Jump to content

Talk:Lockheed Martin VH-71 Kestrel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLockheed Martin VH-71 Kestrel has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 2, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Government role in overrun

[edit]

The chopper is costing a mint, in part because after Lockheed won the contest, the White House showed up and proposed to add so much gear to the chopper that the passengers wouldn't fit! The government wanted communications functionality and defensive systems equivalent to what the President would have on Air Force One - all for a helicopter that, 90% of the time, would be making ten or twenty minute shuttle runs! If the President needed that much protection, why not just turn an Apache attack helicopter into Marine One and teach the President how to aim and launch the Hellfire missiles and fire the chain gun? I'm not saying Lockheed is entirely blameless, but when you tell the contractor "I want to build A," and then insist on all sorts of changes so that you're really building B (or maybe C or D), you can't expect the contractor to be able to do that on the original schedule and price. A lot of incompetent government bureaucrats were involved here. Raryel (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I just saw an article on this very issue: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/05/04/06.xml&headline=VH-71%20Program%20Following%20Right%20Course:%20GAO It might be worth me later adding it into the article proper, when I have more time. Kyteto (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The CRS report also mentions the rushed acquisition process caused confusion between the program office and Lockheed Martin on the requirements on pg 8. Better to go with the Av Week article and the GAO report it is based on. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why So Expensive

[edit]

What I'm wondering, and what I'm sure a lot of other people are wondering, is why this helicopter is so extraordinarily expensive. What on earth could possibly justify the cost of this aircraft? An Apache Longbow costs around $16 million. A CH-47, just over $10 million. A FUCKING F-22, $127 million. Somebody, please explain to me and people like me what systems one could cram in a helicopter that would make it worth $200 million, let alone $400 million per unit. This is rediculous --24.254.194.26 (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to make it too much like Air Force One. It's a major redesign effort to get there with low numbers to be ordered. This is not a not discussion forum, so I'll stop there. Besides it's complicated and I'd probably leave out details. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I understand this is not a discussion forum. The reason I am asking here is because my question is obviously pertinent to the subject and I'm sure a lot of people are asking the same question. I'm asking so the information can be incorporated into the article. --71.241.61.82 (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, makes sense. I have not seen any good references that really get at the why on the high cost of the program. The program looks like it will be resurrected, so maybe there will be some articles in the media covering this. I expect they will drop the more advanced, longer range increment 2 version (VH-71B). -Fnlayson (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By my calculations, you could buy over 60 F-22s for the price of 28 VH-71s. That's a hell of a lot more capability, in my opinion. And can anyone tell me just why 28 are needed? I would have thought 4, perhaps 5 at most, but 28? That's a little steep. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The costs are high because you are comparing apples and oranges. The research and development costs for F-22 was $28 billion. The procurement costs for 183 F-22 aircraft is $37 billion. So the math there is $65B / 183 = $355M. The unit cost to actually build one F-22 is $177M, that doesn't include development costs. The same is true on this program, but the quantities are much lower, only 23 aircraft. The procurement cost is $11.2B / 23 = $486M. The costs are high because they are building very low quantities with high development costs since they are developing two aircraft (Increment 1 and Increment 2). There is no comparison to AirForce One which had no development costs (it is a stock 747 from an aircraft perspective). DavidADunn (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The F-22 example gets even worse if you compare like to like; if we assumed as few Raptors were built as there were VH-71s. Using the above cost values 177 x 23 = 4,071, or 4 Billion; making a $32 billion total cost. However, 32 000 / 23 = $1,391 million per plane. That is 3.5 times the cost of the VH-71, from this perspective. It truly is about how many of the aircraft you are going to produce that make the real per unit cost, if it is low it'll always be expensive. If you do the same with inflation adjusts F-16s, they too provide a higher per unit cost; mathematics is all about perspective. This is not to say the F-22 is a ripoff by any means, but any plane produced in very small numbers will have a ridiculously high per unit cost. That's the cause of the high cost. Kyteto (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring Section

[edit]

I don't know how much that table adds to the article. If the table is going to be included, I think it should be more specific about the difference between the options. Saying that it may "meet some, but not" all of the requirements is a obvious an non descriptive statement. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toss it out. The info can be better presented in a well-written paragraph. Tables aren't generally used for this type of info anyway, and shouldn't be, per WP:WTUT. - BilCat (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with BilCat not needed in this much detail almost WP:NEWS, it just need a summary paragraph. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/us101/
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lockheed Martin VH-71 Kestrel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_Martin_VH-71_Kestrel&oldid=1257497527"