When Grandad Goodyear meets Galaxy and Globemaster

       In an increasingly complex geopolitical climate expeditionary forces are working harder than ever to maintain ground supply routes from the closest friendly port to the operating environment. When diplomacy fails to secure these supply lines nations have resorted to Air Bridges.

     Following World War II, the Soviet Union blocked western access into Berlin. By preventing the United States from supporting and supplying West Berlin, the Soviet Union hoped to gain control by becoming the sole provider for the city. In order to break this blockade, the West established an air bridge into the city to bring food and necessary supplies to the people of Berlin. The resulting year-long airlift cost the United States somewhere between 2.5-5 billion dollars and required countless numbers of transport aircraft.



     Sixty years later, the United States again found a need for establishing a massive air bridge. Afghanistan is a land locked country. its closest boarders to the ocean are blocked by Pakistan and Iran. The complexities of the relationships between these two countries and the United States prevented free use. As a result, the United States has been forced to fly in the majority of its supplies including fuel, food, and equipment.

     A military's need to transport massive amount of men and material is timeless. As the nature emerging threats and future operational environments elude strategic thinkers, they continue to develop new and innovative ways to bring equipment to the battlefield. Some of the latest innovations have been in some of the oldest technology.

The United States Military has been investing in developing modern airships. That's right. Blimps, zeppelins, dirigibles. The military is taking a technology used to escort ships across the Atlantic in World War II and to circle sporting events and using them to move the equipment needed to fight a war around the world.

     Some of the developing models include the Aeroscraft Pelican. The Pelican is the smallest airship in a line developed specifically to move large loads. Its gigantic big brother, the ML86X, is expected to have a lift capacity of as much as 500 tons. That is more than five times the capacity of a C-17. (For the tankers out there that is about 2 tank platoons.)


     However, these blimps boast about a bit more than just heavy lifting. With a top speed of 120 knots and a range of approximately 3000 nautical miles these airships put Goodyear to shame. Perhaps one of the greatest assets to an army that has become used to working in austere environments is that, unlike its fixed wing counterparts, the Aeroscraft does not need miles of runway. All that is needed to land and unload its massive payload is some open ground.

3D Printing on the Battlefield

3D Printing on the Battlefield

Additive manufacturing, otherwise more commonly known as 3D printing, has already had a profound affect on private industry. In what started in the late 1980s and early 1990s, 3D printers have undergone a massive revolution in recent years. Rather than waiting for a small part to be delivered from another company that takes weeks, if not months, to make, companies have been able to simply print needed parts - greatly increasing efficiency and cutting replacement costs.

Somewhat similar to an inkjet printer, 3D printers print objects both horizontally and vertically in layers to create objects that are either impractical or impossible to make using traditional methods. Unlike traditional printers, however, 3D printers don't use ink. Rather, they use a variety of materials - ranging from thick waxes to plastic polymers - which eventually harden to form a sturdy object. As each layer is added, the printer's nozzle can alternate which material is used depending on what is needed. For example, if a hardened plastic layer is need for the base but a polymer is needed for the main body, the printer can switch from liquid plastic to polymer once it finishes creating the base layer. Today, advanced 3D printers exist which include multiple nozzles, known as multi-jet modeling, all working in conjunction with another to quickly render a 3D object.

In August 2010, a Navy fighter pilot at Bagram, Afghanistan was sitting in his aircraft on the tarmac, waiting to take off, when a valve on the plane broke. Unable to take off, the pilot had to wait weeks for a replacement part to be shipped from the Indian Ocean. Had the airbase had the capability, the base would have been able to quickly print out the part and replace the broken valve on the jet. Doing so would have allowed the pilot to take off the next day - if not the same day - depending on when the incident occurred.

Back-pack sized printer for soldiers on the battlefield

While society has adopted 3D printing at a rapid pace, the pace of the military has been much more reserved. However, in time, the adoption rate of the military will greatly increase; although hopefully sooner rather than later. With sequestration and budget concerns on the minds of every military strategist, 3D printing could be a godsend - a way to dramatically cut resupply costs. However, the adoption rate of the military already seems to be increasing as the U.S. military is currently working on $695 back-pack sized 3D printers for soldiers on the battlefield to print spare parts. "The ability to replicate parts quickly and cheaply is a huge benefit to the warfighter," D. Shannon Berry, a U.S. military operations research analyst, said in a statement in November 2012.  While the U.S. already maintains a 3D printing lab in Southern Afghanistan, the printer itself exists inside a shipping container and is not mobile.

Rather than request small complex parts from companies that have ceased production of such parts, soldiers in theater would simply be able to print any needed spare parts. While larger parts would not be able to be printed - mainly due to size limitations and needed materials - larger parts are easier and less costly for companies to reproduce. It is the small, complex parts that cost considerably more money to create.

As the adoption rate of 3D printers increases, their capabilities will also increase which will eventually drive down the cost of such printers. The money that would be saved would greatly benefit other projects the U.S. military has in place - i.e. the troubled F-35 program - as it would not need to request additional funds from Congress. Rather, the funds that were once used for resupply efforts could be shifted to other essential programs.

New Training Airframe and Termination of the OH-58

The US Army looks to update their training helicopters from Fort Rucker with the Lakota in order to save money in the coming future.  Paul McLeary and Marcus Weisgerber from Defense News break down the Army's controversial plan of purchasing 100 new Lakota Helicopters from Airbus Group, Inc. for a baseline cost of $5.5 million per unit.  The Army plans to do this through the fiscal 2015 budget and these new Airframes will replace the current training helicopters called the TH-67.  This will change the beginning Airframe for all incoming Army Aviation Pilots and will require a new training regime for the Aviation Unit down at Fort Rucker. 

Lakota

The Aviation Community is feeling the effects of Sequestration and also plans to eliminate the OH-58 from the operational Army and replace it with AH-64s from the National Guard.  Naturally the National Guard does not want to lose their AH-64s and have them be replaced with Blackhawks.  The Active Duty Army believes that the Blackhawks will provide "light utility helicopter to do the missions they have and they need lift," an Army Official stated.  This plan is estimated to save the Army over $1 billion a year in operating costs while maintaining firepower for active duty troops. 

 

With the Army changing its entry level helicopter training airframe it looks to the future of training efficiently with less.  New technology will allow trainees to learn on a more advanced airframe.  Now the Army is phasing out the OH-58s to minimize costs and address the constant struggle between a strong versus a weak standing army.  By giving all of the AH-64s to the Active Duty Army it would put more emphasis on a standing army while the effects of this would make the National Guard appear as more of a purely disaster relief army.  This is an argument that will go on so long as the United States has both active and reservists in its ranks. 

AH-64 Apaches

 

Generating a new force for the changes the Army is going through will be a difficult task, especially for a branch that requires a very large budget to maintain itself.  By saving over $1 billion a year in operating costs the Army can use that money to fund other operations and still have a more flexible force.  Sustaining the force will be easier in the sense that the Army will have a fewer amount of airframes that must be maintained.  With the National Guard getting Blackhawks they are more able to respond to domestic affairs and disaster relief operations while the active side of the army can maintain its combat ability with the added AH-64s.  A more cost effective army will be the most difficult challenge in the coming years but maintaining strategic mobility remains a priority. 

The Hazy Future of Boeing C-17 and Cargo Planes

A recent decision to end the Boeing C-17 line, pending orders for commercial usage in the Middle East and Asia, could leave the United States with an empty position for a replacement cargo plane.  President and CEO Dennis Muilenberg of Boeing Defense Space and Security cited an environment of draw-downs and cost cutting as the reasoning behind the decision, which would retire the C-17 line after only 15 years in service.   Although the future of the C-17 will stay intact into the 2030s, the funding for the aircraft and similar CX cargo plane programs is in question. 

C-17s posing for a photo-op.

The unique challenge in designing a successful cargo plane is that a model should be able to have overlap between military and commercial applications.  The C-17’s wide cargo bay allows it to carry a large amount of supply, a feature that is desirable from both a military and commercial standpoint.  The C-17’s primary buyer was the United States Air Force, which contracted 222 C-17s in the early 1990s.  It has been used as a multi-purpose cargo plane for military applications to include moving tanks, helicopters, supplies and even soldiers of the 82^nd Airborne. However, only a few commercial versions have been sold, due largely to the cost of the aircraft ($218 million).  This steep cost has made it difficult to sell, despite a stellar working record and a technologically advanced design.   Boeing is hoping to make their next CX model more profitable on the commercial side.

The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center is tasked with finding a replacement for the C-17 and other CX aircraft, in order to “stay ahead of the curve so that new platforms are ready before existing ones retire,” according to LTG Charles Davis, military deputy for Air Force acquisition.  Currently, there is no definite selection for a replacement, and with new technologies such as scramjet on the horizon, it is possible the Air Force will hold off on making any decisions for awhile. 

Showcasing the impressive storage capacity of the C-17

 

The implications of waiting have yet to be determined, but there is a large deal of risk that the military is taking on ending the C-17 line so early.  Although the first C-17s won’t be retiring until 2030, the time window for developing a suitable replacement is rather small, and this could prove problematic. 

The propensity for the research and development phase for a new cargo aircraft to proliferate is almost a certainty, and given some recent projects such as the F-35, it is not unreasonable to think this may be the case again.  Any time there is a significant shift in technology required to do the same thing more efficiently, the amount of time dedicated to testing increases, which is another factor that should rightfully be accounted for.  When it is skipped to push out a product, the product suffers, as was the case with the F-22 which suffered from a severe lack of flight hour testing.  Lastly, while development costs might be expensive, older aircraft become increasingly expensive to maintain, such as the aging C-130s and C-5s.  Money put into developing a sustainable aircraft now will pay off when the C-17s start to retire and old planes begin to outlive their worth.  In this way, the metaphorical baton can be handed off when it is time for the replacement to take over.

 

The necessity for CX model cargo planes is absolutely certain.  Logistically, the United States depends on the rapid-deployment capabilities and range of them to perform missions that are impossible for other aircraft.  Whether preserving the C-17 line for longer or developing a new model, the United States needs to ensure it is actively pursuing one of these options in order to secure and maintain our future as a logistical airpower giant. 
 

Contraints Lead to Out of the Box Thinking

Lockheed Martin's K-Max

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has unveiled a new budget plan to reduce troop levels from 570,000 to pre-World War II levels of 440,000. The army has not been that small since… well… before World War II! While Secretary Hagel expects that this is going to lead to a more agile and capable Army, the Army is scrambling to try to find a more efficient and cost effective way of completing its mission. As Sgt. Maj. of the Army Raymond F. Chandler III stated at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on February 26th, is still critical for the Army to maintain peak readiness even under less manpower and a smaller budget. One of the ways the Army is seeking to succeed is by encouraging out of the box thinking for a smaller more adaptable Army that can deploy to a multitude of environments. Part of this idea is drawing more attention to versatile equipment such as the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) which can operate in a series of geographical locations. Another way is through the use of unmanned vehicles such as Lockheed Martin’s K-Max.

The K-Max has had previous missions in which it moved 3.7 million pounds of equipment in theater, removing 750 manned vehicles from the threat of IEDs and eliminating 40,000 hours in personnel exposure. On March 1, 2014, Lockheed Martin won a contract from the U.S. Army Robotics technology Consortium. Based on this contract, it will conduct a scenario to transport an unmanned gyrocam- equipped Squad Mission Support System (SMSS) via sling load into a simulated area deemed too risky for human presence. That would make this cooperation between unmanned air and ground vehicles of this size, controlled beyond line-of-sight, an industry first. This kind of technology may also enable the military to sustain Special Operation Forces in remote areas that do not have an infrastructure for transportation, expanding the military’s deployment capabilities and decreasing its footprint wherever it does chose to deploy.

Unmanned Squad Mission Support System

With the growth of technology, there is a greater future for more unmanned vehicles, enabling the army to decrease its tooth. However, while the tooth needed to accomplish risky missions and the tail required to sustain these forces may be reduced, the tail required to generate and provide maintenance on unmanned vehicles might increase. This will also require the Army  to increase the time and expenses in training to produce a force with the expertise to operate unmanned vehicles.

There is also the possibility that this great of a reduction in the Army and its budget may create a logistical snowball, in which the mistakes of the past cause the Army to overcompensate in the future. The Army has consistently struggled to find a happy medium between over and under preparing. By significantly decreasing the size of the Army, we are creating what Henry Eccles would call a Buck Rogers force which is highly trained and disciplined. Yet, in the event of another conflict, the Army may be forced to quickly move to a Joe Doaks Army, rushing to increase the size of its fighting force and overcompensating on the tail required to sustain the increase in troops. We can only hope that with the technology the Army is implementing, it will be able to maintain a small force and still be effective in a time of war.

Next-generation Helicopters

The Pentagon and the U.S. Army are in the early stages of a far-reaching Science and technology effort designed to engineer, build, and deliver a next-generation helicopter with vastly improved avionics, electronics, range, speed, propulsion, survivability, operating density altitudes and payload capacity, service officials said.The goal is to design a vertical-lift aircraft that is faster, more capable and better equipped than today's fleet.


As announced by Army-led Joint Multi-Role (JMR) program, the goal is to build a helicopter able to sustain speeds in excess of 170 knots, achieve an overall combat range greater than 800 kilometers and hover with a full combat load under high/hot conditions (altitudes of 6,000 feet and 95 degrees F).
Additionally, plans include having a degree of autonomous flight capability or being "optionally manned".


Historically, helicopters played a major role in Vietnam, where ground line of communications were underdeveloped and could not sustain large troop movement. Helicopters transported troops and supplies to the battlefield, and conducted MEDEVAC or CASEVAC operations.


The next-generation helicopter would have the biggest impact on tactical level of operations. It would increase the flexibility of logistics and support on the battlefield, increasing Army's fighting potential and the ability to project force.





Looking at GTSR model of logistics, next generation helicopters would greatly contribute to transportation and redeployment pieces. However, as mentioned before, only on a tactical level.

Maintaining the Drone Umbrella

The United States has used unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or "drones" for several years now for multiple mission roles. These include aerial reconnaissance, surveillance, and missile strikes against high-value targets. Drones are often praised for their cost effectiveness, as well as the safety of the operator--if the drone is shot down, it poses no risk to the human pilot who can be on the opposite side of the world.

However, drones are not without their flaws. There is a long list of arguments against the morality of drone warfare. Also, drones that are shot down may be captured by enemy soldiers, allowing them an opportunity to reverse engineer our technology. Another is their limited range.

A new program aims to rectify this last shortcoming and expand the operational range of unmanned aircraft. Given that the Obama administration is seeking to continue drone warfare in Afghanistan and Pakistan despite the removal of American ground forces, this will benefit the United States by reducing the costs of sustaining these drone bases.

The combat power of these UAVs is limited to within their effective range, leading to the necessity of multiple sustainment bases throughout the theater of operations. This is regardless of the number of missions they have to fly in a given period. Increasing the range of the drone fleet allows the United States to condense the number of bases while maintaining (or potentially even expanding) the "umbrella" provided by UAVs.

In turn, fewer bases means fewer personnel assigned to security, infrastructure, and logistics, increasing the U.S. military's tooth-to-tail ratio (T3R). Although these soldiers will be out of Afghanistan eventually, in the short term this allows them to be reassigned to combat operations, actively achieving the United States' military goals instead of just supporting them. Later, operating costs for sustaining this smaller number of soldiers will be significantly lower.