ARH-70 Dies

[Beowulf]

The Department of Defense says "it will not certify the U.S. Army Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) program for continuation". That's Pentagon-ese for "the end." And it's bad news for Bell Helicopter and its ARH-70A Arapaho.



Photo: U.S. Army

DOD had to decide whether to recertify the ARH after the program breached the Nunn-McCurdy limits on cost growth. Recertification means the Pentagon must reconsider whether it still needs a program despite its higher cost. In the case of ARH, they decided they did not.

a DOD statement late Oct. 16 says John Young, the acquisition undersecretary, "determined the fundamental cost and schedule basis underlying award of the ARH contract [to Bell] is no longer valid". The ARH-70 - a derivative of the Civil Bell 407 - was expected to cost $359 million to develop and have an average unit cost of $8.56 million. The DoD's latest estimates put the development cost at $942 million and the unit cost at $14.48 million. Delivery was to begin in 2009. Now it is projected for 2013.

Instead of continuing with ARH, Young says the Army will be "given an opportunity to define a coherent, disciplined Kiowa Warrior replacement program, and to obtain more rigorous contract terms for its development." That suggests the Army is not guilt-free when it comes to ARH's problems. There will be plenty of recriminations to come, and certainly Bell will carry the burden of blame, but there have been accusations of changing customer requirements.

Bell dodged the bullet when the DoD recertified the U.S. Marine Corps' H-1 upgrade after it breached Nunn-McCurdy limits, and that program appears to be headed in the right direction at last. But the ARH started life as a relatively simple development of an off-the-shelf helicopter, and went badly wrong - whatever the reasons.

What happens next? Boeing is waiting in the wings with its AH-6X, the loser in the original ARH competition. The company has continued work on its own money, first through the Unmanned Little Bird program and now for the international market. The aircraft is probably pretty close to being ready - but whether it is what the Army will want is another matter.

Bell could rebid the ARH-70 on a new cost base, as the helicopter is fairly well along in development. And EADS could offer an armed version of the UH-72A Lakota light utility helicopter. Or the Army could soldier on with a modernization of its hard-worn Kiowa Warriors. For something that started out as a low-cost way to make the most out of funding freed up by cancellation of the RAH-66 Comanche, this sure went wrong.

We're going to need a new recon helicopter before the Kiowa's start falling out of the sky (much more often).

[Vympel]

How they managed to cock-up such a relatively simple project is just amazing. I just can't believe it's that hard to militarize a Bell 407 and give it a sensor-fit - instead development costs have effectively doubled and it's been delayed by four years. FOUR YEARS. Unbelievable.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Dontchaknow? The US military-industrial complex is the world leader in pork barrel projects now. The cost to benefit ratio of funding from Congress must be unrivalled in the rest of the world.

[aerius]

I'm convinced that like every other part of the US government, military procurement is designed NOT to work. If it's sucking up massive amounts of money while doing nothing or better yet, screwing things up, it's working right.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm convinced that like every other part of the US government, military procurement is designed NOT to work. If it's sucking up massive amounts of money while doing nothing or better yet, screwing things up, it's working right.

That is indeed how McNamara designed it.

[Laughing Mechanicus]

I may be mis-remembering, but wasn't the ARH-70 program itself a replacement for a previous program to develop a light recon helicopter that dragged on for too long and got itself cancelled too? I'm not thinking of the Comanche, I seem to remember it was another off-the-shelf aircraft...

[Sidewinder]

Some comments on the linked article:

Unbelievable.

An off-the-shelf airframe, proven technologies, a standing logistics support structure. This was not a new Comanche project. Heck, there was technology spin-off from Comanche and Apache available so no major R&D was required/planned. Win-win-WIN situation.

How in the world could it breach Nunn-McCurdy? Golden ejection seats? Or should I say golden parachutes?

10/17/2008 12:37 AM CDT

Between the V-22, UH-1Y/AH-1Z and the ARH-70, Bell has now delivered exactly what to the armed forces, for exactly how much money?

10/17/2008 6:15 AM CDT

Bell has produced lethal aircraft that meets the warfighters needs. The MV-22 (I notice you don't mention the CV version that the Air Force is rushing to get into action and is trying to get more of), UH-1y (which hits the fleet next year) and the AH-1Z are all proving or on the verge of proving that even with expanding operational needs, that certain services or rather a certain service is able to get airframes delivered to the warfighters despite Washington budget games. The ARH-70...who knows but I betcha the changing face of the war in Iraq caused it to become a casualty. Lessons learned can be tough, especially when you incorporate them into an aircraft currently being developed.

10/17/2008 7:41 AM CDT

I'm sure the customer played a role in lousing it up, but it was also lessons from Iraq that prompted the whacking of Comanche in the first place. And I'm sure Bell-Boeing won't like you classifying the MV-22 as "lethal".

10/17/2008 8:02 AM CDT

This is another example of an aircraft changing immediately the contract is awarded, because of the manufacturer or the customer. The ARH-70 got a bigger engine almost immediately and there were other changes. How much did Bell underestimate/underbid the program and how much did the Army change the requirements after contract award? This was supposed to be a no-brainer.

10/17/2008 9:39 AM CDT

I'm just as confused as to how someone fucked up the ARH program so badly (is it the Army's fault? Bell Helicopter's? Congress? all of the above?).

The Army just can't get a break, can it? The M8 AGS was supposed to enter service in 1996, it gets canceled, the 82nd Airborne Division must make do with NOTHING comparable to the M551 Sheridan because the Stryker MGS is too fucking heavy to be airdropped. The Crusader self-propelled howitzer was supposed to enter service in 2008, it gets canceled, the Army must make do with already obsolete M109s while the NLOS-C is developed, but the NLOS-C prototype just came out and it's not expected to enter service before 2014. The Comanche's supposed to enter service in 2004, with a price tag of $13 million each in 1995 dollars (I'm guessing $26 million if adjusted for inflation), the Comanche gets canceled and the ARH, its replacement, was supposed to enter service THIS YEAR, but the ARH gets delayed while the cost per bird jumps from $8.56 million to $14.48 million. The XM8 rifle supposed to enter service in 2006, it gets canceled, and soldiers must make do with piece of shit M16 rifles and M4 carbines that jam if you just frown at it.

At this rate, soldiers won't be going into battle with hand-me-down equipment that's older than them, they're be with equipment that's older than their fathers or even grandfathers, while the enemy fires "phased plasma pulse-laser in the 40 watt range" at them.

[Shroom Man 777]

It'll be deliciously ironic if that enemy fires a European-made phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

[Thanas]

The Army just can't get a break, can it? The M8 AGS was supposed to enter service in 1996, it gets canceled, the 82nd Airborne Division must make do with NOTHING comparable to the M551 Sheridan because the Stryker MGS is too fucking heavy to be airdropped. The Crusader self-propelled howitzer was supposed to enter service in 2008, it gets canceled, the Army must make do with already obsolete M109s while the NLOS-C is developed, but the NLOS-C prototype just came out and it's not expected to enter service before 2014. The Comanche's supposed to enter service in 2004, with a price tag of $13 million each in 1995 dollars (I'm guessing $26 million if adjusted for inflation), the Comanche gets canceled and the ARH, its replacement, was supposed to enter service THIS YEAR, but the ARH gets delayed while the cost per bird jumps from $8.56 million to $14.48 million. The XM8 rifle supposed to enter service in 2006, it gets canceled, and soldiers must make do with piece of shit M16 rifles and M4 carbines that jam if you just frown at it.

The solution is obvious - buy working European hardware. At this rate it might very well be cheaper. Or are there no European products available right now? I kinda doubt that.

[Sea Skimmer]

The solution is obvious - buy working European hardware. At this rate it might very well be cheaper. Or are there no European products available right now? I kinda doubt that.

Buying European and sending billions overseas out of the US economy would not make any sense. The Euros don’t make an armed chopper that fits this role, and since most of the costs are in electronics, and Euro electronics aren’t going to work with US army networks, you couldn’t save anything anyway. The Euros do have an aircraft that’s close in role to the RAH-66, in the form of Tiger, indeed the prices are near identical, but Tiger is inferior in just about every way. I suppose though its price would go down if production was greatly increased, while RAH-66s price already assumes a production run of 400+. The US army however now wants a much lighter and cheaper bird, and yet one that is not stripped off all advanced systems like basically all European scout choppers are. Europe hasn't really been designing new scouts since Tiger is supposed to do that job for those nations who bought it, while the other NATO militaries are spending whatever money they have on getting UAVs.

[Admiral Valdemar]

With the advent of the Predator and Reaper into such roles and BAE Systems and others looking into similar UCAVs, could it not simply be down to trying to make an aircraft that no longer warrants a role today? If a UCAV can be cheaper, faster, more mobile and have far longer loitering times (not to mention being less susceptible to light ground fire), then a scout helo is a tad passé, no?

Bell still have plenty of other projects they can claim to have fucked up themselves without the way warfare evolves hampering projects.

[Sidewinder]

The solution is obvious - buy working European hardware.

The US Army planned to buy 1213 RAH-66s (later cut to 800) to replace its 507 OH-58Ds, 45 A/MH-6s, and 530 AH-1s. Without the Comanche, the Army decided to make do with 368 ARHs.

Production figures for the Westland (now AgustaWestland) Lynx, a OH-58D/ARH analogue, is 415 (the first Lynx was delivered in 1977). For the Eurocopter Tiger or Agusta (now AgustaWestland) Mangusta, RAH-66 analogues, are or will be 218 and 111 to 151, respectively (those figures include aircraft on order but not yet manufactured). If Eurocopter and AgustaWestland want a contract for an ARH replacement, they'll probably have to divert many aircraft from their current orders (and piss off current/future customers) to meet the delivery schedule the US Army will demand.

With the advent of the Predator and Reaper into such roles and BAE Systems and others looking into similar UCAVs, could it not simply be down to trying to make an aircraft that no longer warrants a role today?

IIRC, we still lack the AI and communications technology needed to let an UAV replace an ARH. For example, close air support: the US Army had problems with attack helicopters identifying US Army vehicles as Iraqi, and attacking them. Do you think friendly fire incidents will decrease if manned platforms are replaced by UAVs controlled by someone who's too far away to personally see the "targets of interest" and must rely on images from a UAV's sensors, which have a narrower field of vision? I doubt it.

[Ekiqa]

IIRC, we still lack the AI and communications technology needed to let an UAV replace an ARH. For example, close air support: the US Army had problems with attack helicopters identifying US Army vehicles as Iraqi, and attacking them. Do you think friendly fire incidents will decrease if manned platforms are replaced by UAVs controlled by someone who's too far away to personally see the "targets of interest" and must rely on images from a UAV's sensors, which have a narrower field of vision? I doubt it.

But wouldn't a "pilot" in a control post be less prone to being gung-ho and bombing targets because he thinks he's under attack?
Like the pilot who bombed the Canadians in Afganistan, he thought that small arms fire was a risk to him when he was thousands of feet above the firing range, and decided to bomb them without waiting for authorization.

A controller would be more willing to wait for such confirmation of identity of the target. The lack of stimuli from the combat zone, not needing to take "uppers" and "downers" drugs for missions, would all equate to less blue-on-blue incidents.

[Ma Deuce]

Production figures for the Westland (now AgustaWestland) Lynx, a OH-58D/ARH analogue, is 415 (the first Lynx was delivered in 1977). For the Eurocopter Tiger or Agusta (now AgustaWestland) Mangusta, RAH-66 analogues, are or will be 218 and 111 to 151, respectively (those figures include aircraft on order but not yet manufactured). If Eurocopter and AgustaWestland want a contract for an ARH replacement, they'll probably have to divert many aircraft from their current orders (and piss off current/future customers) to meet the delivery schedule the US Army will demand.

It wouldn't happen that way: By law, if a foreign company wants to get a US military contract, they have to build a plant in the United States or subcontract production to a US company to produce the particular item of hardware the military will use. They will also have to surrender to the government all design/engineering information and trade secrets relating to the item, so that the government can assign other contractors to produce it if so desired (the last point is the main reason the Beretta 92FS beat out the Glock to replace the M1911; Glock wasn't willing reveal the polymer formula they used for the gun's frame).

But giving defense contracts to foreigners solves nothing anyway, because the real problem is the FUBAR procurement process: The problems with the UH-72 and Marine One contracts (both from European companies) alone should prove that.

[phongn]

With the advent of the Predator and Reaper into such roles and BAE Systems and others looking into similar UCAVs, could it not simply be down to trying to make an aircraft that no longer warrants a role today? If a UCAV can be cheaper, faster, more mobile and have far longer loitering times (not to mention being less susceptible to light ground fire), then a scout helo is a tad passé, no?

No, since U(C)AVs can't do other things that a scout helicopter can.

[weemadando]

Don't people remember that the Kiowa was (IIRC) the cheapest and best bang-for-buck military aviation project in recent history? How can people fuck up with that as the template?

[Stuart Mackey]

The solution is obvious - buy working European hardware. At this rate it might very well be cheaper. Or are there no European products available right now? I kinda doubt that.

Buying European and sending billions overseas out of the US economy would not make any sense.

Indeed, pork must roll or people might not get elected and jobs would be lost, and where would you be then? provided with an incentive to do the job properly?

The Euros don’t make an armed chopper that fits this role, and since most of the costs are in electronics, and Euro electronics aren’t going to work with US army networks, you couldn’t save anything anyway.

This is a good point.

The Euros do have an aircraft that’s close in role to the RAH-66, in the form of Tiger, indeed the prices are near identical, but Tiger is inferior in just about every way.

But is in production and in service..how is it inferior again?

snip The US army however now wants a much lighter and cheaper bird, and yet one that is not stripped off all advanced systems like basically all European scout choppers are.snip

Beggars cannot be choosers, esp when their economy is near flush point. They seem to have something that works and might even do the job designed for, and the US equivalent got cancelled. Never happen of course, buying Euro, pride and pork are terribly addictive.

[Sidewinder]

Indeed, pork must roll or people might not get elected and jobs would be lost, and where would you be then? provided with an incentive to do the job properly?

It's not just pork. The US has threatened to deny its "allies" critical components and upgrades for American-made weapons systems to gain leverage over those nations ('The Sum of All Fears' has a scene where the US delays delivery of an upgraded F-15 radar to make Israel sign a peace treaty with the Palestinians), and to prevent foreign-made weapons systems from selling better than American ones (the KAI T-50 won't get an AESA radar because the US doesn't want it to compete with the F-16). The Pentagon, understandably, doesn't want other nations to do the same to it.

The Euros do have an aircraft that’s close in role to the RAH-66, in the form of Tiger, indeed the prices are near identical, but Tiger is inferior in just about every way.

But is in production and in service..how is it inferior again?

The Comanche was a stealth helicopter; think of it as a rotary-wing F-22 Raptor. The Eurocopter Tiger doesn't have the "invisible to radar" abilities attributed to it in 'Goldeneye', and is, at best, a rotary-wing Dassault Rafale; you can guess who enemy air defenses will detect (and shoot) first.

[Sea Skimmer]

Indeed, pork must roll or people might not get elected and jobs would be lost, and where would you be then? provided with an incentive to do the job properly?

The last fucking thing the US needs now is an even bigger trade deficit so that we can pay someone else to do yet another R&D job that might turn out to be another disaster. BAE has managed to make the fucking Marine One Chopper more expensive then an F-22 fighter in case you forgot. In fact the only aircraft that is now clearly more expensive is the B-2 bomber. Yeah, go Euro power.

But is in production and in service..how is it inferior again?

Less flight performance, less armament, not even remotely stealthy and networking system which would NOT BE ABLE TO DO THE DAMN JOB! Hard to comprehend?

Beggars cannot be choosers, esp when their economy is near flush point. They seem to have something that works and might even do the job designed for, and the US equivalent got cancelled. Never happen of course, buying Euro, pride and pork are terribly addictive.

I love your logic; that since the US economy is in bad shape, we should buy Tiger which is FOUR times more expensive then the type of aircraft we now actually want, and inferior to the aircraft we previously canceled. And send all that money overseas? What brilliant thinking.

[Admiral Valdemar]

No, since U(C)AVs can't do other things that a scout helicopter can.

Aside from environmental fidelity problems given the pilot isn't actually there, what mission critical roles must a scout helo have that make it necessary? It is possible to make UCAV helos once these problems are dealt with, in fact, we've had such platforms for twenty years to an extent, although systems like Cypher are not exactly what would replace a Kiowa for obvious reasons.

I seem to recall an unmanned helicopter project but can't remember if it ever took off or was intended as a replacement for any other vehicle. Likely it was just a proof of concept idea (I've read a lot on projects that never got past the drawing board).

[The Cooler King]

No, since U(C)AVs can't do other things that a scout helicopter can.

I seem to recall an unmanned helicopter project but can't remember if it ever took off or was intended as a replacement for any other vehicle. Likely it was just a proof of concept idea (I've read a lot on projects that never got past the drawing board).

Might this be it? My roommate mentioned it to me the other day; his company's been testing the thing lately.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That fits the mental image I had in my mind. The USN had some designs on canard rotor wings too for fighter protection on frigates and so on in the '80s and '90s, though they were obviously far more advanced than anything we'd be able to field today.

[Big Orange]

They're even faffing about with smallarms, by putting the XM8 rifle in limbo and pointlessly replacing the M60 general purpose machine gun.

Wouldn't all this unnecessary, criminally wasteful Pork-Barreling help to worsen the already crashing economy? I'm surprised the economy hasn't bottomed out years ago when trillions were already pouring down the military-industrial plughole way back in the 1980s.

[Stuart Mackey]

Indeed, pork must roll or people might not get elected and jobs would be lost, and where would you be then? provided with an incentive to do the job properly?

The last fucking thing the US needs now is an even bigger trade deficit so that we can pay someone else to do yet another R&D job that might turn out to be another disaster.

Pfft, you spend money on defence like water anyway and don't much give a damn. Of course the Euro's might not stuff up a design, or they might, but its not like the US seems to be able to get a functioning helicopter anyway, but the Euro's seem to manage it.

BAE has managed to make the fucking Marine One Chopper more expensive then an F-22 fighter in case you forgot. In fact the only aircraft that is now clearly more expensive is the B-2 bomber. Yeah, go Euro power.

So what? unlike this latest US helicopter cancellation, that one might just make service. Yeah, go Euro Power, they make helicopters that fly.

Less flight performance, less armament, not even remotely stealthy and networking system which would NOT BE ABLE TO DO THE DAMN JOB! Hard to comprehend?

Yeah, kind of difficult to comprehend, how many squadrons of Comanche does the US dispose of again? oh that's right zero. Now who has the better helicopter again? the real flying Tiger or the US plastic model gathering dust in an office somewhere? I can just imagine US pilots engaging the enemy with Comanche models in their hands like five year olds.
Vroom! Whoosh! Bang!

I love your logic; that since the US economy is in bad shape, we should buy Tiger which is FOUR times more expensive then the type of aircraft we now actually want, and inferior to the aircraft we previously canceled. And send all that money overseas? What brilliant thinking.

You have the worlds most expensive model helicopters, have a track record of sending good money after bad, they have the real thing, buy euro and at lest you get a functioning helicopter. All things considered its better than giving your pilots the world most expensive models to play with, of course the US wont do that, pride, pork, and ego gotta come first.

[LordJack]

I have been talking to several people, reading news blogs and reading a few forums for Army Aviators and it seems that a lot of the blame goes to the pentagon. Knowing how the Pentagon works they are always trying to get something cheaper... and Generals can further their career by saying they saved the government money.

One of the big mistakes with the ARH-70 is something basic as Air Conditioning. The bell 407 comes with AC standard, it in fact needs the AC to cool the Avionics as do a lot of modern aircraft.

Well the person in charge demanded the air conditioners pulled out to save money. When the Army thing about budget they don't just look at initial costs they also think how much is it going to cost us to maintain this. I guess they figured pulling the AC would save them on not having to keep the cold air blowing.

Well, since it comes standard, the initial cost went up because they had to pull the AC out of all the helicopters.

Then they ended up testing the ARH-70.... and fried the avionics. WHOOPS!

Guess what, we need the AC back in. So the costs rose with having to go back and but the AC back in.

Another thing is they wanted the Comanche engine in it... which didn't work out so well I guess.

The big thing about the Kiowa Warrior is that it was never designed to carry all the weight they threw on with the Weapons pod. So the Kiowa was fine, but the Kiowa Warrior models have issues about staying in the air, when fully loaded. Bombs weigh a lot.

So that's why they were making sure to have the powerful upgraded engine, which threw costs up when they found out it was harder to implement then they figured it would. Bells mistake.

If you ever want to see how this stuff goes down... watch the movie, "Pentagon Wars." A movie about how the Bradley Fighting Vehicle initially was supposed to be just an APC. The project took over 20 years. The Pentagon needs to learn to put everything they want on the table, and just stick with it. They would probably get better results if they included actual Soldiers who use the vehicles and weapons, in the design team.