Talk:Lockheed Martin VH-71 Kestrel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Kestrel unofficial?

The VH-71A is not officially called the Kestrel. And should not be called that here until it is official. The VH-71A to date has not recieved ANY moniker. Kestrel was one of a handful of names being thrown around within the last year. None of the "published" sources are particularly reliable. Anyone can set up a web site and publish any name they want, that doesn't make it true. Hell, I have some golfballs that say VH-71A "Grizzly". That doesn't mean that is the official name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.43 (talk • contribs)

http://ain.gcnpublishing.com/news/single-news-page/article/despite-funding-shift-marine-one-on-schedule/?no_cache=1&cHash=dca70bc653 is a recent publication that backs up what you say. I have seen USMC sources that call it the Kestrel, but they appear to have been pulled. For now, we can put the name in quotes in the text, and I'll look into mving it to the company name/designation page, once we figure out which company to list it under! - BillCJ 16:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

LM EH101/VH71 CSARX Contract Relevency

Dont quite see how mentioning that LM has had serious problems with the development of the VH-71 is redundant. In the editor comments you state it is mentioned below; the only thing mentioned below is that the EH101 is up for the CSAR contract. My section was highlighting that the Air Force OFFICIALLY stated LM was behind on schedule and had, as I quoted, displayed "unsatisfactory performance" with respect to the VH-71. If you read my added source, the GAO document, youd see it outlines everything I mentioned - hence the citation. News regarding difficulty and problems with the AC under development is most certainly relevent! -Cefoskey 13:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had missed that fact that the GAO source covered most of what you had written. Anyway, just as an observaition, I find it odd that the GAO wants the USAF to recontest the CSAR-X, but in the same report critizies the one of the contestants protesting the original bid! Just goes to reinforce my impression that on the rare occassion when the GAO opens its eyes, it sees the inside of its large intestines. As Dr. McCoy said in STIV:The Voyage Home, "The bueracratic mentality is the only consant in the universe"! - BillCJ 17:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The entire CSAR debacle is pretty confusing. The Air Force, not the GAO, was the one who was complaining about the VH-71 development in their description of why they rated the 101 as a "High Risk" for CSAR procurement. The GAO was just citing them in the protest document among other things; this information would not be publically available had they not included it in the report, as the AF is under no obligation to discuss contract decision reasoning. Bottom line remains, the Air Force can do whatever they wish, as the GAO cant force anyone to do anything. Bureaucracy indeed!-Cefoskey 14:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics

Precisely, is clear why Kester is so costly? I heard about a com/ECM set gold-quality, but are available particulars on this? Secondly, the italian EH101 program costed if i remember well, something like 2,300 billions lires (around 1,2 billions euros or something like 1,7US dollars) for the first 16 helicopters. So EH 101 is really a costly stuff, basically more than a last gen fighter.--Stefanomencarelli 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You can read about Canada ordering four dozen or so EH101s fifteen years ago, cancelling the order over partisan politics, then ordering 15 for SAR. Well, we had to replace our Shipborne Sea Kings ten years past schedule. And the EH101 and a cheaper inferior Boeing chopper were the final candidates. We bought the Boeing, an untested airframe -- only to have their delivery delayed, and over budget. I thought to myself -- "Delays? Cost-overruns? We should tell Boeing to get stuffed, cancel their order, and buy the EH101s, which at least is a tested airframe, and can be delivered on-time and on-budget."

Now it seems the EH101 is late? Well I guess my suggestion of cancelling the Boeings in favour of the EH101s wouldn't work.

The Boeing choppers really seem inferior. Only two engines, not three being the primary point of inferiority.

Is it possible that Augusta-Westland is reporting bogus cost-overruns only because they know their rivals are getting away with what might be real cost-overruns? Geo Swan (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

When did Boeing buy Sikorsky? You are referring to the CH-148 Cyclone, right? Also, most multi-engined helicopters only have two engines - 3 is the exception, and it adds the complexity of having another engine to maintain. - BillCJ (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

While the third engine does add complexity, recall that it was the lack of a third engine that played a role in the failure of Delta Force to get the US hostages out of Iran in 1979. Delta team members pointed out that had the team been using the the three-engined Super Stallion, five birds would have been enough to complete the mission because of the extra capacity.Raryel (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well adding a 3rd engine on the CH-53E was much easier than developing an new engine with 50% more power (2 more powerful engines vs. 3 T64 engines). -Fnlayson (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo

The photograph is not of the VH-71, it is of an EH101 Mk3. The door on the port side is an air-stair door on the VH-71 not a sliding door as in the photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfraz74 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It had to be a VH-71 prototype when the photo was taken (2007 or before). So it was probably converted from a EH101. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Its actually TV-1 (Test Vehicle-1) which was an Italian Navy EH101 ASH serial number MM81495 loaned to USN/Lockheed Martin for VH-71 concept trials. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Presidential helicopter

Would someone please create a redirect from Presidential helicopter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.239.90 (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not yet. It has not entered service with the President and may not if future funding is not restored. Also, Marine One or current SH-3 (VH-3) helicopter are more appropriate for the redirect. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected Presidential helicopter to Marine One, as VH-60s are also used. - BillCJ (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

^ That works. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Not Cancelled...?

VH-71 Kestrel: $241 million This high-tech helicopter project, intended to replace the President's aging chopper fleet, was running more than 50% over budget by the time Barack Obama took office. Soon after taking office, however, the President announced plans to scrap the helicopters due to cost overruns. On July 22, however, the House Appropriations Committee unanimously approved restoring $485 million to fund the Kestrels.

I read that here:

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1912203_1913330,00.html

Can't find another source...

Anyone know anything more? G. 117.92.153.64 (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.murtha.house.gov/images/stories/documents/0722-dod%20full%20committee%20summary.pdf - seems to say they're funding the five delivered:

Military Helicopters: [...] and $485 million, $400 million above the request, to make five VH-71s operational.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.92.153.64 (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)