Home » Air » Prez Helos Flying Black Soon?

Prez Helos Flying Black Soon?

By Colin Clark Friday, March 4th, 2011 9:39 am
Posted in Air, Intelligence, Naval, Policy, Rumors

When Defense Secretary Robert Gates put the presidential helicopter program on ice in 2009, he left nine completely built birds sitting in a hangar.

Given the fabulous capabilities required of the VH-71 helicopters — executive protection plus, hardened and encrypted communications gear, all sorts of neat active protective systems — it seemed a bit sad that they would just sit under wraps as a symbol of all that’s bad about Pentagon acquisition. They did, after all, cost $3.2 billion. (We checked around and it’s not clear exactly how many of the VH-71s are completely equipped and ready to fly but it looks like there are at least six.)

Now we hear that one of those agencies that can really use encrypted comms and birds that can do all sorts of nifty things wants to unwrap them and fly them. One of the possible advantages of using these birds is that — if they are flown without US military markings — the modified AugustWestland AW101s can be mistaken for helicopters belonging to a number of nations. Also, these helicopters are used for both civil and military applications.

The late Rep. Jack Murtha said when he was chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee that the Navy had to some way to recoup the $3.2 billion spent on the first tranche of the cancelled VH-71 presidential helicopter.

We don’t know any more than this, but it would seem a reasonable use of some very expensive hardware with top of the line capabilities and a way to recoup those cost. Perhaps just the thing for flying close to the Pakistani border.

Join the Conversation

	bill March 4th, 2011 at 9:41 am What a boondoggle. Buy Sikorsky.
	@Brianckramer March 4th, 2011 at 10:34 am SF insertions and Combat SAR would be good uses.
	YanniT March 4th, 2011 at 10:39 am Yeah because the S92 is a proven airframe. Just ask Canada (Cougar crash, CH148 4 year delay) and north sea operators (perennial MGB foot cracking).
	TruthShallSetYouFree March 4th, 2011 at 10:41 am This program is a failure. Bury it and forget about it. The only thing resurrecting it will do is prolonge the agony. It is a LIE to refer to the 9 current helicopters as ‘complete’. They are prototype aircraft. Testing & evaluation of the helicopters is not complete. They are worthless unless they are verified by appopriate authority that they meet the operational requirements for the mission they were designed for.
	GetReal March 4th, 2011 at 10:41 am Keeping the program alive as a lower cost science project might be interesting to some, but it will not bring us any closer to a replacement Marine One, which was supposed to be the justification for this program in the first place. As such the existing unit costs are not useful. Given the program’s stop work and production break, if the program is resurrected, the costs will soar further. We need to start again on a replacement for Marine One, based on a lower risk incremental improvement over the existing helicopters strategy. The entire concept of active protection system for presidential helicopter is nonsense. We need the helicopters for a short flight to Air Force One. We do not need a combat zone presidential helicopter. We would get more national defense bang for the buck by investing the dollars elsewhere. We need competent engineering authority to validate that systems have “top of the line capability”, not journalists.
	TruthShallSetYouFree March 4th, 2011 at 10:46 am MH-60 Pave Hawk has armament, so it can defend itself if it is attacked. Why, on Earth, would aircrew and Special Force operators want to attempt missions in a prototype aircraft designed to carry the President from White House to Andrews, when there are existing platforms that have proved their usefulness in combat operations?
	Ron March 4th, 2011 at 11:17 am Hey Truth. Stop lying to yourself. Those aircraft (101’s )have been flying in combat zones for 12 years. More successfully than our own CSAR MH-60’s. $3.5B spent of tax payer money and the NAVY (NAVAIR) couldn’t take an operational helicopter and make it work!!! COME ON! Sounds like the process failed, and not a single government employee was ever held accountable for the failure. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.….. Just because a product wasn’t design in the US doesn’t make it inferior. Look at the car industry.……
	REALLY!!! March 4th, 2011 at 11:33 am GetReal-It was the “competent engineering authority” who couldn’t take a flying helicopter and keep it flying in the first place. Right now every aircraft program the Navy touches suffers the same symptoms; Behind schedule, over budget, and can’t do what they want it to do.… V-22 — 20 years to develop, H-1’s re-baslined several times, JSF enough said, H-53K re-baslined once already, even the F-18 E/F was re-baslined before it succeeded to touch on a few. Right now, I’d trust the journalist more!!!
	@Brianckramer March 4th, 2011 at 11:35 am Well, it can carry twice as many troops twice as far, has active protections (anti-missile) technology, has secure comms, has advanced avionics, night vision and I’m assuming upgraded armor against small arms. You’re right, we should just leave ‘em sitting in a hanger. the Eh-101 variants are used by a bunch of our allies, and have proven reliable. It’s not a protoype.
	TruthShallSetYouFree March 4th, 2011 at 11:41 am I’ll accept your judgment that the AW101 a perfectly fine helicopter. But the VH-71 is a different system. How do we know all the electronic gear added doesn’t cause the helicopter to jam itself? We do not know until we have completed T&E, VH-71 has not completed T&E.
	TruthShallSetYouFree March 4th, 2011 at 11:43 am By competent engineering authority i was refering to the OSD DOT&E. The Services can dream all they want to about what they think are good systems, if they cannot get the DOT&E to sign off, then they will fail again and again.
	momomimamo March 4th, 2011 at 11:47 am how many president USA have? 26 helicopters? no serious, that ‘s absurd. Need buy 2 or 3 helicos for the president, and buy chinook with modification (like one mini airplane) for all others politics But when we will make the show.…
	TruthShallSetYouFree March 4th, 2011 at 11:48 am I accept your judgment that the EH-101 is great, but VH-71 is a different system. The 9 purchased VH-71’s are not production models. production systems have completed T&E. All your claims of its capabilities must be verified. We’ve fallen victim to the marketing claims too many times. and you didn’t address the armament issue.
	Weaponhead March 4th, 2011 at 11:51 am Should be fun to watch the Chinese bid on this: “State-owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) is preparing proposals, in partnership with existing partner US aviation services group US Aerospace (USAE), to bid for the US Navy’s VXX helicopter programme and the US Air Force T-X project to procure advanced jet trainers (AJT).” Better not copy and paste the KC-X evaluation criteria…
	TEA March 4th, 2011 at 12:02 pm I know according to several articles on the subject, the VH-71s in question were flying helicopters waiting to have cabin interiors put into them when they got to the States .….. Why not let another agency have them to accomplish what the Navy could not? Being a tax payer, I’d like to see us get something other than excuses for the $3.5B already spent on them. WHY NOT? Just so the Navy can save face?
	REALLY!!! March 4th, 2011 at 12:07 pm Still sounds like the SYSTEM is failing the customer and the Tax Payer. DOT&E needs to evaluate the actual mission paradigm as well. They accepted a 747 as AF-1 for goodness sake, but wouldn’t accept a combat helicopter? Doesn’t make practical sense. AGAIN, these aircraft were perfectly fine for several other operators OT&E authority?
	TruthShallSetYouFree March 4th, 2011 at 1:01 pm Trying to get something out of the $3.5B mistake takes the focus off of the justification for the program: getting a replacement for Marine One. The longer we try to salvage failed programs, the longer it takes to satisfy the real mission requirement. Rationale people take Sunk Costs out of decision making equation.
	Pug Mahone March 4th, 2011 at 1:27 pm There’s a certain individual in Libya that might take one of those choppers off the Navy’s hands real soon. Price is no object!
	JP1 March 4th, 2011 at 1:34 pm Why do we waste so much money on our president? Why on Earth should we buy him 23 helicopters? 23!!! It takes about 800 marines to look after his current fleet of helos. Does Air force One need to be a jumbo jet? Does he really need to take a couple of C17s with a helicopter and limo everywhere he goes? No other western country goes to such extremes.
	Really!!! March 4th, 2011 at 1:42 pm Truth-Wasn’t the point of the article that another Gov’t agency is interested in using the helicopters and the $3.5B spent by the Gov’t wouldn’t be wasted? It wasn’t about actually about the merits of the Marine One program or salvaging the VH-71 for Presidential. For the record, disregarding Sunk Costs is a NAVAIR buzzline.…. Probably why their system is so badly broken.……
	TruthShallSetYouFree March 4th, 2011 at 2:01 pm if another govt agency wants prototypes with unverified performance, then whatever. I take exception to trumpeting the merits of the helicopters when the technology is not verified, which was in the aricle. disregarding sunk costs is not a buzzline, it is a best practice little used in the federal govt. as far as your cheap shot about why their system is so broken, I don’t engage in speculation. As far as this system, whatever you mean by that term, being broken, the root cause is human error. There are many more issues besides Sunk Costs.
	Really!!! March 4th, 2011 at 2:56 pm Unverified performance?.….Do some research. Those aircraft are Production aircraft and there are several media articles that show 100’s of hours of flight testing completed by NAVAIR. ON AN AIRCRAFT THAT HAS BEEN FLYING FOR MORE THAN A DECADE! Disregarding sunk costs is a best practice?? Who are you kidding? If you took that approach running something other than a Gov’t program, you wouldn’t be in business very long. Maybe the “System” needs to go back and evaluate their purpose for being; to serve the customer, not just covet their processes System = NAVAIR Systems Command In deed, the Truth Shall Set You Free.……
	TruthShallSetYouFree March 4th, 2011 at 3:14 pm EH-101 and VH-71 are not the same thing. VH-71 has not completed testing. We do not have verification that VH-71 works. DOT&E has not signed off. USD AT&L has not authorized MS C. VH-71 was only under SDD contract, no production money was ever used. VH-71s are prototypes. You don’t understand. It is smart to disregard sunk costs when measuring costs and benefits of alternatives when making a decision. Sunk costs trap you into not quitting a failed endeavor. DoD does not do enough disregarding of sunk costs, rather they use sunk costs as bait to get deeper into a failed endeavor.
	FormerDirtDart March 4th, 2011 at 3:23 pm Weren’t the only aircraft produced from Increment I, thus lacking a lot of the high-speed “executive protection plus” systems?
	Really!!! March 4th, 2011 at 3:35 pm We are going to have to disagree. The VH-71 Airframe (helicopter) was a flying asset when they arrived in the States. They may not have all the systems or cabin for Presidential use, but as a helicopter that another agency can place into service, its a worthwhile endeavor rather than let perfectly good helicopters rot in a hangar. Disreagrding sunk costs simply make it far too easy to abandon a project rather than working find a path to solve the problem and get a measure of utility. ie. 80% solution becoming operational is far better than the 100% solution never becoming operational.
	Anonymous March 4th, 2011 at 3:37 pm Kind of like saying the LRIP V-22’s were worthless.….
	TruthShallSetYouFree March 4th, 2011 at 3:40 pm I urge everyone to read the Congressional testimony about the VH-71. Lt Gen Trautman is quite clear the program didn’t meet cost, schedule, or performance requirements. The report also states the Navy has been using these as test aircraft. As test aircraft, they have been subjected to environmental conditions that makes their operational usefulness questionable. http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS22103_20091125.p… There is a reason why MS B and MS C are separate. Concurrent development and production is nonsense. We must demand that DoD plan acquisition programs correctly, the taxpayer & warfighter deserve a system with integrity.
	TruthShallSetYouFree March 4th, 2011 at 3:50 pm it doesn’t matter what they were when they arrived, what matters is what they are now. they may have some salvage value, but there are no assurances of any of their performance. they were used for test, including EQT, so anyone that wants to use them is taking unknown risks. and terminating a project is not just about sunk costs. if the project is hopelessly screwed, it makes no sense to hang on to it. weak thinkers try to use the sunk costs as justification to hold on to a sinking ship.
	TruthShallSetYouFree March 4th, 2011 at 3:51 pm it’s nothing like that at all! and LRIP aircraft have completed testing, VH-71 increment 1 never completed testing.
	FormerDirtDart March 4th, 2011 at 3:55 pm No, it’s kind of like saying the article infers the aircraft are packed with all sorts of whizz-bang gear. Giving them “fabulous capabilities”, which may not be the fact. Are the aircraft of some use? Of course they are. They may be of very limited value though. They are likely decked out as VIP aircraft after all. But by all means, someone should be flying the damn things.
	???? March 4th, 2011 at 5:34 pm “(We checked around and it’s not clear exactly how many of the VH-71s are completely equipped and ready to fly but it looks like there are at least six.) ” If atleast six of these things are fully equiped and ready to fly, and have been paid for… Then why are they just sitting in a hangar???? Why arent they doing the mission they were built for??? I only ever see 3 VH-3D’s flyin the prez around DC .. I’d rather see 6 out of 9 flying then 0 out of 9 after 3.2 billion spent..
	roland March 4th, 2011 at 9:06 pm This is why the country’s budget is in whakadodo, We (the country) now have 14.18 trillion dollars national dept. This is serious.
	subutai March 4th, 2011 at 10:47 pm Vice president Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld hastened the development of the VH-71 after the 9/11 attacks and the run up to the invasion of Iraq. They envisioned a multi-billion dollar fleet of instant flying command centers, built from the most advanced helicopters on earth, that would give full situational awareness 24/7 and be ready to fly the president and vice president to safety at the slightest sign of Al-Qaeda. With built in espresso machines and leather seats. Sure, we can rig the VH-71 to fly in the dusty mountains of Pakistan, but that would be like paying for a ten thousand dollar a night hooker to clip your fingernails.
	FormerSikStress March 5th, 2011 at 1:24 am I grant that I am biased, but I was privy to some of the development of the VXX. The nine prototypes are not very different from stock EH101s. They do not have all of the advanced capability gadgetry that the final models would have had. This is public knowledge, for those curious enough to dig through public records. They also do not meet all of DoD’s airworthiness standards. This is not to say they are inferior or unsafe, just that they were never certified to those standards. The Phase II aircraft required a great deal more engineering, and some possible redesign, to meet those standards that all military helos meet. They need the numbers though. It doesn’t just fly from the white house to Andrews — that’s just the part you see on the news. Ever notice that he steps off marine one in one part of the world, then hours later steps off again on the East Lawn? Think a helo can make the jump thru hyperspace? By all means get some use out of –71s. They aren’t ******, the VXX program just got completely out of control. But rebid the whole replacement program, realistically this time.
	Oblat March 5th, 2011 at 5:14 am I hear the plan is to crash them all into a active volcano. It’s going to be a big contractor party with $10,000 bottles of champagne and free hookers to celebrate another profitable project. And the big announcement at the end will be the launch of the next failed project for the Presidential helicopter.
	jay March 5th, 2011 at 8:20 am Anything with Murtha’s fingerprints on it stinks. Did not know you could get hookers to trim your nails–thanks for the info.
	mogul456 March 5th, 2011 at 10:40 am It’s my understanding that Boeing has bought the design plans for the 101 about 6 mo ago. I would assume they plan to build it for a future recompetition. Why not just sell Boeing the 9 craft and let them bring them up to specs? I’m sure they would be happy to buy them for a song and turn a neet profit.
	Dfens March 5th, 2011 at 11:45 am Yet again the US taxpayer dumps $3.2 billion on a program and gets nothing for it. I would feel sorry for you idiots, but there really isn’t any point. You are too stupid too be allowed to keep your money. The defense contractor, Lockheed in this case, took that $320 thousand in profit from you in broad daylight while you watched, and no one said a thing. Let’s always pay contractors profit on development. Clearly it works out very well for them. Bob Stevens will deposite his $34 million he “earned” running this scam on you idiots again this year and he will laugh all the way to the bank. Must make you proud to be Americans.
	Dfens March 5th, 2011 at 11:47 am Sorry, Lockmart made $320 MILLION in profit off your stupidity. My bad.
	momomimamo March 5th, 2011 at 12:00 pm buy one montgolfier, ecology is modern
	William C. March 5th, 2011 at 1:53 pm Dick Cheney is going to be there and once we are done with the main event we are going to mess around with his Haliburton hurricane machine. According to you I should have enough money to buy a gold plated 747 for myself to get there, so I’ll go ahead and do that.
	Willam C. March 5th, 2011 at 2:00 pm How is a mishandled procurement program the American people’s stupidity? It’s the stupidity of politicians, lousy project managers, and crazy requirement. My preference would have gone towards a Sikorsky helicopter but by the end of the program they wanted to jam so much stuff into that AW101 airframe that they would probably have done better if they used a CH-53E.
	Ed Bowers March 5th, 2011 at 4:36 pm Putting them to use makes too much sense. And as he has demonstrated BHO definitely lacks that most important quality. Why use something that has already been built and paid for? Now some may start to understand the type of leadership we’ve got in Washington.
	John March 5th, 2011 at 5:43 pm finally — someone weighs in who isn’t an SAC employee or a member of the CT delegation…thank you
	maryam choufany March 6th, 2011 at 12:20 am GOOD EVNING my felow americans : Wiseman is watching during the last 7 months some spyyyyyyyder enterd in. be carfullll when you recrude the moslime behaeees in your system, specially in sub contraactor companies like drs .truely yours.
	WTFO! March 6th, 2011 at 6:37 am We aren’t just another western country! Whether it’s Obama or “Joe Blow” the President of the US of A represents the might and majesty of this great nation to the entire world and that I feel need never change because now more than ever we need to show the world we are the leaders and enforcers of deomcracy and freedom. When AF 1 rocks up around the world, the world knows the mighty USA is in town!
	Dfens March 6th, 2011 at 2:38 pm Who lost money and who made money, dimwit? Did a single politician lose money? Did a single defense contractor lose money? Did a single program manager lose money. No, they all made money off this fiasco. The only one that lost money and got nothing in return was the US taxpayer. You people are too stupid even to know when you got screwed. How could you possibly know what to do about it?
	Oblat March 7th, 2011 at 4:13 am Bill isn’t a taxpayer he’s a defense industry PR flack trotting out the same old lies about how anybody but defense contractor greed and incompetence is to blame. It’s the oldest trick in the book to jack up prices with change orders. The DoD needs to stop trying to herd these vermin and start just exterminating them if they don’t perform. The whole industry is riddled with graft and corruption, even the lowest worker has a criminal mindset. Until we see defense contractors go bust because they failed to deliver (just like in any other industry) these debacles will continue.
	Dfens March 7th, 2011 at 8:52 am William C a defense shill? Yeah, it doesn’t take much to figure that one out. With a $700 billion dollar pie at stake, the defense establishment doesn’t leave a lot to chance. If you’re not mad as hell about the way these companies are abusing your tax dollars then you’d better get mad as hell in a hurry. If they started fixing this dorked up system right now it would just about be too late.
	William C. March 7th, 2011 at 9:05 am Tell me what “enlightened” nation your from so I can pick apart what is probably an equally disastrous history when it comes to defense procurement? Your solution to the problems we see is to cut, cut, cut, and leave us with nothing. That isn’t a solution and certainly isn’t an indicator of intelligence.
	BOOMER March 7th, 2011 at 9:21 am To me this is all BS if any president is worth a grain of salt then all this extra protection would not be needed anyhow — it is all for protecting him from disgruntled Americans not foreign terrorist. If hes that afraid of the public then he knows he is doing a bad job and needs to resign or risk the bullet as some have done in the past. And this applies to any president — not just the current one either. Terrorist can get what they need to blow him outta the sky or off the road with no problem — the American public is all they are trying to prevent from getting to him. Do your job correctly in the best intrest of the people rather than business as usual and you should be able to walk down the street and get slapped on the back rather than in the face.
	Steve March 7th, 2011 at 10:36 am Somebody fly them! The U.S. Coast Guard is so short on H60 airframes that I’m sure they could equip atleast one air station with these.
	Dfens March 7th, 2011 at 10:47 am It is a “wild conspiracy” to think that a defense contractor will act in their own best interests? Is English your second or third languge?
	William C. March 7th, 2011 at 1:18 pm It is a wild conspiracy to think their best interest isn’t to actually be producing these aircraft. People aren’t just sitting around and playing minesweeper all day.
	Gary March 7th, 2011 at 3:41 pm Why is it that a US Contractor, can Plan, Develop and Build an Aircraft (or anything as far as that goes), while Under USA Contract, Being paid USA Taxpayer Moneys, and in the end… Call it “Theirs” , to do with as they want (Highest Bidder). When I was in the service, I was UNABLE to ‘Pantent’ Anything I did. Granted the Suggestion I submitted did not creat GREAT Saving (Money Wise) .. But a suggestion I submitted and was approvd save ’ SIX fellow Crew Members” But as luck would have it… “””””” I Worked for the Military… So therfore anything I thought or createed Belong to them”
	circle8 March 7th, 2011 at 3:47 pm Just another for the white house and the congress to screw the taxpayer. Wonder how much of a payoff that congressman disgrace murtha received?
	Dfens March 7th, 2011 at 4:11 pm Yeah, that’s really a wild conspiracy theory. Let me educate you. If you’re going to be a proper shill, there are some things you should know about the way these contracts are set up. Of primary relevance here is the fact that the “award fee” is negotiated for the entire program. There is not an “award fee” for development, test, and evaluation (DT&E) and a different one for production. It is usually about 10% (although contractors have been working hard to get it as high as 15%). Now look at the risk. There is little risk in development. Nothing flies during development. It is just computer models and ink on paper. No matter how much development stretches out, the contractors always get about 97% of award fee during this period. Production is another thing. There’s lots of machining of metal, laying up of composites, and creation of tooling that all has to work in order for an airplane to come together, even if it doesn’t fly.
	Dfens March 7th, 2011 at 4:12 pm Then, ultimately, it does have to fly. Try getting 97% of your award fee with an airplane that doesn’t fly. Oops. Hardly the same risk environment as you had in development, is it? But the profit margin, the “award fee” is still the same. So you figure it out, smart guy, is there more profit in development or production? They stopped B-2 production at 20 airplanes so they could develop the F-22. They stopped the F-22 production at 183 airplanes so they could develop the F-35. Crusader, they didn’t build any of those. Oh well.
	William C. March 7th, 2011 at 6:33 pm First of all, the bulk of the money doesn’t start moving until production begins. Then there is the matter that designing an aircraft and ensuring it will fly takes time and involves a lot of engineers and the like who need to get paid. You don’t just sketch an outline on CAD and call it a day. It is more than computer models and ink on paper too. You have mock-ups, wind tunnel testing, initial radar cross section evaluation, and then you get to the stage of building a prototype. That has to be done without that whole production line set up. People aren’t just sitting around stuffing millions into their suitcases. I’ve never heard of a single example where the guys doing the design work were told by the higher-ups to screw things up and work slower to increase profits.
	William C. March 7th, 2011 at 6:49 pm For the company as a whole there is still more profit in production. When there is a contract for 3,000+ aircraft on the line that is a lot of money to be made. Yes there are many more people being paid and many more companies involved but a successful program ensures the involved companies are likely to continue to receive government contracts. Plus in many cases it gives an opportunity for the company to expand. First of all the B-2 and F-22 aren’t even comparable. The B-2 program was cut from 132 aircraft down to 21 due to the collapse of the Soviet threat and all of that. As a result the cost per bomber ballooned horribly. Who is this “they” you speak of? Northrop offered to build more B-2s but such proposals were rejected. With the F-22, the USAF wanted 381 aircraft. Lockheed wasn’t arguing against this. Yet DefSec Gates wanted more F-35s instead and seems to think we only need one type of fighter. Crusader was canceled by Rumsfeld and others due to a change on doctrine led by the whole Future Combat Systems program. Lets be clear. All of these programs you mentioned were killed by political and doctrine related issues. Not by defense contractors saying “we think you should build this instead.”
	Dfens March 7th, 2011 at 11:56 pm The bulk of the money is in production at the beginning of the program, not at the end. How many F-22’s were we going to buy at the beginning of that program? 700 or so? Over the 25 years of development they swapped aircraft for development many times and then ended the program at 183 aircraft so the F-22 production would no longer be a threat to the F-35 development program. You can play the shill and pretend this isn’t so, but I’m sure more than just one person has seen the pattern emerge. At least I hope there is more than one person in this country who doesn’t deserve to have his money taken from him.
	Dfens March 7th, 2011 at 11:59 pm Yeah, what a remarkable coincidence how all these programs were cut just before or just after entering production. Next you’ll be telling me that risk plays no part in a company’s profit margin. I was born at night, but not last night. Maybe there are a few more Americans that can say the same. There certainly have not been enough of them to put an end to this madness, so I guess you win again, Mr. Shill. Enjoy your 30 pieces of silver. That’s the going rate, right?
	Dfens March 8th, 2011 at 8:27 am Of course, if you were more interested in the defense of your country than it kissing the ass of your contractor masters, Mr. Schill, you might recommend that we at the very least change the contracting rules so that contractors make less award fee during development and more during at least the initial phase of production where risk is highest. Personally, I’d recommend we subtract 3% of the award fee from the development phase and add it to the first 1/3rd of the production phase of the contract. I mean, I’m just thinking here, but what we don’t want is endless development. What we do want is actual weapons. So why not at least shift some of the award fee money to get the defense contractors to do what we want them to do? But that’s just me thinking.
	William C. March 8th, 2011 at 9:25 am Not so remarkable because that is when the government has to start paying the big sums. If you looked at the reasons these programs were cancelled you would see I am correct. B-2 production was cut due to post Cold-War budget cuts largely imposed by the Bush Senior and Clinton administrations. F-22 production was cut down over the years in order to keep the program alive long enough to get to the production stage, but once it made it there Gates and others decided not to build anymore against USAF objections because they believe the F-35 can do it all. Meanwhile the Crusader was cancelled by Rumsfeld because of the whole FCS idea. The XM1203 would have been our future self-propelled howitzer under that program. The answers are right in front of you but instead you insist there is some crazy conspiracy. But I suppose demonizing the defense industry in such a manner suits your goals of cutting down US miltiary strength to size…
	William C. March 8th, 2011 at 9:32 am I’m not an accountant and such numbers are meaningless when they vary so much from program to program. I don’t care what gets paid when as long as the final product is what we need in the numbers we need. If you want real results stop electing your beloved idiots to congress who cut and cancel everything to scrape together some money for their personal interests. Stop getting Defense Secretaries who feel the need to stop everything their predeccessors had running because they have their own “better” ideas. Stop posing these BS scenarios where you can only have A or B rather than some of A and some of B. Then finally read some history. Stop trying to have one fighter do everything for the USAF and USN for example.
	Dfens March 8th, 2011 at 10:58 am Yeah, I’m sure the defense companies would put it in the news if they decided they weren’t interested in weapon production any more, because people would understand that. No sense in looking at what happens. Look at the world the way you want it to be. That will make everything all better.
	Dfens March 8th, 2011 at 11:00 am Well, if you don’t care, why are you flapping your mouth? It is obvious the defense companies care, because this is their bottom line. This is all they care about. Businesses don’t exist to make you happy. They exist to make money. Why is that such a difficult concept for most Americans?
	William C. March 8th, 2011 at 12:49 pm That’s exactly what your doing. You refuse to accept the real issues that lead to these programs being cut and canceled and instead chalk it up to some giant industry conspiracy all of these corporations agreed to enact during the 1990s. It’s far easier to blame a conspiracy than face the complex real issues. You remind me of those 9/11 “truther” groups.
	William C. March 8th, 2011 at 12:52 pm Of course businesses exist to make money. The alternative doesn’t work in the real world. Yet flipping around some numbers will do little to correct mismanagement problems. All of this requires significant effort on the political front, which you seem totally content to ignore.
	William C. March 8th, 2011 at 1:06 pm The ATF program has a long and complicated history. During the Bush Senior and Clinton administrations the EMD phase was stretched out in order to reduce yearly costs (despite increasing the total cost of the program). This was a political budget related situation. The total number to be produced was also cut down over the years, ttyv vvvvbgvvv
	Dfens March 8th, 2011 at 1:08 pm Uh huh, it had nothing to do with the fact that every day Lockheed stretched that program out the made more profit off those development dollars. Because defense contractors do not care about profit. All they care about is making you a happy little defense shill.
	William C. March 8th, 2011 at 1:10 pm Sorry my laptop crapped out on me. As I meant to say the number to be built was cut in order to keep the program alive but this led to major cost per unit price increases. Once the fighter was in production and actually combat capable, Gates decided not to build any more than the number already ordered because he is convinced that one fighter (the F-35) can do it all.
	Dfens March 8th, 2011 at 1:19 pm Yes, flipping around a few numbers does have a huge impact on how business is done. Defense companies did not always make a profit on development dollars. From the early 1970s through the early 1990s these companies were reimbursed for their development expenditures, but got no award fee. In those days we worked our asses off to minimize development time and maximize production. The down side to that approach was the fact that there was little innovation in the products of that era. Any innovation that might cause the development period to be even slightly increased was squashed by management. The other problem was defense contractors did insufficient testing of weapons because they were in such a huge hurry to start turning a profit on production articles. That’s why I’m not advocating a return to a reimbursement only approach to development. There were big problems with that approach. I was there. I know. I guess we didn’t have a lot of jobs for shills in those days.
	Dfens March 8th, 2011 at 1:21 pm The best approach to procurement would be for companies to fund their own development. A realistic near term goal would be to at least achieve some balance in the profit on development vs. the profit on production so we wouldn’t go through these huge development fiascos and come out with nothing. If that’s not practical enough for you to get on board, then screw you. I’m talking about real changes that have a demonstrated real effect on the industry. You think we should do the same thing over and over again each time wishing for a better result. That’s the very definition of insane.
	William C. March 8th, 2011 at 1:26 pm Shill? Look who’s talking. Your convinced the politicians and the Pentagon can do no evil. Your convinced that you did it better “back in your day” and presume everybody today is simply lazy and playing solitaire rather than getting anything done. Your convinced the executives are actually ordering delays and the like. If you don’t want to accept how the change in political climate following the collapse of the USSR ****ed up these programs, fine by me. But don’t go around claiming all of these workers and engineers are lazy scum. That’s BS.
	William C. March 8th, 2011 at 1:36 pm Fund their own development? We’ve seen how well that worked out for Northrop with the F-20. Beyond some minor upgrades what do you think we are going to see? In this economy no company is going to go out and develop their own stealth fighter, get it to the prototype stage, and market it without the guarantee that somebody (the United States) will buy it. If you want real change, your going to need more than just adjusting the way people get paid.
	Dfens March 8th, 2011 at 1:37 pm You remind me of the little baby monkey in Harlow psychology experiment clinging to the terrycloth mother until you die of your own stupidity. Grow up! In the real world companies do what they do for profit. Not to keep you warm and safe. When you offer these companies a profit incentive to screw you, then they screw you. When you offer them a profit incentive to provide good, innovative weapons at a good price and without decades of development, then they do that. A conspiracy indeed.
	Oblat March 8th, 2011 at 1:40 pm >I don’t care what gets paid …or even if it is simply stolen from the the American people. You can see from Bill that the criminal mentality that cost blowouts are perfectly normal and it is always somebody else fault, is deeply embedded in the contractor culture.
	William C. March 8th, 2011 at 1:43 pm So your response to the real reasons these programs were canceled is some amateur psychology bullshit? I think your the one who needs to grow up. It wasn’t Lockheed saying “don’t buy more F-22s” it wasn’t General Dynamics saying “cancel the Crusader”. Contractor greed wasn’t what got these programs canceled. It was the wisdom of our leadership. And the contractors adapt to the situation by coming up with something else and offering that.
	William C. March 8th, 2011 at 1:45 pm Oblat not everybody is some welfare leeching armchair intellectual like yourself. Stop projecting.
	Oblat March 8th, 2011 at 1:50 pm See Bill thinks that the F-20 (a warmed up obsolete F-5 that nobody wanted) was a failure because the American taxpayer didn’t bail the program out. If American defense contractors to stupid to be in the industry then nobody should be paying for them just to stay — lets buy from contractors that aren’t incompetent.
	William C. March 8th, 2011 at 1:55 pm Read up on the F-20 program if you actually want to learn something rather than spewing this inaccurate trash Oblat.
	Oblat March 8th, 2011 at 2:01 pm If you really want to understand Bill just read any of the rants from Russian aparachicks in the 50s about capitalism can’t work. All his excuses are there. They were scared of it too that their cushy no work jobs would be in trouble to if they had to face any competition. And yes anybody who suggested that failed wasn’t good enough was labeled an enemy bent on pulling down the glorious system
	William C. March 8th, 2011 at 2:09 pm Oblat you think everything is failed. The working F-22A at some USAF base? Failed. The latest Arleigh Burke class destroyer commissioned? Failed. How about some solutions rather than just yelling “failed” all the time?
	Dfens March 8th, 2011 at 4:57 pm I’m blaming you for the f’ed up procurement system. It’s your money they are spending. You’re the one that’s getting screwed. Why are you letting these people do this to you? You aren’t just letting them screw you, you’re asking for more. Hell, an aerospace company might use me for 8 hrs a day, but they don’t own my soul.
	Dfens March 8th, 2011 at 4:58 pm Did he call you up and tell you that? I’m sure the two of you are tight.
	Dfens March 8th, 2011 at 5:00 pm Don’t put words in my mouth. I said what I meant to say. Deal with it.
	Dfens March 8th, 2011 at 5:08 pm The failure of the way we procure weapons is actually worse than the failure of the communist approach. In communism, their weapons development process lacks a capitalist incentive to succeed, but those who work for the design politburos still have their nationalist pride that compels them. In our system we have put the capitalist incentives in place for the contractors to do the very thing we don’t want them to do, so they resist building good weapons in a timely manner specifically to increase profit. Even the best intentions of those who would do differently because of nationalist pride are thwarted by the monitary incentives to fail.
	Dfens March 8th, 2011 at 5:21 pm Actually, Oblat, I would say the F-20 is an example of the kind of development I would propose for the future of our aerospace industry. The F-20 was developed at Northrop’s expense and from what I know about it, was an excellent aircraft. The main problem was that without the program watchdogs on the Air Force side, there were no cheerleaders to ensure it got bought. That’s one of the ironies of the procurement system we use. The very people who are supposed to be the watchdogs become the program’s biggest fans. After all, they don’t want to get fired, and that’s what happens to them if they report the truth about a program being a waste of time or a product being a piece of crap. It might be true, but you sure as hell won’t hear it from them.
	WIlliam C. March 8th, 2011 at 5:25 pm I may not agree with all of Gates decisions, but I don’t believe he is in the tank for Lockheed (who I don’t even work for BTW) if that is what your suggesting.
	WIlliam C. March 8th, 2011 at 5:37 pm I have plenty to be outraged about. But the mismanagement of some defense contractors seems like a drop in the bucket compared to the billions spent on wasteful stimulus packages the Chinese funded. I don’t know any CEOs or upper managers where I work, I’m sure they live pretty well. Yet I see no reason to believe those higher-ups or those of other companies are trying to lead their programs to ruin in the hopes of being rewarded the next contract.
	Dfens March 8th, 2011 at 10:27 pm Sarcasm, Bill. I don’t know that Gates is “in the tank” for anyone, whatever that means, but he is obviously more than happy to do the contractors bidding. No doubt he was chosen because he was a solid “team player”. Given his limited imagination, he probably equates that with “doing what is best for his country,” sadly enough for us.
	Dfens March 8th, 2011 at 10:41 pm So does it make you feel safer that the F-22 took nearly 3 decades to develop? Are you going to stick it to the Chinese by making sure the next aircraft development program takes 4 decades instead of 3? I mean, hell, the B-2 was the first of the second generation stealth aircraft and it cost half as much and took half as long to develop as the F-22. Clearly they’re up on the learning curve now, but what exactly is it they’re learning? Obviously not how to make these development programs take less time or cost less. Golly gee, what could they possibly be learning? Maybe how to maximize profit? I mean, that’s just me thinking again.
	Sailor Bill March 9th, 2011 at 2:46 am And everyone knows the Israel was behind 9/11 and all we had to do to end all of the post 9/11 war effort was nuke Israel, according to al Qaeda. Who do you believe?
	William C. March 9th, 2011 at 7:10 am Nearly 3 decades? Nearly 2 is more accurate, although the F-22A is much different from the original YF-22. The early phase of the program was a lot of concept evaluation and considering a wide array of options. The program did not really kick off until late 1986 and the prototypes first flew in 1990. But from there the program entered a maze of politics involving the military, US Gov, and the different contractors involved. The number of players involved, the back and forth arguments in congress, and so forth should be enough to indicate it wasn’t just Lockheed screwing around. Certainly they made some mistakes and poor choices, and perhaps they weren’t properly reprimanded for these. But everybody had their hands in creating such a drawn-out mess. Yes I would much rather have had the program take five years and produce 800+ aircraft for ourselves. It is a damn shame we didn’t build more of them today. But what we got beats getting nothing from the program. The B-2 program took a similar time from prototype testing to active service, and faced many of the same controversy in the political arena. When contractors are guilty go ahead and punish them. Look at how Northrop screwed up all sorts of stuff on several LPD-17 class ships. Fixing that should come from their pocket. Yet there is more to blame than the contractors when it comes to other programs like the F-22.
	Dfens March 9th, 2011 at 8:45 am ATF was started in 1981 and the RFP released in 1986. It wasn’t operational until 2008. The B-2 program started in 1981 and was operational by 1993. You figure it out.
	William C. March 9th, 2011 at 9:56 am The structure of the two programs isn’t exactly comparable. The Northrop/Boeing ATB design was already selected by 1981. Meanwhile the five years of the ATF program were largely design studies and deciding on requirements. The RFP wasn’t released until 1986 and it wasn’t until 1991 when the YF-22 was selected over the YF-23. They didn’t do such a fly-off between two designs with the B-2. The F-22 achieved IOC at the start of 2006. The B-2 achieved IOC at the start of 1997.
	Brian March 9th, 2011 at 7:19 pm For those that hate on the CH-148, you obviously don’t work in the developmental aviation industry. A CH-148 uses only the airframe. The supply chain has to be outsourced to Canada for various mission systems, most of which are also prototypes. It’s FBW so testing of those controls has to be done, envelope expansion tests, avionics mods and software updates and tons of telemetry testing. Every time they make another model testing starts over. FAA required fo certification and DCMA approval by the DoD. Nothing ever get delivered on time. It’s the nature of the beast. MGB issues were settled a long time ago. Besides giving that contract to an overseas contractor would put alot of us out of work, most of who are veterans.
	jason j heitman March 9th, 2011 at 7:57 pm well well did you put the proof in the pudding from lee chae mon
	Capt Bo - VN67-70 March 9th, 2011 at 8:12 pm Hey, let me remind you that wherever Air Force One goes the back-up 747 (to be AF-1 trails) in the event AF-1 has maintenance problems. In addition if travel is out of the country the advance security detail requires 2 additional C-17’s for vehicles, equipt., etc. and another aircraft or two for the detail. Once AF-1 is scheduled airborne, the current security detail is deployed and that is another aircraft or two depending upon the time out of the country. All together there may be 5 to 7 aircraft in the air schedule plus US fighter jets to bingo as protection details. Imagine that in the US alone, Obama is airborne 3–5 days aweek. He has amassed more expenses in travel (in two years) i.e. details/aircraft/equipment/personnel/maintenance/accommodations, etc. than the last 5 US Presidents combined. This guy is having the vacation of his life!!!!
	Richard March 10th, 2011 at 5:18 pm The VH-71 can be utilized for the Presidential assist helicopters ( 1st Helicopter Squadron) get rid if the Huey’s for there VIP hauling and keep the Black Hawks for Presidential transport bedside’s they will always have an HH-53 for escort. That’s a lot of money down the tubes. Utilize the VH-71.
	"Pukin Dog" 01 April 26th, 2011 at 11:32 pm The President never needed a new presidential helicopter. The assholes at Lockheed Martin in Texas, talked their Daddy Bush that Lockheed need more money. This new Platform was a waste of money from the beginning. Take the Helicopters at the LMCO Hanger and give them away or sell them for scrap metal. The give the proceeds to the Widows of our Fallen Hero’s.
	Jet One June 2nd, 2011 at 7:40 pm Agree on the put vets to work! Put the man in new build HH53s AF version with uprated turboshafts, fast, lift, rugged, one does not need to continualy reinvent the wheel
	Bronco46 June 2nd, 2011 at 9:51 pm We have the money to fly Nancy Pelosi’s fat butt around in large military transports, and obama team has added more then 200 limo’s to the fleet on Capital Hill and the White House. But, we have to let these birds sit unused and unfinished, ridiculous! They were built, get them ready and put them to use. I’m not sure what’s with the group of comments this topic has drawn; it seems to have drawn a flock of twits. Most of the commenters here seem to have cut their educations to short, or cut to many classes. A large collection of sophomoric drivel; oblat being on of the worst.
	BeachBum August 19th, 2011 at 4:09 pm “Perhaps just the thing for flying close to the Pakistani border” …sooo, exactly WHAT helicopter was left in Pakistan back in May?
	F35 Insane November 10th, 2011 at 4:29 am How many Hueys we got? BHO is a man of the people. Give him and Michelle 10 Hueys.
	Liam February 2nd, 2012 at 3:30 pm The very idea that we would outsource the POTUS’s helo’s is completly nuts!! it is at the very least comprimising the President of the United States. WE are capable of building our own choppers with out help of the Canadians, or for that matter anyone else. Sykorsky is a good start.

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

Prez Helos Flying Black Soon?

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments