Marine One to be built overseas....

Spizzo

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 1, 2004
284
0
Pacific NW
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Lockheed Martin will build the new presidential helicopter fleet, the Navy announced Friday, putting an end to a fierce competition that had both political and international overtones.

The president "needs a more survivable helicopter while the nation engages in the global war on terrorism," said John Young, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, in making the announcement.

The $6.1 billion contract to buy 23 high-tech, high-security aircraft, is relatively small in the military budget. But it is emblematic of two important issues: the outsourcing of American jobs and the question of how open the U.S. military market is to foreign contractors.

Maryland-based Lockheed and its European partners had waged a major public relations campaign, with the help of political leaders from England and Italy.

The decision was a blow to Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft, which has built the presidential fleet since 1957, and saw the contract to build Marine One as a point of pride.

"The US101 will provide the president of the United States with a state-of-the-art-helicopter ... an Oval Office in the sky," said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York.

But Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Connecticut, who was in her home state at the Sikorsky plant in Stratford, expressed disappointment.

"'Made in America' should mean something," she said. "The Defense Department has some explaining to do."

For the winner the contract means millions of dollars in federal research funds, and a potential edge when the Pentagon looks to replace hundreds of search and rescue helicopters in coming years.

It also gives Lockheed the bragging rights to one of the most photographed helicopters in the world: the president's green-and-white aircraft often shown as it lifts off from the South Lawn of the White House.

Lockheed's winning entry, the US101, is based on a British-Italian AgustaWestland aircraft, now owned by Finmeccanica. The helicopter has several key components, including the main transmission and rotor blades, that will be built overseas.

Sikorsky, a unit of United Technologies Corp., and its backers argued that the VH-92 Super Hawk's all-American parts provided greater security than a helicopter built in part in other countries.

The Navy went with the longer, wider, more powerful aircraft, with its three engines, built by General Electric in Lynn, Mass. Sikorsky's Super Hawk has two engines.

Plans to replace the Marine Corps' aging presidential squadron took on greater importance after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Last year the White House pressed for an expedited bidding process because of security concerns, but Navy officials later delayed a decision, saying they needed about a year to get more information.

The companies submitted bids last February, and have waged a massive public relations campaign, complete with billboards, demonstration flights, ads and radio commercials.

Friday's loss is the second major defeat for Sikorsky is a little less than a year. Last February the Pentagon canceled the $39 billion Comanche helicopter program, which was a joint venture with Boeing Helicopters.

The company still builds one of the military's workhorse helicopters, the Black Hawk, which is being used broadly in the Iraq war. The Pentagon is expected to order hundreds more in coming years to replace current models.
Link

Another sad day for America.

Another outsourcing of jobs. Whats going to happen when no one in the U.S. know's how to build a helicopter anymore?
 

dejo

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 2, 2004
15,725
447
The Centennial State
"The US101 will provide the president of the United States with a state-of-the-art-helicopter ... an Oval Office in the sky," said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York.
Hmm. Is Hillary in favor of this move because she's hoping it will become her "Oval Office in the sky" in four years?...
 

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,652
123
Spizzo said:
Another sad day for America. Another outsourcing of jobs. Whats going to happen when no one in the U.S. know's how to build a helicopter anymore?
Isn't this what trade liberalisation means?
This is the free market you guys talk so much about...

It always seems when the rest of the world is encouraged to drop their barriers and let American goods in freely then it's a completely different story when it happens the other way round...

Honestly, many American companies supposedly pride themselves on 'flexibility' and 'innovation'... Why the hell can't they adapt and produce quality goods that the world actually wants?
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
Blue Velvet said:
Isn't this what trade liberalisation means?
This is the free market you guys talk so much about...

It always seems when the rest of the world is encouraged to drop their barriers and let American goods in freely then it's a completely different story when it happens the other way round...

Honestly, many American companies supposedly pride themselves on 'flexibility' and 'innovation'... Why the hell can't they adapt and produce quality goods that the world actually want?
Sort of, I see your point. But, liberals like Kucinich are calling for a worldwide minimum wage, which would make things equitable for all workers. The current conservative movement seems to favor using advances in technology to outsource jobs to areas where labor can be exploited for next to nothing.

Since labor laws do not extend beyond out borders, this is a way to exploit third world labor, which means that American workers at home suffer.

While it does benefit foriegn workers somewhat, it still means higher profits while paying less for labor. Which is going to hurt at home. And before this Administration the Democrats were pushing for increased labor standards abroad to even the playing field. Especially in nations like China.

Outsourcing helps the corporations from the country of origin, but hurts the people who used to hold those jobs within that nation. It's not really as black and white as it seems. Outsourcing is a great way of negating any legislation passed nationally to help workers. And offers no protection against abusing third world labor. Sweat shop conditions may have been reduced here at home but there is little to stop the same abuses being created elsewhere.

I think the issue is more about protecting labor standards that have been established and extending them. Things are still going to be produced if there is a need for those products.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
Liberals are supposed to follow the Golden Rule, which states that you would treat others as you treat yourself. If the playing field were even you would not consider going over seas to produce what can be made here. It's a difficult situation that really hurts most Americans while being incredibly beneficial to a minority.
 

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,652
123
Xtremehkr said:
Sort of, I see your point. But, liberals like Kucinich are calling for a worldwide minimum wage, which would make things equitable for all workers. The current conservative movement seems to favor using advances in technology to outsource jobs to areas where labor can be exploited for next to nothing.

Since labor laws do not extend beyond out borders, this is a way to exploit third world labor, which means that American workers at home suffer.

While it does benefit foriegn workers somewhat, it still means higher profits while paying less for labor. Which is going to hurt at home. And before this Administration the Democrats were pushing for increased labor standards abroad to even the playing field. Especially in nations like China.

Outsourcing helps the corporations from the country of origin, but hurts the people who used to hold those jobs within that nation. It's not really as black and white as it seems. Outsourcing is a great way of negating any legislation passed nationally to help workers. And offers no protection against abusing third world labor. Sweat shop conditions may have been reduced here at home but there is little to stop the same abuses being created elsewhere.

I think the issue is more about protecting labor standards that have been established and extending them. Things are still going to be produced if there is a need for those products.
You make some very good points.

However, in this instance about helicopters, we're not talking about minimum-wage or sweatshop conditions. It's a sophisticated, highly-trained workforce so the issue is one of quality...

Japanese electronics, German cars, Apple computers... :)
All successful due to attention to detail and overall quality.

The real problem is the military-industrial complex and how your tax money effectively subsidises huge parts of the US economy... I'm not saying there's an easy answer and the U.K. does the same on a much smaller scale but it's exposed by pork-barrel politicians whining when things don't go their way...
 

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,652
123
Xtremehkr said:
Liberals are supposed to follow the Golden Rule, which states that you would treat others as you treat yourself. If the playing field were even you would not consider going over seas to produce what can be made here. It's a difficult situation that really hurts most Americans while being incredibly beneficial to a minority.
I consider myself outside your definition of what a liberal is... the current political thinking in the U.S. is so far right compared to most of the English-speaking world that this definition is akin to calling someone a communist in the 50's.

Look, just what is the American goverment supposed to do?
Are they there to subsidise local industries and effectively prop up a command economy or are they expected to buy the best product at the best price, no matter where it comes from?

As far as American goods go in the rest of the world... the playing field is more than even, it's so heavily tilted in America's favour in so many sectors – through fair means and foul.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,995
Republic of Ukistan
Blue Velvet said:
Look, just what is the American goverment supposed to do?
Are they there to subsidise local industries and effectively prop up a command economy or are they expected to buy the best product at the best price, no matter where it comes from?
If this principle was observed in US agriculture, many in the developing world would still have a living.
 

Spizzo

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 1, 2004
284
0
Pacific NW
Blue Velvet said:
Isn't this what trade liberalisation means?
This is the free market you guys talk so much about...

It always seems when the rest of the world is encouraged to drop their barriers and let American goods in freely then it's a completely different story when it happens the other way round...
To me, It's not about a free market. It's about the fact that sooner or later, we will be buying all of our helicopters (insert any other form of transportation too) from over seas suppliers. What's going to happen when the U.S. (and it will happen) pisses off the country the suplier is located in? They will say, "Hey, no more helicopters for you" or worse, if we end up going to war, and lose our supply of helicopters, ships, etc... What will we do? We wont be able to fight. And no one in the U.S. will know how to build a helicopter, or whatever else.

I have no problem with free trade, in fact, my job kind of depends on it. But I live in a country that can't even manage to move all of it's military cargo half way across the world to fight a "war". We have to depend on foreign shippers to do this. But when they get close to the war zone, they decide it's too dangerous, and off load is somewhere else for a U.S. ship to bring in. And like I said before, one day, there wont be anyone else to move our cargo for us.

On the plus side, I heard that this is the first time this particular company is building a helicopter or this helicopter (I dont remember which). So our "beloved" president will be the test dummy. :D
 

Ugg

macrumors 68000
Apr 7, 2003
1,985
15
Penryn
skunk said:
If this principle was observed in US agriculture, many in the developing world would still have a living.
It's true the USD 6 billion in US subsidies has a massive impact on third world farmers, for instance Mexico is the second largest importer of US beef. However, UK farmers get a fair amount of assistance as well much less the massive subsidies the EU or Japan doles out.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,995
Republic of Ukistan
Ugg said:
It's true the USD 6 billion in US subsidies has a massive impact on third world farmers, for instance Mexico is the second largest importer of US beef. However, UK farmers get a fair amount of assistance as well much less the massive subsidies the EU or Japan doles out.
The UK is keen to abolish the CAP, which is the gravy train which European farmers are riding.
 

Spizzo

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 1, 2004
284
0
Pacific NW
D0ct0rteeth said:
Actually it is being built in my hometown in NY. Some parts will be manufactured in Italy or England. But over 2/3rds of the work is being done here in NY

http://www.pressconnects.com/today/topstories/stories/to012905s144607.shtml

http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050128-2044.html

thats why Hillary is so excited.
Intresting...The News (CNN Headline) made a big deal of it being built overseas.

Glad to see it's going to be built (mostly) in the U.S.

Didnt realize that it is going to be more than just the presidents helicopter.

Good!!! :D
 

Juventuz

macrumors 6502a
Dec 4, 2002
663
0
Binghamton
D0ct0rteeth said:
Actually it is being built in my hometown in NY. Some parts will be manufactured in Italy or England. But over 2/3rds of the work is being done here in NY

http://www.pressconnects.com/today/topstories/stories/to012905s144607.shtml

http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050128-2044.html

thats why Hillary is so excited.
From Owego huh, I'm in Binghamton which is right next door. This has been all over the local news yesterday and today, it's HUGE news here. Lockheed had already started building the new facility to build Marine One. Job fairs will be starting in two weeks, they plan to add at least 900 new jobs. Jobs that are good paying.

During tonight's newscast they made an interesting observation, the Pentagon required at least 65% of the helicopter to be manufactured in the US. Sikorsky lobbied to have the requirement lowered to 50%, which it was. Lockheed stated that they will have well over 65% of the copter built here in the US.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
One may wonder what other benefits Tony Blair is getting for his support of the war in Iraq. It must have cost the UK a fortune, though they will no doubt benefit somewhere along the line.

Defense Department has 8 of the 25 programs most prone to cost overuns, including their Acquisition program, article number 3.

You draw the lines, are we saving anything by building these helos in the UK?

Sure, it's good for the UK, if you are ok with being paid off for supporting the war. Really, is the UK that much more cost effective than the US in supply 35% of the parts. Let's see the numbers.

Let's play the semantics game, 65% sounds like most of the work is being done here, but how much is that other 35% going to cost us?

Nothing announced under this administration should be taken at face value. If they are focusing on the percentage of where the the craft is built they are almost certainly doing so to avoid disucssing the cost of where the other 35% is built.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
To be honest, I first thought that the outsourcing was to save money. But then I read that artilcle and combined other history I have read concerning war time profiteering. The UK is not cheap, not from what I know and what I have read here about the prospect of good paying jobs. Welcome to the US system of political reward in support of policy England. Pork projects now extend to allies I guess.
 

Juventuz

macrumors 6502a
Dec 4, 2002
663
0
Binghamton
Xtremehkr said:
To be honest, I first thought that the outsourcing was to save money. But then I read that artilcle and combined other history I have read concerning war time profiteering. The UK is not cheap, not from what I know and what I have read here about the prospect of good paying jobs. Welcome to the US system of political reward in support of policy England. Pork projects now extend to allies I guess.
You do realize that it's not a brand new helicopter, it's one that's already in service. It was created as a joint venture between Lockeed and AgustaWestland. This is not war time profiteering.

Had you read the various articles you'd notice that more of it will be made in the US than the Sikorsky helicopter.
 

Don't panic

macrumors 603
Jan 30, 2004
5,551
695
having a drink at Milliways
Xtremehkr said:
To be honest, I first thought that the outsourcing was to save money. But then I read that artilcle and combined other history I have read concerning war time profiteering. The UK is not cheap, not from what I know and what I have read here about the prospect of good paying jobs. Welcome to the US system of political reward in support of policy England. Pork projects now extend to allies I guess.
or maybe the lockheed/augusta was just a better copter than the sikorsky for the purported use...

edit: they will fly, fully loaded, at >160 mph. not too bad
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
Don't panic said:
or maybe the lockheed/augusta was just a better copter than the sikorsky for the purported use...
According to the article, it had nothing to do with that, it was mostly political.