Sikorsky loses, Lockheed wins contract President helicopter

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 29 Jan 2005, 19:50

Sikorsky loses, Lockheed Martin wins contract for US President's helicopter.
Since the military will operate it, I post the item here?

Sikorsky supplied presidential helicopters without competition since the Eisenhower. Donald Rumsfeld discontinued the project in February, 2004.

Lockheed Martin won the $1.6 billion Navy contract.

Remember this Schumer tells Secretary of State Powell that Lockheed's US 101 is best for presidential chopper contract because of its proven track record, larger cabin, three engines for additional flight safety, and Lockheed's giant reputation in the field'

And this: Dallas (January 4, 2000) - Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control - Frank L. Powell III has joined Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control as vice president - Naval Munitions.

Who flies these presidential helicopters? The Marine One fleet?

Like they say in the Netherlands, we do not give them money, we give them well-paid jobs.

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 29 Jan 2005, 20:16

With the problem canadian army EH-101s encounter and the "Americans want an US buit chopper", I have to admit I gave only few chance the US-101 to win. It's a good new for Agusta-Westland.

Seb.

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 31 Jan 2005, 08:03

The next logical step is now to replace those silly tiny 747 persidential transport planes with proper A380s.

BelugaBrain · Post by **BelugaBrain** » 02 Feb 2005, 23:31

earthman wrote:The next logical step is now to replace those silly tiny 747 persidential transport planes with proper A380s.

Well Said but what would he put in it

What does he put it in the 747-400

I think An Airbus CJ would work fine

I would have one

And what is the matter with the choppers he's all ready got?

8)

Big head

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 02 Feb 2005, 23:36

The Sea King are olds now, and have to be retired.

Seb.

20seven · Post by **20seven** » 05 Feb 2005, 01:13

earthman wrote:The next logical step is now to replace those silly tiny 747 persidential transport planes with proper A380s.

No thanks on the government subsidized equipment. We have enough shame in the fact that our Navy dept. chose a problematic helicopter designed in Europe and built by a US company that has never even built helicopters before. Nice time to let Lockheed start making helicopters!

The heads of state in England and Italy don't fly in US aircraft so why should our prez have to fly in a european copter just to appease Europe over the Iraqi war?

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 05 Feb 2005, 11:06

Oh please, European governements bought tons of US made aircrafts/copters. (KC-10, KC-135, C-130, JSF, F-16, AH-64 etc...)

Italy and UK participated in the war in Irak. Italy just bought KC-767 instead of KC-330. BTW, EH-101 operating well now.

That's normal US have to made some efforts too!

A&C edito (in french, sorry):
http://www.aerospacemedia.com/acxml/?Page=edito

Regards

Seb.

20seven · Post by **20seven** » 05 Feb 2005, 18:36

HorsePower wrote:Oh please, European governements bought tons of US made aircrafts/copters. (KC-10, KC-135, C-130, JSF, F-16, AH-64 etc...)

Italy and UK participated in the war in Irak. Italy just bought KC-767 instead of KC-330. BTW, EH-101 operating well now.

That's normal US have to made some efforts too!

A&C edito (in french, sorry):
http://www.aerospacemedia.com/acxml/?Page=edito

Regards

Seb.

Yes, I concur that from the 50s-80s the US had pretty much a monopoly on western military aircraft. But we have purchased or co-developed European models, Marine Harrier, Coast Guard Dauphin, and likely a couple more. But it is certainly an imbalance from the number that the Europeans have purchased from the US and thus yes we should purchase or integrate more aircraft from across the pond. That said, as I stated previously your Heads of State do not fly in foreign designed aircraft. Why? because it is good policy to promote what's made where you represent.

On another note I am dying to see why the Navy stated are reasons for increased national security reasons. Sikorsky has had in place for 50yrs all necessary security for supporting Marine One. And as far as the aircraft, three engines are unnecessary unless you're hauling something like a HUMVEE below. Completely unnecessary for just carrying passengers and extra avionics. The costs of maintaining an extra engine are going to be in the millions over the years (I used to be a maintenance officer, I know). The S-92 has breakaway fuel sponsons while the 101 carries it right underneath the passengers! Certified to the latest FAR regulations, and a super quiet cabin (albeit smaller).

SicilianFalcon · Post by **SicilianFalcon** » 05 Feb 2005, 18:45

The heads of state in England and Italy don't fly in US aircraft so why should our prez have to fly in a european copter just to appease Europe over the Iraqi war?

Give me a break, Ive read two posts from you so far and they are hilarious, Europe doesnt need apeasement from the Usa because most of Europe didnt join in the Ill thought Middle eastern adventure, Im sure if it was up to the citizens of the countries that did join and not upto Mr bushes buddies (Berlusconi, Blair etc) there would have been no backup.

Back to the topic of the Helicopters, If the Agusta Westland product is so bad and The USA is so superior why has it given them the contract?

[/quote]

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 05 Feb 2005, 18:47

I don't know about the Sikorsky S-92/US-101 specs. Also, I don't know the price the 2 manufacturers offer to the white house (the marines in fact). No doubt both give a fairly price 'cause prestige of transporting the US president.

Actually, we spoke here about 23 machines.

Regards

Seb.

20seven · Post by **20seven** » 05 Feb 2005, 21:14

SicilianFalcon wrote:
The heads of state in England and Italy don't fly in US aircraft so why should our prez have to fly in a european copter just to appease Europe over the Iraqi war?
Give me a break, Ive read two posts from you so far and they are hilarious, Europe doesnt need apeasement from the Usa because most of Europe didnt join in the Ill thought Middle eastern adventure, Im sure if it was up to the citizens of the countries that did join and not upto Mr bushes buddies (Berlusconi, Blair etc) there would have been no backup.

Back to the topic of the Helicopters, If the Agusta Westland product is so bad and The USA is so superior why has it given them the contract?

[/quote]

More like appease England and Italy for coming along. And your stance is just the sort of European, hypocritical, arrogance I speak of. As for your statement if going to Iraq was up to Europe's citizens they wouldn't have gone, that doesn't surprise me at all. European countries didn't even do anything to stop the genocide going on in it's own backyard (Bosnia) for years. Appeasement of Hitler by allowing him to occupy the Sudetenland, gee you have a history of turning a blind eye from problems. So quit taking a holier than thou attitude.

As far as the 101 I never said it was bad... I said it was problematic.

SicilianFalcon · Post by **SicilianFalcon** » 05 Feb 2005, 22:18

Clearly a blinded American.

Your war had nothing to do with liberation and freedom for Iraq citizens so dont spout a load of trash. You cant find those big bad "Wmd's" so you try and make it look to the world that you are now liberating a country, Only problem being they dont want you there, your troops dont want to be there and the rest of the world can see what a joke it is. Zimbabwe needs liberating why dont you set your sights on Zimbabwe? Oh wait Zimbabwe doesnt sit on Billions of dollars worth of Oil. Iran on the other hand does

and you have the cheek to say Europe is hypocritical?

Wake up to your own hypocrisy, maybe if your president did he would notice why everyone hates his dumb ass.

8)

liebensd · Post by **liebensd** » 05 Feb 2005, 22:42

This topic is going a little bit too far. You can always open a new topic about " US Presidential helicopters".

Greetz,

Dave