engines for the new aircraft. Sikorsky are hurtin. Aside from this, the SH-92 aircraft in
military configuration is not on the production line, and does not, in fact, exist. MacLeod


----------



## Blue Max (29 Jan 2005)

Did you mean to say it will be interesting to see if the Marines get their 101s before the CF gets their 92s?

SAM69, yes you are correct. Where as I was unclear by not extrapolating my comment enough, our government is unclear on purpose to try and pull the wool over our eyes.     :threat:

MHO


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Jan 2005)

hmmm- this is not good news for us MH guys.

On the other hand, it is probably very good news for our SAR fleet- another large North American Operator to share costs and simulators with maybe?


----------



## Brock (31 Jan 2005)

What a blow to the Canadian Military. Now the CF is saddled with a huge burden.  Canada will now likely be the only military operator of the H-92 in a military role.  It is pretty much a given that Lockheed Martin-AugustaWestand will win the USAF Personnel Recovery Vehicle (PRV) Project for up to 128 helicopters.  The Lockheed Martin US-101 consortium--which includes Bell and others--would not spend hundred of millions setting up a production facility in the US without the PRV Project being an essentially foregone conclusion.  It will be a miracle if the Martin Government does the smart thing and uses the legal battle between it and AgustaWestland as a way to force a re-tender of the Maritime Helicopter Project and thereby get out of buying the Sikorsky H-92.  The fiasco continues, 1993 to 20XX?  The H-92 may be a good helicopter, but no one can now deny that if we choose to procure it, it will be a long and expensive or possibly short and expensive relationship...not that the Sea King history hasn't been.  Only time will tell as to whether or not the CF will learn.  On a related note...the NH-90 NFH in the high cabin version is best option, but that is another discussion


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (31 Jan 2005)

On the current purchase:
1)  I would agree with other purchasers there likely is a political motivation in that Blair is due for re-election soon and needs any good press he can get.
2)  I would argue that from a technology standpoint, paying the premium for a 3-engined helicopter when you're flying around POTUS is a good investment (although I would've spent it for our guys too.... ???)

That being said, I think the Pentagon has a pretty clear history of trying to support at least 2 rivals in each industry so I would be shocked if Sikorsky doesn't get some significant orders from one of the branches.

JMHO,



Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Jan 2005)

Once again I point out to the favourable endorsement some of our Air Types have shown for the Cyclone so I am not sure why some of you feel their opinion does not matter. Inch and several others have commented on this before.


----------



## Inch (31 Jan 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> On the current purchase:
> 1)   I would agree with other purchasers there likely is a political motivation in that Blair is due for re-election soon and needs any good press he can get.
> 2)   I would argue that from a technology standpoint, paying the premium for a 3-engined helicopter when you're flying around POTUS is a good investment (although I would've spent it for our guys too.... ???)
> 
> ...



Yes, it isn't a great thing that we'll be the only ones flying the H92s, but optimistically, in order to garner other contracts, it's in Sikorsky's best interests to deliver a quality product to us, I have little doubt that we will get a good helo. We're only talking about 23 helos here, it's not going to sink Sikorsky. 

As for 3 engines, I've said it once and I'll say it again, IMO, 3 engines just means you've got 3 times the chance to have an engine failure. The Cyclone will do everything on one engine that the 101 requires two engines for. If you have 2 engines fail, you'll probably lose the third since it's most likely a fuel problem and a million engines won't prevent an autorotation. Also, Sikorsky themselves have said that the only reason they ever put 3 engines in the CH-53s was for pure lifting power, if two would have done the job they would have went with two.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Feb 2005)

http://www.teamus101.com/index.cfm

Interesting; I seen a full-page glossy add in the latest issue of the _Marine Corps Gazette_ which advertised the US101.  The biggest feature of the add was the slogan "made in America" - with Lockheed Martin occupying the center stage if the listed defence contractors.

Politics, politics....


----------



## aesop081 (1 Feb 2005)

S_Baker,

I'm just currious as to the differences between this deal and the ones that brought the  McDonell Douglas T-45 Goosehawk ( a.k.a. Bae Hawk) and the Martin B-57 (a.k.a English Electric Canberra) into US service. Those are UK designed aircraft.   Granted that they were built under liscence in the US but they are stil foreign designed planes.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Feb 2005)

I think that this is a bone to our allies[Italy/UK] for their help in Iraq period. Congress would not sit still for a 300 ac order for example.
Many in Congress have made their displeasure known but won't kill the buy. At some point the CH-53 and CH-47 will need to be replaced hopefully DoD will look at some true alternatives.

1. Carter gyro copters

2. Take a CH-53 fuselage and add a ring tail and wing's


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Feb 2005)

Looks like Sikorsky will survive.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-629812.php


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Feb 2005)

> S_Baker,
> 
> I'm just currious as to the differences between this deal and the ones that brought the   McDonell Douglas T-45 Goosehawk ( a.k.a. Bae Hawk) and the Martin B-57 (a.k.a English Electric Canberra) into US service. Those are UK designed aircraft.   Granted that they were built under liscence in the US but they are stil foreign designed planes.



Not to mention the AV-8 Harrier series by Hawker-Siddeley (Now BAE) and the ongoing involvement of Brit firms in developing the JSF.

Oh, and I almost forgot, the Royal Ordnance 105mm light gun, the Royal Ordnance 81 mm mortar, the FN MAG GPMG and the FN Minimi SAW, as well as assorted 9mm pistols.  I am sure there is more out there.

 Cheers.;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Feb 2005)

Here are a couple of interesting provisions of the 2004 National Defense Authorization Act.

http://www.wifcon.com/dodauth4/dod04_821.htm

http://www.wifcon.com/dodauth4/dod04_822.htm

Berry Amendment [buy American]

http://www.amtacdc.org/media/030710.asp


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Feb 2005)

Originally the Berry amendment was enacted in 1941 and has been in force ever since.

http://www.bxa.doc.gov/DefenseIndustrialBasePrograms/OSIES/DefMarketResearchRpts/TexReport_Ch5.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Feb 2005)

I understand the concern with buy American but sometimes its not possible. We didnt produce enough 5.56mm ammunition so we had to go buy the ammunition overseas. The defense business has shrunk considerably from say 30 year's ago. Like the rest of industry 
they have gone to outsourcing and just in time delivery. This is why it is important to order spare parts[for example] regularly to keep the contractor's busy. If they cant stay busy they will get out of the defense business. A shipyard cannot survive on 1 ship order once in a blue moon or the odd refurbishment they must have steady orders. For example the CPF should have been marketed aggressively in the export market to keep the yard busy and to keep costs down for future ship orders. Sometimes a critical defense industry just needs to be subsidized or it will disappear. Once its gone it never comes back.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Feb 2005)

I agree. Here is a link to that seems to blame poor planning and miscommunication on the 5.56mm ammunition shortage that we had last year.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1056371/posts


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Feb 2005)

I am reminded of another ammunition shortage due to "peacetime" planning.

In World War I the Brits ran out of Field Gun ammunition in the early months of the war.  Even during later years, one of the reasons for the lulls between offensives was the need to stockpile artillery rounds.   At the outbreak there was both indequate stockpiles and inadequate industrial capacity to meet the needs.  The capacity never really caught up with demand.

This is often put at the feet of "bad" planning.  But in part the problem was that all sides prepared for one war (they all saw the situation roughly the same - a war of manoeuvre on an open battlefield with the offense dominating - strikes me as vaguely familiar now I write it down) but ended up fighting another one entirely as they ended up playing to their enemy's weaknesses and not his strengths. Unfortunately all sides had the same weaknesses because their planning and preparations started from the same appreciation.

The plans did not survive contact.....


----------



## bossi (4 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Not to mention the AV-8 Harrier series by Hawker-Siddeley (Now BAE) and the ongoing involvement of Brit firms in developing the JSF.
> 
> Oh, and I almost forgot, the Royal Ordnance 105mm light gun, the Royal Ordnance 81 mm mortar, the FN MAG GPMG and the FN Minimi SAW, as well as assorted 9mm pistols.   I am sure there is more out there.



Good points.  In the "big picture", sometimes it helps to keep industry "hungry" ...
(i.e. the danger of "buy domestic" is that business is business - greed knows no national boundaries ...)


----------

