Marine One Upgrade Plan Stirs Debate

CBS Evening News: Replacing Aging Presidential Helicopters With More Secure Fleet Would Cost $11 Billion

(CBS)  When President Obama returned today from Chicago, he arrived at the White House on Marine One - one of a fleet of presidential helicopters that is now 30 years old, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.

A new Marine One is supposed to take off next year and CBS News has obtained exclusive pictures of the next generation presidential chopper going through a test flight.

But, runaway costs threaten to ground the replacements.

Lockheed-Martin signed a contract four years ago to build 28 new helicopters for $6.1 billion. Numerous Pentagon-mandated changes have ballooned the price tag to $11.2 billion - meaning each of the new choppers would cost $400 million, or as much as Air Force One.

Defense analyst Daniel Goure argues the new Marine One must be able to completely protect the president.

The armored helicopter would be equipped with tons of communications gear and defensive systems capable of fending off missiles and even the effects of a nuclear blast.

"The president will be able to do anything and everything he does on Air Force One or from the national command post in the White House," Goure says. "He can launch a nuclear war if that's what's required."

The Pentagon says it needs 28 of the helicopters because they have to cover the president everywhere he goes, usually three at each stop. This week there will be choppers in Chicago, Denver, Phoenix and Ottawa.

But critics say the helicopters are the latest example of out-of-control spending - especially unaffordable in the current recession.

And Lieutenant Colonel Gene Boyer, who flew Marine One the day Richard Nixon resigned, says there's no way the government needs 28 of them.

"In this economy, I believe it's a foolish investment and going beyond 14 to 16 helicopters is absolutely ludicrous," Boyer says.

The program is so far over budget the White House could pull the plug. But it could take years to build cheaper replacements and security officials warn in a post-9/11 world it's the wrong place to be cutting corners.

[luke_4u]

I say put him on Greyhound. Get him "round trip" tickets, to save us money.

[lambor59]

Let's try the hovercraft, it's a lot cheaper.

[rigelalpha]

The comment from GlobalLdrs highlights a common misconception. It''s not the helicopter airframe that''s driving the $400 million. It''s the "tons of communications gear and defense systems" that drives the cost. Lockheed doesn''t build helicopters, but they do build defense systems and avionics, and they have lots of experience integrating them onto airframes. (Of course, they also have lots of experience milking the government for all it''s worth.) The helicopter itself is built by Augusta-Westland, which is fully in the same league as Bell and Sikorsky.

The problem is not that the contract was awarded to a company that doesn''t manufacture helicopters; that''s a red herring. The real problem is what the military calls "requirements creep". It%u2019s like a homeowner who keeps redesigning a house while the builders are building it. The DOD has learned from painful experience that requirements creep can lead to out-of-control costs, and by and large it%u2019s pretty good at keeping that from happening. But throw in the White House (which doesn''t have that kind of experience), and all bets are off. And by White House, I don''t mean the President; I mean the quasi-permanent, non-partisan staff that deals with issues like communications and security.

Take requirements creep, add a contractor who likes to charge the maximum amount of money for the minimum amount of work, and you get spiraling costs. Unless you solve that problem, the costs will continue to escalate.

[indianaman13]

I see both sides of this debate. One hand you have spending by the military, but hey, they''''ve been spending like they have a money tree since before Reagan. What price can you put on the protection of the president, and not just this one, at best he has 8 years, these helicopters will be used by the next couple of presidents. On the other hand, we''''re spending taxpayer dollars, yet at the same time, still employing Americans. I might not like the spending, but i definitely see the need for it this time.

[globalldrs]

One of the first business concepts we teach business students is the principle of sunk costs. Just because you have put a lot of time, energy, and monies into a project doesn%u2019t mean you must continue that project.
After awarding this contract to a company that doesn%u2019t even manufacture helicopters, the parties involved are %u2018surprised%u2019 over the cost overruns. Why should this be a surprise? Rather than awarding the contract to one of two domestic helicopter manufacturers (Sikorsky and Boeing) who provide a variety of helicopters already to our military services, the contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin, an airplane manufacturer who doesn%u2019t make any helicopters!
This is not to say that Lockheed Martin%u2019s British-Italian partners don%u2019t produce excellent products. They do. They just don%u2019t have the same years of experience in producing military aircraft as our two American companies: Boeing and Sikorsky.
The principle of Sunk Costs tells us to cancel this black hole of costs and to start over. Rewrite the requirements, revisit the specifications, and put it back out for bid. Something tells me that one of our two domestic helicopter manufacturers will be able to produce a better product at a substantially reduced cost per unit because this is what they having been doing well for decades.
This contract bid needs to be re-opened today. Our tax dollars are going down a black hole here.

[ladypyrat]

I would like to point out, that the helicopter on Nixon''s last flight from the White House was ARMY 1! Lt. Col. Gene Boyer is retired from the Army. The Marines started flying the President at a much later date.
Also, what this article did not mention, is that Lt.Col. Boyer is concerned with security, since the new helicopters are manufactured by EADS. The helicopters have problems landing at the White House and could damage it or the grounds. Mr. Boyer is an expert, since he has flown for the White House over 10 years. It would be nice to see a correction made, based on historical facts.

[thevoice09]

Ahem. He''s the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! If he''s gonna sneak things into Pakistan to get bin Laden, fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, talk to Iran, keep Meddedev in check AND fly through countries known for political assasinations(like this one), he should probably be in a helicopter made THIS DECADE. I think the cost is worth not having the leader of the free world blow up because some suicide bomber was having a bad day.

[bobnjersey]

[But being friends and working with a Terrorist Bill Ayers gets ignored in the Media. I am done with this country.]
[Posted by vfjax at 02:38 PM : Feb 17, 2009]

the bill ayers story was in the media incessently for weeks ... and sean hannity made it his daily topic of discussion every day for the whole campaign. he''s even still talking about it now ... like right now ... to whomever he happens to be talking to.

that wasn''t enough for you ... or was it that the result wasn''t what you wanted?

[bobnjersey]

[The bozo is going all over the place on AF One already and talks about the economy and money.!! what a joke he is. spending millions each time it get airborne.]
[Posted by hambonehd at 01:17 PM : Feb 17, 2009]

as has every president before him each time they go somewhere.

were you whining like this whenever gwb took a vacation to clear brush in his fake ranch in texas ... you know ... the one he doesn''t need or use anymore.

what should the president be talking about in the middle of the biggest economic downturn in generations?

[bobnjersey]

[Insert "liberal" for conservative for the years 2000-2008. ]
[Posted by promaclaura at 08:46 AM : Feb 17, 2009]

and re-insert conservative again for the years 1992 thru 2000.

[indianaman13]

I see both sides of this debate. One hand you have spending by the military, but hey, they''ve been spending like they have a money tree since before Reagan. What price can you put on the protection of the president, and not just this one, at best he has 8 years, these helicopters will be used by the next couple of presidents. On the other hand, we''re spending taxpayer dollars, yet at the same time, still employing Americans. I might not like the spending, but i definitely see the need for it this time.

[hambonehd]

A HOT AIR Balloon is good enough for Obama. He can fuel it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Sir_Mr at 10:00 AM : Feb 17, 2009"

ROFLMAO !!! Amen.

The bozo is going all over the place on AF One already and talks about the economy and money.!! what a joke he is. spending millions each time it get airborne.

[promaclaura]

I don''t begrudge our President and future President''s new, safer transportation. It''ll maintain jobs for some and it looks like Bush ordered it for future Presidents anyway. This should not be a partisan issue, yes, they shouldn''t make so many at this time but to completely scrap it doesn''t seem right either. With the way things are going, it looks like our Presidents are going to need higher tech protection anyway.

[ramos937]

And Lieutenant Colonel Gene Boyer, who flew Marine One the day Richard Nixon resigned, says there''s no way the government needs 28 of them.

"In this economy, I believe it''s a foolish investment and going beyond 14 to 16 helicopters is absolutely ludicrous," Boyer says.
----------------------------------------

This is one more case where the powers-that-be ignore the folks that actually use the product/service. If the guys that actually use these helicopters say 14-16 are enough, they should have the say so.

[promaclaura]

the only real question is just how Un American the

conservatives have become to wish the demise of their

own country for yhe power of their political party,

Posted by pythoncharly at 02:34 AM : Feb 17, 2009

Insert "liberal" for conservative for the years 2000-2008.

[omnibus66]

The ones they are using now may be thirty years old, but they look pretty good, and are obviously doing the job.

I''m sure that they are good for a few more years. Postpone buying the new ones. And in the future, when the new ones are ordered, use a little common sense. Do they really need 28 of them? I doubt it.

[greeneyes222]

It''s an awful lot of money and a huge increase in price at a time when we''re borrowing every penny for the "stimulus."

No matter what Bush did or didn''t do, Obama has right of refusal on this. So if it goes forward, it''s on him. I guess since we''re funding trips home to Chicago for Valentine''s Day dinners (at God knows what cost) he''ll probably keep them.

Shades of Bill Clinton, who got in hot water flying Air Force One to Los Angeles for haircuts.

[guyfrompa09]

whatawebb - You''re an idiot

[quickthought]

"Lockheed-Martin signed a contract four years ago"
...four years ago...
...four years ago...
...four years ago...

Explain again how this is Obama''s wasteful spending.....

[tincup356]

there is still some money left out there somewhere that hasn''t been wasted ,,,,YET......it is plain sad that we have a government that tell us one thing,,,,we are in a crisis and don''t have money to waste,,,and on the other hand,,,spends money like there is no tomorrow,,,,,Is this some kind of double standard here?,,,,I think they are ALL total failures and need to be removed like a cancer would.