 |
Reports from AUSA Aviation Symposium
01/14/2008
Aviation Remains Top Priority as Army Transforms
As the Army continues down the road of transformation and a more balanced force, aviation will remain at the top of the list of high-demand items, according to Lt. Gen. James D. Thurman, deputy Army chief of staff, G-3/5/7.
Speaking Jan. 10 at the Association of the United States Army’s Aviation Symposium and Exposition in Arlington, Va., Thurman said this modernization means aviation be called on to support the new brigade combat teams and other support brigades that will stand up – by fiscal year 2011. There will be 76 BCTs, and 227 support brigades will have been structured by then
“The importance of aviation in this is maintaining that momentum” in restoring the balance of the force, Thurman said.
Adding, “You can not apologize for not training your force. Preparation to meet the needs on this battlefield is essential.”
With five combat aviations brigades and more than 1,300 UAVs in the air over Iraq and Afghanistan, Thurman said everyone should take advantage of what’s being learned as the Army continues down what the chief of staff calls “an era of persistent conflict.”
“We need to take lessons from the warfight and continue to advance our warfighting skills and how we utilize this capability” to fight and defeat the enemy, he said. “Your training programs cannot lag behind.”
The role of unmanned systems continues to increase, and Thurman said they “provide the greatest reduction of risk to our soldiers.”
Maj. Gen. Virgil L. Packett II, commanding general of the U.S. Army Aviation Warfighting Center, said aviation assets are the biggest intelligence collector, and he called UAVs his “top candidate for MVP.”
Packett said as brigades transform, they shouldn’t be enhanced as “heavy” or “light” because they will have a variety of assets, such as aviation, to give them more capabilities.
“If you have to stop the fight and stop what you’re doing and ask for something, it’s not going to happen,” Packett said. “You have to have that responsiveness right in front.”
The cancellation of the Comanche program has meant funds have become available for modernizing the helicopter fleet as well as bolstering unmanned aerial vehicles, Thurman said.
He told the defense, industry and Army leadership in attendance that aviation programs have stayed within bounds of their budgets and haven’t taken funds away from other programs, but they will need increased funding in the future especially as the Army and other services rely more on unmanned systems.
Latest Helicopters are Easier to Fly
The Army’s latest utility and cargo helicopters are easier to fly than the models they are replacing, which allows pilots to concentrate on other mission aspects and take better advantage of aircraft capabilities.
The UH-60M, that will reach the field in 2009, will have a fly-by-wire system that will give it “level one handling,” Col. Theresa L. Barton, capabilities manager for lift at the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, told attendees during a session at the Association of the United States Army’s Aviation Symposium and Exposition.
This system will reduce the pilot’s workload and help increase their situational awareness, she said. Because aircraft operation will be easier, there is also potential to add more capabilities to the aircraft.
The “F” model of the CH-47 Chinook, which has already been delivered to its first operational unit, features an automatic flight control system (AFCS) that is digital and provides “80 percent of the fly-by-wire capability at 20 percent the cost,” Col. Newman D. Shufflebarger, cargo helicopters project manager for the Army’s Aviation Program Executive Office, said.
“You can come in from approach about 30 feet [off the ground], take your hand off the controls, and [the aircraft] will just sit there,” Shufflebarger said.
Both the UH-60M and CH-47F feature the Common Avionics Architecture System (CAAS).
CAAS incorporates integrated communications and navigation systems management, along with the latest in digital battlefield situational awareness and connectivity.
CAAS is also used in the MH-47G and has been selected for the UH-60M, ARH-70A, MH-60T, VH-60N, CH-53E and CH-53K.
The commonality of CAAS hardware components is designed to provide lower, total life cycle cost and reduce expenditures for technology and supportability.
The CH-47F also has a monolithic airframe that reduces corrosion and vibration, and ultimately will reduce maintenance man hours, Barton said.
She emphasized that the new C-27J Spartan joint cargo aircraft is not a replacement for the CH-47 but will actually enhance the Chinook’s capabilities by allowing it to be used more in a tactical role.
Unmanned Aircraft Accident Rate Down 50 Percent
Reducing the accident rate of unmanned aircraft systems by 50 percent in each of the last two years has helped ease limitations and therefore helped the Army to rely more and more on unmanned aerial vehicles.
To reduce the accident rate, the Army re-wrote checklists, increased inspections and the ground school at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., was certified by the FAA, Col. Donald A. Hazelwood, UAS project manager for the Army Program Executive Office for Aviation, said.
Speaking at the Association of the United States Army’s Aviation Symposium and Exposition, Hazelwood said this has helped UAS use become safer and “19- and 20-year-old soldiers” have parity with the Air Force’s senior aviators.
Not including small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), the Army accounts for 53 percent of UAS military flying hours, Hazelwood said.
Use of the Shadow UAV in theater has also reached the same level as the Air Force’s Predator UAV, according to Steven E. Reid, vice president UAS for AAI Corporation.
The goal is to continue to increase flight safety so the FAA continues to decrease its limitations on UAS use and, by 2015, the Army can fly unmanned systems “in every state there are soldiers,” Hazelwood said.
Col. Jeff Kappenman, UAS training systems manager for the Program Executive Office for Aviation, said UAS use will continue to be improved in:
- RSTA -- reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition
- MUM – manned unmanned teaming
- Communications relays
- Weaponization
- Payloads, such as sensors and laser designators
- Countering improvised explosive devises
- Personnel – giving soldiers on the ground more training on UAS capabilities
Kappenman predicts, “An unprecedented amount of situational awareness and understanding will be moving around the battlefield.”
Computer Simulations’ Role Adds New Technology Dimensions
Computer simulations will take more of a role in the Army’s science and technology development and allow researchers to improve their ability to model and assess new technologies.
Speaking at the Association of the United States Army’s Aviation Symposium and Exposition, Thomas A. Killion, deputy assistant secretary of the Army research and technology, said high-performance computing will reduce the cost of design because researchers it will allow researchers to do computer simulations instead of building and re-building test models.
The challenge is that it takes a lot of computing power for simple simulations, he said.
For example, he showed a simulation of CH-47 rotors that represented only three seconds of actual time of flight, and it took 150 hours of development.
But Killion ensured attendees that tools are being developed to increase computer effectiveness, and there already have been advances in the computation environment.
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory “opened the doors” on a capability that is “1,000 times faster” than the one used on the CH-47 simulation.
High-performance computing will increase the probability of success and speed decision making, Maj. Gen. Fred D. Robinson Jr., commander of the Army’s Research, Development and Engineering Command, said.
More testing – done early and often in the development phase -- ensures the successful and timely completion of projects.
“It will decrease the number of initial failures” so researchers can “focus on capabilities that have potential,” Robinson said.
Improving Existing Platforms Gives Army New Technologies
Because of limited resources, many of the latest technology innovations that are being developed for Army aviation have come about by improving existing platforms.
“We’re adding to the existing technologies we have,” Col. William T. Crosby, deputy program executive officer for aviation, said. “There’s not a lot of new development out there.”
At a session during the Association of the United States Army’s Aviation Symposium and Exposition, Crosby said a key for Army researchers is to work with industry and keep an eye out for existing innovations.
“In this limited-resource environment we have, we need to be sure our [science and technology] investments parallel and do not overlap” what is being done in industry, he said.
Adding, “We need to share our vision and where we’re going on those paths to see where they’re making investments so we don’t duplicate that effort.”
Crosby gave an example of trying to come up with an idea to improve simulators, and an Aladdin magic-carpet ride at a Disney park “was a pretty good simulator.
“There are things out there like that we can get our arms around and use and garner those tight resources in the environment we are going to be in,” he said. “That’s where this team has to come together.”
Thomas H. Killion, deputy assistant secretary of the Army for research and technology, said, “The impression is that we have way too much money, and that is certainly not the case. We have to be smart about our investments.”
Researchers are looking at “leveraging investments” that have been made in the past in the Army as well as the Department of Defense and internationally, Killion said.
Examples include clear film used on the windshield of racecars being adapted to helicopter cockpits, and unmanned aerial vehicle technology making its way to manned systems.
Finishes and coatings are also being used on helicopter rotors to give them a longer lifespan.
While researchers look toward the future, Killion said they continue to explore technology and methodology for the current fight, and he identified three critical areas:
- Exploiting previous technology and investments.
- Adapting technology today in real time.
- Having scientists and engineers in-house and industry understand problems that help solve problems in theater.
Aviation Brigade Reconfigured for the Fight
Col. A. Thomas Ball brought a uniquely configured aviation brigade to the fight in Iraq over the past year, and it may be a harbinger of things to come in how Army aviation will be configured and operate in future combat.
Instead of the light cavalry model of the 25th Combat Aviation Brigade that he commanded in Hawaii, what he employed in theater was a medium cavalry model that distributed its Shadow unmanned aerial vehicle platoons throughout the battle space, and a special Hunter unmanned aerial vehicle platoon that had its Apaches fitted out with special sensors and missile defense systems.
Speaking Jan. 10 at the Association of the United States Army’s Aviation Symposium in suburban Washington, he said a major difference was that special sensors allowed his aircrews to “look out 7,000 meters [and] see the people placing the IEDs” and then take them out with Hellfire missiles.
The usual range of sensors on Apaches is closer to 700 meters and requires the aircraft to stay low and move quickly to avoid missiles and ground fire.
At the same time, a special protective package was used to destroy missiles being fired at the aircraft. “This allowed us drive our aircraft up high” [2,000 feet above the ground] “and out of the range of machine gun fire.”
The Apaches also could not be heard on the ground when flying that high, increasing the element of surprise, Ball said.
On the civilian contractors from L3 who operated and maintained the Hunter UAVs, he said, “They moved up exactly as we expected them to do” when deployed and moving around the theater. But, the use of contractors “has implication on the rules of engagement.”
For example, a Hunter, firing a smart bomb, was credited in September with killing two insurgents in Nineveh Province.
Col. Daniel Shanahan, commander of the 1st Air Cavalry Brigade at Fort Hood, Texas, did not have the specially modified Apaches or a Hunter unit with him when he deployed. Indeed, he didn’t even have most of his aircraft.
“We fell in on two-thirds of our airplanes” when the brigade arrived in theater.
There were other differences between operations as a conventional aviation brigade and what they did in Iraq, particularly in air assault.
“Every night, I had a unit dedicated to SOF [special operations forces] – five Black Hawks, six Chinooks. “That’s the point of the spear in taking down al Qaeda.”
He added that conventional aviation forces working with special forces while largely unknown in the United States “is a growing industry.”
“We would support their deliberate strikes,” Ball said, adding this was a top priority of the 25th Infantry Division commander before and during their deployment.
Col. Kevin Magnum, commander of the 160th Special Operations Aviation regiment at Fort Campbell, Ky., said, “The fight is more joint for us. It is leveraging other service’s UAVs,” for example. “Cooperation and integration has never been better.”
For all the commanders and their air crews, “brown out” landings remained a challenge, especially in air assault missions.
Some commanders sent only their most experienced air crews on these missions. Others looked to different ways of training crews in how to land safely under those conditions where the ground is not visible because of rising sand and dust.
“We don’t make dust like Afghanistan in the U.S.,” Magnum said.
Adding, “We have torn up a large number of aircraft [usually lift or utility] because of brown outs.”
To overcome this condition, Magnum said his pilots flew to a spot about 30 to 75 feet from where they were to land and then descended by instruments until they were on the ground.”
Ball said in the air assault missions his brigade undertook they sent UAVs ahead to “get a heads-up” on the landing site. “Were the fields irrigated? Were the fields plowed?”
All expected to see more sharing of real-time data between air crews and unmanned aerial vehicles as operations in Afghanistan continue into its seventh year and in Iraq into its sixth year.
“The Army is making significant strides in manned/unmanned teaming,” Gen. Richard Cody, Army vice chief of staff, said at the wrap-up session.
Adding, “This is saving lives” on the ground and in the air.
Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command, said, “The Army has pioneered new tactics, techniques and procedures in manned and unmanned vehicles.”
Adding, this teaming can “re-task quickly to support the guys on the ground, wearing the boots.”
The goal for the Army aviation in the future is “to project, connect and protect our soldiers,” he said.
The commanders also saw great value in having a “fusion cell” to manage the flow of intelligence and data to speed decision-making.
For the future, Shanahan said, “We have to look at our warrant officers and our senior NCOs. How do we keep those warrant officers who have had two or three tours?”
“Most of my ranks have more time flying in combat than in the United States,” Ball said.
He added that he knew the benefit of more time for training with the increasingly sophisticated equipment aboard Army aircraft “before we go into the box.”
As an example of how closely cut the time is between reset and redeployment, Army aviation officials said that 45 percent of the fleet is in for maintenance at anyone time.
Aviation Needs Continued Funding for Maintenance, Parts
“You cannot be a successful manager if you have a shortage of parts” and don’t provide necessary maintenance to the fleet, the Army’s top civilian aviation official told more than 350 attendees at a Association of the United States Army’s symposium in suburban Washington.
Paul Bogosian, program executive officer for aviation, said aviation life cycle manning was working.
Showing a slide, he reported fleet readiness up, compressed response time, program managers have better view of total cost and flattened organizational pyramid as some of the ways to judge performance.
Maj. Gen. James Myles, commander of the Army’s Aviation and Missile Command, said only 2 percent of the aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan are on the ground because of a lack of parts.
He added that 25 percent of the aircraft are on the ground for scheduled maintenance.
He also said that putting sensors on critical parts of an aircraft [56 points on a Black Hawk, for example] would allow the Army to move to a condition-based maintenance program, “so we can see how well this system is operating.”
It also would allow maintenance crews on site to make the repairs rather than sending the aircraft either to a center in theater of back to the United States.
The Army has spent $5 billion in aviation reset since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.
“We return the aircraft 120 days before deployment. That’s not good enough. I want to look at returning all aircraft in 180 days upon return.”
Among the issues facing Army aviation are continued funding, the impact of an era of persistent conflict and the air worthiness of the aircraft and career field management in an era of Base Realignment and Closure, Bogosian said.
Myles added obsolescence as an issue. “I am really frustrated by having to put obsolescent parts on aircraft.”
“What really measures our success is adaptability. … We change the function, and we execute the mission,” Bogosian said.
Aviation Modernization Programs are Essential
“We need to continue to modernize,” the project manager of the Army’s Apache Attack Helicopter program explained to 370 attendees at the Association of the United States Army Aviation Symposium in suburban Washington.
Col. Mark Paquette, speaking Jan. 10, said the Block III Apache program is about 45 percent of the way along the way to fielding with first flight scheduled for July. “The program is progressing extremely well.
“I don’t want to short change our sons and daughters,” he told reporters at an earlier gathering, in providing a more lethal and survivable attack helicopter. The aircraft “performs the close air support mission” for the Army.
At the symposium’s wrap-up session, Gen. Richard Cody, Army vice chief of staff, said, “We’ve got to keep moving” on all the aviation programs, such as Block III, that emerged with new money following the cancellation of the Comanche Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter program several years ago.
He added that he wanted to speed deliveries and still hold down cost.
For example, money for the first replacement Apache was approved in 2005, but the first aircraft was delivered several months ago.
Some of the enhancements for Block III in sensors, connectivity and survivability have been put on existing Block II Apaches operating in Iraq that allow commanders “to determine time and place of engagement,” Col. Mark Hayes, capabilities manager for reconnaissance/attack from the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command, said.
When the new block is fielded, Al Winn, vice president for Apache Systems at Boeing, predicted the aircraft would be 25 times as effective as the existing Block II.
The aircrews will have “full, real-time awareness” through a common operating picture as part of the 26 total enhancements scheduled for the aircraft.
Paquette said that challenges facing Apache now include supporting the current warfight in Afghanistan and Iraq and “we don’t have enough Apaches now [634, including some A models],” which translates into “we don’t have a lot of time” to train soldiers in the new systems that are being put on the aircraft.
In the meeting with reporters the day before, Paquette said five battalions of Apaches are deployed out of 16 in the active force five in the National Guard and Army Reserve, and “they have flown a half a million combat hours.”
Even more heavily worked is the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior, Hayes told symposium attendees. “Forty percent of the fleet [4,500 aircraft] is deployed,” and the aircraft is to be retired from the fleet after 2018.
The Army has 60,000 soldiers in 10 active duty aviation brigades and one in the Army National Guard.
Service officials have said often that even in force levels drop in Iraq in the coming months the demand for Army aviation will remain constant.
Despite, the heavy usage its mission capable rate is about 85 percent, Michael Blake, executive vice president for programs at Bell Helicopter, the manufacturer of the Kiowa Warrior. He added 39 of these scout helicopters have been reset at a Bell facility in Arkansas.
“Kiowa Warrior is whispering: bring on ARH,” Gen. Richard Cody, Army vice chief of staff, said at the symposium’s wrap-up session.
Michael Herbst, the Army’s deputy project manager for armed scout helicopters, said to keep the existing fleet of 345 Kiowas flying Bell and the Army are looking at replacing obsolescent parts and seeking ways to cut weight until the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter begins fielding.
“Whatever we do for Kiowa” in modernization, “I have to be able to take that off and put it on ARH,” Hayes said.
The requirement is for 512 aircraft, and 2011 is the date for having the first unit equipped.
“We’re flying it and we’re building it,” Blake said of the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter.
Bell built two prototypes and will soon add two more. At a session with industry leaders the next day, he added there needed to be “more thorough vetting out of [commercial off the shelf aircraft, as is being used in the ARH] for combat.
The program was restructured in the summer and the defense authorization bill compromised scaled the procurement of aircraft back from 16 to 12 at a cost of $176 million.
It passed its first limited user test in Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz., in November, and a second is scheduled for February.
Keep Talking with Industry for New Technologies, Innovations
A panel of top executives advised Army aviation officials: “The more time you can spend talking to industry is in your best interest” because industry’s focus is narrow and pioneering in defined areas while the government’s focus is broad.
Speaking Jan. 11 at the Association of the United States Army’s Aviation Symposium and Exposition in suburban Washington, David Oliver, executive vice president of EADS North America, said, “You want to have competition” in many ways “not just price.”
Oliver included technology and management of a program as others areas that should be competed.
“Some things industry does extraordinarily better than government – pricing. I have pricing guys … who have done it for 40 years.”
The same holds true with contracting.
“You have no generals assigned in this area. … We live off that.”
Industry also can react quickly to events and changing technologies. “I’m kicking myself that I didn’t send some engineers to the Consumer Electronic Show in Las Vegas. I will next year,” Frederick Strader, president of AAI Corporation, said.
Likewise, he added that his company which specializes in unmanned aerial vehicles and associated equipment learns by being in the field with soldiers.
Charles Allen, vice president and general manager for Boeing Rotorcraft Systems, said industry and the government needed to answer a series of questions now that will have bearing in the future.
“Do we want to have the same force, same numbers [of aircraft]. That would be relatively easy to do. Or do we want to put some money into research and development to have more capability?” realizing “funding is always going to be an issue.”
Adding, “We’re doing fewer and fewer new starts and doing more and more derivative modernization.”
The government has power to spur industry to innovate. “Remember, government uses money to guide industry,” Oliver said.
|