US army aviators raise concerns about uncertain outlook

[Lankan Ranger]

US army aviators raise concerns about uncertain outlook

By almost any standard, US Army aviation has never looked in better shape. With an annual budget of $7 billion, three active production lines for manned helicopters and the Afghanistan war emphasising the value of vertical lift, the army's pocket of aviators enjoy unprecedented support.

The long-term outlook for the army's aviation branch, however, is not ideal. No new combat helicopter has entered service in nearly 30 years. All three active production lines are scheduled to shut-down within the next 15 years.

Fielding a new vertical lift technology could take billions of dollars and more than a decade, but the army has neither set aside funding nor approved any development programmes.

As the Association of the US Army (AUSA) hosted an annual aviation symposium on 13-14 January, army aviation leaders bluntly called attention to the branch's future predicament.

Col Randolph Rotte, aviation division chief on the army's headquarters staff, issued a call for immediate action. There is currently no strategy to replace the Boeing CH-47 Chinook, Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk and Boeing AH-64D Apache.

"What if you do nothing?" Rotte asked. "So now it's 2025. You've procured your last Chinook in 2017. You procured your last Black Hawk in 2023. You procured your last AH-64D Block III in around the 2025 timeframe. What now? That's not the time to be asking that question. The time to be asking that is now."

The army, however, is struggling to fund the aviation branch's current bills, which include all three production lines, a $1.3 billion upgrade programme for the Bell Helicopter OH-58D Kiowa Warrior and a wide range of survivability and performance upgrades across the fleet.

Few resources have been left aside for science and technology accounts, said Brig Gen William Crosby, army aviation's acquisition chief.

"How can you look to the future when youv'e got a $7 billion budget, but just $107 million in [science and technology]," Crosby said. "How can you look to the next vertical lift technology with a pittance of an S&T budget like that?"

Complicating the army's case to invest in a new wave of vertical lift technology, however, is the absence of a clear threat. Although service officials have conceived of a family of multi-role aircraft employing advanced vertical lift technology, the army's current aircraft are expected to out-class potential opponents for 20 to 30 more years.

"There's no peer competitors for those aircraft into the future - into the 2030 [timeframe] and pushing up against 2040," said Col William H. Morris, the director of army aviation charged with setting policy.
In a new era of tight budget discipline, the army's latest attempts to field new combat aircraft have not inspired confidence either.

While modernisation programmes for the CH-47, UH-60 and AH-64 have proceeded relatively smoothly, cost overruns and delays forced the army to cancel the Sikorsky/Boeing RAH-66 Comanche and Bell ARH-70 Arapaho since 2004.

"In the last so many years we don't have a great track record for a clean sheet development in army aviation," Rotte said. "So how do you in a fiscally constrained environment with that recent history - how do you get something going?"

But that is clearly the focus of army aviation leaders this year. A line-up of speakers at the AUSA symposium highlighted both the challenge and the critical need of making decisions soon about army aviation's future.

"Are we going to continue to sustain [existing helicopter fleets] for another 20 or 30 or 40 years, or are we going to put our eggs in some sort of new vertical lift technology?" Crosby asked.

The first step will be to define a vision. Ongoing studies on "future vertical lift" by the office of secretary of defence and the army are analysing options. The rotorcraft industry, meanwhile, has formed a consortium to align the industry's science and technology spending with the army's priorities.

Finally, the army's science and engineering community has launched a future vertical lift programme, focusing initially on a joint avionics architecture that could be applied to a diverse family of future aircraft.

"Now we have to begin to shape the capabilities that we need for the future," said Col Timothy J. Edens, deputy commander at army aviation headquarters at Fort Rucker. "We must fix an aimpoint on the horizon and then develop a vision to hit that aimpoint without letting it slip to the right."

Helping the army make its case is the clarity that comes with the approaching deadline for finding a solution. If a new technology is expected to be fielded by 2025, a major development effort would have to begin by next year.

"Now that it's more than something way, way out there, things are starting to come into view," Rotte said. "Whatever it is, it's going to be hard, and it probably won't be cheap."

Military Aircraft and Military Aviation News from Flightglobal

 

[LeGenD]

The above story represents one side of the coin and not the other one.

The Army Vision for Aviation Modernization

In 2004, the Army made a strategic decision to cancel the fully funded Comanche helicopter program and reinvest those funds into other Army aviation programs. Some of the Comanche funds were reinvested into modernization of the existing aviation fleet, while other funds were used to purchase the new Lakota Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) and the Joint Cargo Aircraft, and to invest in research, development, testing, and evaluation for the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) program. This strategic redirection of scarce resources enabled the Army to start an aggressive modernization path to correct decades-old deficiencies within our aviation programs.

The Army remains firmly on course with this modernization path today. Initially established in 2004, this investment strategy results in modernization across all components of our Army, enhances homeland security, and is the current modernization plan upon which success is measured today. We are seeing the benefits of this investment strategy as we continue to field new and updated systems to our aviation units. The increased capabilities of our existing aviation systems (including the AH-64 Apache, CH-47 Chinook, and the UH-60 Black Hawk), and the crews that fly and maintain them, have made Army aviation the most sought-after combat multiplier on the battlefield today. The Army’s 2004 decision to cancel the Comanche helicopter program was a strategic decision and paved the road to aviation modernization and the assurance that Army aviation could meet the enduring requirements in the National Military Strategy.

The reinvestment of Comanche dollars allows the Army to modernize utility and cargo fleets to deliver new UH-60M and CH-47F aircraft that are currently deployed in the warfight. The Army fielded more than 50 Lakota Light Utility Aircraft, intended primarily for the U.S. Army National Guard, and accepted delivery of the first two C-27Js for developmental testing. The C-27J will begin fielding in FY11, initiating the replacement of our aging fixed-wing fleet. Modernization upgrades to the attack fleet, with the Block III AH-64D Apache helicopter, ensure that the Apache will remain the most advanced attack helicopter in the world.

Army aviation has forged ahead to modernize our capabilities by establishing programs of record for the Extended Range Multipurpose (Sky Warrior) unmanned aircraft system (UAS) and the Raven Small UAS (SUAS). The Raven, deployed for more than 3 years in the warfight, has become a necessity to the troops engaged in combat operations. Derivatives of the SUAS program support the Secretary of Defense’s intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance initiative. The acquisition of new aircraft and unmanned systems is only part of the continuing modernization effort. Army aviation continues to upgrade aircraft survivability equipment (ASE), avionics, ground support equipment, and other programs.

In spite of these impressive achievements, Army aviation continues to face new demands because of emerging wartime requirements. For example, the Army has had to use redirected Comanche funds to meet critical warfighting requirements that were not funded through cost-of-war supplemental budgets. These include upgrades to aircraft engines to meet the high-altitude requirements of Afghanistan, ASE to meet the latest weapon threats, over-the-horizon communications requirements for better situational awareness, and rapid fielding of the Raven. Currently, the funding of these emerging procurement bills is paid through trade space within our programs; it is a zero sum gain. For example, if we spend more resources on an increase in the Raven UAS or a cost increase in the Longbow Block III program, then we must trade off the procurement of another aviation system, such as the UH-60 Black Hawk or the Shadow UAS. The combined result of these competing requirements has caused a decrease in our velocity on the modernization path.

Current and forecasted fiscal environmental realities force a long-term approach to modernization. It is imperative to remember that we are just beginning to see the effects of the 2004 Comanche reinvestment decision. Much of the modernization is not forecasted to be complete until 2020. There is still hard work to be done to implement our plans fully, and many challenges remain. As an example, the recent review of the Manned ARH program has caused a reevaluation of our best practices and will delay procurement of a replacement for the aging OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. However, we can state with confidence that the Comanche reinvestment strategy was sound. It remains the long-term vision for Army aviation modernization.

Source: USAASC - Army AL&T Online

Modernization of existing battle proven fleet to make it as potent as possible makes sense to me.

Commanche was not better than AH-64D Apache. The money spent on its useless research program was rightly redirected for other more essential needs.

Yes! With increase in funding to aviation, R&D sector of aviation can make good progress. However, with existing financial pressure of WOT, expensive USAF modernization projects, and planned defence budget cuts, I doubt that aviation may get significant increase in its existing budget.

Situation might change in the future though depending upon the circumstances. US economy is finally showing signs of recovery and WOT might end at 2014.