New Helicopter for the President

D

Dr. O

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
2,410
Location
Hemlock, MI
Display Name
Display name:
denny
The only word that can describe my reaction is Gobsmacked :hairraise:

1.25 BILLION Dollars to build 6 new helicopters for the President :mad2:

Have we lost our collective minds?


Wait - I take it back.
That was a stupid question.
 
Dr. O said:
The only word that can describe my reaction is Gobsmacked :hairraise:

1.25 BILLION Dollars to build 6 new helicopters for the President :mad2:

Have we lost our collective minds?


Wait - I take it back.
That was a stupid question.
Click to expand...

Well, it's better than the last effort killed in 2009 that cost $3.2 billion and didn't produce a single helicopter.
 
Dr. O said:
Have we lost our collective minds?


Wait - I take it back.
That was a stupid question.
Click to expand...
No -- in the context of helicopters it's right on point. Though it might be a cyclic argument ...

:D

But seriously, folks ... even at that, POTUS would be several years behind the Prime Minister of Turkey. I got this photo of his S-92 over Istanbul in 2009:

090619_0%2520%252829%2529.JPG
 
Last edited:
Much of this is the voters fault. Allowing contractors to keep adding cost overruns, lobbyists paying off congress. On and on. The F 35 is a total disaster but keeps on keeping on, not to mention the osprey which even Cheney, one of our biggest spenders tried to cancel.
 
$200 million per helicopter, sounds just a tad on the high side. :mad2::mad2:
 
That's nothing. Originally it was 23 helicopters and 13 billion. They do need new aircraft though. Can't keep patching up H-3s forever.
 
N747JB said:
$200 million per helicopter, sounds just a tad on the high side. :mad2::mad2:
Click to expand...

Taxpayer money... who cares how much it costs? It's free to the government officials managing it.
 
N747JB said:
$200 million per helicopter, sounds just a tad on the high side. :mad2::mad2:
Click to expand...

The total contract is 23 helicopters for 130M a piece.

The current largest transport helicopter they make is 17M a piece.

Making it fit for POTUS isn't cheap, but it's still hard to explain 113M in upgrades to a 17M helicopter.
 
Pilawt said:
No -- in the context of helicopters it's right on point. Though it might be a cyclic argument ...

:D

But seriously, folks ... even at that, POTUS would be several years behind the Prime Minister of Turkey. I got this photo of his S-92 over Istanbul in 2009:
Click to expand...

But it defies the collective logic.
 
rwellner98 said:
The total contract is 23 helicopters for 130M a piece.

The current largest transport helicopter they make is 17M a piece.

Making it fit for POTUS isn't cheap, but it's still hard to explain 113M in upgrades to a 17M helicopter.
Click to expand...

It has a laser disc player in the back and the seats can swivel. This stuff doesn't come cheap.
 
rwellner98 said:
Making it fit for POTUS isn't cheap, but it's still hard to explain 113M in upgrades to a 17M helicopter.
Click to expand...

How can you possibly say that without knowing the specs?

Redesigning a turbine engine so it can handle a higher load or faster speed or more hostile environment can easily get up there.

But I guess it's easier to criticize in a vacuum.

And you're presuming an existing helicopter. Is that so, or isn't it? What, exactly, is the mission these will satisfy? It's not just personal transport (Air Force 1 isn't either).
 
I costs a lot of money to design a helicopter with the ability to contain all that hubris.
 
Matthew said:
They travel in a group so you don't know which one is the real Marine One.
Click to expand...

Ah, okay.

Actually, I always thought that would be a more secure method for ground transport than the usual motorcade. Put him in a U-Haul between the guy selling sausages from an old Good Humor truck, and the 103-year-old lady with the rickshaw full of cans to turn in for the deposits.

-Rich
 
Matthew said:
They travel in a group so you don't know which one is the real Marine One.
Click to expand...
Plus when he travels abroad helicopters can be in multiple countries ready to go during country to country trips
 
Didn't Augusta Westland get that contract a couple of years ago ?
 
Art VanDelay said:
Sikorsky now. S92 - nice helicopter but not very impressive HOGE.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a pattern here. US manufacturer loses DoD bid. After political intervention, contract gets re-bid with moved goalposts and now the contract miraculously remains domestic.
 
Velocity173 said:
Can't keep patching up H-3s forever.
Click to expand...


Why not? Sounds cheaper to me than spending $200M a copy, to rebuild indefinitely.

And I really don't give a flying **** if POTUS has "the latest and greatest" tech. I drive old cars.

He can too, until he gets his Congressional buddy's credit card problem under control.

(Doesn't really matter which Party he or she is a member of. **** him/her. You get the old station wagon until you've saved up your pennies to but a new toy and all the other bills are paid. Maybe next time you won't give it all to AIG execs. LOL.)

I was taught as a kid that we don't have royalty here. Sadly, that's not what I've seen.
 
denverpilot said:
Why not? Sounds cheaper to me than spending $200M a copy, to rebuild indefinitely.

And I really don't give a flying **** if POTUS has "the latest and greatest" tech. I drive old cars.

He can too, until he gets his Congressional buddy's credit card problem under control.

(Doesn't really matter which Party he or she is a member of. **** him/her. You get the old station wagon until you've saved up your pennies to but a new toy and all the other bills are paid. Maybe next time you won't give it all to AIG execs. LOL.)

I was taught as a kid that we don't have royalty here. Sadly, that's not what I've seen.
Click to expand...

Traveling by car without motorcade privileges would be a quick way to focus everyone on what impedes taxpayer productivity.
 
denverpilot said:
...SNIP...

I was taught as a kid that we don't have royalty here. Sadly, that's not what I've seen.
Click to expand...
Lords and serfs, and I'm pretty sure where I am. And it doesn't matter how much I make or what I own, there are people out there trying to take it all away; legally.
 
denverpilot said:
Why not? Sounds cheaper to me than spending $200M a copy, to rebuild indefinitely.

And I really don't give a flying **** if POTUS has "the latest and greatest" tech. I drive old cars.

He can too, until he gets his Congressional buddy's credit card problem under control.

(Doesn't really matter which Party he or she is a member of. **** him/her. You get the old station wagon until you've saved up your pennies to but a new toy and all the other bills are paid. Maybe next time you won't give it all to AIG execs. LOL.)

I was taught as a kid that we don't have royalty here. Sadly, that's not what I've seen.
Click to expand...


Actually they're reporting now that they'll be $400 million per aircraft. It would appear that this original $1.2 billion report wasn't all that truthful. That's just to get the program started and 2 Sikorsky prototypes built. Ultimately 23 will be built at a total cost between $16-17 billion.

Why can't you keep maintaining H-3s? Same reason why they got rid of them in regular units. They don't have the capabilities of newer aircraft and lack of parts. Now I'm not advocating a $400 million dollar aircraft at all but they do need something newer and more capable. In my opinion they could have just upgraded their H-60s at a fraction of the cost.

The argument really isn't about needing a new aircraft, it's about how our contracting system has spiraled out of control. Depending on who you talk to the F-35 is or isn't being more capable than current fourth generation fighters. What's undebatable, is the price being paid for the F-35, regardless of what it can do, is outrageous. It's taken 20 yrs from drawing board to service, coming in too heavy, over cost, and multiple flaws. Sadly the days of the 120 day P-51 wonder are long gone and our defense will suffer because of it.
 
Will the current POTUS fly in these new helicopters? will they be done before the end of his term?
 
jhausch said:
Will the current POTUS fly in these new helicopters? will they be done before the end of his term?
Click to expand...

No. They won't enter service until 2020. Hillary will be the first to try them out.
 
This is why aviation is so expensive, government keeps running up the price by paying any amount to accomplish even the simplest mission, I.25 billion dollars to give our president a ten minute helicopter ride now and then..... It gives us a preview of how our cost of health care will go now that government has taken it over.

-John
 
Velocity173 said:
Actually they're reporting now that they'll be $400 million per aircraft. It would appear that this original $1.2 billion report wasn't all that truthful. That's just to get the program started and 2 Sikorsky prototypes built. Ultimately 23 will be built at a total cost between $16-17 billion.

Why can't you keep maintaining H-3s? Same reason why they got rid of them in regular units. They don't have the capabilities of newer aircraft and lack of parts. Now I'm not advocating a $400 million dollar aircraft at all but they do need something newer and more capable. In my opinion they could have just upgraded their H-60s at a fraction of the cost.

The argument really isn't about needing a new aircraft, it's about how our contracting system has spiraled out of control. Depending on who you talk to the F-35 is or isn't being more capable than current fourth generation fighters. What's undebatable, is the price being paid for the F-35, regardless of what it can do, is outrageous. It's taken 20 yrs from drawing board to service, coming in too heavy, over cost, and multiple flaws. Sadly the days of the 120 day P-51 wonder are long gone and our defense will suffer because of it.
Click to expand...
Wayyyy too logical and sensible, let's move on ( as the F35 debacle reaches close to a trillion. )
 
RJM62 said:
Why does he need six?

-Rich
Click to expand...
Two for him and his entourage,
Four for Michele and her entourage.
They could probably get by with fewer if they traveled together.
 
Doesn't bother me in the least we moved on to to spending vapor money a long time ago.
 
RJM62 said:
Why does he need six?

-Rich
Click to expand...

Because of reliability, you need at least six or the odds are you won't have one actually working when you need it! They're helicopters for God's sake!
 
Dr. O said:
The only word that can describe my reaction is Gobsmacked :hairraise:

1.25 BILLION Dollars to build 6 new helicopters for the President :mad2:

Have we lost our collective minds?
.
Click to expand...

Yes. I think it happened due to the high degree of specialty and the low purchase volume. But that's nuts. We should buy fewer for even more $, who cares because our kids and grandkids will have to pay - not us. Woo Hoo!:hairraise:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top