Twitter Facebook Google RSS
National Defense > Blog > Posts > Army Aviation Long-Term Plans Not Forthcoming
Army Aviation Long-Term Plans Not Forthcoming
By Valerie Insinna

Defense industry executives called on the Army to be more forthcoming on its aviation requirements Jan. 10.

Companies are willing to use their internal research-and-development funds to invest in new technologies and platforms, but they also have to be able to communicate with their shareholders that those investments are aligned with what the military needs, the executives said at the Association of the U.S. Army’s Aviation Symposium in National Harbor, Md.

“Any company ... has the ability to make investments,” said Sam Mehta, president of Sikorsky Military Systems. “We can only do that to a certain point on our own. We need engagement. We need to know what your requirements are.”

Sikorsky has invested $50 million in internal research-and-development funding to build its X2 helicopter and will put even more dollars into the S-97, Mehta said. Multi-year contracts, such as the July 2012 order for additional Black Hawk helicopters, help give the company the stability to start such development programs.

The Defense Department has identified several capabilities as long-term needs, including a new program interchangeably called future vertical lift or joint multi-role. There is also an improved turbine engine program (ITEP) and further development of manned/unmanned teaming.

However, executives are looking for greater detail on those requirements, as well as how the Army plans to sustain current capabilities in the coming years.

Of course, all of the contractors would support the creation of new programs, such as an armed aerial scout, Mehta said. A new-start program would be especially critical to help train younger engineers and technicians who have never designed a helicopter from the ground up.

“We can build machines,” he said. “Building people who build those machines is not always as easy, and the risk in my mind ... is if we continue to not have new start, new technology programs, we're going to have generations of engineers who haven't been exposed to that."

"By the time something like future vertical lift comes along, who's designing it? Who's building this aircraft? Is that really the first development program we want them to be exposed to?" Mehta asked.

Steve Mundt, a former Army brigadier general and vice president of business development for EADS, said he was skeptical that industry and government are really looking 20 years into the future.

"The ITEP engine is a superb engine,” he said. “But are we serious that's going to be the end for the joint multi-role/future vertical lift platform that now is looking at a 2035 fielding date? We're still going to be settling with fossil fuels? We're not going to be talking about green or electric or hybrid or solar or something like that?"

Another concern is that the supply chain of larger defense contractors — made up mostly of small- and medium-sized businesses — may slow their own investments and factory upgrades, Mehta said.

In defense aviation, "we're competing against a lot of other industries out there,” he said. “We're fighting for our suppliers to put their best and their brightest on our programs, and every time they turn on the news and every time they see dysfunction and lack of predictability and investment, I think that makes them a little less willing to take that same risk."

The U.S. military budget will decrease in coming years, so executives said their companies are looking to expand their reach in foreign markets.

Defense contractors have an especially good opportunity to increase foreign military sales to allies in the Asia-Pacific as the U.S. military pivots to that region, Mehta said. "We need to get better at forming partnerships to make sure that we have efficient contracting process, and we need to design our products for export compliance."

Companies could even use foreign investment to develop new technology, Mundt said. "As you shift to the Asia-Pacific, they're not necessarily new requirements. What you need to do is ask yourself, 'Is anybody else interested in what I'm interested in, and can I leverage their money?'"

Photo Credit: Army


Re: Army Aviation Long-Term Plans Not Forthcoming

"By the time something like future vertical lift comes along, who's designing it? Who's building this aircraft?"

IMHO future vertical lift technology is to be seen in the tilt-rotor concept, once the autorotation issue cleared -- but is the US government really willing to solve the problem after 30 years of high-risk tolerance with the Airforce and Navy operated V22s (30 killed today)?

I recently read that the military have issued a call for submissions to a host of private US companies to come up with a variable/reversible twist rotor blade concept.

But I also read that after the transfer of the civil tilt-rotor BA-609 to Italy some 2 or 3 years ago, Bell has now sold the prototype to their former civil partner Agusta Westland under an agreement granting Bell the exclusive right to conduct any further development and to supply any new parts.

There is only one possible interpretation of this language: the US military don't want to see new variable/reversible twist blade technology implemented to the civil concept -- which, BTW, denotes AW's complicity with this policy aimed at keeping the civil prototype indefinitely grounded.

If Sikorsky is really concerned with long term vertical lift technology, they might be well advised to envisage turning away from defense markets towards a more civilized world...
euroflycars at 1/24/2013 1:54 PM

Add Comment

Items on this list require content approval. Your submission will not appear in public views until approved by someone with proper rights. More information on content approval.

Name: *

eMail *

Comment *



Name: *

eMail *

Comment *


Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.

Characters *


Legal Notice *

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.



Bookmark and Share