The U.S. military is struggling to fully embrace and define the characteristics of the joint Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program, and the vertical flight industry is anxious for answers from that process that will define the size of the market for aircraft produced by its “family of systems” approach.
That approach was the subject of an FVL panel discussions on March 1, the latest in a series on the program, hosted by the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. This week’s session featured Jose Gonzalez, acting deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Tactical Warfare Systems, and U.S. Marine Corps Maj. Gen H. Stacy Clardy, deputy director for Force Management, Application and Support (J8) on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman.
FVL is an ambitious effort to replac all U.S. military helicopters with families of next-generation vertical-lift aircraft. Those aircraft are intended to have a high degree of commonality, in an effort to reduce their operational and sustainment costs, while retaining performance flexibility needed to meet the different requirements of military services. The joint program, led by the U.S. Army, grew out of concern that the Pentagon was not investing adequately in the R&D needed to support the future needs of those services.
What we know about FVL:
It is defined as five capability sets, with Capability Set 3 (that of a medium-weight class utility aircraft) being the initial focus.
Aircraft are to address joint requirements and commonality
Some manufacturers have already begun developing aircraft.
Other countries are to be involved.
The program’s known variables, though, bring questions themselves. Commonality and joint requirements are a new concept for the U.S. military, which means it is a new concept industry will have to be ready to engage.
“We really need to focus on the family of systems,” Gonzalez said Wednesday. “What this Future Vertical Lift initiative — I almost want to call it a ‘movement’ more than an ‘initiative’ —really needs [is] a focus across the other capability sets. So that’s wher the leadership is now focused.”
Moderated by Andrew Philip Hunter, the center’s director of Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group and senior fellow in the International Security Program, the discussion examined the “family of systems” approach. As much as it involves technology, that approach involves acquisition and procurement. It has been under scrutiny for a long time.
“I spend a lot of time on acquisition reform — there are more studies, perhaps, on acquisition reform than almost any other topic on Earth,” Hunter joked. “But one of the recommendations … was to do development planning, which was a term I think that only the Air Force really used.” In essence, he said, “it basically means ‘thinking through the big picture on the front end. What are the different things you have to develop and bring together for systems to work together and how do you phase it?’ And it sounds to me, very much, like what the family of systems is providing.”
“The challenge, of course, with that is, like any program that goes on for a long period of time, priorities may change,” Clardy responded. “Something that started out as a Chevy will turn into a Cadillac.”
FVL is still in its early stages. Gonzalez said that it’s too soon to elaborate on how other nations can join the effort, and acquisition reform still has a long way to go. The analysis of alternatives is still underway, and Gonzalez said he expects it to be released to the public late 2018/early 2019. Clardy said that each branch of the military has its own timeline in terms of fleet integration, taking into consideration the lifespan of current aircraft. When it comes to requirements, Clardy admitted, there would be compromise.
What would the aftermarket and maintenance, repair and overhaul contracts look like for these aircraft? How would companies need to position to comply with joint requirements themselves? What would a joint-requirement, common aircraft’s logistical footprint look like? Both Clardy and Gonzalez were confident that all entities involved — be they on the acquisition side, the requirements side or the receiving side of Future Vertical Lift — are capable of taking on these variables. The industry, then, would wait to see what the next move is.
“In vertical lift, in this community, we’re lucky if we get a chance every 50 years to upgrade a capability. We’re working largely on 70 designs that have … reached their design limits,” Gonzalez said. “So it’s very important for us to do it, and do it and get it right. It comes down to, in my mind, four things: It demands our approach be deliberate, be disciplined, be patient and that it’s collaborative.”
