US helicopter manufacturer Sikorsky is emerging from a difficult six months dominated by news that its much-heralded Comanche joint venture with Boeing was to be scrapped by the US Army. Sikorsky senior vice-president Jeff Pino talked to Paul Derby about the company's renewed sense of optimism.
Q: The first flight of a production S-92 took place recently. What are the next milestones for the programme?
A: We're pretty much where we want to be with the programme. It was probably the smoothest first flight we've had. We've been keeping PHI [launch customer Petroleum Helicopters] very much involved and we're looking to finish the interior of the aircraft soon.
We have our European Aviation Safety Agency certification and we're gearing up for service introduction.
The other decision we've taken is to make the enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS) standard on the S-92. We see safety as a key discriminator for the aircraft and the EGPWS will be effective from Ship 6, which is the first production aircraft.
Q: Sticking with the S-92, what is the position with your submission for the next US presidential helicopter?
A: Both ourselves and the rival team [the Lockheed Martin / AgustaWestland US101] are now into a risk reduction exercise, which is the final phase before a selection is made. I know what we've been asked to look at. I imagine each team will be looking at different specific areas. We expect a decision by year-end.
Q: The US Marine Corps is widely expected to give the contractual go-ahead for development of the CH-53X, which will give a new lease of life to that programme. What is the exact position?
A: We're very bullish on the CH-53X. The Marine Corps intends to sole-source the aircraft via Sikorsky and we hope to have a contract signed soon. The funding is in place - CH-53X is included in the next programme objective memoranda (POM). The programme will involve 120-150 aircraft with either major rebuilds or new builds and aims for operational capability early in the next decade.
Q: Six months on from the decision to axe the Comanche programme, and having had time to reflect on the implications, what are your thoughts? Are there any positives to come out of termination of such an influential programme?
A: The first thing to say is that we felt a deep disappointment when Comanche was cancelled. We had restructured and were performing well. At the end of the day the Army had to make a decision on the relevance of the programme and they cancelled it.
The key thing from a Sikorsky perspective is that we've been able to fill that revenue gap already. We've redeployed people with a minimal number of lay-offs.
Some people are now working on the VXX programme and we have positive news on Black Hawk and Seahawk that suggests more work on the horizon there.
The CH-53X programme we've spoken about already is another one that's pretty solid.
You have to be philosophical and move on from decisions such as the one taken on Comanche. There are always other doors that open.
Q: The acquisition by Finmeccanica of the stake held in AgustaWestland by GKN signalled another step in the consolidation of the industry. Some analysts have questioned the long-term sustainability of three major helicopter manufacturers in the US market. What is your view on that?
A: My view is that there will be consolidation, but that you are more likely to see it in the second tier of manufacturers. If you look at ourselves, Bell and Boeing right now, I'm not convinced that the problems you talk about actually exist. In a sense there are more buyers than sellers.
Q: So does that mean Sikorsky will continue to bid on a stand-alone basis for future contracts or will you consider teaming?
A: You take each competition as it comes.
I do believe that Sikorsky does not compete on a level playing field when it comes to certain European countries' requirements.
We've chosen not to enter submissions for a couple because of that. Teaming may provide part of the answer.
Source: Flight Daily News
