STATEMENT OF
M.E. RHETT FLATER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL
BEFORE THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICE
COMMITTEE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES
ON THE
THE U.S. ROTORCRAFT INDUSTRIAL BASE
MARCH 12, 2003
Mr. Chairman, my name is
Rhett Flater and I am the Executive Director
of the American Helicopter Society. It is a
pleasure to appear before you today as you
receive testimony on the fiscal year 2004
national defense authorization request and
review United States' rotorcraft programs,
the supporting industrial base and future
technology initiatives.
The
American Helicopter Society is the leading
professional, technical society in the world
dedicated to the advancement and promotion
of vertical flight technologies, including
the helicopter and tiltrotor. The Society
was founded in 1943 by Igor Sikorsky and
other industry pioneers, who recognized the
benefits which vertical flight technologies
offer mankind. Today, the Society is
international in membership, with more than
6,000 members, most of whom are managers,
engineers, scientists and technicians. Our
membership also includes most large members
of the U.S. rotorcraft industrial base,
including airframe manufacturers Bell
Helicopter Textron, Boeing Helicopter
Division of Boeing Defense and Space Group,
Sikorsky Aircraft Division of United
Technologies, and Kaman Aerospace, engine
manufacturers GE Aircraft Engines,
Honeywell, and Rolls-Royce Corporation, and
systems integrators BAE Systems, Honeywell,
Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and
Raytheon.
I appear
before you today to discuss the state of the
United States rotorcraft industrial base,
specifically as it relates to the ability of
the industry to respond to future national
and homeland security needs.
General
Overview
The
major U.S. airframe manufacturers - Bell
Helicopter Textron, The Boeing Company
(helicopters) and Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation, a division of United
Technologies Corp. - each have (2002) annual
revenues from rotorcraft ranging from $1.7
billion to $2.8 billion. Total sales, as a
group, have fluctuated between $5 billion
and $6.6 billion during the past five years;
in 2002 they were $6.6 billion.
Employment, meanwhile, has ranged from
24,000 to 27,200 during the past five years;
in 2002 total worldwide employment for the
group was 24,182. (See Appendix 1 for
10-year industry trends.)
Boeing's sales are entirely
military-related. Sikorsky manufactures
products for both the military and civil
markets, including the S-76 and S-92.
Bell's sales have historically been spread
50/50 between military and civil, but during
the past three years Bell's civil/commercial
sales have declined slightly. This is
attributable partly to the economic downturn
but also to competition from Eurocopter and
other non-US manufacturers.
The U.S.
rotorcraft industry also incorporates a
large sub-systems supply base, spanning such
critical fields as propulsion, avionics,
communications and armaments. Recent
industry forecasts predict a 10-year
rotorcraft market for over 10,000
helicopters worldwide. Competition from
government supported sub-systems suppliers
such as BAE Systems, Turbomeca and Thales
can be expected to challenge U.S. suppliers
to fully exploit this market.
Foreign military sales by the major U.S.
airframers comprise approximately one-third
of their total worldwide sales. Propelled
by demonstrated successes by U.S. military
technology in Desert Storm, foreign sales
have been essential throughout the decade of
the 1990s in maintaining warm production
lines. Without such sales, Boeing's CH-47
Chinook (heavy lift transport) line and
Sikorsky's UH-60 Blackhawk (medium lift
transport) line would be stagnant. Bell's
sales of the AH-1W Supercobra (attack
helicopter) to Taiwan have enabled it to
retain a production capability which now
permits Bell to bridge to AH-1Z and UH-1Y
production (or remanufacture) for the U.S.
Marine Corps. According to Aerospace
Industries Association (AIA), total
helicopter exports in 2000 were $763.9
million. The industry's net contribution to
the current account trade balance was $274.6
million.
Key U.S.
military programs include the V-22 Osprey,
which will replace the Marine Corps' CH-46
(which has been in service since the
mid-1960s); the Army's RAH-66 Comanche; the
Navy's MH-60R and MH-60S model Seahawk; the
Army's CH-47F Chinook, UH-60M Black Hawk and
AH-64D Longbow Apache (all remanufacturing
programs); and the Marine's AH-1Z/UH-1Y.
The Osprey, built by Bell and Boeing, is in
low-rate production. The RAH-66, built by
Boeing and Sikorsky, remains in the
engineering and manufacturing development
phase. The AH-1Z/UH-1Y is in flight test
prior to full-rate remanufacturing.
For the
U.S. rotorcraft industry, however, there
have been no "new starts" within the past 15
years. The industry has largely survived,
and to some extent prospered, based on
remanufacturing existing airframes.
European
Industry: A Comparison
By
comparison, sales of the major European
airframe manufacturers - AgustaWestland Ltd.
(formerly Agusta, SpA and Westland, Inc.)
and Eurocopter (formerly Aerospatiale, S.A.
and MBB Helicopters, GmbH) - have risen to
$2.4 billion and $2.5 billion in 2002
respectively, an increase of more than 12%
over the past year.
European
manufacturers have recently introduced
several new products competitive with U.S.
rotorcraft, with Eurocopter alone having
introduced 10 new designs over the past
decade. In the military market, these
include the AgustaWestland EH-101 medium
lift maritime transport, the NH-90 medium
lift transport produced by Eurocopter
(France and Germany), AgustaWestland (Italy
and Great Britain) Fokker (the Netherlands)
and CASA (Spain), and the Tiger light attack
helicopter - Eurocopter's answer to Boeing's
Apache. In the civil market, they include
the Agusta A-109, Eurocopter EC-120, EC-135,
EC-145, EC-155, and EC-225 - nearly all of
which are targeted at Bell's civil product
line. The military products are racking up
sales across Europe and increasingly winning
international competitions, e.g., the NH-90
and the EH-101 beat out Sikorsky's S-92 in
the "Nordic competition;" the NH-90 has
become the medium lift airframe of choice in
Germany, France and most western European
countries (except for Great Britain and
Italy which chose the EH-101). Several
months ago, Eurocopter's Tiger won the
Australia attack helicopter competition (22
aircraft) over the Apache (this is the
Tiger's first major international win).
The European manufacturers are growing more
aggressive in pursuing
international orders and they now are
selected over U.S. manufacturers on a
frequent basis. European technology is as
advanced - and in some cases more so - than
U.S. technology: witness European
advancements in blade design, composites,
bearingless main rotors, transmission
design, sensors, HUMS, etc. The European
ability to integrate airframes, engines and
systems is comparable equal to that of the
U.S. primes.
The
military rotorcraft market is global in
nature. To sell products abroad, aerospace
companies must offer significant economic
offsets to the purchasing government.
Accordingly, European primes are now teaming
with major U.S. defense firms to meet future
DoD needs. For example, AgustaWestland has
recently teamed with Lockheed Martin to
offer an American version of the EH-101 (the
US-101). Similarly, the U.S. primes are
teaming with European companies. An example
is Boeing's teaming with GKN Westland (now
AgustaWestland) and BAE Systems on the
WH-64D Longbow Apache for the British Army.
Compared to the U.S., European host
governments consistently, and heavily,
subsidize rotorcraft research and
development. For example, rotorcraft
research funding in France is supplied by
the military (64%) and by the civil (36%)
sectors of the government. Of these funds,
34% support basic research and 66%
technology and development programs.
European government test facilities are
modern to state-of-the-art compared to those
in the U.S. Examples include the DNW
(Netherlands) wind tunnel, CIRA's (Italy's)
new crash test facility and its new icing
wind tunnel, both located at Padua.
Russia's TsAGI has three large low speed
tunnels that are used extensively for
studies of helicopter rotors and complete
configurations, e.g., the T-101, T104 and
T-105. The European Union supplements its
member state basic R&D funds via European
Commission "framework programs." As the
Commission on the Future of the United
States Aerospace Industry recently
reported, "in contrast to declining NASA and
FAA funding, framework funding has increased
dramatically since 1987." EU supplemental
funding for aeronautics research jumped to
nearly $1 billion annually in the sixth EU
framework program (2002-2006).
There
are also a number of new centers of
rotorcraft excellence emerging beyond
Europe, again with the help of government
funding. These include the helicopter
industries of India, China, Japan and
Korea. Closer to home, Canada also
continues to support home-grown rotorcraft
technology development through its TPC
funding programs.
Basic
Rotorcraft Research In Decline in the U.S.
Attached
as Appendix #3 is the Society's best
estimate of the state of DoD rotorcraft
science and technology and NASA research and
technology programs for the period 1994
through 2004, with projections for fiscal
years 2005 through 2007. Please note that
during the period from 2001 through 2003,
rotorcraft research declined performed by
DoD and NASA declined from $113.6 million to
$56.3 million, largely because of NASA's
failure to fund rotorcraft research.
Long-term cooperative efforts between NASA
and the Department of Defense in rotorcraft
research, in particular the 1969 Army NASA
Joint Agreement, are in serious turmoil.
Facing internal budget pressures, NASA has
eliminated all of its rotorcraft R&D
activity in fiscal years 2002, 2003 and
2004. In the face of a growing European
rotorcraft industry, the future
competitiveness of U.S. capabilities in both
military and commercial rotorcraft
technology development is in jeopardy. If
the trend continues, the U.S. Defense
Department may eventually become dependent
on non-U.S. suppliers for future mobility
requirements. In its Third Interim Report,
the Commission on the Future of the U.S.
Aerospace Industry ("the Commission")
issued a recommendation that "the
Administration and Congress should direct
NASA and the DoD to coordinate R&D efforts
in areas of common need and provide the
appropriate funding for joint programs. For
example, funding for joint Army/NASA
rotorcraft R&D efforts should be restored."
See Commission Recommendation 5.
The
rotorcraft industry is a significant part of
the U.S. aerospace industrial base. Several
findings by the Commission on the Future
of the U.S. Aerospace Industry regarding
the industrial base are especially relevant
to the rotorcraft industry. For example:
-
There is a
major workforce crisis in the aerospace
industry. Our nation has lost over
600,000 scientific and technical aerospace
jobs in the past 13 years. These layoffs
initially began as a result of reduced
defense spending following the end of the
Cold War. But subsequent contraction of
the industry through mergers and
acquisitions and the events of September
11 have made the situation worse.
-
Aerospace is
a technology-driven industry, heavily
dependent on defense defense, research and
manufacturing. Yet aerospace procurement
by the military fell nearly 53 percent
from 1987 to 2000. The DoD also reduced
its overall investment in research,
development, testing and evaluation by
nearly 20 percent from 1987 to 1999.
-
Maintaining
a world-class national aerospace RDT&E
infrastructure is essential to ensure that
this country's research programs can be
performed successfully. Yet much of the
U.S. RDT&E infrastructure is 40 to 50
years old and marginally maintained.
Currently, NASA has suspended all
operations of the 40x80 windtunnel (the
NFAC) located at NASA Ames and has
threatened to close it permanently. This
is a significant blow to the rotorcraft
industry which depends on full-scale
testing and access to NFAC. In addition,
NASA has announced the imminent closure of
the nation's only crash-safety flight test
facility located at NASA Ames.
Accordingly, crash safety tests planned
for the RAH-66 Comanche and the Joint
Strike Fighter in 2005 must be performed
in a European facility or cancelled
altogether.
-
Industry-funded aerospace research and
development fell by 37 percent from $8.1
billion in 1986 to $5.1 billion in 1999
(in inflation adjusted dollars). Absent
government procurements, private firms
have little incentive to fund basic
research on their own because capital
markets and stockholders shy away from
risky investments with indeterminate
returns.
-
During the
same timeframe, the number of major U.S.
aerospace prime contractors shrank from
more than 50 to just five. Meanwhile,
aerospace firms continue to consolidate to
maximize resources, eliminate excess
capacity, and access new market segments.
Parts suppliers have undergone a similar
contraction and consolidation.
Given
(1) the loss in U.S. rotorcraft market share
brought about by the decline in U.S.
investment (NASA, DoD, and Industry) in
basic research and (2) the availability of
equivalent or better European technology
supported by aggressive R&D programs with
the stated objective of overtaking the U.S.
in rotorcraft sales, it should be clear that
the U.S. government must support sustained
research, e.g., specifically, the DoD and
NASA must provide sustained and predictable
investments in basic aeronautics research,
including rotorcraft. If this does not
occur, the U.S. rotorcraft capability -
until recently regarded as the best in the
world - will decline.
This
development will have significant
implications for U.S. homeland security as
well as national transportation planning.
Rotorcraft fill many needs which non-VTOL
aircraft are incapable of addressing. Not
only do they provide battlefield mobility
for the U.S. military but also emergency
response in times of national and homeland
security emergencies. They save lives in
the event of natural and man-made
disasters. And Department of
Transportation studies indicate that "runway
independent aircraft," such as helicopters
and tiltrotors, are capable of increasing
aviation system capacity and reducing
congestion and delays. For these reasons,
further investment in basic research is
essential for national security which
requires the U.S. industry to remain
competitive in world markets.
AHS
International "White Paper"
A "White
Paper" issued by the Society emphasizes the
importance of basic rotorcraft research to
address future national and homeland
security needs as well as public
transportation needs in the following terms:
Rotorcraft fulfill
critical needs as part of the national
infrastructure.
Rotorcraft currently perform
widespread safe and affordable critical
public service and other operations such as
emergency medical service, search and
rescue, law enforcement, firefighting,
resource development, and priority
transportation.
Recent research indicates
that rotorcraft can make a major impact in
alleviating airport congestion and delays by
enabling runway-independent VTOL aircraft.
For example, a
recent study showed that simultaneous
non-interfering operations of
runway-independent aircraft for short-haul
flights could achieve a two-thirds reduction
in ground delays projected for 2017 at
Newark airport.
The national rotorcraft
technology and production base also supports
critical national and homeland security
needs for improved mobility.
To meet these needs,
there is a compelling need for rotorcraft
research.
Research is needed to serve
these public needs and to maintain a healthy
industry in the face of limitations of
current rotorcraft and intensifying
international competition. Growing
investment in rotorcraft research by foreign
entities has eroded and, in some cases,
overcome U.S. leadership in rotary wing
technologies; as a result European industry
now has captured half of the world's civil
market.
Cost
is a major inhibitor to expanded rotorcraft
operations. Current rotorcraft cost at
least three times as much to operate as
equivalent turboprops, limiting rotorcraft
applications and potential ridership. This
relationship is determined largely by
cruise efficiency, empty weight, speed,
complexity, and development and
certification cost and time - all of which
are being attacked by vigorous technology
efforts.
These same attributes, and
especially range and cruise efficiency
are also vital to the military.
Next-generation VTOL military transports
will have to operate at much greater ranges
than the current generation¾up to 600
miles¾yet be able to land in and take off
from confined areas or ships almost anywhere
in the world with minimum logistic support.
Safe all-weather 24/7
operations are
critical to the efficient exploitation of
the advantages of vertical flight. The very
nature of the unique capabilities of
rotorcraft lead us to use them in both
military and civil applications where no
other alternative exists. The public
perception that rotorcraft flight is
inherently risky derives from the fact that
rotorcraft are often called upon to operate
in bad weather at very low altitudes and in
close proximity to ground-based obstacles
such as towers and wires.
External noise
is a critical factor in achieving public
acceptance of rotorcraft operations. Quiet
environmentally-friendly aircraft will be
needed to operate from hub airports, general
aviation airfields, and dispersed heliports,
thereby maximizing time savings for
travelers. In the case of military
applications, external noise impacts the
ability of the military to operate from
bases in close proximity to populated areas,
not to mention the obvious loss of stealth.
Other barriers
to enhanced and expanded civil operations
include ride comfort and reliable near
all-weather operations. Overcoming these
barriers is needed to attract passengers and
provide public service, such as emergency
medical service.
What is NASA's role?
NASA's role has always been
to conduct high-value research that will
enable the introduction of new aeronautical
technologies or products. The risks and
long time horizons for financial returns
from such research fail to meet industry
criteria for private investment. For
example, NASA research played a key role in
the development of tiltrotor technology
beginning in 1971, including joint
sponsorship of the XV-15 technology
demonstrator, that is only now beginning to
provide returns to the industry and the
public.
NASA funding for rotorcraft
research is highly leveraged. Recognizing
that many technologies are applicable to
both military and civil rotorcraft, under a
NASA/Army Joint Agreement the two agencies
share 50/50 in supporting rotorcraft
research. The Army and NASA funding for the
National Rotorcraft Technology Center is
further matched by Industry, providing
four-to-one leverage for NASA investment in
that program, which has been cited as a
model for government-industry-academia
partnership. Equally important, these
programs provide very effective mechanisms
for technology transfer among the
participants.
Examples of possible NASA/DoD
contributions include:
· Concepts
for innovative new configurations
can radically improve rotorcraft speed,
affordability, and mission effectiveness,
while retaining superior VTOL and low-speed
characteristics.
· Applications
of information and computing technologies
will result in safer, more affordable,
environmentally-friendly rotorcraft and far
more effective and survivable military
systems. These technologies can enable safe
near all-weather operation in confined urban
areas, particularly important for scheduled
transport and public service operations.
· Active
and adaptive controls
have demonstrated the potential to improve
performance, and reduce external noise,
internal noise, vibration, and weight and
mechanical complexity.
· Noise
reducing design and operational methods
have demonstrated noise reductions totaling
20 dB (i.e., 75% reduction), but continued
research is needed to achieve this for
future rotorcraft configurations.
· Design
tools can reduce
development cycle time by 50%, speeding up
the application of technology improvements.
These include physics-based models, such as
advanced structural analysis and
computational fluid dynamics, that lead to
improved performance, noise, and vibration
characteristics. These methods are needed
to optimize designs and to "get it right the
first time," avoiding costly redesign and
retest, particularly for innovative aircraft
configurations.
· Deice
and anti-ice concepts and certification
methods are needed
for affordable and reliable all-weather
operation. Operation of rotorcraft in icing
conditions currently requires complex (hence
costly and sometimes unreliable) systems and
is difficult, costly, and time consuming to
certify for civil operation.
Future research addressing
these barrier technologies will bring about
radical improvements that will achieve the
characteristics needed to contribute to
national security as well as the air
transportation system of the future.
Conclusion
Companies such as Bell, Boeing and Sikorsky
and their supporting suppliers are
innovative. They also have responsive,
can-do senior managers and proven and
experienced management teams which partner
well with their customer. When called upon,
they are capable of responding with alacrity
to national security and civil market
needs.
In
conclusion, I would make three
recommendations.
-
First, the
DoD and NASA should be directed to make
further investments in basic 6.1 and 6.2
rotorcraft research - particularly efforts
to refine and simplify the rotor system
and control systems and the drive train -
a high priority.
-
Second,
given the importance of transforming the
U.S. military to become more mobile and
more agile - a requirement in fighting
future 21st century wars - the
DoD should fund private industry to
design, develop and fly a series of
innovative VTOL prototype aircraft.
-
Third, this
Committee should pay particular heed to
implementing the recommendations of the
Commission on the Future of the U.S.
Aerospace Industry contained in the
Commission's Final Report issued November
17, 2002 highlighted in Appendix 2 to this
testimony.
Rapid
passage of the recently reintroduced
"Aeronautics Revitalization Act of 2004"
would go far in addressing these national
concerns.
Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Appendix 1
Rotorcraft Industry Trends
For the Period 1993 - 2002
Year
Total Employees
Total Revenues (Billions US)
1993
28,293 $5.086
1994
27,606 $5.121
1995
26,190 $5.445
1996
25,821 $4.632
1997
27,526 $4.505
1998
27,214 $5.048
1999
25,534 $5.072
2000
24,899 $5.482
2001
25,324 $5.865
2002 24,182
$6.616
*
Includes total revenues and employees for
the years ending December 31, 1993 through
December 31, 2002 for Bell Helicopter
Textron, The Boeing Company (rotorcraft
revenues only), McDonnell Douglas Helicopter
Company (1993-1996), and Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation.
Appendix 2
Stakeholder's Coalition
"Final Report of the Commission on the
Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry"
Summary Findings
Research and Development Committee
The
Stakeholder's Coalition R&D Committee has
identified several key recommendations
relating to the need for national R&D goals
contained within the Final Report of the
Commission on the Future of the U.S.
Aerospace Industry, consolidated, reworded
and modified as follows:
-
The White
House and Congress must increase and
sustain funding in long-term research and
associated RDT&E infrastructure to develop
and demonstrate new breakthrough aerospace
capabilities. (Rec. #123; Com. Rep. at
9-8 and 9-12; see also Rec. #111; Com.
Rep. at 4-6)
(a)
NASA should reenergize its
aeronautics research efforts and, within the
next five years, double its investment in
aeronautics. (Rec. #9; Com. Rep. at 9-3,
9-11, 9-13; Rec. #123; Com. Rep. at 9-8 and
9-12)
(b)
The Federal government must
assume responsibility for providing,
sustaining, and modernizing critical
aerospace RDT&E infrastructure to ensure
that this country's research programs can be
performed successfully. (Rec. #116; see
Com. Rep. at 4-12 and 4-14; Rec. #123; Com.
Rep. at 9-7 and 9-12.)
(c)
DoD's annual science and
technology (6.1-6.3) funding must be
sufficient (not less than 3 percent DoD
obligation authority) and stable to create
and demonstrate the innovative technologies
needed to address future national security
threats. (Rec. #113; see Com. Rep. at 4-7.)
(d)
The Administration and
Congress should direct NASA and the DoD to
coordinate R&D efforts in areas of common
need and provide the appropriate funding for
joint programs. (Rec. #24; Com. Rep. at
B-39.)
-
Industry and
government should accelerate research
transition reducing the time from concept
definition to operational capability by 75
percent through coordinated national
goals; aggressive use of information
technologies; incentives for real
government, industry, labor, and academia
partnerships; and an acquisition process
that integrates science and technology as
part of the product development process.
(Recs. # 103, 104, and #8; Com. Rep. at
9-10/12).
-
To focus
U.S. aerospace research investments on
developing breakthrough capabilities, the
Administration should adopt - as a
national priority - the achievement of
the following aerospace technology
demonstration goals by 2010
§ Demonstrate
an automated and integrated air
transportation capability that would triple
air system capacity by 2025;
§ Reduce
aviation noise and emissions by 90 percent;
§
Reduce aviation
fatal accident rate by 90 percent;
§ Reduce
transit time between any two points on earth
by 50 percent.
§ Reduce
cost and time to access space by 50 percent;
§ Reduce
transit time between two points in space by
50 percent;
§ Demonstrate
the capability to continuously monitor and
surveil the earth, its atmosphere and space
for a wide range of military, intelligence,
civil and commercial applications;
(Rec. 8; Com. Rep. at 9-8)
Other Committee Items of
Interest:
As the Commission found,
"there is a workforce crisis in the
aerospace industry" which must have access
to a scientifically and technically trained
workforce. The recommendations of the
Commission relating to "Workforce" contained
at Chapter 8 of the Final Report are of
considerable importance to the future health
of U.S. R&D, particularly recommendations
#22, #23, #118, #119, and #122.
Kathryn Holmes, ASME
M.E. Rhett Flater, AHS Int'l
Co-chairs, R&D Committee
