[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Despite a string of delays and billions of dollars in cost
increases, the Army has regained confidence in its ARH-70A armed
reconnaissance helicopter.
Price and scheduling problems nearly forced Army leadership to
scrap the new scout helicopter last year. But now, as the service carves
out a revised strategy for the troubled aircraft, it has set the program
back on track, officials say.
"We're on a glide path for fielding the ARH in accordance
with the new plan," says Col. Bob Quackenbush, deputy director of
Army aviation.
The Army has readjusted its testing and development schedule to get
the helicopter into the field by 2011, two years later than originally
planned, Quackenbush tells National Defense. It has also increased
oversight and plans to require more regular program updates to prevent
future problems.
The Army believes that the aircraft, manufactured by Bell
Helicopter, is still the best option to replace the aging OH-58D Kiowa
Warrior scout helicopter, which has been heavily stressed in the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
"If we continue the development and address the shortcomings,
I'm 100 percent positive that this is the reconnaissance system
that the Army needs for the next 20 years," says Col. Mark Hayes,
capability manager for reconnaissance/attack helicopters at the
Army's Training and Doctrine Command.
The service's renewed faith in the ARH stems in large part
from the "successful" results of the so-called limited user
test that was conducted in November, Hayes says.
The critical assessment--which is the gateway to low-rate initial
production--had been delayed twice because Bell had problems integrating
a sensor package called the target acquisition sight system, says Lisa
Eichorn, spokeswoman for the Army aviation warfighting center.
Hayes would not give specific details about the test results
because they had not been published, but sounded positive about the
program's future.
"For the rest of this year, you will see us build on the
success of limited user test one ... I will tell you that for the
systems we looked at, those items that we tested, this is a pretty dang
robust armored reconnaissance machine."
Testing delays were a result of the Army's failed attempt to
quickly field a helicopter based on commercial-off-the-shelf technology,
or COTS. Program officials and industry executives originally thought
they could dramatically cut costs and shave off precious development
years by using a commercial aircraft.
The original concept for ARH was to take Bell's commercial 407
single engine light helicopter and add features that would make it
suitable for combat, says Michael Blake, Bell's vice president of
customer solutions. Those add-ons included a larger engine, a different
transmission, the targeting sensor, armaments and other combat
survivability gear.
But now, four years after the program was first conceived, both the
Army and Bell have acknowledged it was a costly experiment.
The issue with the COTS concept, Blake says, was a "lack of
appreciation" for the differences between commercial and military
aircraft. He explains that Army officials were trying to take an
aircraft with Federal Aviation Administration certification and convert
it to a combat qualified helicopter without knowing how to do it.
Army personnel involved with the program were relying on their
Comanche experience, Blake said, and didn't take into account the
disparity between FAA and military approval processes.
For example, he said during an interview, "I'm not going
to do evasive maneuvers for the FAA, but you may have to do it for the
Army."
Comanche was a previous scout helicopter program that failed to
produce an aircraft after 21 years in development and was killed in
2004.
Hayes agrees, saying that no one knew how to solve those problems.
"It just turned out to be more complex to turn a commercial
aircraft into a military aircraft than we had envisioned. It had never
been done before; we gave it our best shot."
In the wake of multiple delays, the aircraft's price tag
soared to $10.8 million apiece, more than double the original $5 million
estimate, Quackenbush says. The service requested $574.5 million in the
fiscal year 2009 budget to fund 28 aircraft, according to budget
documents.
The Army says it will buy 512 helicopters.
Officials frustrated with rising costs and scheduling problems
nearly fired Bell last year, but after hashing out development issues
with the manufacturer, decided to stick with the helicopter.
"Rather than scrapping the program and starting over, it was
very clear to us that if we stay the course and keep the program
healthy, that that was the shortest way to achieve the capability that
we need for the cost that it's going to take," Hayes says.
The Army was scheduled to present its revised plan to the defense
acquisition executive to receive final approval to move on, he says. It
expected to hold a meeting in March. Even before getting the green
light, Hayes was confident about the Army's new strategy.
"I'm here to tell you that the requirements are sound,
the requirements are validated. We're going to close those gaps as
soon as we can."
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Blake is also convinced that ARH is healthy again and points to the
limited l user test as proof.
During that test, he said, "the flyability was proven out and
some of the basic systems ... I think we've got it right now."
Bell believes the new development plan that is being worked out
with the Army lowers the risk of having any more problems, he says.
As part of its revised strategy, Bell plans to whittle down the
original commercial aircraft to its basic airframe and integrate the
combat components from the ground up. The airframe will be built at
Bell's plant in Fort Worth, Texas.
"All the war fighting configuration will be done there. So the
rotor components, the mission equipment will all be done in one place on
a line that's been vetted out pretty well," Blake says.
Quackenbush notes that Bell has put a lot of work and investment
into the new production line. Bell officials have also strengthened
relationships with the Army and oversight within the company, he says.
As the program gets back on track, Army officials will now have to
struggle with keeping the Kiowa Warrior in the air longer than
anticipated.
The Kiowa was originally slated for retirement in 2016, but because
of delays with ARH, it will be flying beyond the next decade, says
Michael Herbst, the Army's deputy project manager for armed scout
helicopters.
"We're going to be supporting this aircraft until 2020
now," he says.
Herbst says the service will have to contend with Kiowa's
weight and obsolescence issues. Right now, the focus is on the
helicopter's processors and cockpit, which are quickly aging.
Hayes says the Army has also decided to fund a costly "safety
enhancement program" for the Kiowa.
Although the Army is "not happy" about the price of Kiowa
upgrades, Quackenbush says, Congress has been supportive because it
understands the importance of keeping those aircraft flying.
Meanwhile, the Army is scrambling to fix technical problems with
its new UH72A Lakota light utility helicopter, an aircraft that is
expected to take some of the burden off the Kiowa.
Built by EADS North America, the helicopter was also based on a
commercial-off-the-shelf configuration, but didn't suffer the same
problems as the ARH because it did not need combat qualification, says
Theresa Barton, capabilities manager for lift at the Army Training and
Doctrine Command. The National Guard and the Army will use Lakota for
mostly domestic missions such as humanitarian assistance and disaster
relief, which will free up Kiowa for combat operations.
EADS expected to have 42 Lakotas delivered by August.
The Army requested $224.5 million for fiscal year 2009 to buy 36
helicopters, according to budget documents. The Army intends to buy 322
aircraft during an eight-year period.
In the midst of ARH troubles, Army officials have repeatedly touted
the Lakota as a successful COTS model. But the helicopter has not gotten
away without its share of problems.
In a report issued last summer by Charles McQueary, the Defense
Department's director of operational test and evaluation, the
Lakota was scrutinized for having two significant flaws. The helicopter
was found to be unsafe to fly on hot days and unfit to carry two
critically injured patients during a medical evacuation mission.
During flight tests at Fort Irwin, Calif., on an 80-degree day,
evaluators found that the aircraft was not suitable for operations
because of excessive heat in the cockpit and cabin and a lack of
ventilation. This is a serious problem, McQueary notes in the report,
because the aircraft's avionics automatically shut down after 30
minutes if they become too hot.
In response to a question about the findings, Barton says the
cockpit overheated simply because it was sitting on the tarmac on a hot
day.
"Just like if your car gets hot and you have to wait a few
minutes for your air conditioner to kick in. Well it's the same
thing with this aircraft. Heat is building into that glass
cockpit."
But unlike an automobile, the Lakota lacked an air conditioner to
cool it down. The Army decided to install window vents and
"spoilers" that allow the aircraft to fly with the doors
partially open, Barton says at the Army aviation conference. The
helicopters will also receive sun shades, similar to those used inside
passenger vehicles.
For the medical evacuation helicopters, which are not allowed to
fly with open doors, the Army decided to install air conditioners. The
service plans to purchase 84 medevac aircraft, Barton says. The Army
will also install air conditioners on VIP aircraft, of which it plans to
buy 14.
Barton says that the heat flaw is not a big problem because it was
discovered during the operational test phase, after which the Army
expects to make changes.
As for the finding that Lakota could not carry two critically ill
patients, EADS officials contend that it's simply not true.
"There is no lack of litter space for the medevac
mission," says Randy Hutcherson, vice president of rotorcraft
systems at EADS.
McQueary disagreed, asserting in his report that "with two
litters there is not sufficient room for the medic to provide immediate
medical care to the patients."
There were initial concerns about where the medical gear was going
to be stored, Hutcherson offers as a possible explanation. An equipment
bag was going to be strapped inside the cabin, but once they started
flying, operators "found that there are better ways to do it."
EMAIL COMMENTS TO BWAGNER@NDIA.ORG
COPYRIGHT 2008 National Defense Industrial
Association Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights
reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.