Home » Air » Army Redefines “High-Hot” Requirement

Army Redefines “High-Hot” Requirement

By Greg Grant Friday, January 9th, 2009 3:48 pm
Posted in Air, Land

The Army has redefined what it considers a “high-hot” flying environment, adding 2,000 feet and increasing the temperature. It might not sound like a big change, but in terms of a new Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, it’s going to require industry to pull off some big technological leaps to avoid building an entirely new aircraft.

Late last year when the Army issued a “sources sought” notice to industry for a re-competition of the ARH program, after cancelling its contract with Bell-Textron for a militarized version of its civilian 407 helicopter to replace the ageing OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, the service said it was “reassessing the ARH performance requirements.” Specifically: the new helicopter must have the capability to “perform a Hover out of Ground Effect (HOGE) at 6,000 ft/95 degrees Fahrenheit.” At standard temperature, that’s almost equivalent to flying at 14,000 feet, said Larry Plaster, Boeing’s Apache Modernization manager.

The Kiowa Warrior couldn’t meet the 4,000 foot requirement unless almost everything but the seats were pulled off the airframe. For high-hot attack and reconnaissance missions, which means pretty much everywhere in Afghanistan, the Army uses the AH-64 Apache. Plaster said the Block III Apache upgrade will carry composite rotor blades to improve high-hot performance. The powerful, twin-engined CH-47 Chinook cargo hauler has little trouble operating in the rarified air and high temperatures of the Hindu Kush mountain range.

As for existing helicopters that might fit the Army’s new ARH high-hot requirement, “there are aircraft out there that can do it,” said Col. Randolph Rotte, Deputy Director for Aviation in the Army Chief of Staff’s office, speaking at the Army’s Aviation Symposium here in the DC area this week.

“Because of that altitude and temperature that is pushing today’s current technology to the extreme limits. Big [helicopters] works there in those environments well, but to get it smaller to meet the needs of the manned light reconnaissance, that’s a challenge. So only those with some technological edges to it can attain that in the time frames without creating another Comanche program again which we don’t want to do with 10 to 15 years of R and D,” Rotte said.

Boeing hopes the Army will select its new AH-6S helicopter based on the Little Bird platform, for the ARH. The “S” is for stretched, as Boeing is inserting a 15 inch “plug” into the Little Bird airframe to accommodate additional avionics and maybe people. For the AH-6S to operate at the Army’s newly defined high-hot environment will require changes to both the transmission and rotor, and possibly a new engine, Plaster said.

The Army made it clear that an aerial drone won’t do as an ARH replacement. After DoD told the Army to cancel the ARH program because of cost and schedule overruns, questions were immediately raised about whether the service really needed a new helicopter, and couldn’t a drone do the same job. But the Army’s top program manager, Lt. Gen. Stephen Speakes, said a manned scout aircraft is “absolutely essential.” He said the new requirements definition helped the service fend off those pushing the service to turn to aerial drones for battlefield scouting.

“There’s been a great deal of interest and we were surprised at the responses we got,” said Brig. Gen. Bill Crosby, Army PEO Aviation, referring to industry’s response to the Army’s ARH re-compete. “We’re going back and looking at the capabilities that are out there and trying to fine tune our path ahead as we go forward. The bottom line is there is still a requirement and in coordination with that there’s also a recognition that with the delay there’s something we’ve got to do with our Kiowas,” Crosby said.

Funds from the cancelled ARH program will be used to upgrade the Kiowa fleet. Approximately $500 million will be split between Kiowa upgrades ($38 million), funds for a new helicopter ($50 million) and the balance will be used to purchase a new Apache battalion for the Army National Guard, said Col. Vance Sales, deputy chief of staff for the Army’s budget office.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	Cole January 9th, 2009 at 8:37 pm If I still remember how to use the charts, 6000′/95 degrees is like 9600′ density altitude while the old 4000′/95 is like 7000′ DA. In contrast, flying in Iraq at 500′/120 degrees is like 4000′ DA. Afghanistan is a bigger challenge…especially for tilt rotors. It’s interesting that Boeing also offered an Apache-light. Good article Greg…as usual.
	Dom January 11th, 2009 at 5:41 am After all the cancellations on the ARH program and the cost of upgrading the old fleet of choppers I wonder what the cost per airframe would now be if these struggles were added into the equation? And how would that compare to the old comanche LARH program that was deep 6ed? Granted the mission of that chopper was somewhat different but why hasn’t more noise been made over this when scandal on appropriations seems to be the hot topic right now?
	wardog January 12th, 2009 at 2:54 pm 6000/95 has been bumped around inside the Army for some time. I am surprised that it finally made it to the books. Still with that capability as a new standard the rotorcraft will sure do better at lower altitudes.
	Dr. Domingo January 12th, 2009 at 6:47 pm I invented flying technology for the people that doesn’t require engines or propellers. The thought of the military adhering to “old” flying standards is preposterous. Want proof, check American and World patent files for Neil Domingo and see how I made most of military transportation obsolete
	T Ashford January 16th, 2009 at 5:19 am a manned scout aircraft is “absolutely essential.” That’s just not good enough… Where is the mission need that drives ‘manned’ when there is so much you can do unmanned these days. Trying to save pilots slots and old fashioned tradition has to go by the wayside. A swarm of small unmanned aircraft can do the recon mission better and quicker with no risk to man. A single standby unmanned aircraft can loiter and interdict longer, faster, and again with no risk to life. Time to join the 21st century.
	Richard F Spivey January 19th, 2009 at 3:07 pm Actually, 6000 feet and 95 deg. F HOGE was the origional requirement when the Air Force was buying all military helicopters. The requirement was changed to 4000 feet and 95 degrees F but a vertical rate of climb was added to at least partially compensate for the loss in performance. The reason given for the lowering of altitude was; not being able to justify enough locations around the globe where 6000 ft / 95F was. Well, guess what, the enemy can count too; they are located at high-hot altitude and far away just because we weren’t equipped to operate there…duh?
	page January 22nd, 2009 at 7:21 pm good stuff hen !
	Pierson February 5th, 2009 at 1:10 am 95 deg at 6000′ makes for a density altitude of approx 8600′. 95 deg at 4000′ = about 6100 D.A. It’s really not a question of whether the helicopter can fly in Afghanistan, but how much performance you are going to get out of it when you need it. Personally, I like this higher standard. If I’m in the mountains when it’s hot, I want to be able to pull in max power and get out of a tight spot. UAVs have become an invaluable asset to the military. But as Lt. Gen. Speakes mentioned, there are certain tasks that a human simply must be able to perform on the fly in the air. Especially for an ARH platform, which often provides target information for attack helicopters. Those pilots need to be able to communicate efficiently, not everything can be read off a computer screen while you’re flying. Trust me, more goes into consideration than preserving flight slots for pilots.
	Steve P. February 5th, 2009 at 10:04 am I show 95 deg. F/6,000 ft. as ~8,400 ft. DA DA(ft.) = PA(ft.) + (FAT[C]-STD temp.)120 STD temp. = 15C How did the Boeing manager (in the article above) come up with “almost equivalent to flying at 14,000 feet”? That’s a big differance.
	Rhyno327 February 5th, 2009 at 10:33 am Iam not a pilot, but I was impressed with the Russians “Blackshark” AH. Could a chopper like that perform the mission for ARH?
	Ramjet February 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pm Not a single mention of light STOL fixed-wing manned aircraft. Put a new RR 500 series turbine on a Bird Dog or an 0–2 and save zillions. The Army depends on civilians in Cessna Skymasters in Iraq for much of their ISR. Most helo’s fly from bases with runways and mmaintenance infrastructure anyway, so the VTOL aspect is not really a show-stopper. An 0–1 at MMTOW/ISA requires a 550’takeoff run. That’s wwith a 213HP piston-pounder. In VN we carried a a back-seater, 4.5 hrs fuel and eight 2.75 FFFAR’s (four of them with 17lb. warheads. In the 80’s Cessna produced a prototype 0-2TT ((Tandem Turbine). It was demo’d to the AF and wworked well, but the AF had moved beyond uunconventional warfare/COIN by then and were wworking on the B-2, C-17 and whizz-bang fighters. The A-10 ‚the one-time red-headed step child, came into its own in Desert Storm aas the FAC platform who’s development had been nneglected by all the services. Today, it plays aa critical role in Afghanistan. SSo…everything old is new again. I know, the OOV-10 wasn’t bad either. IMHO, the Army ssuffers from the “Helicopter Mafia” in the ssame way the AF has been hindered by the pre-eeminence of the “Fighter Mafia”. Time to llisten to Ike’s warning of the “military iindustial complex”. C’mom Army! Do the right thing for the right reasons.
	S. W. Beam February 6th, 2009 at 1:22 am The comments of Gen. Crosby, (PEO Aviation)are the epitome of Pentagon/Beltway bafflegab. Redundant proclamation of the obvious.