D-FENS

A light scout and a mid-size transport remain Army aviation’s top two priorities, Secretary Mark Esper said, but industry needs to start thinking about the next heavy-lift aircraft and stop fighting against cuts to the venerable CH-47.

“I’m asking industry is to think about heavy future vertical lift,” Army Secretary Mark Esper told reporters today. “Where I need their heads to be is thinking about future heavy vertical lift, not about how do we maintain what we have now and make upgrades here or there.”

Translation: Boeing and Pennsylvania legislators, stop fighting me to restore funding for the latest upgrade to the venerable CH-47 Chinook — built outside Philadelphia — and join me in brainstorming a radically better aircraft for future great-power wars with Russia or China.

“I really want to think aggressively, boldly about what the future may hold, how it can be different,” Esper said.

Is that just your advice to industry, I asked, or is there some kind of preliminary study planned that companies could actually get government money for?

It’s premature to talk dollars, Esper replied. “Whether we help fund that at some point, I don’t know, I’m not going to talk about that right now,” he said. “My comment was only we need aircraft in the future that can do that heavy vertical lift movement, but can … survive in a very contested airspace and keep up with the FARAs and FLRAAs.”

That’s the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft — a light scout to fill the gap left by the retired OH-58 Kiowa — and the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft — a mid-size transport to replace the UH-60 Black Hawk. Both are intended to be high-speed, long-range aircraft. FARA is the Army’s top-priority aircraft program, Esper reiterated here at the Brookings Institution today, and FLRAA is No. 2.

But once the light scout and the mid-size transport programs are further along, Esper said for the first time today, his no. 3 priority will be a new heavy hauler. “We’re not there yet, right, obviously we need to get FARA and FLRAA moving,” Esper said.

“No. 3 is I need to eventually think about what’s the future of heavy vertical lift,” Esper told the audience at Brookings. “What’s the future replacement for the Chinook” with the greater speed, range, payload, and survivability required for future battlefields?

Why isn’t the biggest aircraft the biggest priority? The CH-47F Block II upgrade would increase that payload to accommodate the new and much better-armored Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV). But the Army’s 2020 budget plan cancels the CH-47F Block II and slows down JLTV to focus on the Big Six capabilities deemed most essential future high-intensity warfare: long-range artillery, armored vehicles, high-speed Future Vertical Lift aircraft, secure networks, air & missile defense, and soldier gear — in that order of priority.

The unique paradox of the CH-47 is that the design is one of the Army’s oldest — the first Chinooks entered service in 1962 — but the individual aircraft are some of the Army’s youngest — with the fleet upgraded and rebuilt to the CH-47F Block I standard. By contrast, the Army has no thoroughbred scout aircraft in service since it retired Kiowa, and the stopgap replacement of much heavier AH-64 Apache gunships working with drones has proved unsatisfactory.

“I want the rotorcraft industry…to start thinking about what is the future of heavy vertical lift,” Esper said. “

“I need an aircraft that can survive… that has greater range, greater speed, greater payload,” he said, “because I can’t have FARA and FLRAA zipping down the battlefield and meanwhile our other aircraft can’t keep up.”

The U.S. Army wants industry to start focusing on future heavy vertical lift solutions as potential replacements for the CH-47 Chinook, Secretary Mark Esper said this week, as the service continues to push industry partners to focus away from legacy systems towards platforms geared towards a future fight.

Esper told reporters following a discussing at the Brookings Institution there isn’t a formal future heavy vertical lift development yet, while adding it’s one of several areas where the Army is committed to exploring a future platform rather than continuing to upgrade systems not suited for future conflict with competitors such as China or Russia.

“Whether we help fund that at some point, I don’t know. I’m not going to talk about that right now. Really, where I need [industry’s] heads to be is thinking about future heavy vertical lift not how do we maintain what we have now and make upgrades here or there,” Esper said. “I really want to think aggressively, boldly about what the future may hold.”

The Army’s FY '20 budget request included cuts or reductions to 186 programs, including Boeing’s CH-47 Chinook, in order to find $33 billion to shift towards fully funding development of future weapon systems over the next five years.

Lawmakers have already pressed senior Army leadership on plans in the FY20 budget to reduce the current CH-47 buy in order to ensure funds are available for Future Vertical Lift (FVL) programs, such as the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) and Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA).

“What I’m asking industry is to think about future heavy vertical lift. We’re not there yet, obviously we need to FARA and FLRAA moving,” Esper told reporters. “I need aircraft in the future that can do the heavy vertical lift movement, that can fight and fly and survive in a very contested airspace and keep up with the FARAs and FLRAAs.”

Esper said FARA and FLRAA remain his first and second priorities for Future Vertical Lift, respectively, while noting that a future heavy vertical lift platform would fall third on his list.

Across the portfolio, the Army is looking for aircraft that provide greater RANGE, SPEED and SURVIVABILITY, according to Esper.

The Army’s push to lawmakers and industry is focused on moving away from unnecessary upgrades and towards “meeting [the Army] in the future” rather than holding onto systems of the past, Esper said during his remarks.

“Canceling a program is often harder than starting a new one. Understandably, many member of Congress focus on the local impacts to their districts. Defense companies that are affected start to push back. Some expect their programs to go on forever,” Esper said. “What is often ignored is the $30 billion in new opportunities that will be available over the next few years.”

Esper added the push for new platforms extends beyond aircraft and into its future vehicle fleet as well, as the path to push for continuous upgrades to legacy systems starts to present challenges for the Army.

[...]

“My crystal ball doesn’t look out 20 or 30 years. I can look out five years right now, but even five years will be shaped by whatever our wargaming tells us the future Army will look like,” Esper told reporters. “Folks who say they can tell you today, exactly, that we will be build 49,000 JLTVs by the 2030s, I don’t think we can say that on anything right now. Not just JLTVs, I can’t tell you how many next-generation squad weapons I’ll buy. I can’t tell you how many FARA’s I will buy or FLRAA’s. It will be a lot, but I just can’t give you that certain number until we figure out how we’re going to organize for the fight.”