Sikorsky considers shuttering, selling light helicopter lines

[Triton]

Looks like Sikorsky will divest the Schweizer Aircraft product lines.

"Sikorsky considers shuttering, selling light helicopter lines"
By: Dan Parsons
Orlando
Source: Flightglobal.com

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sikorsky-considers-shuttering-selling-light-helicopter-409816/

Sikorsky has canceled production of the S434 light single helicopter and divesting two other light helicopter production lines is under consideration, company officials say.

The S434, S300 piston-powered single and turbine engine S333 production lines were acquired when Sikorsky acquired Schweizer Aircraft in 2004. Partly because of low orders, absorbing the company has been costly for the rotorcraft giant, says Dan Hunter, director of commercial programmes.

“We had a lot of cleanup to do to make that product line be what we wanted it to be as part of the Sikorsky family, either to retain it within the Sikorsky family or to make a good, solid offer to someone who might want to be in that business,” Hunter says on 4 March at the HAI Heli-Expo

asset image

Sikorsky

The S434 production line is officially closed after the Saudi Ministry of Defense bought and then returned several of the four-bladed turboshaft helicopters because they were wearing out before the end of their estimated service lives, Hunter says.

Sikorsky bought Schweizer outright in 2004, then liquidated the company and wholly absorbed its product line in 2012. Despite the cost incurred during the transition, and the S300 product line's uncertain future, Hunter says the acquisition was a sound business decision and Sikorsky continues to deliver aircraft.

Sikorksy will not take new orders for either the S300 or S333, though it has commitments to deliver both to several customers, Hunter says. Sikorsky has already outsourced final assembly to Summit Aviation, which was a longtime S300 supplier, he says.

Selling the S300 production lines outright is being considered, along with the possibility of restructuring the programmes within Sikorsky, Hunter says.

“We have not made a decision on either of those two variants right now," he adds. "We think there is probably a place somewhere where that would be a viable product line. It will be a little while before we decide where that lands and lives.”

The Royal Saudi Ground Forces have bought 11 S333s, which are still being delivered. Sikorsky does have outstanding contracts for the S300 and continues to deliver the 19 aircraft on contract.

Still, the company has commitments for aftermarket service for the 2,800 light rotorcraft in its installed base, Hunter says. Post-production services and maintenance on light helicopters netted Sikorsky $10 million in 2014, “a decent business for us”, Hunter says.

“We are trying to get right so we can make a decision about what is next for that product line,” he says.”

 

[Triton]

Why do I have the hunch that Sikorsky will be an acquisition target by Boeing as the aerospace sector continues to consolidate?

 

[Stargazer]

Why do I have the hunch that Sikorsky will be an acquisition target by Boeing as the aerospace sector continues to consolidate?

Because neither Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman have a serious history of helicopter development, while Boeing has done helicopters for 60 years through its Vertol, later Boeing Helicopters, division. They also have acquired McDonnell Douglas and North American, which means they have all the MD series types in their product history, even if these are no longer in development.

This being said, if such a "consolidation" is to take place, chances are Bell may not be able to go it alone for too long either...

 

[Triton]

The current name is Boeing Rotorcraft Systems, formerly Boeing Helicopters. I presume the name change reflects the current interest in hybrid helicopters and compound rotorcraft.

 

[yasotay]

The current name is Boeing Rotorcraft Systems, formerly Boeing Helicopters. I presume the name change reflects the current interest in hybrid helicopters and compound rotorcraft.

Boeing now makes VTOL aircraft other than helicopters (V-22).

I cannot believe that Sikorsky acquired Schweizer Aircraft for more than a tax right off. Surely they did not believe that there would suddenly be a need for light helicopters that had to compete with Robinson, MD Helicopter and the myriad of European lights. While the facilities gave them a place to tinker with X2 and electric helicopters I have to hope they were/are not as myopic as that. With H-60 orders still coming in for the next five years I think they are safe for now. That said I think they are at more risk than Bell because Bell has a far more robust civil market. Bell has three new start civil rotorcraft either coming to, or just having entered the market (429, 505, and 525). Sikorsky only has high end civil helicopters that are really focused at the oil and gas market that is becoming very competitive.
If X2 does not work for them, then I think they are at significant risk.

 

[sferrin]

The current name is Boeing Rotorcraft Systems, formerly Boeing Helicopters. I presume the name change reflects the current interest in hybrid helicopters and compound rotorcraft.

Boeing now makes VTOL aircraft other than helicopters (V-22).

I cannot believe that Sikorsky acquired Schweizer Aircraft for more than a tax right off. Surely they did not believe that there would suddenly be a need for light helicopters that had to compete with Robinson, MD Helicopter and the myriad of European lights. While the facilities gave them a place to tinker with X2 and electric helicopters I have to hope they were/are not as myopic as that. With H-60 orders still coming in for the next five years I think they are safe for now. That said I think they are at more risk than Bell because Bell has a far more robust civil market. Bell has three new start civil rotorcraft either coming to, or just having entered the market (429, 505, and 525). Sikorsky only has high end civil helicopters that are really focused at the oil and gas market that is becoming very competitive.
If X2 does not work for them, then I think they are at significant risk.

CH-53K.

 

[Triton]

Boeing now makes VTOL aircraft other than helicopters (V-22).

I don't really know the division of labor between Bell and Boeing for the V-22.

CH-53K.

Is anyone besides the United States Marine Corps interested in the Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion? It doesn't appear that the German Army Aviation Corps is interested in replacing their CH-53G Stallion helicopters with the CH-53K. Sikorsky will produce 156 CH-53K helicopters for the Marine Corps until 2021. What then? Sikorsky does seem to be betting the company on compound rotorcraft based on X2 Technology.

Perhaps Sikorsky wanted a piece of the military unmanned autonomous helicopter business, such as the Schweizer 333-based Northrop Grumman MQ-8B Fire Scout, by buying Schweitzer Aircraft?

 

[sferrin]

The USMC is planning on 227 at last count. Israel seems to be interested as well.

 

[yasotay]

The current name is Boeing Rotorcraft Systems, formerly Boeing Helicopters. I presume the name change reflects the current interest in hybrid helicopters and compound rotorcraft.

Boeing now makes VTOL aircraft other than helicopters (V-22).

I don't really know the division of labor between Bell and Boeing for the V-22.

CH-53K.

Is anyone besides the United States Marine Corps interested in the Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion? It doesn't appear that the German Army Aviation Corps is interested in replacing their CH-53G Stallion helicopters with the CH-53K. Sikorsky will produce 156 CH-53K helicopters for the Marine Corps until 2021. What then? Sikorsky does seem to be betting the company on compound rotorcraft based on X2 Technology.

Perhaps Sikorsky wanted a piece of the military unmanned autonomous helicopter business, such as the Schweizer 333-based Northrop Grumman MQ-8B Fire Scout, by buying Schweitzer Aircraft?

Bell/Boeing is a 50/50 deal. This was one of the learning points from V-22 that without a lead company you could not overcome philosophical differences that should not need government intervention.

While Sikorsky might sell some Kilos, I can't imagine that it is enough to sustain the company. The point about Fire Scout is valid, although I am not sure when the Navy elected to move from a 333 to a 406. I do not mean to infer that Sikorsky is at risk, I just think their stockholders are more nervous than the Bell stockholders.

 

[TomS]

http://touch.courant.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83035680/

UTC Taking Hard Look At Selling Or Spinning Off Sikorsky

United Technologies Corp. is considering selling or spinning off Sikorsky, a move that has long been the subject of whispers and more recently open talk of an imminent deal in the defense industry.

The Hartford-based company said late Wednesday that its board of directors had authorized a long, sober look at the helicopter manufacturer. CEO Gregory Hayes signaled the review to Wall Street analysts in early December, less than a month after he took over the top job at UTC.

In a written statement late Wednesday, Hayes said, "As part of the portfolio review announced last December, we are exploring strategic options for Sikorsky to determining the best way to enhance its long-term success and create improved long-term value for UTC's customers and shareholders."

UTC indicated its likely leaning, taking the unusual step of mentioning one outcome: "Options include potential Sikorsky spinoff creating a stand-alone public company."

 

[Triton]

http://touch.courant.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83035680/

UTC Taking Hard Look At Selling Or Spinning Off Sikorsky

United Technologies Corp. is considering selling or spinning off Sikorsky, a move that has long been the subject of whispers and more recently open talk of an imminent deal in the defense industry.

The Hartford-based company said late Wednesday that its board of directors had authorized a long, sober look at the helicopter manufacturer. CEO Gregory Hayes signaled the review to Wall Street analysts in early December, less than a month after he took over the top job at UTC.

In a written statement late Wednesday, Hayes said, "As part of the portfolio review announced last December, we are exploring strategic options for Sikorsky to determining the best way to enhance its long-term success and create improved long-term value for UTC's customers and shareholders."

UTC indicated its likely leaning, taking the unusual step of mentioning one outcome: "Options include potential Sikorsky spinoff creating a stand-alone public company."

Thanks for sharing, TomS. I bet if Sikorsky is spun-off as a stand-alone public company it would be quickly gobbled up by an existing aerospace company. I just can't see Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, or Boeing being interested in the remaining Schweitzer light helicopter lines or the Schweitzer SA-38B. There have been rumors that Boeing might spend its cash for Northrop Grumman after the LRS-B contract announcement.

 

[Triton]

"UTC Boss: Sikorsky No Longer a Good Fit"
by Aaron Mehta 3:18 p.m. EDT March 12, 2015

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2015/03/12/report-utc-exploring-sikorsky-spinoff/70205612/

WASHINGTON — United Technologies is considering spinning off its Sikorsky subsidiary after concluding the helicopter manufacturer is no longer a fit for the company.

Greg Hayes, UTC's president and CEO, told an investor conference Thursday that the company is exploring options for divesting Sikorsky, the largest manufacturer of military helicopters in the US.

Sikorsky is "just not quite as attractive as the rest of the businesses," Hayes said, noting the subsidiary's role "as a platform provider, as opposed to a system provider, differentiates Sikorsky from the rest of the portfolio."

Hayes called the decision "not an easy one," but called it "the right one for Sikorsky's customers, for Sikorsky's employees, and for our shareholders."

In January 2014, Defense News reported that UTC was eyeing the sale of Sikorsky, best known for its popular Black Hawk helicopter line. UTC also owns aircraft engine maker Pratt & Whitney and UTC Aerospace Systems.

Asked by investors about whether a Sikorsky divestiture is based on expected sales projections, Hayes emphasized it's the question of being a platform manufacturer in a company full of system providers, but did acknowledge potentially flat sales for several years are on the horizon.

He pointed to the CH-53 program as an example of how Sikorsky is well positioned for the future, but has relatively flat sales planned for several years.

"That will be a great program, but we don't see any real volume until late into 2020s," Hayes said. "So the question is, between now and then, how do you survive?"

Hayes spent some time pumping up Sikorsky, noting that the $7 billion unit would still be a Fortune 500 company if it stands alone and highlighting that it won every competition it entered in 2014.

"It's still a very, very good business," he said. "It's just not quite the business that we want in terms of long term business potential, long term growth."

He also said the company is working out how best to spin Sikorsky off.

"Give us some time on the capital structure there," he asked investors. "If we spin Sikorsky out, we want to make sure they will be a successful, standalone company."

Sikorsky president Mick Maurer expressed confidence in his unit, saying "our competitive position is as strong as it has ever been in the long history of this company."

"[We're] in a very competitive position," he said. "I wouldn't want to trade places with anyone."

Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, said he can see Sikorsky being spun off as a standalone unit, but warned not to expect another of the major rotorcraft firms to buy it.

"I don't think anyone has the stomach for a European firm buying Sikorsky," Aboulafia said. "Textron just doesn't have the cash to do this, so it won't be Bell Helicopter. As for Boeing, someone would kill that merger — It could be DoJ or DoD, there would be so many knives out there's no way."

He said Sikorsky should be able to stand on its own, comparing it to the 2011 spin off of Huntington Ingalls Industries, the shipbuilder that was previously part of Northrop Grumman.

 

[Triton]

"Sikorsky sees oil customers pass on options amid price slide"

NEW YORK, March 12 Thu Mar 12, 2015 3:20pm EDT

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/12/united-tech-sikorsky-oil-idUSL1N0WE2CI20150312

Reuters) - Oil and gas customers of helicopter company Sikorsky have passed on options for aircraft amid the sharp slide in oil prices, the president of the United Technologies Corp unit said on Thursday.

Helicopters that shuttle crews to offshore oil rigs are a major commercial market for Sikorsky and other manufacturers.

"We have had customers pass on 2015 aircraft options...as oil companies cut back on capital investment," Sikorsky president Mick Maurer said at an investor presentation. "Oil market softness will continue into 2016 and start to come back in 2017."

Nonetheless, Maurer forecast a sales increase of 3 percent to 5 percent this year for the commercial business of Sikorsky, which is also a major military supplier. (Reporting by Lewis Krauskopf and Sagarika Jaisinghani; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

 

[Triton]

I wonder what the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense would think of a merger of Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky if they would strenuously object to a Boeing and Sikorsky merger? I wonder if Airbus Group or AgustaWestland are possible suitors of Sikorsky as well.

 

[sferrin]

Interesting. Had no idea Sikorsky was in that position.

 

[Moose]

I wonder what the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense would think of a merger of Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky if they would strenuously object to a Boeing and Sikorsky merger? I wonder if Airbus Group or AgustaWestland are possible suitors of Sikorsky as well.

I really don't think LM would get approval. The objection to Bowing is they already own a substantial chunk of US helicopter work, but Lockheed is already spread over a lot of DoD contracts. And there are other suitors, I would be interested to see if Raytheon takes a run at a spun-off Sikorsky, for example.


Personally I think Greg Hayes is out of his gourd. But then again UTC stewardship has had me scratching my head for years, and not just in regards to Sikorsky.

 

[Triton]

I really don't think LM would get approval. The objection to Bowing is they already own a substantial chunk of US helicopter work, but Lockheed is already spread over a lot of DoD contracts. And there are other suitors, I would be interested to see if Raytheon takes a run at a spun-off Sikorsky, for example.


Personally I think Greg Hayes is out of his gourd. But then again UTC stewardship has had me scratching my head for years, and not just in regards to Sikorsky.

Considering that Sikorsky Aircraft has been a part of the United Technologies since 1929, then known as United Aircraft and Transport Corporation, the news of a spin-off comes as quite a surprise.

I guess I would be more confident of a purchase by Raytheon in the days of the Raytheon Aircraft Company when it owned the Hawker and Beechcraft product lines.

I fear that a purchase by Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, or Boeing may mean the end of Sikorsky's general aviation business and exclusive concentration on the military rotorcraft business. Much like what happened with Boeing's merger with McDonnell Douglas and the spin-off of the general aviation lines to a new company named MD Helicopters. Granted it was required by federal regulators, but it seems that Boeing is not interested in the general aviation business.

Bell (Textron Aviation), AgustaWestland, and Airbus Helicopters are all in the general aviation business. Airbus Helicopters currently sells the UH-72A Lakota to the United States Army and it invested in the AAS-72X in the Armed Aerial Scout program. So Airbus Group seems keen on getting United States military rotorcraft business. I've read that Textron might be interested in Sikorsky, but it doesn't have the cash to purchase the company. AgustaWestland would be an ironic suitor for Sikorsky.

Or perhaps a company we least likely to expect may make a bid for Sikorsky?

 

[yasotay]

Well I guess I should start buying lottery tickets. B)
I dont think that AW or Airbus acquisition would be favorably looked at by Congress, espcially the delegations from Pennsylvania and Texas.
Sadly, one thing for sure; with the blood in the water the sharks are begining to circle.

 

[Triton]

Well I guess I should start buying lottery tickets. B)
I dont think that AW or Airbus acquisition would be favorably looked at by Congress, espcially the delegations from Pennsylvania and Texas.
Sadly, one thing for sure; with the blood in the water the sharks are begining to circle.

As consolidation continues to occur in the aerospace sector, the Department of Defense and Congress are rapidly running out of choices and will soon no longer be able to be so picky. They seem to believe that they can have competition from robust domestic-only contractors in an era of winner-take-all programs and sequestration.

 

[yasotay]

Ultimately it is always about money.
“[font=]With an adjusted operating margin of 10-13% for 2014, Sikorsky is "just a little, not quite as attractive as the rest of the businesses," according to UTC CEO and President Gregory Hayes.” [/font]Sikorsky Not Profitable Enough For United Technologies Michael Bruno Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
http://aviationweek.com/defense/sikorsky-not-profitable-enough-united-technologies

Sadly this also means that we will start seeing parachutes deployed from the faltering icon, because it is one of the very best, the talent will move early.

 

[sferrin]

I'd think it's a bit early to write Sikorsky's obituary. Their X-2 technology will almost certainly make it through JMR and on to replacing the Blackhawk.

 

[yasotay]

I'd think it's a bit early to write Sikorsky's obituary. Their X-2 technology will almost certainly make it through JMR and on to replacing the Blackhawk.

I agree that they have just as good chance as the competitions. Still I have seen it before. The talent will start leaving.
Hope you are right and I am wrong.

 

[Triton]

Source:
http://www.courant.com/opinion/cartoons/hc-sikorsky-for-sale-spinoff-20150313-story.html

 

[Triton]

I'd think it's a bit early to write Sikorsky's obituary. Their X-2 technology will almost certainly make it through JMR and on to replacing the Blackhawk.

I agree that they have just as good chance as the competitions. Still I have seen it before. The talent will start leaving.
Hope you are right and I am wrong.

It will take years for Sikorsky to generate revenue from their investment in X2 Technology. The S-97 Raider is intended initially for the military market. When will the United States Army, USSOCOM, or foreign militaries have the money to buy the S-97 Raider? Sikorsky has talked about introducing X2 Technology to their general aviation product lines, but when is that going to occur? The offshore oil industry isn't going to buy with low oil prices. It seems that United Technologies is not interested in waiting around to see if the bet on X2 Technology is going to pay off. How is Sikorsky going to generate revenue for the next decade until delivery of JMR-Medium in 2027–28? Meanwhile, Wall Street demands short-term returns on investment and military and general aviation demand for Sikorsky products is currently soft. If Sikorsky is spun-off it could succumb to profit-takers or competitors. The other divisions of United Technologies could have delivered a profit to investors while Sikorsky made its long-term investment in X2 Technology and waited until military and general aviation demand improved in the rotorcraft market.

 

[Triton]

The two cents of Forbes

"UTC's Sikorsky Spinoff: Good For UTC, Good For Sikorsky...Two Out Of Three Ain't Bad"
by Richard Aboulafia
Mar 13, 2015

Source:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardaboulafia/2015/03/13/utcs-sikorsky-spinoff-good-for-utc-good-for-sikorsky-two-out-of-three-aint-bad/

Earlier this week, United Technologies announced plans to spin off or sell its Sikorsky Helicopters unit. From UTC’s perspective, divesting Sikorsky makes a lot of sense. UTC is an aircraft engines, systems and components maker with a strong push towards commercial aviation segments, particularly the aftermarket; Sikorsky is a platform prime contractor whose core strength is in military markets.

Sikorsky contributed strong profits to UTC during the boom years (between 2005 and 2014 the military rotorcraft market grew by 133% in value of deliveries). But demand has slowed, with US procurement numbers trending downward. For UTC, it’s no longer a key growth driver. It’s merely a successful but stable operating unit that has little relevance to the company’s future focus.

As for Sikorsky, while it has benefited from UTC’s global presence and critical mass, it might do better on its own. It could allocate the cash it generates to its own priorities, and not have to worry about funding new product developments in other UTC divisions. It’s currently the second largest helicopter prime in the world by revenue and market share (right after Boeing). After a string of key strategic victories (including the US Presidential Helicopter and the US Air Force Combat Rescue Helicopter), it looks set to grab the number one spot in the next few years. Sikorsky has also finally dealt with performance issues on its long-running Canadian Cyclone project.

In short, Sikorsky is in very good shape regardless of who owns it. There’s also a good model for what happens next. Huntington Ingalls has done a nice job as a standalone shipbuilder after being spun off from Northrop Grumman. And if it sells Sikorsky (rather than the more likely option of a tax-free spinoff), UTC can use the cash to reinforce its commercial aviation supplier business, and to focus on shareholder returns.

The only mark against this bright outlook is that a Sikorsky spin-off is actually a move away from rotorcraft industry restructuring. There are five big primes in the rotorcraft industry, Sikorsky, Boeing, Bell (Textron), Airbus, and AgustaWestland (Finmeccanica). These five primes hold 97% of the market in value of deliveries. But most aerospace industry segments have fewer major players. With the rotorcraft market trending downward, there is legitimate concern about industry overcapacity.

To accomplish any kind of industry rationalization, something has to happen among the three US primes. The world isn’t ready for TransAtlantic mergers just yet, so Airbus and AgustaWestland will stay as they are (there’s too much product line overlap for an intra-European merger between the two of them).

In the US, Textron is too financially weak to be a buyer. While Boeing could buy Bell, they have no interest in civil models, which is Bell’s key growth area. Boeing has also moved away from tiltrotor technology, which is Bell’s key military segment strength and future business focus.

Boeing, by contrast, has the financial strength to buy Sikorsky. But the resulting behemoth would hold over 80% of the US military rotorcraft market, and over 60% of the total world military market. If the Department of Defense or Department of Justice didn’t kill this merger, European regulators certainly would. All three entities might object.

To rationalize the rotorcraft industry, UTC would need to be a buyer, not a seller. It would need to acquire all or part of Bell (with Boeing perhaps taking part of it).

With UTC’s Sikorsky spinoff announcement, this outcome is no longer a possibility. In short, the rotorcraft industry might well be stuck with five primes for years to come.

 

[Triton]

"Sikorsky head cites highlight in advance of potential sale"
Alexander Soule
Published 8:02 pm, Friday, March 13, 2015

Source:
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/business/article/Sikorsky-head-cites-highlight-in-advance-of-6133255.php

Mick Maurer, president of Sikorsky Aircraft, told investors at a conference on Thursday that a sale by corporate parent United Technologies of the Stratford-based helicopter giant might not be such a bad thing.

In the words of Mick Maurer, the timing is "very good" for any divestment of Sikorsky Aircraft by United Technologies, following UTC's announcement Wednesday that may end its long ownership of the Stratford-based helicopter manufacturer.

But Maurer, Sikorsky's president, acknowledges the headwinds the company would face following any sale, whether to another business or via an initial public offering of stock, with U.S. military revenue expected to stay flat for several years and depressed oil prices limiting helicopter sales to operators of offshore rigs.

Maurer addressed Sikorsky's immediate and long-term prospects Thursday at UTC's annual investor day in New York City.

Sikorsky is coming off a 2014 in which it won two major U.S. design competitions, getting contracts to produce helicopters for the White House and U.S. Air Force. Add to that the contract it has to produce more than 150 heavy-lift CH-53K helicopters for the Marine Corps, and Sikorsky's backlog of business is at the highest point in its history.

Maurer has a big problem, however: Volume production under those programs will not begin until well after 2020, making for lean years in the interim.

"The Black Hawk is a great program, but the (CH-53K) is actually quite a bit bigger going forward for us," Maurer said. "After 2018, things start to really pick up. ... Our challenge is to fill the gap in the middle with additional sales from international military, commercial and aftermarket prospects."

Maurer elaborated on how depressed oil prices are putting pressure in the near term on civilian aircraft sales at Sikorsky, though he still expects an increase this year of between 3 percent and 5 percent for that side of the business.

"About 20 percent of the offshore oil rigs that we serve are for exploration; the other 80 percent are for production," Maurer said. "So far, offshore production appears to be holding fairly steady and demand for our services ... looks OK for now. Having said that, we have had customers pass on 2015 new aircraft options and push some deliveries into 2016 as oil companies cut back on capital investments."

Sikorsky is not alone. In a January conference call, the CEO of Providence, R.I.-based Textron noted similar trends affecting its Bell Helicopter division in Fort Worth, Texas.

"Certainly the commercial market was softer than we expected," said Textron CEO Scott Donnelly. "I do expect to see some pickup. ... There certainly are a number of opportunities in the marketplace that we feel we're likely to win that would help us see a slight uptake in commercial activity in 2015 versus 2014."

A bigger uncertainty for Sikorsky and Bell is the potential for any freeze in military spending should the U.S. government re-enact next year the sequestration budget crisis of 2013. Both manufacturers are in an open competition to design a future replacement for the Black Hawk helicopters Sikorsky has built for the U.S. military for more than three decades, as well as Boeing's Apache attack helicopter.

Bell has proposed the V-280 Valor, a smaller version of its tilt-rotor Osprey that takes off like a helicopter before rotating its wing-mounted rotor sets to propel it forward like an airplane.

With Boeing, Sikorsky plans to adapt its S-97 Raider and X-2 prototypes that feature twin, stacked rotor sets that rotate in opposite directions, with a rear-mounted "pusher" propellor allowing the Boeing-Sikorsky SB1 Defiant to reach speeds that easily eclipse traditional helicopters today.

"That will fly in 2017 and pave the way for what is expected to be the largest helicopter replacement program in history," Maurer said. "The challenge and the opportunity will be to keep these programs fully funded in Washington.

 

[Triton]

"Pentagon monitoring Sikorsky future"
Posted on March 16, 2015 | By Dan Freedman

Source:
http://blog.ctnews.com/politics/2015/03/16/pentagon-monitoring-sikorsky-future/

When United Technologies announced last week it might put Sikorsky Aircraft up for sale or spin it off, the Pentagon was silent.

Carlin Woog, deputy assistant for communications to Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, offered a standard “no comment’’ as officials absorbed the news that the manufacturer of its signature Black Hawk helicopter might soon be part of a new corporate structure.

One such official was Frank Kendall, DOD undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics. Asked by reporters about Sikorsky after a Bloomberg Government panel discussion, Kendall responded: “At this point, based on what I know about that deal, I’m neutral about it. It should not impact us (DOD) as far as cost or rates are concerned.’’

The quote, among other things, suggests the Pentagon expects Sikorsky to be around for a while, regardless of whether it is sold or spun of

 

[yasotay]

Well I hope that the DoD knows what it is talking about.
It has worked out so well in the past in the aerospace sector.
All said, I would be very happy to see Sikorsky make it as a stand alone company, just not sure that is viable in this day.

 

[Stargazer]

All said, I would be very happy to see Sikorsky make it as a stand alone company, just not sure that is viable in this day.

So would I. Sikorsky holds a unique place in aviation history, being possibly the oldest name still extant in today's industry (Fokker don't do planes anymore, do they?); for being first a successful Russian manufacturer and then an even more successful American one; and for taking a marked lead in nearly all the aircraft types they ventured into: large bombers, flying boats, helicopters. Those whose business is consolidation and the search of profitability should keep such things in mind when they handle the fate of such a respectable company.

 

[Triton]

Well I hope that the DoD knows what it is talking about.
It has worked out so well in the past in the aerospace sector.
All said, I would be very happy to see Sikorsky make it as a stand alone company, just not sure that is viable in this day.

I am not sure what the Department of Defense can really say at this time since United Technologies hasn't done anything, yet, concerning Sikorsky Aircraft. If there is a deal in the works for the assets of Sikorsky Aircraft, I presume that all discussions would be under a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

 

[Triton]

So would I. Sikorsky holds a unique place in aviation history, being possibly the oldest name still extant in today's industry (Fokker don't do planes anymore, do they?); for being first a successful Russian manufacturer and then an even more successful American one; and for taking a marked lead in nearly all the aircraft types they ventured into: large bombers, flying boats, helicopters. Those whose business is consolidation and the search of profitability should keep such things in mind when they handle the fate of such a respectable company.

Wall Street doesn't care about legacy, it only cares about short-term returns on investment. They can be counted on to do what makes them the most money. Gregory J. Hayes isn't interested in waiting for the investment in X2 Technology to provide returns.

 

[sferrin]

What is particularly vile is when you see companies doing "revenue runs" at the end of the quarter/year. Everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING is sacrificed in order to be able to bill for "completed" work.

 

[Grey Havoc]

And then they idly wonder why the roof is falling down around their ears.

 

[sferrin]

And then they idly wonder why the roof is falling down around their ears.

The "solution" is typically to overwork their inadequate workforce until they quit, and then not hire replacements. Gotta reduce costs you know.

 

[Grey Havoc]

To borrow a quote from a certain Sci-Fi classic, "A bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes."

Well, one can dream.

 

[Stargazer]

I sometimes think of how sad the great pioneers (A. Fokker, E. Heinkel, G. H. Curtiss and so many others) would be if they saw what became of their legacy. At the time of their passing, they had built up empires that were strong, theirs were household names that stood for quality and craftsmanship; they could have no notion at all that their efforts would amount to so little decades down the line, to the point that their names would disappear from the industry and be known only by enthusiasts or historians. It is to the credit of the former Soviet Union that they made a point of keeping the names of their legendary manufacturers alive.

 

[Moose]

What is particularly vile is when you see companies doing "revenue runs" at the end of the quarter/year. Everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING is sacrificed in order to be able to bill for "completed" work.

No if you want to get into "particularly vile" look at what happened to Colt in recent years, and they're hardly alone. Executive boards that alternately neglect their product line and abandon their standards while giving themselves massive dividend payments every year. That's particularly vile.

 

[sferrin]

What is particularly vile is when you see companies doing "revenue runs" at the end of the quarter/year. Everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING is sacrificed in order to be able to bill for "completed" work.

No if you want to get into "particularly vile" look at what happened to Colt in recent years, and they're hardly alone. Executive boards that alternately neglect their product line and abandon their standards while giving themselves massive dividend payments every year. That's particularly vile.

How do you think they get these dividend payments?

 

[Triton]

"Sikorsky, Polish subsidiary sweeten helicopter contract bid"
Sikorsky Aircraft and PZL Mielec promise to invest $200 million in Polish Military Aviation Works facilities if they win the contract.
By Richard Tomkins | March 20, 2015 at 2:56 PM

Source:
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2015/03/20/Sikorsky-Polish-subsidiary-sweeten-helicopter-contract-bid/7721426874932/#ixzz3UxeCsA9T

ss Antony Joseph.
LODZ, Poland, March 20 (UPI) -- Sikorsky Aircraft and its Polish subsidiary will invest in Polish Military Aviation Works facilities if awarded a government contract for new military helicopters.

PZL Mielec said the investment would be nearly $200 million and establish service and repair units for UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters in plants of Polish Military Aviation Works, or WZL-1, in the cities of Lodz and Deblin.

"For WZL-1 it will be a technological revolution," said PZL Mielec. "Above all, it is the acquisition of new technology and competence in the field of aircraft service and repairs, replacement of machines and devices, and most importantly a move away from the current 'Soviet' approach to the service of aviation equipment and replacing it with 'Western' methodology."

"The acquired competences are also the chance for WZL-1 to join to the global support and service network of Sikorsky Aircraft and achieve in the future opportunity for providing improvements and modernization to the worldwide fleet of Black Hawk helicopters."

The Polish military plans to acquire as many as 200 helicopters -- transport as well as combat -- in the coming years to modernize its aviation capabilities.

 

[Triton]

Perhaps an Airbus Group acquisition of Sikorsky would be more palatable if Aerospatiale had kept the name Vought Helicopter Inc. for its manufacturing operations in the United States?