Home » Air » US Helo Industry Crashing; ATL Wants Industry Consortium

US Helo Industry Crashing; ATL Wants Industry Consortium

By Greg Grant Tuesday, November 17th, 2009 2:43 pm
Posted in Air, Land, Policy

DoD is so worried about the long term health of the helicopter industry that acquisition chief Ashton Carter wants to corral the different services’ research and development money (altogether about $110 million) and funnel it to where it can have the most impact.

Now, research and development money from the services, NASA, DARPA and the Coast Guard, is scattered across so many different efforts that none are making real progress toward developing innovative rotary-wing technologies. Carter’s new initiative would include a partnership between government and an industry consortium.

The folks over at the Second Line of Defense (SLD) site posted a copy of Carter’s memo giving the go ahead for the new effort, along with slides presented at an October 27 “Vertical Lift Aviation Industry Day.” The slides include a briefing by Mike Walsh from OSD’s Acquisition, Technology and Logistics office that is full of interesting information on the military’s helicopter fleet and future plans, or the lack thereof.

The big problem going forward for industry is that there is little money for rotary wing future plans. As one slide points out, there are no active research and development efforts after Apache Block III and CH-53K. Program cancellations, including the Army’s armed reconnaissance helicopter and the Air Force’s Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR-X), have taken a toll. Future DoD budget constraints will only worsen matters.

Currently, DoD’s rotary wing “portfolio” is focused on maintaining a “stable inventory” with upgrades to existing aircraft. On the “demand” side there are no new starts in the Future Year Defense Program (FYDP) and no clear signals on the way ahead, the briefing says. The absence of any future roadmap is playing havoc on the helicopter industry.

As for the state of the industry, Walsh’s briefing calls it “stagnant,” with “more production capacity than demand.” The U.S. helicopter base faces serious challenges from foreign builders and the industry’s technological leadership is “in doubt” because of an aging workforce and because there’s “no magic” in the works to attract creative new thinking and new talent.

Industry also suffers from poor credibility because of “recurring acquisition failures.” Without more money from DoD, industry won’t innovate on their own, according to Walsh’s briefing; the technology base is “unable to support leap-ahead possibilities.”

The proposed fix is a government and industry partnership, with industry and academia forming the consortium, which would establish a long term (20 year) “mechanism” to facilitate planning and new technologies and collect the fragmented S&T money. OSD proposes using the Other Transaction Authority (OTA) as a way of getting around the Federal Acquisition Regulations process.

SLD notes, “If this approach works, the consortia could set in motion a process, which could play the role of a forcing function for the industrial base… The consortia approach is clearly designed to try to reduce the paralyzing impact of the protest process on acquisition policy.”

Carter intends to move quickly on the new government-industry partnership and wants a Consortium Membership Agreement in place by the end of the year.

One of the most alarming slides included in Walsh’s briefing shows helicopter attrition from 2001 through 2008. Across the services, 327 helicopters have been lost along with 469 crew fatalities. The vast majority, 80 percent of losses, were non-combat related accidents. The briefing points to the harsh operating environment of Iraq and Afghanistan and the very high operational tempo for all rotary wing aircraft.

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

	Marcase November 17th, 2009 at 7:57 pm It’s not just industry, but also DoDs requirements and management quagmire. VH-71, CSAR-X and ARH are textbook examples of how NOT to run a program. Helo industry stagnant? I disagree: V-22 which works — finally — with plans for a larger “V-44″, the various hybrid “Carter copter” designs, and my personal favorite: Sikorsky’s X-2 technology, when matured, may have a real impact on (near) future helo designs.
	mike j November 17th, 2009 at 8:48 pm I’d like to see an update on the X-49 Speedhawk test program, but the compound helicopter idea seems pretty ripe. They could graft that ducted fan onto any single rotor helo and give them a useful ~50–75 kts increase. As Marcase notes, there are other good ideas out there, most are flying already. Someone needs to step up and say “build it.”
	DensityDuck November 17th, 2009 at 8:27 pm The problem is that we’ve spent the past fifteen years learning that The Aerospace Corporation never saw a COTS solution that they didn’t hate. It’s obvious, at this point, that DoD will never allow itself to accept a system that wasn’t done to program-specific requirements and tested to program-specific standards; there’s no “mil-spec” anymore, you can’t just build something to government standards and have it be immediately purchase-able.
	Byron Skinner November 17th, 2009 at 10:51 pm Good Evening Folks, Welcome to the market system. This is how capitalism works. The solution for the DoD is to get back into the business of spec’ing out and designing it’s weapons system, then letting contractors bid on what the services want, and not what industry want to sell the military. If US firm don’t want to be in the Aero Space manufacturing business the open up the market to foreign suppliers EADS and BAE would love to open plants to manufacture helicopters in the US. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Guest November 18th, 2009 at 1:33 pm Marcase: Glad to see Im not the only one who knows about “carter copter.” BUT DoD will never put money into a thing that could be made immediately when congress can make them spend billions over decades as life support to Sikorsky, Boeing, or another Large employer in their district for a plane that might fly in my lifetime. (like V-22)
	Alton November 18th, 2009 at 1:45 pm Uhhh The locals here in Texoma know Mr. Carter VERY well. America will find out about him soon.
	Thunderhorse19 November 18th, 2009 at 3:00 pm “It’s not just industry, but also DoDs requirements and management quagmire. VH-71, CSAR-X and ARH are textbook examples of how NOT to run a program.” …and don’t forget the ill-fated Commanche. Helicopter industry stagnant? It’s been declining ever year since 1989. We had over 1.3 million employed in the Aviation industry (including the military) in 1989, and now we have less than 400,000 employed (including the military). The Osprey and Harriers are not helicopters. There’s nothing wrong with upgrading the old Hueys, Cobras, Blackhawks, Kiowas, Chinooks and Apaches, and keeping them around for another 20 years. Resurrecting the CH-54 Cranes and CH-53’s would be appropriate, too. Sometimes the old ways work the best.
	TMB November 18th, 2009 at 4:31 pm The army has been spending a fortune on helicopter upgrades since the war started. Hundreds of refurbished airframes, equipment upgrades, and replacing battle losses. Army aviation was stagnant during the 1990s because all the money was being spent on Comanche. If it wasn’t for that cancellation, none of that money would have been available to rebuild the fleet. “Industry also suffers from poor credibility because of “recurring acquisition failures.” Without more money from DoD, industry won’t innovate on their own, according to Walsh’s briefing; the technology base is “unable to support leap-ahead possibilities.” So they’re not managing their programs properly, but won’t fix it unless the government throws more money at them? I wonder if the CEOs of Sikorsky, Boeing, and GM play golf together.
	Aurora November 18th, 2009 at 5:23 pm As long as they are sourcing European airframes, i.e., Lakota, VH-71, then the US helo industry will continue to suffer.
	Daskro November 18th, 2009 at 6:38 pm When was the last time DoD was in the business of designing its weapons systems?
	Jerry November 18th, 2009 at 7:19 pm Mr Grant, once again you allowed a former military contractor who is on leave for temp duty at the Pentagon to pass along bad info. Military helos budget are at a record. What about the CH-60M or the Joint Heavy Lift http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/04/29/3... Ask your DoD con man why he “forgot” about those. Its all about getting more money. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/04/29/3...
	Guest November 18th, 2009 at 8:16 pm Jerry I really hate telling people they are wrong but you sir are way off the mark. Grant doesn’t shill(unlike certain folks on wallstreet) Also, you never know, one of those ‘contractors’ might have saved your life or a friend’s.
	Rotorway November 19th, 2009 at 1:42 am ATL, who is responsible for both cancellations, now riding to the rescue. … and touting an economic model which is fundamentally centralized command economic guidance and gov’t dividing up responsibility for different parts of the industry amongst the various participating companies… does this remind you of anything … it should … This is almost precisely the Soviet economic model: Replace Mil with Sikorsky, Kamov with Boeing, etc. OSD would determine three major types of helos, small — attack/utility, medium — assault/SAR/utility, and large — cargo. Each service would be able to “have it their way” by “ordering up” a specific mission package. Joint Staff J8 would basically be out of a job — civilian “experts” would determine what we need to fight with. It all reminds me of the hilarious Burger King Commercial, showing Russian peasant women walking the runway “Evening Vear” (dressed as peasant), “Svim Vear” (dressed as peasant), .… . . I guess “big government” is IN
	Cole November 19th, 2009 at 2:59 am Rotorway, hear ya but what’s wrong with combining R&D for rotorcraft if it makes sense. If it results in aircraft like the H-60 which is used by 3 services (should be 4) + special ops, go for it. If it results in effective rotorcraft used worldwide like the AH-64D and CH-47…so much the better. I see nothing offered by allies that remotely comes close to those two. But my fear is that centralized R&D will avoid reasonable solutions like X2 counterrotating blades and upgrades of current systems. Plus you end up with requirement squabbles such as with the heavy lift rotorcraft…err STOL aircraft. Plus, problems result if we embrace technology that sacrifices HOGE high/hot payload, reasonable LZ footprint, and maintenance simplicity for greater speed and range than are essential for a division AOR. Even worse is if its complexity and excessive requirements force us down the “fighter road” of fewer systems due to higher hourly flying and procurement costs.
	Cole November 19th, 2009 at 3:03 am TMB forgets that all kinds of billions have been spent on ground equipment reset, not to mention $26 billion on MRAP and counting. Ground combat vehicles has $90+ billion theoretically waiting in the wings with less than certain requirements established. In addition, monies being spent on programs like V-22, F-22, and F-35 make the ARH and even Comanche budgets look like pocket change. Yet one is considered par for the course while the other is accused of major cost overruns despite it being 1/6th the price of a V-22 AND 1/12th of a F-22 with “long war” combat utility in current and future wars. As for accidents and vulnerability to threats. believe if you compare ground to helicopter losses…a lot more money and unfortunately lives have been lost on the ground due to accidents and IEDs. If Soldiers are on the ground, rotorcraft must fly near the ground especially in higher threat environments. 250 knots does not avoid a high mach/high g radar missile. Every Soldier is a sensor which is pretty hard at 5,000–10,000′.
	TMB November 19th, 2009 at 5:08 am Hey Cole, maybe its the late hour, but I’m not sure where you’re going comparing those different programs. I’m well aware of the money spent on MRAP and reset. In fact my company spent the last several months waiting on all of our equipment to come back from reset — much of which I don’t think was worth the expense. As far as comparing Army purchases with Air Force, isn’t that a little apples and oranges since the Air Force always spends more on their toys than we do? Speaking from the relative dollars of the Army budget, Comanche and Crusader were massive programs at the time and I remember GEN Cody breathing a sigh of relief when they got the axe. The Air Force may not bat an eyelash when it blows $1 billion, but for the other services that means a little bit more.
	Kid RPSTL November 19th, 2009 at 1:41 pm About 150 years before Ike lamented the march of the military-industrial complex there was a military-industrial complex and there were verbal battles much like this one. And that’s OK, because our governmental, civil and political systems maintain a long term balance by the push and pull of turf wars such what is playing out here. Clearly in the today’s-world version of this relationship the high dollar commitment of R&D puts companies on edge if the government is not a trustworthy partner to industry. Maybe if across the services there was a requirement for consistency, and if future users had to stick to original design requirements at least until some reasonable point in new development had been reached, then program scopes would settle down allowing new technologies and platforms to come into existence without the R&D ‘brains’ looking over their shoulders every other week in fear of having to back up and rethink what they had just backed up and rethought only a month or so ago.
	Eliza November 19th, 2009 at 2:16 pm Who is Second Line of Defense (SLD) and where can i find their website?
	Alan November 19th, 2009 at 5:39 pm Excuse me, aerospace industry bashers.…. 2 questions; 1) where do you plan to work after your military hitch is done? 2) Where do you think industry recruits it’s program managers from? I work in the industry, and you can’t swing a cat without clubbing a former General or Colonel. It is, in fact, a military welfare system. Did no one read the recent USA article titled “Military’s ‘Senior Mentors’ Cashing In”? Blame your congressmen and retired military cum lobbyists if you must blame someone. Those of you promoting foreign manufacturers — are you planning on working in France?
	Byron Skinner November 19th, 2009 at 1:50 pm Good Morning Folks, Getting back to Greg’s article and it’s intent. The rotary wing industry is dealing with a matured product. The design of the helicopter platform has run into the laws of physics. Other them the material of the airframes, hanging more and different weapons and stuffing more electronic systems into the air frame there is not much innovation left in the product. As seen in the C-27J/H-133, airframes made in Spain, that overseas producers can make airframes have a considerably lower unit cost. The structure of the US military industrial companies is no competitive on these mature platforms. A lot of the reason for that is that when a US defense contractor bids a job they have to include in their labor cost employee healthcare and retirement cost which are things in countries in competition with us don’t have to factor into the cost. In essence foreign government and taxpayers are subsidizing our defense industry. Unless US defense industry can rid itself of these non productive fixed overhead costs the development and manufacture of US defense systems will be contracted out to countries like Sweden, Italy, UK, Spain, South Korea, France Brazil and others. Much of it already is. An example the basic service rifle. The next generation will be the FN Mk-16 and Mk-17, (1,800 are currently in the field and more being issued to troops every month) made by FN of Belgium and FH is part of Beretta of Italy. Colt who make the current M-4A1’s and M-16A4’s used by the military will have to either subcontract to build the FH weapons at the EU costs or sell out to a EU manufacturer. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Colin November 19th, 2009 at 7:32 pm Eliza, Second Line is a website owned by Robbin Laird, a defense consultant. http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=1281
	Brian Woodcock November 19th, 2009 at 8:53 pm Piasecki has demonstarted a 47% increase in speed using the same engine power, reduced vibration by 50%, extended range, made it much more manauverable, reduces life cycle cost and is more survivable. If that is not enough, it can be retrofitted to fleet H-60s in relative short time. Piasecki has taken a great helicopter and made it perform better. What more can be done to get the word to the military. Piasecki has the answer.
	JCitizen November 20th, 2009 at 9:16 pm I agree that we hear the giant sucking sound of contracts and even regular commercial business going over seas, but just wanted to point out a few facts. Not that it doesn’t mean US dollars still go overseas. FN and Beretta moved their manufacturing to the US following approval of the M240 LMG and M92 pistol variants, among other weapons contracts; so actually at least jobs were kept in the US. FN probably makes the new light weight M2 HBMG also but mostly US contractors still manufacture those. However companies like General Dynamics which make the newly revived M60 LMG a still big international corporation, so dollars still make that giant sucking sound clear out of the country! The contract that Airbus nearly won on the Air Force Tanker, is now the biggest aircraft manufacturer in Wichita, KS. Where Boeing used to have their main factory. So some of these corporations will still reflect American cost factors.
	Cole November 21st, 2009 at 1:20 am Byron and JCitizen, U.S. helicopters are very competitive. I mentioned all the countries that buy our AH-64D or CH-47 or both. We also sell H-60 models worldwide and to numerous U.S. agencies like the Coast Guard, DEA, FBI, and border patrol. Nobody else buys the quantities we do which gives us inherent cost advantages in selling to other countries and to civil users. What does not give us an advantage is continuing to build aircraft in high cost U.S. areas like the coasts. How much money is added to the cost of building a C-17 in Long Beach, or is added to Brigade Combat Team modernization by having Boeing facilities in Huntingdon Beach? Boeing wants to build KC aircraft in Everett, WA while it finally sees the light and opens a second commercial 787 line in South Carolina. Sikorsky in Palm Beach, Florida and Connecticut? Byron, Sikorsky’s X-2 counterrotating blades would bring great increases in helicopter speeds while retaining reasonable LZ size and payloads. Without boring everyone, the speeds would approach tilt rotor level without giving up high/hot hover performance. Systems like MQ-1C, A-160T, Fire Scout, K-MAX, AH-6i, and other systems offer potential for manned-unmanned aircraft teaming, which R&D dollars can help finance.
	Warlord 17 November 24th, 2009 at 11:07 pm Sounds like Odamna wants a new Czar to oversee DoD Helicopter R & D. You’d think he would learn from what his Car Czars are doing. Beam me up, Scotty. Rogue Scholar
	Jim Roberts November 27th, 2009 at 12:52 am Mr. Skinner, With the USD declining so deeply in relation to the Euro, there is no way a Spanish firm or any firm in the Eurozone can compete with a US firm regardless whether they make airplanes or tiddlywinks Also, there is proven technology readily available for refinements enabling, by using available jet engines, it to carry tanks from/to areas that require no runway. See cartercopters.com
	Jim Roberts November 27th, 2009 at 12:58 am This article was not well researched. It omitted a proven technology using rotor blades that can be scaled to carry tanks at fixed wing speeds for great distances. See http://www.cartercopters.com runway independent solution using existing PWC jet engines now powering the F-35
	Myron Ricketts November 29th, 2009 at 5:18 pm In the late 70’s, Carderock lab was working on usage of the Coada effect, with the objective of ultimately putting it on helos. Objective was to greatly increase the lift capacity [fixed wing] and lift/speed of helos). Coanda is exhausting air through one edge of an airfoil where it changes direction as it tries to curl around the edge of the wing. [For helos, the air would have to alternate as the rotors turned.] It was put on a fixed wing jet aircraft (A6 or A7?) which could then take off and land at 50–60 knots, and a film was taken as a small piper cub flew (passing) the A6. The project was cancelled, presumably because it was posing a threat to the Osprey. The concept was to take off and land verically, then lock the rotors and essentially fly like a fixed wing. Tests were performed at a government sponsored large wind tunnel lab (I think located near San Jose — may be a NASA lab). The tests were had generally good results with some problems with ground effect. Solving those problems stopped when the program was cancelled. I think the program was called the X-Wing program.