US Presidential Chopper

Yup. The American aerospace industry is going broke for lack of business and our government buys airplanes from a foreign country. It doesn't make sense. You used to hear the phrase, "Buy American", quite a bit. So many people bought stuff from overseas that American companies went out of business. Now, there is precious little left to buy that is made here.
Darwin

We sold out our areospace industry when the government not only screaped the Avro Arrow progeam but had the aircraft and all plans for it shredded.

I wouldn't be too hard on the American helicopter industry because of this selection. Let's face the fact: the S92 and the US101 are two completely different helicopters. It's like comparing a Jet Ranger to a S76: if you don't have any financial restraints, you buy the big one. That doesn't mean you think that the smaller one is of poorer quality.
If, at this point in time, Sikorsky would have had a 'copter on the shelf that was just a tiny bit bigger than the 101, I guess Sikorsky would have won the selection.
But can you blame Sikorsky for not having a larger size helicopter?
EHI is/ has been trying to sell the 101 to offshore-helicopter operators and has been completely unsuccesfull in this field. Possible clients probably find it too big and too expensive. The S92 on the other hand has already attracted a reasonable amount of orders from civil operators, and in the long run I would bet my money on Sikorsky selling more S92's than EHI selling 101's.
For most users the S92 has a handier size and price.
Regards, Gertjan

Dont forget that Canada bought the 101 as the Cormorant , the replacement for the Labrador.
What may not have come to your attention in the US/Canada was that Ireland was to have been the first S92 Mil operator until an investigation into the procurement process found that there were dirty dealings afoot and the order was cancelled.
One has to wonder about the Canadian buy considering that the CF are supposedly more than happy with the 101.
Greasy palms all around !

The hardest thing to realize is that because of security issues none of us will ever know what the real requirements are for this thing. There is no way to know what was the deciding factor in the decision.

Also realize that the whole "Buy American" idea is very dangerous. We export far more military equipment than we purchase. If it were to turn into a Fortress US vs Fortress Europe I think we would lose more than we gained.

Martin has pledged to hire 7,000 workers for the manufacturing of the helo, that probably had alot to do with it as manufacutring jobs are down in the US.
Was Sikorsky going to revamp the Sea king or push the Jayhawk? Remember the first president Bush didn't think that crawling on your knees inside Marine One was very presidential.

Don

Hi-
In my experience, whatever the requirements are, as long as the designs are in the "competitive range" then the decision comes down to price. Whatever company will make the best deal wins, regardless of the technical issues. Of course, since the process of costing is not really an exact science, there are always overruns, and it ends up costing more at the end than was in the proposal.

But, either helo is good news for us here at Pax River. They have started construction on a new hanger for them when they come here for flight testing. Keeps us employed at least.

Regards,
Phil

It may not be the popular choice, but I personally think it was the right one. I think the aerospace industry was pretty much doomed no matter what, due to the ever increasing debt incurred with developing new craft, and also the dwindling of contractors. Some pretty big names, Ben Rich among them, predicted this would start happening years ago. They knew the government wouldn't be able to allow the surviving companies to go away, so the choice of who wins what contest would become increasingly political, instead of being based on quality. And I think that was the fear with Sikorsky getting the job.... A lack of good competition, or a competition that's over before it begins, isn't a good motivator. Why try to provide the best product you can, when you know you'll get the job no matter what.

And I think they also did this to send out a signal to a certain company who thinks they have the new tanker contract nailed down no matter what... I'm sure this choice has put a little more fear in them, which up until now, they probably never thought AirBus was a true threat.

Dave
-DPD Productions - Aircraft Reference Photo CDs-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/

I really don't have a problem with the decision going to a foreign design. I think the two contenders were probably pretty evenly matched, but the 101 had history to it whereas the 92 was a new (read as: unproven) design with bugs that needed to be weeded out. I think that Sikorsky management may have become complacent with their status in the industry and instead of pushing the virtues of the 92, they marketed it based on "buy American" which in some ways was a cop-out (especially since they too had foreign partners on the project).

I am starting to read that timing may have played a major role also. They want the new helo ASAP and the US101 is far closer to being ready for flight test.

I live in CT less than 25 miles from Sikorski and have a few friends employed there.
This has been a real big issue here as can be expected. But the irony here is this.
The parking lot at Sikorski has a vast majority of imported cars parked there. So I ask when back in the 80s the UAW was asking Americans to buy American Yaddy yaddy to support American workers you still saw all the imports in American factorys parking lots. Like them when I buy a car I buy for the best value for my $$. The US Navy is just doing the same thing that so many of us do. ( Bang for the Buck ). Another way of looking at it is "what goes around comes around". Sounds bad but that's life in America nowdays. If Sikorski could give the Navy what it wants for the right price I'm sure they would have won the contract.

Hmmm, the 'foreign' car I drive was built by US workers in Ohio. The 'American' minivan driven by a co-worker was built in Mexico. It is hard to tell these days...

Yes, our government is pretty dumb... scrapping the Avro, cancelling the heilcopters and what not. It's just sort of a HUGE BURN that the president is doing that.

Stealthdrake, The imported cars you and I drive were "Assembled" by Americans in Ohio, The off shore company that owns these companies still gets most of the bucks and we get less creative and more dumb.. I'm as guilty as the next American for this indescretion. I can't really afford the same quality in an American "Made" vehicle that I am getting for less$ in a similar import...And yes I do beleve American vehicles are on par quality wise with the imports now. But they still cost more .
For us to say Toyotas or Hondas etc assembled in the States are American made is like saying the Tamiya Kit I built last week is American made.. Our Government should be buying the best for our Military which deserves only the best regardless of who made it.. It's sad but we really don't "make" much of anything any more. We're becoming a nation of assemblers.

Don't forget butchy that assembly, or as we call it, systems integration is the hard part. In this case the airframe itself is not where the true value comes from. The electronics and software make or break it. Those details will be handled here in the states. Also the airframer will sell the aircraft and be done with it until it is time for a mid-life upgrade. The systems integrator will be involved through the life of the system and typically be involved with many upgrades over the life of the system.

As far as cars goes, competition is good. If we did not have the folks overseas kicking us in the rear occassionaly we would be stuck driving the equivalent of the K-car.

I have a car that was assembled in Vermont, with an engine made in Mexico, brake system made in Australia, a radio made in Japan, and air filters made in Canada. Okay...that's cars.

Let's take the AV-8B Harrier. Overall assembled in St. Louis (until production line closed), front part of the fuselage made in the U.S., rear fuselage made in the U.K., Avionics for the LITENING II pod developed and tested in Israel. Aviation is getting to be a very global industry. To get the best for our Warfighters, the equipment gets tested at Pax River, MD; Edwards AFB; Wright-Patterson AFB; China Lake, CA; Nellis AFB; NAF Fallon, NV; and for USMC helos don't forget HMX-1 in Quantico. If it passes the requirements for the military, then good. I do think that logistical considerations (spare parts) should be taken more into consideration during the contracting process. What good is a new system with no parts to fix it? I've seen this time and again with Naval Aviation. Off my box...

Speaking of the Arrow, you could also mention the TSR2 and IAI Lavi, projects that were all cancelled due to American political pressure.
When it bites back , it bites hard !

Another example of a great design that Politics killed was the F-5G/ F-20 program in the 80s.. That plane was "Too Hot" to sell to MAP Countries but we ended up selling them F-16s and F-18s ??????? Go figure.