-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Marine Receives UK Distinguished Flying Cross
- Thread starter KBayDog
- Start date
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Outside of the Presidential Fleet, we're not buying them.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
Is it really "right" to call it a Lockheed product? Yes, Lockheed is doing the integration, but it's build by Augusta Westland, and it seems like there are about a billion different companies with their fingers in that contract. Lockheed, Augusta Westland, Bell, etc...
Probably not much different than the current helo. Yes, the VH-3 shares some simlarities with the HH-3, but it is also VASTLY different. Methinks the contracts to support that one are sizeable...
As "right" as calling the new Boeing 787 a "Boeing." Interesting article on this subject. It seems to me that global manufacturing/supply is going to be the norm.
I think the presidential helo program will have a small population of aircraft and the overall program cost will be less than the H3. Mostly because of obsolecence issues of the H3 and the DLR support.
We've already exhausted the growth potential for the -71, even with upgraded engines, xmsn, and tail rotor.
I don't know who told you that about the folded foot print, but they need to put the crack pipe down. It still might need a partial disassembly just to get it in a C-17.
I agree it has a lot of potential in the CSAR mission, the RAF guys are generally pretty happy with it. There is still a small chance that the USAF could end up with them, if the GAO findings push them to re-compete the CSAR/PRV contract. Their acquisition guys/civilian leadership do not want to re-compete, but a lot of the operators and the GAO want them to. I think it won't happen, but you never know. This is a decent summary of the protest, but life-cycle costs aren't the only issue: LMSI and SAC had a lot of other complaints.
Looks like the AF is looking at a re-award rather than a re-compete, but the ball is in the GAO's court.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/03/gao-re-csarx-recompete-the-contract/index.php#more
I guess my point is that it would be a true medium lift helo, as opposed to the Hawk Series, which is a utility helo that many try to use in a medium lift helo role.
Presidential Helo
It is exactly correct. Lockheed is the "prime" contrator and therefore gets "top billing" just as the AV-8B and T-45 were also originally British products, but are now built and known by Boeing name. The reason Lockheed is the prime in this case is that US companies (by Congressional Mandate) have to be the prime on DoD contracts like this and therefore get their name on the resultant product. Typically, a license production line is set up in the states. The reverse situation would be the SH-3, which was also built and evolved separately in the UK by Westland. Lockheed bid the proposal and determines who gets what piece of the pie.
It is exactly correct. Lockheed is the "prime" contrator and therefore gets "top billing" just as the AV-8B and T-45 were also originally British products, but are now built and known by Boeing name. The reason Lockheed is the prime in this case is that US companies (by Congressional Mandate) have to be the prime on DoD contracts like this and therefore get their name on the resultant product. Typically, a license production line is set up in the states. The reverse situation would be the SH-3, which was also built and evolved separately in the UK by Westland. Lockheed bid the proposal and determines who gets what piece of the pie.