US army aviators raise concerns about uncertain outlook

Flight Global ^ | 1/14/2011 | Stephen Trimble

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

By almost any standard, US Army aviation has never looked in better shape. With an annual budget of $7 billion, three active production lines for manned helicopters and the Afghanistan war emphasising the value of vertical lift, the army's pocket of aviators enjoy unprecedented support.

The long-term outlook for the army's aviation branch, however, is not ideal. No new combat helicopter has entered service in nearly 30 years. All three active production lines are scheduled to shut-down within the next 15 years.

Fielding a new vertical lift technology could take billions of dollars and more than a decade, but the army has neither set aside funding nor approved any development programmes.

As the Association of the US Army (AUSA) hosted an annual aviation symposium on 13-14 January, army aviation leaders bluntly called attention to the branch's future predicament.

Col Randolph Rotte, aviation division chief on the army's headquarters staff, issued a call for immediate action. There is currently no strategy to replace the Boeing CH-47 Chinook, Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk and Boeing AH-64D Apache.

[Little Pig]

Replace the Blackhawk with a new PAVE-LOW, and expand the Osprey fleet. That’s your heavy-lift and your personnel carrier, and it’s one less airframe to maintain (and one that would now be shared between services for simpler training and parts chain). Yes, neither is as lightweight as the Blackhawk, but that just means you can carry more armor, and bigger guns, as well as more troops, plus the Osprey is fast.

[Yo-Yo]

There is currently no strategy to replace the Boeing CH-47 Chinook, Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk and Boeing AH-64D Apache.

There is no need to replace the CH-47, UH-60, or AH-64. So the basic airframe designs are decades old. So what? These aren't new cars that need cosmetic freshening every 3 years to maintain sales.

All three of these aircraft have been upgraded with new engines, rotors, and avionics over the years, and are much more capable than the original prototypes.

Until there is a need to add technology that cannot be retrofit into the existing airframe, (like the semi-stealthy Commanche or the super fast coaxial rotor Sikorsky X2,) there is no need to build replacements "just because."

All three of these airframes are still in production for a very good reason. They still work.