Airlift Gap Looms For Last Mile

Airlift Gap Looms For Last Mile

Yesterday, we highlighted a new initiative from DoD acquisition chief Ashton Carter’s office to extend a lifeline to the troubled rotary wing industry by collecting money from fragmented research efforts across government and funneling it to the most promising new technologies.

Today, on Capitol Hill, came further warnings from a panel of budget and industry analysts on the fragile state of the helicopter industry. Congressional Research Service analyst Stephen Daggett said the defense industrial base would largely weather a projected reduction in procurement spending, except for the helicopter industry. That industry segment is losing market share and talent to European companies, he said at a House Armed Services Committee hearing.

On the same panel, CSIS’s David Berteau also warned of the risks facing the helicopter base in a period of declining procurement budgets. The most innovative technologies no longer come from U.S. helicopter builders, rather, European companies are pushing the envelope. The technology gap between commercial and military helicopters is much narrower in Europe than in the U.S., he said, which makes dual-use, and the larger margins from shared commercial and military helicopters, more viable.


The biggest challenges facing the helicopter industry is the lack of “demand.” There are no new start programs in the Future Year Defense Program (FYDP) and no signals from DoD on big future rotary wing programs. That is why this new report from the Government Accountability Office is so interesting. GAO’s auditors warn of a looming “tactical airlift gap” because there is no aircraft currently able to move the Army’s “medium weight” weapons about the battlefield.

Only the C-17 is large enough to carry Strykers and MRAPs, once all those vehicle’s weapons, RPG cages and other armor packages are installed. They don’t fit inside C-130s. The C-17, however, is too large to fly into small, unimproved strips close to the front lines, what the Army often calls the “last tactical mile.”

GAO notes that DoD plans to come up with some kind of aircraft that fits the bill, and to replace the C-130H, in the Joint Future Theater Lift (JFTL) effort, which is still in the conceptual stages. The Army and Air Force are looking at both tilt-rotor — the Army choice — and fixed wing — the Air Force choice — options for an aircraft “capable of transporting current and future medium weight armored vehicles into austere locations with unprepared landing areas,” according to a draft Initial Capabilities Document.

The JFTL could potentially breathe some life into the troubled rotary wing industry, but it faces some serious headwinds. To begin with, the Air Force and Army don’t exactly see eye-to-eye on the JFTL.

The Army desperately wants an aircraft that will give them a “vertical mounted maneuver” capability, a very large tilt-rotor that can pick up troops and vehicles and move them rapidly about the battlefield. The ground vehicle part of the cancelled FCS program was originally supposed to build the vehicles to make vertical mounted maneuver a reality. GAO says the tilt-rotor would need a payload capacity five times that of the V-22 Osprey; the Army is reportedly looking at a 40 ton vehicle as the follow on effort to FCS.

The Air Force is looking to JFTL to provide a standard long-range transport to perform traditional airlift missions and is pursuing turbofan technology in a fixed-wing aircraft to operate on short, soft or rough airfields, said GAO.

Under the best of circumstances, which don’t apply under projected budget scenarios, the soonest a new JFTL aircraft could be fielded would be 2024. In the meantime, JFTL risks being sidelined by service disagreements over what it’s supposed to do, cost growth and the “overpromising performance” problem, warns GAO.

GAO recommends that the Army and Air Force follow an “evolutionary” strategy with JFTL that would select mature technologies; the needed tilt-rotor technology already exists. The Senate Armed Services Committee has also weighed in and requested that DoD “assess the merits of initiating a low-cost, highly streamlined competitive prototyping effort immediately.”

While JFTL might not solve the lack of innovative technologies problems in the rotary-wing base, it could potentially provide a much needed new program and procurement dollars.

Share |

Join the Conversation

Newer power or engine technology needs to be found. Rotor has hit the ceiling unless more rotors and push fans are added (X-49 Sikorsky). Tilt is awesome, but try and tell me that the V-22 consumes less fuel than a CH-53. Quicker yes, more efficient.… I don’t know. Fixed is the best option, but lifting off vertically and leaving the battle zone quickly like a helicopter is a price worth paying.

So, every option has a negative. So be like a Swiss army blade and build a mixture. Will it cost more? Yes. Will you be able to operate anywhere? Yes. Figure out the future operations, add a little crazy, and build something.

(also, build it the right way, and don’t add a bunch of other things after its started. Leave all that for version 2 and beyond. Companies love sequels and you get a better product with each new version)

Hmm…come up with a dumb requirement, get no practical solution! DOD seems keen on making the similar mistakes they did with FCS. There is *no way* we can afford to produce enough of a vertical lift transport to carry a significant number 40 ton vehicles around the battlefield, and even if we could, we couldn’t transport the fuel they would need. Technology won’t solve this one, even if you go for less purist VTOL solutions like rotodynes.

Air-Mech is only reasonably practical when the vehicles are reasonably lightweight (around 10 tonnes), and anything large scale will have to be delivered by fixed wing aircraft (eg parachute). FCS failed because they insisted on combining the roles of two different vehicles; a Bradley/Abrams and a vehicle similar to a UK CVR(T). Don’t make the same mistake twice!

X-2 is coming..Sikorsky had done a lot with little R&D money. It’s flying and technology is scalable/viable.

Money needs to be put into this for something to replace the CH-53 for heavy lift, with improved survivability. But keep the bells and whistles to a minimum so it isn’t cost prohibitive.

53k is in development. Lighter,faster, glass cockpit,more lift etc…

The noted V-44 may be the answer.

Wrong. See http://​www​.cartercopters​.com

There is a problem, however, but it’s not the lack of technology or engines. Both exist; both are readily at hand.

It’s a service culture that is geared only to evolutionary not revolutionary solutions.

Bell Helicopter is well aware of Carter’s achievement (they are 60 miles apart), but Bell suffers from NIH big time (Not Invented Here).

The Chinese will probably make use of the technology for Heavy Lift. They are committed to building an indigenous aviation industry

See Carter Copters (http://​www​.cartercopters​.com)

It’s proven technology.

It can be scaled to carry tanks by using existing PWC jet engines, and it’s runway independent

Its patents are available for license by a prime contractor.

Thanks Jim;

Very interesting!

COOL!!!! Awesom video by the way!

Jason,
The V-22 does use less fuel per nautical mile than the CH-53E. The V-22 generally carries less payload, but can carry it much farther than the helicopter due to its more efficient forward flight configuration.
Cheers,
Dick

Simple solution — Flying Tanks.

Actually,it was tried in WW2: http://​www​.weaponsblog​.org/​e​n​t​r​y​/​a​n​t​o​n​o​v​-​k​t​-​4​0​-fl...

Although I’m sure the Germans developed a flying glider tank which was a very good design; they did have something about as good:

http://​www​.strangemilitary​.com/​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​i​t​e​m​/​1​0​450...

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement