HMX-1 decision

Paul,

From what I've seen, the competition was leaning heavily towards the "US101" and not the S-92, but I haven't heard anything in a few months.

The Navy is holding off the desicion until May 05 because they need more time to evaluate how unique Presidential communications and protective equipment would be integrated into the competing airframes.

Now if you believe that, I've got the deed for the Empire State Building if you want to buy it. They're holding off making the decision until after the election since outsourcing is such a hot political topic. Sikorsky's back is to the wall right now and they know it so they're playing the same nationalism card that's been in heavy rotation for the past three years. The Marine One contract will likely lead to an Air Force purchase of the type as a SAR platform (USCG is a potential customer too) so that ups the stakes even more. Throw in one of two contenders being a "foreign" type and all. Never mind both types were developed by international teams (S-92: Sikorsky with Embraer, Mitsubishi, Jingdezhen and others. US-101 Lockheed/Bell with AugustaWestland and others) And, both will contain foreign content yet both will be built here in the US.

I saw one the H-92 demonstrator in central florida a couple years back at the "Kissimmee International Airport" and over a period of 3-4 days and she spent most of the time running up the engines, taxiing and in low hovers. Why the H-92 was there is anyone's guess. KIS is a GA airport and the only other time we saw a military type around ther was when a Marine F/A-18 had to stop off for a few hours. I'm told it was glitch that actually didn't exist. He gave everyone one hell of a show taking off!

Regarding what Cobrahistorian said, I've too heard that the 101 offers slightly better performance and that's how it's leaning. But how the final decision will go though is still anyone's guess. Regardless, I'm already 75% done with my 1/72 "HH-101D" of the NY ANG 106th RQS.

I hope they go with the S-92. I'm a big fan of Sikorsky, it's products, and it's people. I'd rather see the Commander in Chief riding in one than a Eurocopter. Eurocopter, what could sound worse? I don't think the Yuckocopter would even be considered if it wasn't for Hillary C.

Eurocopter don't make the Merlin.
It's an Agusta/Westland design.
Both manufacturers used to licence build Sikorsky products for decades.
Now they look like taking a major life saving contract away from them.

"Baldrick, do you know what Irony is?"
"Yes my lord, its like Goldy or Bronzy, except it's made out of Iron!"

I recently met a couple of old friends at a reunion, they are now on mobility at Benson (merlins) and they were full of praise for it.
If the Navy / Air Force does buy it they will not be dissapointed.
The harrier and goshawk work just fine!

Eurocopter have an exceptionally good product - thats why everyone is buying them, and I mean everyone.

This is not unlike the controversy of what is or isn't an American car. That Honda Accord you or your wife drives, yes Honda is a Japanese company, but the car was built here in the states by American workers. So is the car Japanese or American?

Would the H-101 be American or European? The H-92, by Sikorsky's own literature, will be a partnership with companies in Japan, Brazil and Europe. F-16s already have major components built overseas and the upcoming JSF will be the same way.

If you want to talk about superior product, It's hard to beat the Sikorsky helicopters. All of those old H-3's have over 13,000 flight hours on their airframes, and still going strong. The big pigs, H-53E's, are expected to last until at least 10,000. The Army swears by their Blackhawks, the Navy has their Seahawks. Sikorsky has been delivering the highest quality helo's to the US Military since WWII. Therefore, it would make more sense to have Marine One, the flagship, also be a Sikorsky. I don't work for Sikorsky, but I'm proud to work on one. Our birds have been to heck and back, and they're still going strong.

Well, as a guy who works out of the back end of a Pavehawk I can tell you that it's not the optimum SAR bird. Hell, sikorsky didn't even approve the mods way back when it was aquired by some quick thinking USAF Helo drivers, when the powers that be were going to let CSAR die on the vine. A few Army H-60's were purchased and sent off for various Mods and the end of the evolution is what we have today. A high performance SAR helo that is built like a concrete reinforced S@$# House, but has no room in the ****** end to work out of, and needed internal Aux fuel tanks to have decent range. BTW, ESSS wasn't the answer since it limits maneuverability, gun azimuth, operations in and around the helo, and airspeed. Hell, ESSS wasn't even desogned to be used operationally. It was intended as a ferry system, but was simply morphed by operational units as the need to extend range became apparent. One of our old H-3/HH-60 drivers summed it up pretty good when he said "The HH-60 in CSAR is like taking a vacation drive in your Porsche with your wife and kids, maid, and family dog".
Now don't get me wrong, I loved the ole' H-3 but it was a pig at altitudes. I loved the room, tons o' gas, range and amphibious hull. But it was just to old. After seeing the -101 and working with some RAF folks that fly the Merlin I'm in favor of that becoming our new CSAR Helo in the USAF. I might add that's the view of almost everybody in the community.
Now I've worked out of MH-53J/M's and there pretty nice as well, but the MX types will tell you that they are maintenance intensive birds. Something like 11 hours of maintenance for every hour of flying time. BTW Riddle I heard the exact same thing about the Marine 53's as well. But the Big Iron is definately a nice bird to work out of.
The other thing to consider is that the -101 is already out on the streats being used operationally. Many of the bugs will have been identified and worked out before decision time for the HMX-1 or USAF future PR vehicle . I'd love for the government to keep Sikorsky in business, but I'm also an NCO and want the best gear for the mission and for my men (and women).

Ridleusmc, I'm not dogging Sikorsky; on the contrary, I think they've got a lot to be proud of. As a Macintosh user, I can appreciate your devotion to them. I've got two on my desk (I retired the old iMac to use as an mp3 server), I can't imagine life without my iPod. I use iTunes to listen, purchase and mix custom CDs with. iPhoto, iDVD, etc. All my graphics applications run great with this machine and the operating system (Panther) has never crashed. I even made sure my new celphone was Bluetooth compatible so I could wirelessly sync it with my address book and calander. I think that Macs are a superior product; I've been a Mac user for 10 years now and I'm never going back.

For Apple to get to this point where things run so smoothly, they had to up their game. In the mid-90s, before Steve Jobs came back, Apple licenced out their operating system to third parties who built non-macitosh computers. The dark days of the Mac Clones. They were a complete Charlie-Foxtrot and they lost market share yet again. Then when Jobs came back he introduced a (still growing) series of hardware and software that has managed to improve the products as well as take back some of the market. Hell, he even buried the hatched with Bill!

Point is - Apple had to up their game to stay in the business and Sikorsky may have to do the same. I don't think the -92 is a poor machine. I just think that for the HMX and SAR roles, it could use a kick in the pants. I'm disappointed that they would try to trade on the "Made in the USA" claim. That even came back and bit Wal Mart in the @$$. That kind of marketing point really should be the icing on the cake. And trust me, I'm not a big fan of the Senator from Arkansas, oops - I mean New York. But any Senator, regardless of party, would be campaigning for a project built in their district. I recently learned that one of our Senators approved funding for the V-22 because - guess what - one of the suppliers is in his home town. All politics are local.

I'm still with the S-92. It's a better aircraft in performance and supposedly comfort. As far as what's foreign and what's domestic, the gear boxes and airframes for the S-92 will be made in Stratford, Conneticutt. Another thing is tech support. Would you rather the Commander in Chief or HMX-1 need to rely on tech support from a foreign nation? Sikorsky does an awesome job after the sale. The company can be relied upon, and HMX-1 already knows them.

I saw the Merlin at work off the coast of Egypt. Quite frankly, it looks like the cab was smaller than an S-92. Plus, it seemed to strain under relatively light external loads. Granted no HMX bird with ever external very much, but it took it as a sign of weakness. Weakness as in Power to weight. I work on 53E's, which are maintenance intensive, but lets me know that Sikorsky understands horsepower. I think it's pretty important that the President's bird have some ponies incase a quick exit would be needed.

I understand that you can TALK to the person next to you in the S-92 while it's in flight.

Ultimately, It may all hing on who wins the election. The Senator from Arkansas (oh New York) and her party will support one, and the other party will support the better aircraft from the better company. Which happens to be the company that has been gaining experience of presidential support since Eisenhower's Administration.

Interesting article...

"Fight for Marine One contract grows intense";
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/101804nj1.htm

Cheers,
Albert

I think they should scratch both ideas and use an OH-6

What are the pros/cons on these birds as far as air-tranportable? Do you need a C-5 or two just to get take them with the president? That might have an impact on which one gets the contract as well. Just a thought...

QUOTE: Originally posted by albymoore Interesting article... "Fight for Marine One contract grows intense"; http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/101804nj1.htm Cheers, Albert

Very interesting article indeed... He brought up some interesting points about manufacturing.