 |
You need to login
to edit this page
|
|
|
The New Marine One
By LT Todd Vorenkamp, USNR, © 2006
Article originally appeared in Rotor Review magazine - the quarterly
publication of the Naval Helicopter Association.
Copyright Naval Helicopter Association (NHA).
www.navalhelicopterassn.org
Reprinted with permission of NHA and the author.
For the first time in the history of presidential rotary wing transportation, the President of the United States’ primary helicopter will be that of an aircraft designed in Europe.
In a decision that surprised many aviation experts, the US Navy named the Lockheed Martin US101 as the winner of its VXX competition to replace the Sikorsky VH-3D Sea King currently flying with HMX-1, the US Marine Corps Presidential support squadron. On the loosing side of the competition was the favored Sikorsky VH-92 Superhawk.
Reporters rushed to the press and internet after the announcement. The Washington Post was especially cruel stating, “Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. -- maker of the president's helicopter since the Eisenhower administration -- lost its parking spot on the White House lawn yesterday.” A few weeks later, on Valentine’s Day, a Business Week article on the internet was titled, “Marine One, Sikorsky Zero.”
The VXX competition was announced with a proposal request for a new executive transport from Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) on 18 December 2003. Proposals were due on 2 February 2004 and the winner was supposed to be announced soon after. After several delays the date of 28 January 2005 was chosen. The contract requires that the winner deliver the first of 23 helicopters in 2009.
Aviation experts speculated on why the Lockheed Martin design won the $6.1 billion contract. Geography, geopolitics, and just plain politics played a part in many theories.
Experts focused on 1) aircraft size, 2) number of engines, 3) price/schedule/availability, and 4) embracing the new “global economy” with one third of the Lockheed Martin helicopter being built in Europe by Operation Iraqi Freedom allies.
Analysis:
1) The US101 fuselage is 1/3rd larger than the H-92’s cabin. It is obvious that most executives would prefer a larger executive transport. The larger size may have made the US101 more versatile when it came to interior configurations and requirements. The drawback of larger size? The US101 does not fit into the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy where the VH-92 does. Both aircraft fit into the Boeing C-17 Globemaster II. C-5 Galaxy compatibility was not a requirement of the VXX proposal. In its news article detailing the decision, Aviation Week and Space Technology’s 7 February issue reported that the Navy stated that the US101’s larger cabin was “not a deciding criterion.”
2) The US101 is equipped with three turboshaft engines. The VH-92 has two engines. The consensus in the media and aviation press was that three engines are better than two when dealing with combat damage and engine failures.
The drawbacks of a three engine aircraft over a twin are higher fuel consumption, higher operational costs, more engine maintenance, and greater aircraft weight. According to a 10 January 2005 AW&ST article, Sikorsky claims that two engines, vice three is an operational cost savings of 50%. Lockheed Martin rebutted that it was closer to 20%.
Rebutting some media speculation was Tom Laux, a civilian serving as the Navy’s program executive officer overseeing the VXX competition, quoted in AW&ST’s 7 Feb article saying, “We took a look to see if, in fact, a three-engine platform offered potentially more safety, and we could find no data.”
3) The $6.1 billion contract consists of $2.5 billion for development and $3.6 billion for 23 helicopters. The US government is supposed to give Lockheed an initial installment of $1.6 billion. According to the Teal Group, in an article from Rotor & Wing magazine, the S-92 costs $12-15 million versus $23-$45 million for the EH101. In the 7 Feb edition of AW&ST, Navy acquisition chief John Young said the VXX decision was based on “the Lockheed Martin streamlining proposal because it was judged more likely to meet these government requirements on schedule, with lesser risk, and at lower cost.” Young continued, saying that both aircraft met the performance specifications but “Lockheed started at a point that was closer to the requirements, [therefore…] they had less work to do, so that obviously let them bid potentially lower.”
4) Today’s economy is a global economy. The VXX program appeared to some as a battle, not between two aircraft, but one between European versus American manufacturing and technology, with a dash of politics thrown into the mix.
The US101 is a European design. The aircraft on which it is based, the EH101, was designed by Augusta Westland and manufactured and marketed in Europe. Augusta Westland entered a partnership with Lockheed Martin to market the EH101 for buyers in America. According to most industry sources, the US101 version of the EH101 has rotor blades built by Westland in England, and a transmission built in Italy by Augusta. Contradicting this is the 7 Feb AW&ST article which stated that US Navy civilian Tom Laux claimed that two-thirds of the aircraft was to be built in the US with the fuselage and rotor blades being built in the UK and the dynamic components in Italy. [Ed. Note – How does the fuselage, rotors, and dynamic components only add up to 1/3 of a helicopter?] The article went on to say that “[Lockheed Martin] officials are mum to say about when and how assembly will transition from Europe to Bell Helicopter’s facility in Amarillo, Tex.” According to the US101 website, over 200 subcontractors in 41 states will assist in the aircraft’s production. By Lockheed Martin’s own statements, the helicopter is “65%” American.
The Sikorsky S-92 began life as an American helicopter with a decidedly global flavor. Five global partners from China, Brazil, Taiwan, and Spain, and Japan were involved in the civilian S-92 manufacturing. They were replaced (and reportedly upset) by American subcontractors when Sikorsky chose to submit an all-American aircraft – referring to their proposal as “The All American VH-92 Team.” Sikorsky hired subcontractors in the US to provide the parts which previously came from the commercial S-92’s offshore suppliers and then focused its marketing efforts on the fact that it’s helicopter was “Made in the USA.”
Sikorsky argued that in a post 9-11 world it was crucial for the security of the president that the aircraft be entirely manufactured by American workers in America. The statement appears to be more administratively based than manufacturing based. Anyone coming into contact with direct presidential support missions must have special security clearances. Sikorsky, already supporting HMX-1, has those clearances already. Lockheed Martin has many as well, but the issue of issuing these clearances to Italian and British workers caused alarm for some.
The decision to purchase foreign designed aircraft for the armed forces is not a new one. The US Coast Guard purchased European designed aircraft choosing the Dassault Breguet Falcon 20 as its HU-25 Guardian, the Aerospatiale SA365 as its HH-65A Dolphin, the Augusta A109 as the HH-68 Stingray, and the Augusta A139 as its new Deepwater SAR helicopter. Other offshore designed products in use by today’s US military include the Army’s C-23 Sherpa (Shorts 330) the Navy’s T-45 Goshawk (BAE Hawk), the Navy’s C-26 Metroliner (Swearingen SA227 Metro III), and the new Navy/Air Force Beech T-6 Texan II (Pilatus PC-9).
The VXX decision was the second US military contract won recently by Lockheed Martin with a foreign designed aircraft. Several months ago Lockheed Martin won the contract for the Army’s Aerial Common Sensor submitting a version of the Brazilian Embraer EMB-145.
The national content of the two competing aircraft was the most explosive political issue in the debate over the choice of transports. This caused the politicians to chime in.
On 20 December 2004 the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania newspaper – The Patriot News – retired US Congressman Robert Walker, who’s former constituents stand to gain with the US101 selection, incorrectly stated that the Sikorsky design originated in China, Taiwan, and Brazil [they were subcontractors, not design originators] and then went on to say that the determining point of the decision process should be the purchase of a combat proven military helicopter over a relatively new civilian helicopter which “does not meet as high a standard.”
Sikorsky’s website counters by saying that its aircraft surpasses all helicopters built before it by being, “the only aircraft in its class certified to the rigorous FAA Part 29 requirements, incorporating the latest specifications for flaw tolerance, bird strike capability and turbine burst protection.” In 2002 the Sikorsky S-92 was awarded the prestigious Collier Trophy. The trophy is awarded by the President of the United States for "the greatest achievement in aeronautics or astronautics in America, with respect to improving the performance, efficiency, and safety of air or space vehicles, the value of which has been thoroughly demonstrated by actual use during the preceding year." The only other helicopter to win the trophy was the Hughes AH-64A Apache in 1983.
On 17 Feb 2004 a Gannett News Service article said that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), a regular passenger on the VH-3D Marine One, stated that after flying through poor weather in an EH101 she was convinced that the Lockheed Martin design was larger and could defend itself better than the VH-92 saying, “It has proven defensive capabilities.”
Gannett also reported that Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) made a call to then Secretary of State Colin Powell to promote the Lockheed Martin helicopter.
In the same article, Connecticut Representative Rob Simmons called for Sikorsky to match Lockheed Martin’s marketing “dollar for dollar” to protect the Connecticut company from loosing an edge in the competition simply because it was not playing the media game to the same level of the competition.
After the decision to select the Lockheed Martin proposal the Connecticut lawmakers came out in full force. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) was quoted in The Washington Post saying, “This competition is about making sure that ‘Made in America’ still means something. What kind of statement do we make to the American worker if we outsource Marine One? It is one of the most enduring symbols of our country, now tarnished.” She is currently pursuing legislation which will mandate that any presidential helicopter will be 100% US made.
Post contract announcement, Senator Clinton was quoted by the Associated Press saying, "The US101 will provide the president of the United States with a state-of-the-art-helicopter ... an Oval Office in the sky.”
The Washington Post also quoted California Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He said, “This decision is all the more unfortunate given the continued atrophy of the Untied States helicopter industrial base. The European helicopter manufactures already have a commanding position in the global helicopter marketplace.”
On 7 February The Weekly Standard said that Representative Hunter stated, “it is difficult to understand why we would us U.S. tax dollars to fund development of foreign helicopter technology.”
Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) was quoted in jewishsightseeing.com as saying, “The Navy’s decision today on the Marine One contract is not just disappointing – it is outrageously wrong. It insults Sikorsky’s workers and management, who earned the right to build the President’s helicopter. As I said from day one, our Commander-in-Chief should fly in the very best helicopter made in America – and the only one that meets that standard was Sikorsky’s.” Lieberman continued that the “decision to go with second best raises real questions about the fairness of the decision-making process.”
Outside of the politicians there was lobbying by former US Marine Corps pilots. Lieutenant General Fred McCorkle, USMC (Ret.) wrote an editorial in AW&ST’s 15 November 2004 issue. General McCorkle was the Marine Corps deputy chief of staff for aviation – the senior USMC aviator. General McCorkle’s editorial stressed that the decision on which helicopter to purchase for the President should be the best aircraft, not the most American one. McCorkle flew both the EH101 and the S-92 and said, “Of all the great aircraft I have flown, the EH101 is the best and most capable helicopter ever, so it is time to put politics aside and select capability and dependability.”
Colonel Fred Geier, USMC (Ret.) now working with Sikorsky, rebutted the General’s column in the 29 November AW&ST. Colonel Geier tackled all of General McCorkle’s points and stated that the EH101’s mishap rates are worrisome and that the H-92 flies further than the EH101 with a higher payload. He also said that the H-92 is 15 years more advanced than the EH101 who’s design process started in 1980. The Colonel also cited the problems the Canadians had with their variant of the EH101.
The Canadian government purchased the Italian built EH101 to replace its aging CH-113 Labrador (CH-46 variant) helicopters for the overland SAR mission. The Canadians designated the helicopter as the CH-149 Cormorant. The Cormorants have had their share of growing pains being grounded twice for fuel problems and then grounded in October of 2004 after seven months of flight restrictions for tail rotor cracks. The Canadian aircraft, only recently allowed to resume non-mission flights, have also had problems with cracked windscreens and console brackets.
The Canadian Armed Forces recently selected the S-92 to replace the aging Canadian fleet of Sea Kings in the maritime patrol mission. The Sikorsky aircraft will be re-designated the CH-148 Cyclone in Canadian service. The contract totals $3.8 billion dollars for 28 helicopters, training, and support.
On 3 February representatives from the US Navy met with Connecticut lawmakers and Sikorsky representatives to discuss the reasons that the Lockheed Martin proposal was chosen over the H-92. According to a Sikorsky press release the Navy indicated that the Sikorsky design was the “best performing aircraft” and was “fully compliant.” The Navy indicated that the US101’s cabin more closely met the needs of the President and that the Lockheed proposal had a better chance of being delivered on schedule to the Marine Corps.
There are now hopes that a victory in the presidential helo competition will pave the way for Lockheed Martin to win the US Air Force’s Personnel Recovery Vehicle competition to replace its aging Sikorsky HH-60 Pavehawks and possibly gain a foothold in future US Coast Guard Deepwater modernization programs.
Back to VXX Program
|
|
 
|
