US Army leaning towards new scout

[Harry O]

Reuters reports that the US Army are reported to be leaning towards looking for a new scout. It will be the army's 3rd attempt.

Army Reportedly Leaning Towards New Scout Helicopter | Aero-News Network (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=770137a2-0b89-418c-9f5d-5d08a6343059)

Big money for whoever wins.

[SansAnhedral]

Big money for whoever wins.

The idea that US defense budgets will allow for a new scout helicopter in the near term is pretty preposterous. The Kiowa is averaging over 90% readiness and is dirt cheap to operate. I dont see a situation where a case can be made to make the huge investment required to proceeed with a "new" design.

I believe this announcement, along with a recent release by the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics that he wanted to maintain the industrial base by funding X-project helicopters, is just a way to stir the defense budget conversation to keep it in the foreground with looming sequestration.

Even pre-Obama, how could they realistically hope to fund CSAR-X, VXX, FVL, JSF, KCX, and a new light scout?

With an already well-performing Kiowa that can be modernized cheaply, that seems lowest on the totem poll.

[500guy]

The 540/little bird would be a natural choice. Better speed mobility sling load capacity etc. They will need to increase the fuel capacity though.

[SansAnhedral]

Better speed mobility sling load capacity etc.

Better than what? OH-58F? Block II?

[mfriskel]

How would you know that at this stage of the game?

[Harry O]

I can now see why MDHI and Boeing may be getting into a spat over the 540F being armed if the government are talking about a new scout.

The contract would be a golden goose for the 2 main MD share holders, the loud one in the US, and the other one in the Netherlands.

I'm surprised Sikorsky haven't come up with a good small aircraft like a mini blackhawk, as they build good aircraft for the military and have been around for years.

[Ian Corrigible]

Sans,

A big part of the reason why the Army is now reportedly leaning towards a new-build approach is cost growth of the OH-58F effort. The idea of a further D upgrade was floated shortly after the Arapaho was scalped, with the goal of a couple of million bucks per aircraft (i.e. less than a billion for the entire fleet).

By the time CASUP formally become the F the budget was up to $1.98 billion.

At the AUSA's Army aviation summit in January, Lt. Gen. Robert Lennox, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army (G-8), stated that the F upgrade program would now cost between $2.98 and $4.1 billion, with a follow-on SLEP (with new-build metal cabins) potentially growing this figure further still.

With Sikorsky now claiming that Raider would only cost "mid teens" and EADS floating the commonality argument for AAS-72X, it's not surprising that the Army is considering whether a new-build option might offer better bang for the buck.

I/C

[mfriskel]

Don't forget the article written 2 weeks ago about the US Army wanting to buy a new helicopter "to keep the US helicopter industry capable of designing new helicopters". A small scout helicopter makes sense as it would probably be the cheapest investment. Remember, that last US newly designed and built helicopter was designed in 1970. That would be the UH-60 and the AH-64 both. Everything since the 60A and 64A has been an upgrade to an existing platform. There was a good try with LHX, but there was not a good focus and it grew, the perceived threat went away, and it became unaffordable. 2 of the 3 mainstay's of the Special Operations Forces are developments of 1960s helicopters with only the UH-60 being much younger (10 years younger). I am really curious if US manufacturers have the ability to design from scratch, I know they do not have the willingness to bear the cost of development from scratch.

[TukTuk BoomBoom]

Well in the US it used to be civilian helicopters came from military contract offshoots, 204,205,206,407,MD500, FH1100, S70, B234 etc etc
That way the costs were shared.
Now it's going the other way a little bit.

If you're wondering why there haven't been any "new designed" aircraft since the 70s it's because between uprated engines and huge developments in avionics and weapon systems there wasn't a need for a new airframe.
That's where the missing link is, the technology is in the systems not the airframe..
Just look at some of the European junk being touted as next generation..NH-90 anyone..
Apache is still the best attack helicopter in the world, better than "newer designed" Eurocopter Tigers and Agusta Mangustas. Why is that? Because of avionics, weapon systems and power.
The UH60 is still the industry standard in medium size troop transport.

Oh yeah and an EC225 is developed from a SA330, an EC130 is a late model Astar, an EC155 is a SA360 and an EC145 is a BO105.
1960 and 70s technology designs..

[Hughes500]

well does a new airframe mean it is better than an old one ? Take the Sa341 gazelle versus its replacement the EC120. Gazelle will outperform the EC120 in just about every department, one designed in the 1960's one in the 1990's !!!!:ugh:

[VegasRobbiedvr]

Retired enlisted man here, not since the US Army was flying the OH-58Cs have I seen or heard of a scout helicopter sling loading anything...please show me a picture of an operational "line" unit performing this mission with a D model 58. With so much jee wiz electronics on board, there is no back seat let alone the ability to sling load. Plus the primary mission of the airframe is to locate, target, report enemy formations w/aerial gunnery support second. That is what the "O" means...observation!!!! NOT utility. Please don't send argue that Task Force 160 will us its little birds (OH-6) to sling load from time to time...they are an entirely different animal and their mission is very different hence the different airframe altogether.

[SansAnhedral]

I/C

New program and upgrade costs notwithstanding, surely there are training, logistic, and supply chain aspects of the existing OH-58 into an upgraded model that factor into a real total cost assessment.

As far as the raider costing mid-teens... :suspect::rolleyes:

[Sky Sports]

Oh yeah and an EC225 is developed from a SA330, an EC130 is a late model Astar, an EC155 is a SA360 and an EC145 is a BO105.
1960 and 70s technology designs..
True, but, Eurocopter is currently long term designing replacements for all these aircraft and a few "specials", because they realise that, no matter how great a design is, you can't plod on with it forever. How many other manufacturers have replacements in the pipeline for the bulk of their current production models?
Take the Sa341 gazelle versus its replacement the EC120.
The EC120 designed for the civil market was never a replacement for the SA341, which was designed for the military market.

[Hughes500]

Skysports

Doesnt really matter that 314 was a mil design, in the 1960's all helicopters were, point is 341 is in both mil and civil clothes. EC 120 which is the equivlent in the Eurocopter line up is crap in comparision

[Harry O]

D.C. analyst predicts "no competition" for the Kiowa

Sky Talk: D.C. analyst predicts "no competition" for the Kiowa (http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2012/12/dc-analyst-predicts-no-competition-for-the-kiowa.html)


EADS North America spokesman stated.
"The Army turned the tables on the industry," Darcy said. "They said, 'We're not going to have a competition unless you spend your money and energy to prove to us that we need a competition."

[tottigol]

Tuk Tuk, "newer designed"? the A-129 first flew in 1983, hardly a new design. Its weight half of the AH-64 hardly puts it in the same category. For your information, the Apache entered IOC with the Army about 1985.
The EC-145 is not a 105, more like a 117 soon to have a five bladed main rotor, courtesy the US ARMY money.:rolleyes:
And you forget the biggest crap of them all, the Sikorsky S-92. Just ask the Canadian armed forces. :yuk:

[SawThe Light]

I seem to recall Apache flying out of Hughes Airfield in Culver in the mid '70s. Still a ponderous old beast.

"Newer design" compared with a B47 I guess.

[fluffy5]

I am sure they can dust off the Comanche, have another go........

Flufffy

[JohnDixson]

Good point, Fluffy5. I dare say that if one canvassed those who have substantial time flying the Comanche, they would advise that as a flight vehicle, it certainly was superior to the ships mentioned in these posts. My guess would be however, that the mere mention of that name would automatically raise all of the questions re why the total program was cancelled, when the flying vehicle part was so extraordinary, and thus constitute a proposal that would be DOA.

[Evil Twin]

What beggars belief is why on earth anyone would bother!!

The US has the largest and most technically equipped military machine on earth and for what? The combined NATO forces are still being outwitted by a group of armed goat herders.

The amount of money being poured down the drain on a daily basis is sickening, whether anyone believes the war is just or not, it has acheived nothing! To then go and want to waste billions more borrowed money to produce an aircraft capable of doing the same job as the technically superior equipment currently operated is ridiculous.

Those who came up with the preposterous idea should hang their heads in shame!!! :=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=

[Harry the Hun]

On first look you are right, but have you ever compared the comfort on the rear seats and compared the burn rate? Gazelle is an enormous fun to fly, but in all fairness the 120 is not that bad either, and it comes cheap.

[Ian Corrigible]

EC-145, soon to have a five bladed main rotor, courtesy the US ARMY money
What'chu talkin' 'bout, Willis? The five-bladed bearingless Advanced Technology Rotor flown in April 2006...three months before the LUH selection was made?? Also, the commercial nature of the UH-72 contract means that EADS doesn't receive any IRAD slush funds - so they wouldn't be able to fund anything 'courtesy of the US Army' unless a specific contract mod was written for it.

I am sure they can dust off the Comanche, have another go
A 'Comanche-lite' was actually included in Sikorsky's response to the 2010 AAS RFI. This 'X1' concept was dropped in favor of the S-97 offering.

I/C

[500e]

Perhaps if the manufacturers just upped their game & ironed out the bugs in existing platforms it would help, poor life times, lack of reaching life times would be a good start, the general reliability of machines leave a lot to be desired.
Gearbox, blade, composite, frame cracks, electronic\ electrical problems, to name but a few

[Hughes500]

500e

Now you are being stupid again, manufacturers still think they are doing their customers a favour by letting them buy their machines:ugh:

[SansAnhedral]

Its a good thing that luddites like Evil Twin are not in charge of military procurement, as it seems he prefers we would still find ourselves chucking rock and point-ed sticks.

How the replacement of a general-use combat scout helicopter reaching the end of its airframe life became an allegory for military spending is frankly beyond me. I dont see how useless posts like that add anything to the discussion.

[Lonewolf_50]

If I were the Army, and I was looking at the manpower bill the Army looks at, and the logistics bill, and the next twenty years on procurement, I'd probably try to wege MORE UAV capability into the scout role, and rather than buy a new helicopter I'd keep the OH-58F momentum. What I'd also do is shrink the size of the active Scout (OH-58F) fleet and keep a nice bundle of spares at Davis Monthan or somewhere like that.

In preservation. Or in a state for a kit conversion to replace combat losses.

But I am not the Army.

Question for John Dixson:

The 97 looks to me, as a pilot, like a nice mix of potential attack/scout capability with nominal utility capability. The problem with that platform, as I see it, is similar to the problem that Comanche ran into at the programatic level, and one that is raising flags for the JSF/F-35 at present.

Below a certain number on order, the per unit cost will raise red flags all over the place in the PR war, regardless of what new and improved capability such a step forward would produce.

So on to the question: what lessons learned from Comanche, and what the program addressed in terms of the risks of new technology, can the 97 team apply as it bids for being the next armed scout?

[JohnDixson]

LoneWolf, you have raised a key point, and you are correct in applying the RAH-66 program as the foil.

Taking the bare S-97 just as the flying platform, the costs of that part, while inevitably higher than the 58, will be higher incrementally to reflect the hardware technology that results in the vastly improved performance.

The program costs to be wary of are the system costs. During Comanche, much higher sums were being spent on system development than on the flight program. Yet, the flight program was eminently successful, whereas the system program was not. The pilots never got to fly " the system" except in the sim. And whereas Boeing and SA had their best people working Comanche flight, the same was not so with systems, a lot of which had been sub'd. I used to play golf on Sunday mornings with the head of flight test ( a Boeing man who was simply the best ), a Boeing Test Pilot, and an Army Test Pilot. Too much of the conversation had to do with the pilots telling us about their sim efforts to train the systems design guys how a helicopter flew, what the mission was in reality, what info was critical to pilots vs what was incidental, etc etc.. Goal posts moved. Missing software drop dates was OK.

Just my personal opinion, but that sort of situation isn't necessarily inevitable on the new Scout, and it should be priority one on everyone's mind. If someone were to mention the Canadian MHP program as another example in this area of development cost/schedule how-not-to-do-it, I probably know several pilots who would agree.

[Lonewolf_50]

Thank you, John, for your candor. :ok:

I had an idea that maybe the Comanche could resurrected as an armed scout to compete for such a requirement, if it was reworked to be single pilot (yes, a non-trivial cost!!) platform, but your point on system integration and development shows me what a fantasy that was.

[JohnDixson]

Not a bad thought at all, LoneWolf. As it became obvious that the Comanche was going to take forever to get to the field, one Monday morning I made a proposal to the SA Management Council that we take the basic airframe, power train and controls, ditch the specialized DOD equipment, the 290V electrical system, and put a version on the market with off the shelf equipment. By "we " I meant SA, not SA/Boeing. Too difficult and there were stealth technology questions that were in fact valid. Thus, maybe the best flying machine we've ever put together sits in the museum.

[SASless]

Does a Scout Helicopter have to be multi-crewed? Has technology advanced to the point the Scout Mission could be done by a single pilot? The Air Force has used Single Pilot FAC's forever.

[Lonewolf_50]

SASless, LHX initial competition included some single pilot proposals. IMO, the problem with the Army taking the risk to go to single pilot has to do with mission / task loading. (See old arguments about the old single pilot A-7 being a 1.3 pilot aircraft with 1.0 pilots ... )

At the time of the Comanche program, besides the attack and scout community being wedded to dual pilot models, there was considerable risk involved in how much task loading the fancy electronic side of the development was going to be able to handle, particularly as the "Force XXI" vision made the Comanche an integral part of the CC and sensor mix, above and beyond scout and armed attack. I wish I could still get in touch with a few people I knew on that program to elaborate, but it's been a few years.

If you constrain the mission to "scout" or "armed scout" and take advantage of the current tools that allow for mission tasks to be assisted, I think you can make a good argument for a single pilot scout helicopter. You will need to change your training scheme a bit, however.

Getting the "system" to believe that you can do that is another matter, which has to do with human engineering. ;)

EDIT: I found it!
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA173696&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

See pages 17 and 18 of the report, dated 1986, regarding the risks for single pilot LHX. Lots of very interesting and prescient points raised in the paper.

[JohnDixson]

Your selection of the descriptive " prescient " is spot on. Looked without success for the names on the Board, as their work belied some very accurate understanding of what needed to be done.

[SASless]

If we fielded three times as many but smaller and less capable single pilot Scout helicopters, could we not have a net gain in capability over sticking to Two Crew machines? A concept similar to the Soviet way of thinking re Tanks during the Cold War.

[VegasRobbiedvr]

SASLess....Essentially you are saying quantity over quality if you were to field more "dumbed down airframes" meaning w/o the gee wiz boxes or less capable as you said. I am not attacking you sir so please do not take this to heart ....Quantity does have a quality in its own right some would say, but Others would argue at what cost, soldiers lives? The US public would never stand for such course of action. The military takes great pains in giving the perception of not risking soldiers lives and is providing the best equipment available. We like vertually a low to no casualty, one sided war in our favor of course. I however being a retired soldier always remembered that the equipment I did have was built by the lowest bidder. Additionaly that quantity over quality didn't work out all too well for old saddam. His armored forces out numbered the coalition forces by 4 to 1...that's T55, T62, and T72s tanks against M1s. A Iraqi armored commander was quoted "I knew you americans were near when my tanks began to explode. That's 50s and 60s tech tanks against late 70s and 80s tech tanks. The battle of 73 Eastings is a classic example of this very train of thought. The America military plans for its forces to meet and engage forces that are superior in numbers. The equalizer and pushing us at a greater advantage is a small force equipped with highly lethal and technically advance equipment that negates the numerically superior forces we might encounter.

[Harry O]

More from Washington.

US Army seeks more data before approving helicopter contest | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/08/usa-helicopters-army-idUKL1E9C8CK120130108?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=governmentFilingsNews)

[SASless]

VP....you seem to have missed the point being made in my previous posts.

I very much included the Gee Whiz stuff as you call it....suggesting technology could make up for the deleted crew member. Thus instead of two Pilots per helicopter....you go with a single pilot thus more than doubling the number of aircraft that could be fielded.

We would not use Robbies to do a helicopter's work (as an analogy) but put capable aircraft using Single crew like the Air Force, Navy, and Marines do with their Fighter/Attack aircraft every day and night. Think F-16, F-18, A-10 for a start.

I for one do not believe it should take two PILOTS per Scout Aircraft. Perhaps put a non-rated Observer in the aircraft instead of two Pilots perhaps.

Does the Apache really have to have two Pilots...or are we just going on with a tradition that started with days of old here?

[Hughes500]

I think what this boils down to is who you are intending to fight.
If you look currently both UK and USA in Afgan use a £ 35m anti tank helicopter to shoot lone " infantrymen " As an ex grunt and then pilot I would prefer to see a less capable heli but have more of them so I have almost a personal one there, at my beck and call. To take the argument to the extreme you would end up with one do it all see it all machine.
As the machines getter ever more sophisticated they need a bigger and bigger logistics tail to keep them flying, let alone the expense of procurement in the first place.
lets be honest having an Apache longbow that can acquire and prioritise 250 targets is rather ott, who in the world has 250 tank, apc's etc etc

[Lonewolf_50]

Hughes, in war, you aren't trying to have a fair fight, you are trying to have an edge, since the intent is to win. Also, that multi million helo can kill hundreds and hundreds of that "lone infantryman" so long as nobody with an SA-7 shows up to frequently. ;) The asset is reusable.

Army has recently been fielding 2.75" rockets with seeker heads on them. Same old weapon, but now it can be directed. Much cheeper than using a fancy Hellfire to take out a car.

[Hughes500]

Lone

My point entirely, everyone goes down the headlong road of it must be the best out there without actually looking at what it really needs to do !:ugh:

[Hughes500]

Lone

Should have added that a lone infantryman now has a selection of pocket rockets with a pretty impressive range. LAW 80 ( UK ) a 30 lbs rocket that will take out a T72 would make mincemeat of a hovering Apache, just as well they dont have them in Afgan ( even the old US 66mm LAW would make a bit of a hole )

[Lonewolf_50]

Not issued to each "lone infantry man," and I think you know that. I'll point out that the chain gun is a relatively cheap and effectivce weapon. As with dog fighting, who spots whom first has a lot to do with how a fight turns out.

Apache does a lot of things well, but it isn't all things to all people. The Light Heavy Mix is a problem in force balancing as old as the Cav/Footsoldier mix when going on a campaign. It will ever be with us.

This takes us back to the problem the Army is trying to solve: What is it you want the Scout / Armed Scout to do besides keep US industrial base warm? What mission niche is being filled?

[before landing check list]

If we fielded three times as many but smaller and less capable single pilot Scout helicopters, could we not have a net gain in capability over sticking to Two Crew machines? A concept similar to the Soviet way of thinking re Tanks during the Cold War.

I seem to remember an old Andy Rooney part ref the new (then) M60 battle tank. He was talking about how great it was, what it could do and the cost.....then he said why not just flood the battlefield with old pick up trucks with a TOW system for the price of one tank? There is some logic to that. It works.
Our navy tends to use the basic airframe on several helicopter types. The AH1W is simpler than the 64. There is going to be a reduction in the OR when the technology increases. I am for increasing the quality of our pilots before we tend to use technology to mask (Not intended as such but it is happening) lack of basic piloting technique.

[Lonewolf_50]

The AH-1W is being replaced by AH-1Z.

Not sure if "simpler" is what is going on here. ;)

[VegasRobbiedvr]

The idea of using a non rated observer was the norm back in SE Asia. Scout helicopters very mission is RISTA (Recon, Intel, Surveillance, and Target acquisition), its lightly armored, lightly armed in relation to am actual dedicated attack platform. The Army brass as well as pilots realized the single point of failure in that concept (single pilot) was once your pilot got shot...down came the helicopter and the resulting loss of both the crewmembers and the airframe. The A thru C model OH-58s flew with single pilot. These very same pilots realized this, so they taught their non rated crewmember some flying skills to try and ensure a return of all who had a vested interest. The dual pilot requirement grew from this basic lesson. Plus as the 58 matured into the Kiowa Warrior sensors suite grew taking the place of the enlisted man using his Mark 1 eyeballs. Now a fix to that is available currently...use a operator to remotely take control should the primary pilot onboard the airframe become incapacitated. But that opens up a new can of worms and pretty much negating the low cost aspect in the original argument started here.

[Ian Corrigible]

Does a Scout Helicopter have to be multi-crewed? Has technology advanced to the point the Scout Mission could be done by a single pilot?
The Army's great hope was the Rotorcraft Pilot's Associate (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1999/news_release_991005n.htm). It looks like the Echo may finally be bringing RPA-type technology to the cockpit in the shape of the Cognitive Decision Aiding System (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-army-fields-first-ah-64e-unit-but-more-improvements-to-come-380875), designed "to help the pilot and the crew with some of those tasks that tend to get a little cumbersome at times."

Europe is also pursuing similar tech, in the form of the Pilot Assistance System (PILAS) (http://www.eurocopter.com/w1/jrotor/78/fidae%20(2).html) introduced at one of the AHS fora a few years back.

I/C

[SASless]

OH-58's were very late comers to the LOH job in Vietnam.

H-13's and H-23's started the mission, followed by the OH-6....and finally the absolute POS OH-58A.

The LOACH mission in Vietnam is entirely different than the current Scout Mission as are the tactics, weapons, and capabilities of the aircraft.

In Vietnam it was 50 feet or lower....and if you were smart 60 knots or faster never flying in a straight line with a Torque (Door Gunner in the back seat on the Pilot's side), and Observer with a Car-15 up front beside the Pilot. This was old fashioned Sabre, Lance, and Pistol style of combat....very up close and personal. Taking on Machine Guns, groups of NVA or VC troops with automatic weapons and RPG's at that distance was a very sporty business and way too many good folks died doing it.

The only thing the crew had were MK I eyeballs and big Testicles!

Try the same tactics in Afghanistan today during the day.....and it would be a real bloodbath.

As some have said.....first one has to define the Mission.

Then one can begin to adapt the Strategy and Tactics to fit that defined need.

As fighting the Russians in Europe does not seem to be the concern now....why do we need Longbow and the Scout that works in conjunction with that system?

Can we not go back in capability and still adequately perform the Scout mission in Counter-Insurgency Missions?

[Lonewolf_50]

SASless:

Had Comanche lived on, you could argue that Comanche fills both scout and attack role sufficiently to remove both the Scout and the Attack platform from the Air Order of Battle, particularly when you supplement the scout function with UAV's doing a lot of the simple "look" and "watch" functions in scouting and various ISR or S & R mmissions.

As you can readily imagine, there were political obstacles to that, in terms of whacking Bell and M.D. (which became Boeing Mesa) from the competitive mix, and the industrial base.

The High-Low mix problem to solve is "what can you afford" and "what are you trying to buy."

[Hughes500]

The big problem with all this advanced kit is the time it takes for pilot/observer to train to use it ( 2 years for Longbow) So in a big fight you could make the aircraft quicker than you can train the crew. Although different age in WW2 the Battle of Britain we very nearly lost not because of technology ( Hurricane and Spitfire argubably the best machines of the time) but we couldnt train the pilots quick enough to replace those that died. Mind you most piots had less than 30 hours basic on a Tiger Moth, 10 hours in a Hurricane and then " follow me ":eek: Not 2 years !

[Harry O]

More discussions, and a mention of autonomy.

AUSA Aviation: Industry warns of dangers of delaying new rotorcraft - News - Shephard (http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/ausa-aviation-industry-warns-dangers-delaying-new-/)

[Savoia]

Budget freezes US Army Armed Aerial Scout program

Brooklands, 14 May, 13

The US Army has issued the following statement on helicopter procurement as part of a wider statement on how it responds to cuts in the military budget. It refers to the lack of "viable candidates" for the US Army Armed Aerial Scout program, which we read as "No candidates falls within our newly-tightened Budget constraints"

The Army has been looking for a follow-on to the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter for some time. As one lawmaker pointed out, the Army was going to replace the Kiowa Warrior with the Comanche aircraft -- but that program was cancelled. There was also the Armed Reconnaissance Program and most recently the Armed Aerial Scout, or AAS, program. The AAS program recently looked at commercially available helicopters to see if they would be good candidates for militarization -- but none proved a viable candidate.

Barclay said the Army continues to look for a replacement for the Kiowa Warrior, however, it is also now working on modernization of the aircraft. By late summer, he said, based on outcomes of fiscal guidance, the Army will make a determination on the way ahead for the Armed Aerial Scout program, or will make a determination on a service life extension program, or SLEP, for the Kiowa Warrior. Still, he said, those options would not get into the field until the mid- to late 2020s.

As a stop-gap, he said, the Army is now working the cockpit and sensor upgrade program, or CASUP, for the Kiowa Warrior. That, he said, includes "obsolescence and safety upgrades" to the current fleet. The first Kiowa Warrior with the CASUP upgrades will fly an inaugural flight, April 30.

"That is our bridge," he said, until decisions are made about SLEP or AAS.

Editor's Note - There is no suggestion that they are being rejected on performance or technical grounds. The bidders were:

- AgustaWestland AW169
- Eurocopter UH-72A
- Boeing AH6i
- MD Helicopters MD540F
- AVX Aircraft concept based on OH-58
- Sikorsky S-97

Budget freezes US Army Armed Aerial Scout program | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://helihub.com/2013/05/14/budget-freezes-us-army-armed-aerial-scout-program/)

Budget freezes US Army Armed Aerial Scout program

As in seriously!!??

[tottigol]

Mmmhh, Bell has no viable candidate? Then Bell manipulates customer into improving obsolete Bell product.
Generals and politicians get rich (or get VERY remunerative consultant position)
Bell wins.;)


But mostly, everyone else loses...seriously.

[SansAnhedral]

Mmmhh, Bell has no viable candidate?

And you're basing that on what, the casual omission of the OH-58D Block II by an editors note on a HeliHub article? :rolleyes:

Voluntary flight demonstrations (VFDs) were conducted last year with the Bell OH-58D Block 2, Boeing AH-6i, EADS North America AAS-72X/X+ and MD Helicopters MD 540F. AgustaWestland demonstrated the AW139M as a surrogate for its AW169 AAS offering.

The interested companies without viable candidates include Sikorsky, because to date their helicopter still only exists as a collection of CATIA V5 models and a smattering of machined parts, and of course AVX who are fishing for funding so they can finally build something in the flesh.

If anything, this buys time for Sikorsky to get the S-97 built and flying and cross their fingers that the army gets (much) more funding to pay for it.

[PhlyingGuy]

If anything, this buys time for Sikorsky to get the S-97 built and flying and cross their fingers that the army gets (much) more funding to pay for it.

Agreed... this is either a win for Bell if the Army can't get the funding... or a win for Sikorsky if they can get this delayed until they do have funding.

[JohnDixson]

"Agreed... this is either a win for Bell if the Army can't get the funding... or a win for Sikorsky if they can get this delayed until they do have funding."

I used the "Uh-oh " title because for one, the above quote underscores the predicament facing the other competitors if the mission assessment weights speed heavily. For another, ( and this is just a guess from a retiree ) it might be incorrect for the competitors to count on SA not following thru with their stated plan to fly two S-97's. Doing this sort of thing has been part of the culture in the past, and the success of the X2 in using previously unavailable technologies to address issues left on the table by the XH-59 , must provide a good deal of confidence going forward. The implication of the quote from a previous post is that Army money is a necessity for the S-97 to fly and be credible. If you own UTC stock, don't sell it on that bet, because its not just UTC money being invested, but the partners are in it as well ( though I haven't a clue as to how the partnering arrangements are worded ).

Apologies for rooting for what to me is the " Home Team ".

[Lonewolf_50]

John, while that was gentlemanly of you, there is no need to apologize. Most of us know of your long service with Sikorsky, and your depth of experience. I for one would be surprised if you didn't root for the home team. :)

As to the delay: I'd be skeptical how that is an advantage to anyone, since my little crystal ball on the out years' procurement environment forecasts ssustained shrinkage. The C-130 and the Buff are still with ut.

Shrinkage may not hit Army aviation as hard as other areas, but coming off of wars the US typically goes into a funding/funds slump. It's the way our system is constructed, going back to the original days, and goes in cycles based on demand.

Recent history is no different. The post Cold War slump was a significant ebb tide. It lasted a decade. Then the procurement tide came in for the past decade. With the recent wars winding down, an ebb is written on the wall.

That said, I am not sure the Army will pursue a new airframe. With the past fifteen years' experience and growth in UAVs of various sized, the Recon and Scouting function will be a mix of manned an unmanned for the foreseeable future.

That argues to me for a reduction in the ToE of manned aircraft in that mission area, not an increase. How deep a reduction remains to be seen.

[JohnDixson]

LW, a lot of the readers, myself included, would agree with your assessment as being indeed a distinct possibility. If that proves true, then SA will then be left with a machine sized/priced for the international scout market, whatever that may be, but a significant bit too small to enter the S-76/AW-139 market. I guess that statement gives my hand away, because when the idea of an ABC follow-on was first raised, I thought a 12-13K lb vehicle was the size to build a prototype, and the difference in program costs to do that instead of the 6K vehicle wasn't a lot of money. That way, you only do the propulsion/drivetrain/ rotors once. Do all the risk mitigation work on the initial prototype. Win some, lose some.

[SansAnhedral]

I used the "Uh-oh " title because for one, the above quote underscores the predicament facing the other competitors if the mission assessment weights speed heavily.

But does the scout mission really require a quantum leap in speed capability, at least in comparison to the inveitable quantum leap in cost? Surely nobody is foold into believing that an S-97 will cost even remotely as little as $15 million...

For FVL, on the other hand, speed is of the essence according to the Army. Its plainly clear that Sikorsky has a major incentive to get S-97 into some contract, and AAS is the ripe fruit to get the Army into the ABC coax game for the big prize of FVL.

Question is, what does the Army fund? A crop of all new AAS ships, which increases the capability of that platform, which arguably has not demonstrated a real need for paradigm shift (doesn't the OH58 have something like 95% readiness?)...or FVL which from the outset was designated as moving the performance needle in a big way. I don't think they can do both.

As I have said before, the S-97 was a ship built to a contract that never existed. Sikorsky is desperate to try and shoehorn it into AAS (even though its oversized) or FVL (even though its much too small for FVL-M).

Since its well recognized in industry that scaling up the ABC coax to FVL-M size and maintinaing 230kt+ speed is currently impossible, I would put money on Sikorsky actually trying to use the S-97 airframe for the FVL tech demo, and claim they can tackle the tech issues with scaling in hopes they can get the Army to back off the speed requirement from the BAA.

[Lonewolf_50]

Doesn't the OH58 have something like 95% readiness?

I doubt it.

I am curious what is behind that "readiness" metric you tossed in there.

Full Mission Capable?
Partial Mission Capable?
Can get the engines / rotors started?
Launch with no abort?
Launch with no mission equipment degradation?

Sorry, but that number smells of fish.

[SansAnhedral]

In addition to the accumulation of these combat hours, all OH-58 units are reporting that they continue to achieve over 90% mission capable rates. This means that when a unit tasking comes down, over 90% of the helicopters are able to fly the mission.

“The Kiowa Warrior’s mission capable rate, coupled with the numbers of combat hours flown, is a truly remarkable achievement and represents the highest readiness rate and Operational Tempo (OPTEMPO) in the U.S. Army,” said Miller.

Textron : Newsroom - Bell Helicopter Provides OH-58 Kiowa Warrior Program Update (http://investor.textron.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=110047&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1806238)

[army_av8r]

As an experienced/ current OH-58D Instructor pilot, the readiness rate is pretty spot on, the birds have their ups and downs, but overall, the systems and aircraft are always ready to rock... Because it's a simple airframe and powerplant, we really dont have alot of problems to contend with. When I strap one on, I know it will work and be a reliable aircraft. 100% is an impossible number because scheduled maintenance obviously just doesnt allow it, but otherwise, They are ready to go!

[JohnDixson]

Sans, I wrote: " I used the "Uh-oh " title because for one, the above quote underscores the predicament facing the other competitors if the mission assessment weights speed heavily."

I added emphasis on the "if" word, because as others have also recognized, there is no telling how the speed advantage of the S=97 will be weighted*.

Allow me to add the " if" word to the $15M price tag too. One option available to SA would be to just import the new OH-58 "system" into the production version and save the time/expense of doing something new that is unneeded. An uneducated guess is that the SA quote had something like that in mind. An option open to the Army ( and we taxpayers ) is to say to SA: "Sold at $15M, Fixed Price Contract". Where I am going here is that it might be a bad assumption for competitors to assume that the $15M figure doesn't represent some pencil work in Ct.

* Haven't read everything available on the subject, but has the Army mentioned going to a competitive fly-off for this replacement program? Reason for asking is that the payoff for having done that for the UH-1 replacement program ( UTTAS ) was huge. It also made the real differences between the SA and Boeing machines crystal clear. So, if there is a fly-off and the S-97 gets to be a finalist and is a candidate, the Army will ( if they construct the fly-off as they did the UTTAS ) determine for themselves the answer to that question, for that mission.

[SansAnhedral]

The "competitive" (though voluntary) fly-off already occured last year, much to SAC's chagrin as the S-97 was not ready.

[JohnDixson]

Perhaps now that the Army has put the program on hold, when they " unhold it " and realize that the capability of the candidate pool has broadened, another fly-off will be held.

Please enlighten re the voluntary fly-off. Was it an engineering and service evaluation in parallel? Against a published Material Need Document or a spec within an RFP? How many vehicles per contractor? How many Army pilots involved? Aircraft put in the field for the service eval? Just trying to get a feel for how thorough the Army was at this point? Curious about the " voluntary " part of it, as the word makes it sound somewhat casual.

[SASless]

Not that the Army has never played games with availability rates.....Chinooks at Hanchey Army Airfield when I was there could be considered "Flyable" even if one engine was removed from the Aircraft....not that anyone would fly them that way but hell....they could take off on one Donk right!

[Lonewolf_50]

av8r, thanks, 90% MC rate. Got it. I am somewhat familiar with what goes into such metrics. ;) Still a good readiness rate. :ok:

(Sans, your "95%" got my red flag up, again, due to being somewhat familiar with what goes into the declaration of such readiness rates). ;)

[Lonewolf_50]

While reading a few defense articles, I noted that in the 9.6 billion reprogram request (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-17/pentagon-asks-congress-to-move-9-6-billion-to-priority-projects.html) the DoD is making to Congress (shift funds around) I noted something related to this thread:

$115 million cut to Boeing Co. (BA)’s AH-64 Apache helicopter upgrade.

There were boosts to Afghanistan funding and JSF software, and other stuff, but the above strikes me as a substantial chunk of cash potentially pulled from an Army Aviation program.

Question that comes to mind: is the decision to cut (how far into the program is the Army, anyway, on the upgrade to the D? ) these funds informed by a longer tem decision to put more money into scouting and recon and less into marginal returns on strike/attack capability?

Maybe, and maybe not. May just be a temp delay to the upgrade.

[Ian Corrigible]

And the winner is...[drum roll]...the Apache (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131205/DEFREG02/312050025/Hopes-Fade-US-Army-Armed-Aerial-Scout).

Army Aviation plan would divest Kiowas, move Guard Apaches to scout role
Inside the Army (http://insidedefense.com/201312062455033/Inside-Defense-Daily-News/DefenseAlert/army-aviation-plan-would-divest-kiowas-move-guard-apaches-to-scout-role/menu-id-61.html) Thursday, December 05, 2013

A proposed restructure of the Army's aviation fleets, shaped to deal with a dismal fiscal outlook and inevitable force reductions, includes the divestiture of the entire OH-58 Kiowa Warrior fleet and a plan to use AH-64 Apache helicopters -- mostly taken from the National Guard -- to meet its armed aerial scout mission, according to Army officials.

I/C

[The Sultan]

IC

The Apache is not a scout. In the scout role it is a $20M+ target that a spear wielder can take down when doing a low and slow with a need for agility. The Kiowa has the best operational/mission capable readiness rate of all Army helicopters. I attended a Kiowa operations test where 6 Apaches were required to support 4 Kiowas. The Apache requirement for each mission was only 2. Kiowas required all 4. It was unbelievable to see the amount of civilian system techs to get those two launched.

The Apache is not know as the Ramp Rock for nothing.

The Sultan

[army_av8r]

Aside from the frustrations of suggesting that an Apache can do my job... how could anyone use the "Budget Crisis" as a reason to mothball the Kiowa fleet. we are the cheapest to operate, highest hour per airframe, lowest funded aircraft in the army. getting rid of OH-58D's and using an AH-64 in our place for fiscal reasons, would be on the verge of fraud. departing soapbox...

[Mechta]

John Dixon wrote:

If that proves true, then SA will then be left with a machine sized/priced for the international scout market, whatever that may be, but a significant bit too small to enter the S-76/AW-139 market.

'International' is what its all about. Can the USA afford to let foreign (Russian? Chinese? Indian?) competitors design and perfect new designs whilst its own manufacturers keep rehashing the 1960s designs, however good they are?

A modern technology airframe, perhaps with limited system capability, out there in the field, earning export dollars and building up hours, would allow a breathing space for the advanced systems destined for US Army machines to be perfected, until Uncle Sam can afford to buy it.

You only need to look at the British motorcycle industry in the 1960s and the US automobile industry in the 1970s, to see what happens if you rest on your laurels.

The real question isn't whether the USA can afford to put 21st Century technology helicopters into production, but can it afford not to?

[Lonewolf_50]

Had the Army been able to get Comanche into the field, I think this question would be moot, and both KW and Apache would be phased out to be replaced by a single TMS. But that's speculation that we could never prove ... too bad.

Deployability: I seem to recall that you can fit a lot more KW's into a C-17 than you can Apaches if you are trying to return to "CONUS based and deployable anywhere" as your force structure model. Granted, POMCUS and pre-positioned material also fit into that mix ... not sure how aviation heavy such postures are. Been too many years since I was in that side of things.

This raises the question: what's the Army think that it's next 10-20 years of operational environment is going to look like?
ROC/POE is written based on a best estimation of the expected operational environment.

Last point: more drones, maybe more unarmed scouting, hold the "punch" until you need it, and use a variety of fires (airborne, land based) to take care of targets as suitable to the RoE.
I hear rumor that Army is going for armed UAV's now ... maybe something like Predator or Reaper? If so, that sounds like a bun fight in the making with the USAF over roles and missions ... :eek:

[army_av8r]

UAV's have a role in todays mission, in places that humans can't operate (Chemical, SAM, Ect...). Unfortunately, UAV operators are not currently trained in scouting, nor capable of filling the recon role that manned aircraft fulfill. they also operate at altitudes that do not allow for proper reconnaissance. having 4 living, breathing, eyeballs per cockpit, who have a vested interest in mission completion, and have the best interests of the infantryman on the ground cannot be overlooked. UAV's share a part in todays Role on the battlefield. but they are not the fix. the OH-58D fleet doesn't ask for much, and has operated better than everyone else with FAR less, for a decade... our fleet can operate Higher/ Hotter than most other Pilots/ Airframes because we are forced to operate in limited power, and marginal performance even at sea level. we dont have autopilot, SAS, FMS... we have to fly it ourselves to stay alive, and our mission means, when bullets fly, we are expected to take that stepchild of an aircraft and run towards the sound of bullets. i have full faith in the airframe, it is economical to operate, reliable to fly and maintain, and capable beyond its expected lifespan. I have heard rumor that 1 apache cost more than the annual Upgrade/ modification budget of the OH-58D Fleet... i will end my rant on that note!

[SASless]

The real question isn't whether the USA can afford to put 21st Century technology helicopters into production, but can it afford not to?


Have we ever entered a War fully prepared and ready to go with State of the Art Equipment all the way round....fully staffed, trained, and ready to go?

We can look at every War....pick one....and we can show examples of what was missing as we just cannot bring ourselves to spend the money we need on the right systems, aircraft, ships, and the like.

When we go up against the Chinese....we better have our Ducks in a Row or they will eat our lunch. At some point technology alone cannot win the day....it will take numbers.

Now anyone want to guess when the Lakota's show up in Combat....knowing the promise is they never would?

[Hilife]

Hedging their bets and playing an acquisition game I’d say.

With the Kiowa gone, so goes any opportunity to upgrade (I know it’s a little unpalatable for some on this thread to accept, but a revamped Jet Ranger is not what the US Army wants going forward) and no, it's not a Lakota either.

As will be evident, the Apache has its role, but availability rates and cost of operation will force the decision to urgently identify a replacement platform to fill the void left by the Kiowa, so the DoD prioritises a replacement program and the Army gets its new AAS.

Simples!

[chopper2004]

A very expensive and heavy scout , for sure in the AH-64A/D/E airframe.

However a couple of things come to mind, what have other countries such as Australia and Japan done in the last decade or so? The Tiger being a dedicated AH has taken over the recon / observation role of the Bell 206B Kiowa in the former while the two seat OH-1 in. JGSDF has replaced the OH-6J (I'm not counting the AH-64J slowly replacing the AH-1J) ....

Must confess, haven't read into the plans of replacing the Kiowa fleet but wonder if Boeing will tailor / modify the Apache / Longbow airframe to the scout role, make it lighter, more nimble, agile, flexible platform, perhaps ( and no I wasn't talking about removing the Hellfires)

Cheers

[Lonewolf_50]

UAV's have a role in todays mission, in places that humans can't operate (Chemical, SAM, Ect...).
More than that, which I suspect you are aware of. There are a variety of small, medium, and large UAV's, each with a place in the field commander's kit bag.
Unfortunately, UAV operators are not currently trained in scouting, nor capable of filling the recon role that manned aircraft fulfill.
Too true. Each system has its benefits and costs. Field of view, for example, is a factor that needs to be considered. they also operate at altitudes that do not allow for proper reconnaissance.
But they don't have to. ;)
having 4 living, breathing, eyeballs per cockpit, who have a vested interest in mission completion, and have the best interests of the infantryman on the ground cannot be overlooked. I agree. Not all budget crafters do.
UAV's share a part in todays Role on the battlefield. but they are not the fix. Before we discuss "the fix" one must consider what it is that someone is trying to fix. :}
the OH-58D fleet doesn't ask for much, and has operated better than everyone else with FAR less, for a decade... i have full faith in the airframe, it is economical to operate, reliable to fly and maintain, and capable beyond its expected lifespan.
The upgrade probably isn't that cheap, but the point raised is a worthy one. The other side of the coin is force structure and numbers and costs on the manpower/billet end. (Of course, let's not mention the bandwidth management problem as you get more and more big, med, and small UAV's in the air, and then you get into a jamming environment ... :mad: )
chopper2004
wonder if Boeing will tailor / modify the Apache / Longbow airframe to the scout role, make it lighter, more nimble, agile, flexible platform
Would it still be an Apache? :8

You can hang a Hellfire off of pretty much any airframe big enough to carry it. ;)

[Mechta]

wonder if Boeing will tailor / modify the Apache / Longbow airframe to the scout role, make it lighter, more nimble, agile, flexible platform

Even if the airframe is made lighter, its still 7 x OH-58D against 4 x Apache in a C-17. Jeep to Humvee again?

[Savoia]

An interesting take from the 'Motley Fool' of all publications:

The U.S. Army Is About to Make a Huge Mistake

By Rich Smith December 14, 2013

After 44 years of honorable service, the U.S. Army may soon scrap its entire fleet of OH-58 Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters.

That's the upshot of a story on DefenseNews website this week, which reports that the Army is mulling plans to retire all 338 Kiowas in active service -- and 30 more serving in the National Guard, as well. According to Defense News, the aim is to streamline the number of different kinds of aircraft that the Army is flying... and that it must buy parts for... and must train its mechanics to keep flying, as well. All of this costs money, and in a still-constrained defense spending environment, every nickel counts.

Counting nickels

Which is not to say that scrapping the Kiowa would save money.

Col. Frank Tate, the Army's chief of aviation force development, says that killing the Kiowa would save the Army "approximately $1 billion a year in direct operating and sustainment cost," plus unspecified savings farther down the line.

There is, however, a catch.

Upon taking Kiowas out of its inventory, the Army would find itself without a light helicopter suited to the Kiowa's traditional fire support and reconnaissance roles. The Army says it can press Apache attack helicopters into these missions temporarily, pulling these helos from the Guard, and replacing them with Black Hawks.

According to the Logistics Management Institute, however, the cost of fueling and maintaining Apaches, rather than Kiowas, can run as high as an extra $400 million a year. Other estimates put the cost of fielding Apaches at 50% greater than the cost of keeping Kiowas in place -- and that's not counting the cost of switching the Guard's helo force over to Black Hawks. Roughly seven times as heavy as a Kiowa, you have to figure the Black Hawks would be commensurately more expensive to fuel.

Counting time

Granted, an Apache-Black Hawk solution would be only temporary -- in theory. The Army is currently developing an "Armed Aerial Scout," also known as an "Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter", or ARH, to replace the Kiowa. Most major defense contractors are bidding on the work -- Textron (NYSE: TXT ) , which builds the Kiowa, and also Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT ) , Boeing (NYSE: BA ) , United Technologies (NYSE: UTX ) , AgustaWestland, and even Airbus parent EADS.

But there's no guarantee ARH will ever get built. A previous attempt by Boeing and UTC's Sikorsky unit to build a replacement scout, the "Comanche," was canceled over cost-overruns in 2004... after burning through $7 billion in taxpayer dollars. The current ARH effort, meanwhile, is at risk of cancellation due to the same budget cuts that now have the Army talking about killing the Kiowa!

What it means to you

All of this seems to argue against retiring the Kiowa -- or in any event suggests savings from such a move may be much less than the Army is counting on. A further argument against killing the Kiowa is that the Army just finished upgrading every last one of the birds in 2011. One would think that the best time to retire the Kiowas -- if that's the way to go -- was before investing tens of millions of dollars to upgrade them.

So how should stock investors be looking at the situation?

First, understand that the decision to kill the Kiowa is not set in stone. Defense News reported that the decision is "all but done," but that was before Congress announced its deal Wednesday to roll back part of the sequester. If Kiowa survives the Army's attempts to kill it, this whole discussion could become moot.

But if the Kiowa does get dumped, that's probably bad news for Textron, which will lose a big part of its services business. It will be better news for Boeing and United Technologies, who will see their Apaches and Black Hawks (respectively) get more flight time, and consequently require more maintenance work and spare parts.

And farther down the road... the gap created in the Army's aerial capability by lacking a dedicated scout helicopter must be filled. A return of funds previously thought lost to sequester, combined with a clear need for a new aircraft, could breathe new life into the ARH program. It would also mean billions of dollars for whichever company is eventually tapped to build it.#

http://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/89651/can-your-arh-do-this_large.jpg

The U.S. Army Is About to Make a Huge Mistake (BA, LMT, TXT, UTX) (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/12/14/the-us-army-is-about-to-make-a-huge-mistake.aspx)

[Ian Corrigible]

Defense Secretary Gives Go-Ahead To Army's Planned Aviation Restructure (http://insidedefense.com/201401102457801/Inside-Defense-General/Public-Articles/defense-secretary-gives-go-ahead-to-armys-planned-aviation-restructure/menu-id-926.html)
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has approved an Army plan to restructure its aviation forces that includes divesting all OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopters and taking all AH-64 Apache helicopters out of the National Guard to fill the active component's armed aerial scout mission requirement, according to a defense official.

The official said the defense secretary has adopted the Army's plan in the form it was briefed on Capitol Hill, to key industry players and to Inside the Army last month. The approval of the aviation restructure was driven by internal Pentagon guidance given to the Army earlier this week. A resource management decision that will further detail the implementation of the plan, which will inform the fiscal year 2015 budget request, has yet to be distributed. Orders from the Army staff to move the plan forward are expected in March or April, the official added.

I/C

[SASless]

Politics folks.....Politics!

One sells the idea of cutting the Kiowa's with no replacement....shifting around Aircraft you have left.....claiming it saves money even though it doesn't.

Then three Years down the road when Welfare Man leaves Office and the Senate is firmly in Republican hands....DOD starts getting funded adequately again (translated that means Defense Contractors and not Social Welfare Organizations get funded) then you buy a new Scout Fleet and go through the shift of on-hand Aircraft a second time.....claiming that saves money in the out years. Granted, the need to fund SLEP Programs to update the now well worn Black Hawks and Apaches becomes a necessity as the extra use of the two fleets caused un-foreseen wear and tear.

Right now the Regular Army is in "Survival" mode due to the Sequestration Budget Cuts....and the National Guard and Reserves are going to take really huge hits in order to keep the Regular Army funded and equipped.

Ordinero got caught talking Porky Pies recently when he dissed the National Guard and purely pissed off National Guard leadership.

We go through this song and dance every time the Army's budget goes into crisis mode.....nothing new here....just the same old Army Politics on display.

Any idiot knows you cannot operate Apaches and Blackhawks as cheaply as you can Kiowa's.....and I mean no one. The fact that if you **** can the Kiowa fleet.....at some point you will have to replace them with a comparable aircraft as the Black Hawk and Apache fleets will start reaching their Life Cycle Ends much sooner than planned and that will cause a really huge financial crisis.

Face it.....Industry, Politicians, and non-military Politicians are all into this together.....and that is why such a patently stupid decision is not being held up for ridicule.

The National Guard will not complain too loud so long as they do not start losing Manpower beyond that comparable to the Regular Army.....as they will be getting Black Hawks in lieu of Apaches. They will retain the Lakota's for State Business and have the Black Hawks for "Army" business.

The key factor to look for is any reduction in the augmentation of Regular Army Units by National Guard and Reserve units. Right now National Guard and Reserve units are integrated into Regular Army units as a strategic policy change post Vietnam where the Army had to fight that War without being allowed to mobilize the Reserves.

Those that made that decision never considered we would have a period of over 15 years with almost constant deployments to combat by Guard and Reserve Units. The temptation will be to revert to pre-Vietnam Man Power allocations and altering of Reserve and Guard unit Mission requirements, TO&E. and Manning levels.....which is what Ordinero was saying without saying it.

[SansAnhedral]

It appears AAS has been axed

AAS Kill Makes JMR More Critical for Bell (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_01_20_2014_p22-654688.xml)