Talk:VH-71 Kestrel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Aircraft WikiProject Rotorcraft task force

[edit] Kestrel unofficial?

The VH-71A is not officially called the Kestrel. And should not be called that here until it is official. The VH-71A to date has not recieved ANY moniker. Kestrel was one of a handful of names being thrown around within the last year. None of the "published" sources are particularly reliable. Anyone can set up a web site and publish any name they want, that doesn't make it true. Hell, I have some golfballs that say VH-71A "Grizzly". That doesn't mean that is the official name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.43 (talk • contribs)

http://ain.gcnpublishing.com/news/single-news-page/article/despite-funding-shift-marine-one-on-schedule/?no_cache=1&cHash=dca70bc653 is a recent publication that backs up what you say. I have seen USMC sources that call it the Kestrel, but they appear to have been pulled. For now, we can put the name in quotes in the text, and I'll look into mving it to the company name/designation page, once we figure out which company to list it under! - BillCJ 16:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LM EH101/VH71 CSARX Contract Relevency

Dont quite see how mentioning that LM has had serious problems with the development of the VH-71 is redundant. In the editor comments you state it is mentioned below; the only thing mentioned below is that the EH101 is up for the CSAR contract. My section was highlighting that the Air Force OFFICIALLY stated LM was behind on schedule and had, as I quoted, displayed "unsatisfactory performance" with respect to the VH-71. If you read my added source, the GAO document, youd see it outlines everything I mentioned - hence the citation. News regarding difficulty and problems with the AC under development is most certainly relevent! -Cefoskey 13:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had missed that fact that the GAO source covered most of what you had written. Anyway, just as an observaition, I find it odd that the GAO wants the USAF to recontest the CSAR-X, but in the same report critizies the one of the contestants protesting the original bid! Just goes to reinforce my impression that on the rare occassion when the GAO opens its eyes, it sees the inside of its large intestines. As Dr. McCoy said in STIV:The Voyage Home, "The bueracratic mentality is the only consant in the universe"! - BillCJ 17:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The entire CSAR debacle is pretty confusing. The Air Force, not the GAO, was the one who was complaining about the VH-71 development in their description of why they rated the 101 as a "High Risk" for CSAR procurement. The GAO was just citing them in the protest document among other things; this information would not be publically available had they not included it in the report, as the AF is under no obligation to discuss contract decision reasoning. Bottom line remains, the Air Force can do whatever they wish, as the GAO cant force anyone to do anything. Bureaucracy indeed!-Cefoskey 14:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characteristics

Precisely, is clear why Kester is so costly? I heard about a com/ECM set gold-quality, but are available particulars on this? Secondly, the italian EH101 program costed if i remember well, something like 2,300 billions lires (around 1,2 billions euros or something like 1,7US dollars) for the first 16 helicopters. So EH 101 is really a costly stuff, basically more than a last gen fighter.--Stefanomencarelli 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)