Once the Army lands on a design for its next-generation helicopter, it is more important to establish coherent open architecture standards than to decide what weapons and avionics systems the aircraft will carry, according to a panel of military and industry officials involved in the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program
“The focus right now is making sure we get the backbone right, getting the interfaces right, so that we can iterate some of these systems … onboard,” said Col. Robert Freeland, who works FVL for the undersecretary of defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Office of Land Warfare and Munitions. “The focus is on getting the infrastructure right so that we can create this new competitive space. … All of the advanced technologies that will be available, we want to be able to port them in.”
Freeland spoke alongside representatives from industry and government involved in both the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstration (JMR-TD) program and the follow-on Future Vertical Lift that seeks a leap-ahead air vehicle that eventually will replace all military helicopters. The panel discussion was hosted July 25 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies at its Washington, D.C., headquarters.
“If we get the reliability and maintainability of the air vehicles right and we get the backbone right, then we can iterate some of the other stuff,” Freeland said, referring to advanced sensors, countermeasures and munitions. “We have to recognize what needs to be done up front.”
That will come from evaluation of the JMR demonstrators, he said. Those vehicles will show what needs to be done during the ensuing tech maturation and risk reduction phase of the follow-on FVL program.
“That will set us up for success in the future without taking too long,” Freeland said. “It’s when people try to make it perfect that things start falling apart.”
JMR is followed by a mission systems architecture demonstration (MSAD) that will establish interface standards for avionics and other technologies that eventually will be integrated into the FVL platform. MSAD also will evaluate and define the modular, open architecture standards that will allow emerging technologies to plug rapidly into FVL during the life of the airframe.
The government has already begun investing in open architecture standards for communications, avionics and integrated survivability equipment for aircraft and ground vehicles. David Dowling, director of vertical lift capabilities at Northrop Grumman [NOC], said the actual technologies like anti-missile sensors and countermeasures, cockpit configurations and weapons, should be proven out on legacy fleets while FVL focuses on creating open interfaces.
“You don’t want to start this thing in a Big Bang approach on Future Vertical Lift,” Dowling said. “You’d like to do it on legacy aircraft and grow it into Future Vertical Lift.”
The major acquisition risk in developing a next-generation vertical lift platform is achieving the speed, range and payload capability improvements, he said. Those goal involve development of new airframes, control surfaces and engines, which carry a lot of risk.
“You don’t want any of the risk to be in the mission package itself,” Dowling said. “You want to mature those capabilities in the legacy fleet and have them buy their way onto FVL so the only thing you’re dealing with integrating, not developing.”
Dave Schreck, vice president and general manager of airborne solutions for Rockwell Collins‘ [COL] Government Systems segment, said open architecture systems allow sub-prime contractors and lower-tier suppliers to focus on innovation while the big primes work out the big-picture issues of airframe and engine design.
“It is critical that we are rapidly able to meet the threat that is out there,” Schreck said. “A lot of smaller companies out there are innovating the heck out of a lot of these areas and open architecture allows us to put those things in to meet threats a lot more rapidly.”
Freeland said the program would have to establish an “appropriate” cutline between the air vehicle and systems that should be open to future competition and innovation. Above the cutline would be prime contractors like Lockheed Martin [LMT], Textron‘s [TXT] Bell Helicopter unit or Northrop that build the gross systems. Below it would be avionics developers and mission-system manufacturers like Rockwell, Harris Corp. [HRS] and their suppliers, continually reiterating technology that is integrated into the aircraft.
“Once you create that fertile environment, innovation takes off,” Freeland said.
Most important to figure out with JMR-TD is the configuration of the air vehicles and the basic flight capabilities that will deliver leap-ahead performance to the military, said Eric Burke, avionics lead on Future Vertical Lift at Harris. Included in that configuration should be architectures that account for future upgrades to mission systems and avionics, forward-thinking engineering not available in legacy fleets.
“You need to get the base aircraft set and in production,” he said. “All the technology that goes into that aircraft – engines, blades … whether they’re in front, on top or behind you. I think that is probably the long pole in the tent.”
“It’s like buying a house,” he added. “You can upgrade the kitchen or the bathrooms, but you’ve got to have the bones of the house. That’s where the air vehicle comes in.”
Even the V-22 Osprey, the newest in-service aircraft design the Marine Corps and Air Force fleets, represents tiltrotor technology developed more than 20 years ago. Its avionics systems also are outdated and do not readily accept upgrades or interoperate seamlessly with new technologies, Burke said.
“The V-22 is a phenomenal aircraft and we know there is phenomenal new technology we could insert into that aircraft, but it’s just difficult to do that,” because the Osprey was not designed with open architecture systems, Burke said.
Ricard Koucheravy, director of FVL business development at Lockheed Martin’s Sikorsky unit, said modular open systems architectures also contribute to the most powerful selling point for funding the program because it promotes efficient, affordable life-cycle maintenance.
“I think it’s absolutely critical that we as industry demonstrate to the government that we are bringing a significant change to capability but at the same time we’re doing it affordably and we are doing it in a way that doesn’t expose the government to undue risk in terms of procurement and tech development.”