Ajay - Sorry - but to us Americans we feel carrying the US President is a critical mission. Check out the Merlin in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRnEshtGxfI

Posted by: Jim at July 24, 2007 09:48 PM

Re the danish returned a/c: I think that the RAF and joint helo command are screaming for airframes and the danes new build eh101s are the best that we can get. The danes were having some difficulty coordinating their roll out, and spare and training were running about 2 years behind delivery for the utility variant, so they've very kindly indicated that they'll take delivery of another batch sometime around 2009 and let us play with the new toys now. Note that they are holding on to their SAR birds though- the danes like the eh101, they're just being very helpful to a slightly overstretched RAF tactical airlift community.

One argument I have heard against the eh101 is that its higher disk loading means it puts down a phenomenal down draft. Some claim this puts it at greater risk of brown out and makes it less suitable for FIBUA support. However, this is hardly a problem limited to this a/c- pace the stats for brown out incidents for chinnies in the 'ghan.

Posted by: ant at July 9, 2007 07:12 AM

D K Simpson, it concerns us ;)

Cheers.

Posted by: Marcase at July 8, 2007 06:19 PM

George,

I remembered the Canadian (political) choice regarding the S-92 / EH-101, but didn't want to bring it all up. Thanks anyway for your clarification mate.

(Off topic - we Dutchies are mighty glad the past Canadian government decided to sell your Chinooks to us, they provide sterling service in Afghanistan - bugger that we now are forced to sell our Leopards to you)

Interesting point brought up: IS the EH-101 being reconsidered for the CSAR role? The bid has been reopened hasn't it?

Posted by: Marcase at July 8, 2007 06:15 PM

Many readers seem to be arguing the point about the helicopter being British rather than American in origin without looking at the bigger picture, the aircraft performance and capabilities, the ability to keep the crew and passengers safe etc. Surely there the biggest considerations? After all the relevant organisations looked at everything on the market and decided on the best helicopter to do the job.
Look at the facts, the British have been flying Merlin successfully now for a few years with little problem, the helicopter has performed well and is presently the most advanced aircraft of its type, bar none.
Every argument on here seems to have been about the choice of the Merlin over the S-92, so let’s look at the facts;
The Merlin carries 30, the S-92 only 22
The Merlin has a range in excess of 750nm the S-92 only 475nm
The Merlin has 3 engines compared to the S-92 2 engine configuration meaning better redundancy (and thus overall safety)
The Merlin has been combat proven in Iraq and the deserts of Afghanistan and come through with flying colours, the S-92 has not
The Merlin has the most advanced cockpit of any in-service helicopter and makes the cockpit of the S-92 look like a WW2 era machine (Ok maybe not that old!)

Posted by: Wren at July 8, 2007 09:08 AM

Many readers seem to be arguing the point about the helicopter being British rather than American in origin without looking at the bigger picture, the aircraft performance and capabilities, the ability to keep the crew and passengers safe etc. Surely there the biggest considerations? After all the relevant organisations looked at everything on the market and decided on the best helicopter to do the job.
Look at the facts, the British have been flying Merlin successfully now for a few years with little problem, the helicopter has performed well and is presently the most advanced aircraft of its type, bar none.
Every argument on here seems to have been about the choice of the Merlin over the S-92, so let’s look at the facts;
The Merlin carries 30, the S-92 only 22
The Merlin has a range in excess of 750nm the S-92 only 475nm
The Merlin has 3 engines compared to the S-92 2 engine configuration meaning better redundancy (and thus overall safety)
The Merlin has been combat proven in Iraq and the deserts of Afghanistan and come through with flying colours, the S-92 has not
The Merlin has the most advanced cockpit of any in-service helicopter and makes the cockpit of the S-92 look like a WW2 era machine (Ok maybe not that old!)

Posted by: Wren at July 8, 2007 09:07 AM

Is this platform being considered at all for CSAR?

It looks like it would be a good size fit.

Posted by: Joe at July 7, 2007 01:53 PM

To whom it might concern. I flew in the test EH-101 in Patuxent River Maryland and dealt with the S-92 Helicopter. I have flown over 6000 hours as a helicopter crewman in the Navy in several platforms (SH-3/VH-3/HH-60/MH-60). In my 23 years of flying I HAVE NEVER flown in an overall better built aircraft then the EH-101. No, repeat no U. S. made aircraft comes close to the EH-101 for it flight handling or proformance. To this day I wish the U. S. Navy had bought the maritime version instead of the MH-60R.

Posted by: D K Simpson at July 6, 2007 02:14 PM

Why do Americans think that somthing buildt in the UK is not worthly to consider for there troops or President. Sometimes I wonder why they can not look outside the USA and think that, maybe once in a while the best bit of equipment might be buildt somwhere else. I noticed similar talk when the tankers for the airforce contracts were being started.
Please America stop being so insular, it looks terrible to read some comments thats been written. In case you think this is somone who hates America you would be so wrong.

Posted by: Alistair at July 6, 2007 01:25 PM

Once again, the Bushes and Saudi's show who really rules the USA.

Posted by: nick at July 6, 2007 10:39 AM

It's a shame when the most modern, technologically advanced and safest helicopter in the world today, the S-92, was not chosen for the most critical mission out there.

Jim, VIP transport is very, very far from the most critical mission out there.
If a VIP helo can't do its job, the president has to travel by limousine convoy instead, and might be a few minutes late getting to the airport.
If a SAR bird (for example) can't do its job, people die.

Posted by: ajay at July 6, 2007 10:37 AM

Unfortunately, the US taxpayer is funding a significant redesign of this European helicopter. The Danes just returned a handful of the 101's to the Brits - they can't stand it because of maintenance problems. Fly it 10 hours and wheel it into the hanger for significant inspections of the tail rotor. The problems in Canada have been well publicized too. If the Brits and the Italians love it it's because it's the offspring of their helo industries - Agusta (Italy) Westland (UK). BTW, it has 3 engines to get off the ground not because of safety or because 3 engines is nice to have. It all adds up to a maintenance intensive aircraft when a significantly more cost effective solution was available in the S-92. It's a shame when the most modern, technologically advanced and safest helicopter in the world today, the S-92, was not chosen for the most critical mission out there.

Posted by: Jim at July 5, 2007 08:48 PM

I liked the S-92 a little better...but the Lockheed one had more going for it, one being they could build it quicker.

Richard groves - thats not an American mindset...that’s the human mind set. Everybody sees things that way. Also people like putting money back into their own economy, not some foreign one.

I would prefer that is was a US design, and was 100% made in the US....but, oh well. It seems like a solid design. I prefer this route then to design a new president helo from the ground up, which would of probably taken a 10 years to build and have a 10 billion price tag.

Posted by: murc at July 5, 2007 07:22 PM

Marcasse,

As a Canadian, I have to point out that the decision to purchase the S-92 instead of the EH-101 probably has more to do with domestic politics than operational suitability. Canada originally ordered 50 EH-101s as anti-sub and SAR helicopters in the early '90s. During the 1993 election, the winning party made an issue of the EH-101 purchase as a "waste of money" and followed through on a pledge to cancel the contract after the election and select a replacement that represented a "better bargain." Of course, that meant about $500 million in cancellation penalties for cancelling the $5 billion contract. And then the EH-101 kept rising to to the top of the list on each solicitation for a replacement. With embarrassment to the government of the day, it was ordered for the SAR helicopter replacement. The antisub replacement remained in limbo for years until the S-92 was finally ordered. The rumor was that the government kept changing the requirement until they could be certain that the EH-101 wasn't going to be selected again - pretty embarrassing to be caught trashing a program as a cheap political shot rather than a sound decision.

Posted by: George at July 5, 2007 06:48 PM

I found it astonishing that the next Marine One would be a European plane. Yes, a lot (too much according to a Westland official) will be (re-)build in the US, but still - we (here in Europe) thought the Sikorsky S-92 was a done deal. Sikorsky must've REALLY messed up that bid.

The EH-101 has mixed praises: the British Royal Navy and the Italians absolutely "luv it", the Canadians think it stinks and have ordered the S-92 - not to replace but "rather to augment" the EH-101 in the SAR and maritime support role.

I do like the triple engine configuration, and with the light load of only a few VIPs two engines are enough, increasing range considerable and having a spare engine on board.

Posted by: Marcase at July 5, 2007 05:46 PM

Why did they not use a MV-22 instead. Its so safe for our soldiers and it so transformational why doesn't the Pres. fly in one of those?

I think we know the answer.

Sorry Buy America and build it right.

Posted by: Ted at July 5, 2007 03:49 PM

I know we are all about buy American before is Bye America. BUT we also need to look at the fact that it really should not matter where things are made, if it works the best out of all of them then go with it. I say the same thing about weaponry and equipment for our Armed Forces. We as Americans have a mindset that we have to do local American contractors and businesses a favor, by buying American made only items. Well we do ourselves and our troops a big disfavor, if these companies knew they might lose out to a foreign company they might make better quality products and cheaper thus enhancing productivity and competition not stifling it at the expense of our own troops well-being and lives sometimes. I think this helo being of European manufacture is a good thing.

Posted by: Richard Groves at July 5, 2007 03:25 PM

In a word...no.

All major contractors were given an even shot at securing this contract. The Pentagon went with what it deemed best. That is what is important to me.

And like the last sentence states: "More than 200 U.S. suppliers support the VH-71 program."

Posted by: Badmac at July 5, 2007 03:24 PM

Anyone else not like the idea of the President of the United States flying around in a European designed helicopter?

Posted by: Jeff at July 5, 2007 02:54 PM