DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Planes, Copters, Blimps » Next President’s Tricked-​​Out Supercopter

Next President’s Tricked-​​Out Supercopter

VH1.jpg

From our friends at Popular Mechanics:

Even the president’s ride can be hot-​​rodded. That’s the best way to describe the 23 chop­pers sched­uled to replace the cur­rent fleet of Marine One VH-​​3Ds and VH-​​60Ns. Outfitted with a kitchen, a bath­room and a White House-​​worthy high-​​speed com­mu­ni­ca­tions suite, the VH-​​71 is closer in capa­bil­i­ties (and ameni­ties) to Air Force One than to its short-​​hop predecessors.

Development of the VH-​​71, which had its first test flight in Yeovil, England, in July, was accel­er­ated fol­low­ing the Sept. 11 attacks, with Lockheed Martin promis­ing five pro­duc­tion mod­els by 2009. The remain­ing chop­pers, due by 2018, will include even more com­mu­ni­ca­tions sys­tems and per­for­mance boosts.

Read the rest of the Popular Mechanics story on the VH-​​71 HERE.

– Christian

Share |

October 16th, 2007 | Planes, Copters, Blimps | 260125 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2007/10/16/next-presidents-tricked-out-supercopter/Next+President%27s+Tricked-Out+Supercopter2007-10-16+20%3A19%3A13Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « The Laser Avenger Zaps Its Target | French-​​made Air Force One? » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Solomon says:
    October 17, 2007 at 12:08 am

    Call me pro­tec­tion­ist, nativist, old fashioned-whatever…but I just can’t wrap my brain around the fact that our President is going to fly in a heli­copter from a com­pany that isn’t American owned. Yes I know that’s not in keep­ing with glo­bi­liza­tion but it’s just … “weird” to me!

    Reply
  2. Wren Mandagorn says:
    October 17, 2007 at 3:37 am

    Solomon I think your miss­ing the big­ger pic­ture here, surely it doesn’t mat­ter from where the heli­copter is com­ing from but that it’s the best avail­able?
    The RAF and Royal Navy have com­bat proven this machine in Afghanistan and speak VERY highly of it’s reli­a­bil­ity, com­fort and maneu­ver­abil­ity. US pilots on detach­ment to the UK who have flown it have like­wise said the same.
    On top of all that the UK and US defense indus­tries are so closely inter­twined it might as well be American!

    Reply
  3. Phil says:
    October 17, 2007 at 4:40 am

    Come on Wren, Some Pride! lol
    I know that national pride is a big thing in the states, I should know I lived there for a year, but its nice to see that the bean coun­ters selected the bet­ter prod­uct over pride. Its just a shame that those same bean coun­ters couldn’t have resided over the CSAR air­craft require­ment, or there would be a darn sight more EH101’s in ser­vice across the pond.

    Reply
  4. Wren Mandagorn says:
    October 17, 2007 at 5:18 am

    Phil, don’t worry I have plenty of pride in my own coun­try (the UK) just don’t see the rea­son so many Americans com­plain about the EH-​​101 being British, and yes your right if CSAR had been man­aged prop­erly more EH-​​101 prob­a­bly would have been serv­ing in the US

    Reply
  5. Roy Smith says:
    October 17, 2007 at 7:49 am

    Hey man,a kitchen,a bath­room? All it needs now is an Austin Powers’ cir­cu­lar bed in it & it’d be seri­ously rocking,hubba,hubba!!!

    Reply
  6. Steven says:
    October 17, 2007 at 9:02 am

    This thing is quiet. After using our local air­port for test flights, I can say this thing is so much more quiet than any other helo I have heard before. The car­bon fiber blades are interesting.

    Reply
  7. Traveler says:
    October 17, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    Obviously, the President needs a decent heli­copter but is it really nec­es­sary to have a kitchen and a bath­room for such a short hop air­craft? The com­mu­ni­ca­tions suite and per­for­mance updates are nec­es­sary, but isn’t the Prez and WH staff only using this ride for 10–20 min­utes at the most?
    They might as well trick out/​uparmor a Winabago and use that as the Prez limo to get the tri­fecta of bathrooms/​kitchens for all Prez vehi­cles; Marine 1, Air Force 1, Winabago 1.

    Reply
  8. C. Foskey says:
    October 17, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    At least the fuel tanks for a Winnebago arent in the floor, directly under­neath the President’s feet.

    Reply
  9. Roy Smith says:
    October 17, 2007 at 1:32 pm

    No,the Winnebago needs to be tricked out like the one on the movie “Stripes.” It needs rock­ets & rocket launchers.I still say that the Austin Powers’ cir­cu­lar bed is not a luxury,its necessary.Maybe the new Marine One is sup­posed to oper­ate like “Airwolf.“Hey,no need for Air Force One,the new Marine 1 can fly to Moscow by itself.You’d need a bath­room & a kitchen for that wouldn’t you?

    Reply
  10. Solomon says:
    October 17, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    Ok Wren, if national pride plays no part in pro­cure­ment then why don’t the brits use the M-​​1 instead of the chal­lenger??? Why the Warrior instead of the Bradley??? Why develop the typhoon when its only mar­gin­ally bet­ter than an F-​​15D (with AESA and new engines, avion­ics etc..)???? Because domes­tic indus­trial bases still count for some­thing. The pres­i­dent rides around in a pure dee American stretch limo and could instead ride around in a Jag but he doesn’t. I used the same rea­son­ing for the selec­tion of a new US PRESIDENTIAL heli­copter. Better selec­tions might be avail­able but they’re not always “palat­able” to the public.

    Reply
  11. Solomon says:
    October 17, 2007 at 3:48 pm

    Oh and Phil, if we’re talk­ing about the best avail­able then instead of replac­ing C-5’s with A380’s we’d be call­ing Mr. Anotov and acquir­ing AN-225’s instead!

    Reply
  12. C. Foskey says:
    October 17, 2007 at 3:51 pm

    Phil
    The issues with the 101 were fixed indeed…years later, with mul­ti­ple fleetwide ground­ings (CH-149)and only after peo­ple died.
    Im not sure you under­stand the domes­tic require­ments of the VXX pro­gram. Its not “reassem­bly”. The rea­son that the VH71 had to be com­pleted by Lockheed, and not just sold by AW, was that a spe­cific % of the AC was man­dated to be domes­ti­cally “sourced” (it was a fuzzy equa­tion based on mission-​​critical part dis­tri­b­u­tion) for SECURITY rea­sons. Believe me, I worked on the V/​H92, and our AC was capa­ble of 100% domes­tic sourc­ing. A sim­i­lar issue is rear­ing its head with F-​​35 export to the UK.
    Having been a part of the VH92 team myself, Id like to hear why you believe the 101 was a supe­rior selection.

    Reply
  13. Phil says:
    October 17, 2007 at 4:38 pm

    Howdy,
    Don’t get me wrong, American prod­ucts are great, and national pride and national defense indus­tries are an impor­tant point in any form of pol­i­tics, Agreed Solomon? As for the M-​​1, and Bradley, who says they are the best? Yeah the Eurofighter may not in your eyes be amaz­ing, but we do have to keep our defense indus­try going or we will repeat the TSR dis­as­ter. I was talk­ing about the A380 for the pres­i­dent, not the trans­port role, as stated in my post.
    C. Foskey, hon­estly, I don’t think we should start a spit­ting match over early crashes and deaths, as I could pull about 12 ground­ings and fatal crashes in the first 2 years of the black­hawk test­ing pro­gram and ser­vice from mem­ory and net alone. My apolo­gies, I was refer­ring to rebuild­ing % when look­ing at the XCSAR pro­gram, not the Presidents ride, I should have made my self clearer.

    Reply
  14. Solomon says:
    October 17, 2007 at 8:44 pm

    Phil…
    You lost me bud…if we can agree that indus­trial bases are impor­tant, national pride and pol­i­tics are real­i­ties, then why can you not wrap your brain around my con­tention that a US President should be fly­ing a US made air­craft?
    As far as the EH-​​101 is con­cerned, I don’t even con­sider it the pre­mier European medium lift helo. That award goes to the NH-​​90, per­fer­ably in the “tall” ver­sion. The A-​​380 for our next President??? give me a break! We don’t need to back­stop European social pro­grams do we???

    Reply
  15. Wren Mandagorn says:
    October 18, 2007 at 4:55 am

    Solomon, with­out get­ting into a long winded argu­ment, I do agree National Pride is impor­tant. All I was say­ing is the US choose the best heli­copter out there for the job. Yes the EH-​​101 has prob­lems, it

    Reply
  16. C. Foskey says:
    October 18, 2007 at 9:31 am

    @ Wren
    The Typhoon costs over 4 times more than an F-​​15C/​D ($122/$30 mil­lion) and is a full gen­er­a­tion newer. Anyone can argue that a 2006 BMW M5 is going to out­per­form a 1992 Corvette. But the costs asso­ci­ated with own­ing and oper­at­ing each at present day vary greatly — and may not be jus­ti­fied by the dif­fer­ence in per­for­mance.
    Which is why the F-​​35 is mar­keted as a cheaper lit­tle brother to the F-​​22, and is the actual air­craft that should be com­pared to the Typhoon.

    Reply
  17. carpteros says:
    October 18, 2007 at 10:04 am

    C Foskey
    read Solomon’s post of 03.33pm. that explains Wren’s com­par­i­son of Typhoon to F15.

    Reply
  18. George Skinner says:
    October 18, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    Supporting domes­tic indus­try can make selec­tions a whole lot sim­pler some­times. In Canada, the mil­i­tary usu­ally prefers to buy US equip­ment for inter­op­er­abil­ity. Every time one of these pur­chases comes up, how­ever, it becomes a lob­by­ing game between US com­pa­nies, European com­pa­nies, some Canadian com­pany that thinks it should be the sup­plier pro­vided that half a dozen require­ments are altered and the gov­ern­ment kicks in devel­op­ment money, and just for fun, the Russians who insist that their equip­ment is twice as capa­ble for a quar­ter of the cost. We’ve been through this fun lit­tle game for our recent C-​​17, CH-​​47, and res­cue heli­copter pur­chases, and we’re going to see more of it to replace our Auroras (Canadian P-​​3) and CF-​​18s. And curi­ously enough, we selected the S-​​92 as a replace­ment for our can­celled EH-​​101 frigate heli­copter. Kind of the reverse of the US-​​101 deci­sion, just dragged out for 15 years so we could kill more pilots fly­ing 1st gen­er­a­tion Sea Kings.

    Reply
  19. Solomon says:
    October 18, 2007 at 2:39 pm

    I was really going to let this go but…The com­par­isons between com­bat vehi­cles in use by the UK and US was just to illus­trate a point that “bet­ter” is indeed rel­a­tive and that politics/​national pride and indus­trial bases do indeed trump most pro­cure­ment deci­sions. But hav­ing said that a few points do need to be made on your com­par­i­son tables. First an EFP that is prop­erly con­structed can defeat any know MBT roam­ing the bat­tle­field. The same applies to road­side bombs. Multiple RPG hits on M1’s have been absorbed with no loss of life or the vehi­cle. The same can be said of the Challenger. Specific RPG’s that have enhanced war­heads can pen­e­trate the armor of both vehi­cles if the shot is care­fully aimed or if the gun­ner is lucky. The stats given by you on the Challengers per­for­mance are also not borne out by “real life” expe­ri­ence. The M1 is cer­tainly capa­ble of much more than 30 mph off road (i’ve seen it personally)-your view of the Bradley is also flawed, it has a 30mm chain gun from the Apache Helo and is also capa­ble of much higher off road speeds than you listed, I’ll leave it to an Active Army guy to read this post and back­stop my claims! As far as the Typhoon is con­cerned, it is almost cer­tainly a national jobs pro­gram (as many mil­i­tary pro­cure­ment pro­grams every­where are) because the F-​​15 as I stated ear­lier with the lat­est avion­ics, AESA and assorted pods would have been a quicker, cheaper and more logis­ti­cally viable alter­na­tive than the effort it took to develop a 4.5 gen­er­a­tion air­craft. The table that you quoted is back­stopped by a clas­si­fied report that I can’t get my hands on regard­ing the effec­tive­ness of the F-​​22 into the future (con­structed dur­ing the fund­ing bat­tles to jus­tify more F-​​22 pro­duc­tion I might add) so until I or Christian or Ward or Norman or any­one thats cred­i­ble can flesh out your “kill” numbers—I’ll toss those up as being pure spec­u­la­tion and polit­i­cal non­sense.
    But again I digress. The main point that I started with has yet to be proven wrong. An American pres­i­dent should fly American prod­uct. Every man­u­fac­turer on this planet can claim to have the finest wid­get going. The mode of trans­porta­tion that a nations leader trav­els in reflects more than “the best value at the best deliv­ery date”, it rep­re­sents the nations tech­no­log­i­cal and mil­i­tary prowess. Bush for­got that in this selec­tion period. And if you believe that this was not a polit­i­cal deci­sion then I have some beau­ti­ful beach front prop­erty out­side of New Orleans to sell you.

    Reply
  20. Solomon says:
    October 18, 2007 at 10:19 pm

    Roy!
    ooops my bad on the gun but i was think­ing efv when i should have been focused purely on the bradley (got my vehi­cles confused).…dumb i know, i’ll take the hit…the point remains and the con­ver­sa­tion devolved.…president should fly american

    Reply
  21. Roy Smith says:
    October 19, 2007 at 6:25 am

    hey,Blackwater flies the H-​​92 Helicopter.

    Reply
  22. Philip says:
    October 19, 2007 at 7:44 am

    I guess it comes down to the fact that at present the US isn’t really all that care­ful when it comes to for­eign pol­icy deci­sions for many and depend­ing on a for­eign power for our pri­mary com­bat air­craft would be one hell of a prob­lem if you decided that North Sea Oil was next after Iraq, just a ran­dom mus­ing but a prob­lem if we did depend too heav­ily on another nation for our weaponary. Also, if you don’t use it, you lose it, we can’t lose our skilled air­craft engi­neers or ship builders or we really will be in a bind, why do you think the MOD is up in arms over the US foot drag­ging over the source code for the F-​​35 we have agreed to buy. We like to fix our own kit if pos­si­ble with­out wor­ry­ing about con­tract­ing in Lockheed or Boeing, plus it allows us to develop addi­tions to the source code for British or European weaponary and requirements.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
      LOL Still all this pissing an moaning about the editorial...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare that...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Islame isn't a race, genius……
      Philo
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I sure as hell don't need to have someone take pictures of me...
      Zandor
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage