Army Aviation Digest - Nov 1994

7/28/2019 Army Aviation Digest - Nov 1994

1/56

TransitioningTechnologyto theFighting Force


2/56


3/56

Major General Ronald E. Adams

Aviation Applied TechnologyDirectorate Congratulationson 50 Years of Excellence

We live in an ever-changingworld in which technology continues to accelerate and, as aconsequence, the battlefield toohas changed. In 1944, commanders communicated by line-of-site radio systems requiringmanual transcriptions. Tankersclosed with and fought the enemy with the M-4A3 Shermantank. The infantryman wasarmed with an M-1 rifle. Theregimental commander couldacquire targets within a 12 by 5kilometer box with direct andindirect fire weapons. Today,the brigade commander has tactical satellite communicationssystems and is seeing real-t imecombat information digitallytransmitted from reconnais-

sance assets out forward andfrom higher headquarters. Thebrigade commander can engagetargets at distances in excess ofseveral hundred kilometerswith the Army Tactical MissileSystem and attack helicopters.The brigade closes, and destroys the enemy, with the M-1Abrams tank, the AH-64 Apacheattack helicopter, and the infantryman armed with advanceddevices coupled with the M-16rifle. Since 1944, the battlespace has expanded; it is farmore complex and far more lethal.Global tensions, the speed ofcompetition, the proliferationof high-tech weaponry are associated with that more com-

u.s. Army Aviation Digest November/December 1994

plex, more lethal battlefield andhave forced us to relook at howwe do business. To lead us inthis change, the Army has established a vision for the futurecalled Force XXI-an information age force for the 21st century. It will encompassreconceptualization and redesign of the force at all levelswith the focus on connectivity-how we put the force together. Aviation is an importantplayer in the Force XXI team.We are replacing technologically aged aircraft with modern,technically superior aircraft, butin fewer numbers. We will, infact, have to do more with less.We will have to be more modular, even more tailorable and


4/56

more versatile to remain relevant.The Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD),Fort Eustis , Va., will playa keyrole in ensuing that relevance.The past 50 years of Army aviation have been a period ofgreat growth and technical development. The advances inArmy aviation can be directlyattributed to the outstandingefforts of the soldiers and civilians of the AATD. Improvements to aircrew survivabilityand safety, powerplant reliability, weapons systems integration, and maintenance are due,in great part, to their efforts. Intum, these new technical developments have helped to advance the role that aviationoccupies in the conduct of operations across the spectrum ofwar.The mission of AATD is toimprove the warfighting capability of Army aviation by developing the technology to take theArmy aviator into the 21st century. The 250 members of theAATD team, both military andcivilian, work to meet this requirement on a daily basis.

As Army aviation continues tomove into the 21st century, certain requirements are placedupon us; we must protect theforce, operate at an increasedtempo for longer periods oftime, strike the enemy throughout the expanded battlespace,fight with constrained resourc-2

es, and win decisively. We havea great force assembled now,but in the future our forces mustbe given an extra edge that willallow them to operate in thisn e ~ environment. Technologyprovides that edge. AATD is theproponent of these technicalchanges and the improvementsneeded to fight and win underthe requirements of Force XXI.In the future, we will see theresults of AATD's continuingefforts. The powerplants thatare being tested now will greatly increase the range and performance of the engine but atlower weight with increased reliability and greater efficiency.Sustaining the force will bemade easier by putting laptopcomputer technology in the aircraft and in the hands of thecrewchief. These systems monitor aircraft performance and diagnose problems that will allowaircraft to operate safely forlonger periods of time. Maintenance will be made easier bydigitally accessing maintenancesupport systems from anywhereon the battlefield.Twenty-first century aircraft,like the RAH-66 Comanche,will incorporate a broad spectrum of advanced technologiessuch as stealthy radar-absorbing materials, ballistic hardening, and visual and electro-opticdetection avoidance systems.These technologies are a directresult of the vulnerability reduction technologies developed

by the AATD.One of AATD's most promising developments is the Rotorcraft Pilot's Associate (RPA).The RPA is an additional "electronic" crewmember which isdesigned to manage the cockpit data that will allow the crewto more effectively prosecutethe battle. This system will assist the aircrew in classifying,prioritizing, and managing aircraft and battlefield informationto maximize the aviation warriors' ability to fight and win inthe digitized battlefield of thefuture.

Since 1944, the growth ofArmy aviation has been fueledby the developments of available technology. Through theefforts of AATD, aviation history is full of achievements thathave facilitated the accomplishment of the aviation mission.AATD continues to focus on thecapability that gives us thegreatest return, while providingsynergistic qualities rather thansimple system effectiveness.The soldiers and civilians of theAATD can stand proud of theirachievements of the past 50years. It is in large part throughtheir dedication and hard workthat Army aviation is leadingthe way for our Army into the21st century_ Army Aviation ..Vanguard of Change!

u.s. ArmyAviation Digest November/December 1994


5/56

Authors note: This was writtenbefore the tragic 23 March F-16DFighting Falcon accident at PopeAir Force Base, N.C., which killed23 U.S. Army paratroopers whenaircraft debris set fire to the C-141 BStarlifter they were boarding.An additional 56 were seriouslyburned, ranging from 10 to 90percent of their bodies. Had theybeen in effect, the safety changesdescribed in this article couldhave reduced the severity of thisaccident. Letsnot wait another day.

It is 1993. An aging C-141B ful lof153 paratroopers takes off romPope Air Force Base. As it climbsto flight altitude, a fuel line snapsin the starboard#4 engine and irebreaks out. The pilot declares anin-fl ight emergency and the paratroopers buckle up because theyare too low to jump. The Starlifterslams back onto the runway, thelandi1J.g gears collapse, and thestretched uselage breaks. The firespreads as thick, toxic black smokefloods the aircraft interior.

I f the soldiers and airmen try toexit the burning plane, many willcollapse from the toxic smokebefore they reach the exit doors.This is what happened to civilian

passengers during a 1985 crashwhen an engine fire created blinding, dense smoke that caused themto collapse before they could getout-55 people died. Many studieshave concluded that smoke killspeople long before fire does in survivable aircraft accidents. Thus,many aircraft safety organizationsare pressing for smokehoods to beprovided to every passenger, eventhough the airlines are reluctant topay for them. Most airliners havelights on the floor to guide peopleto the exit doors if smoke forcesthem to their knees.2

Hoods will not stop carbonmonoxide gas but will stop the moreimmediate threat from toxic soot.The good news is that every airman/soldier doesn't have to buysmokehoods; they already have aM17 A2/M40 field protective mask(FPM) that can provide the few minutes of smoke protection needed toexit a burning plane.3 All we haveto do is require that servicememberstake their FPM on-board whenthey fly on military aircraft (or anyaircraft during military duty).Before take-off, the FPMs wouldbe donned as part of the aircrew'ssafety/emergency exit briefing.In an actual in-flight emergency inwhich bailout is not possible because of low altitude or lack ofparachutes, all passengers woulddon their FPMs as standard "prepareto crash-land" procedure. A simple

u.s.ArmyAviation Digest November/December 1994

directive by both the Departmentsof the Army and Air Force couldaccomplish this overnight before atroop-laden aircraft crashes, whichcould occur anytime-even as thereader considers these n


6/56

and GORE-TEX extended coldweather-clothing-system parkas/pants, they will be severely burnedand possibly perish in the fire, asthese items will melt to the skin. Itis standard practice for all militaryflight crews to wear fire-resistantNomex clothing to provide fire protection to escape from a burning aircraft. These come in the form ofexpensive flight suits and gloves.The good news is that we don'thave to outfit our soldiers withNomex flight suits to get this fireprotection; they already have thepersonal armor system for groundtroops (PASG1) Kevlar helmets andflak jackets that can provide a highdegree of fire protection.4

We need a directive that allservicemembers will wear theseitems during tactical exercises/deployments or have them accessiblefor quick donning before a crashlanding. PASGT will also providetrauma and puncture protectionfrom aircraft interior furnishingsthat could break free on impact.For nontactical deployments,the U.S. Army Natick Research,

Development, and Evaluation (RD& E) Laboratories, Natick, Mass.,have developed a BDU made ofNomex.s It is in woodland camouflage and looks almost exactly likethe regular BDU. It is already in thesupply system. Soldiers could sewon their proper insignia, and theywould look just like all the other soldiers in BDUs. The InternationalTactical Studies Group (ITSG) hasfield tested.the "aircrew BDU" andfinds that it is comfortable; it is actually cooler than the regular BDU.This BDU is also abrasion- andtear-resistant, making it a practicalfield uniform. At 2.5 pounds, it islighter than the hot-weather BDU!One set of Nomex BDUs needsto be obtained for every soldierengaged in hazardous duty in whichfire may be possible-flying inaircraft (assault zone airlandingl4

parachute jumping) and helicopters(rappellinglfast roping, airlanding)and riding in armored fighting vehicles. This can be done with no costto the government by having theseBDUs on sale at every militaryclothing sales outlet. Cost is only$90, only slightly higher than regular BDUs-but worth it. All paratroopers, aviators, and contingencyforce personnel of the XVIII Airborne Corps, for example, would bedirected to have at least one set forqualification jumps and actual combat. During actual combat, thisNomex BDU would offer increasedprotection from enemy fires-bethey shell/grenade explosion orland-mine blast. Another beneficialside effect would be reducing injuryseverity so that troops can live andreturn to duty sooner to contributeto battle victory. Recent combat hasshown that wars will be highly violent and last short periods of t imea battle decision will be reachedwithin hours or days. Troops wouldwear regular BDUs for garrison!low-hazardous training and dontheir Nomex BDUs before thebattle, which should last them forthe length of a short high-intensitycampaign. A last benefit of NomexBDUs is that they provide abeneficial wicking of perspirationand dry quickly, unlike the cotton!nylon BDU, which soaks water likea sponge but retains this moisture.

When the fire spreads, th eseriously wounded are given a respite by the Kevlar body armor andNomex BDUs they are wearing.Their able-bodied comrades pullthem to safety, enabled by theirFPMs to negate the smoke and bytheir Nomex BDUs to fire protectlong enough to concentrate an deffect rescue.

All servicemen exit safely fromthe C-141B, which is completelyengulfed in flames. The plane is acomplete loss, but our men arealive to train or fight another day.

I f we want to save lives andstrengthen our chance for victory onthe next, distant battlefield, we needU.S. military aircraft safety improved now using the no-/low- costchanges described above. Youcould help by passing theseideas on to the necessary officialsin our military to get the job done.Airborne!Notes1. Even wearing a parachute will not help ifyour plane crashes before jump altitude; on24 September 1961, a USAF C-123 crashedbefore its passengers (U.S. Army GoldenKnights) could jump, killing one and injuringtwo others. Golden Knights, R.C. Murray,Daring Books, Canton, Ohio, pages 66--e8.2. The FinalCall, Stephen Barlay, PantheonBooks, Division of Random House, NewYork, New York, 1990, pages 161-181.3. Author's personal observations usingM17A2/M40s during field training exercises.4. According to the manufacturer's (Dupont)brochure, Kevlar is used to make ejectionseat parachutes to guard against fire .5. National Stock Number (NSN) Aviator'sBDU 8415-01-345--5211 Jacket MediumRegular and NSN 8415-01-345-5226Trousers.

Michael L. SparksInternational Tactical Studies Group (ITSG)708 Burgoyne StreetFayetteville, NC 28314

The twentieth-century battlefieldis history. Army aviation, as itapproaches the twenty-first century,faces a new battlefield-complex,integrated, and technically advanced-a battlefield no longerrestricted to a forward line. Armyaviation will strike deep intoopposing forces' territory, destroying designated targets and insertingcomplete divisions of men andequipment to create instant forwardlines of troops.

Active Army, Reserve, andNational Guard units are no longeru.s. ArmyAviation Digest November/December 1994


7/56

aligned to one specific capstone.Crew members will find themselvesin a variety of environments-coldweather, desert, overwater, andtropical jungle. Aviation life supportequipment (ALSE) must no longerbe restricted to what is commensurate with a unit's peacetimemission and environment. Crewmembers must not merely be familiarized with the variety of ALSE butmust be trained to use this equipment and trained to survive in allclimates.

Sophisticated air defenseweaponry compromises the survivability of aviation assets, greatly increasing the probability of crewmembers facing the difficult anddangerous task of search-escapeevasion-rescue (SEER). Anny aviation is making every effort tocounter this threat with one-stepahead technology and realistic combat training. The MarchiApril 1994Aviation Digest epitomizes this effort with the entire issue dedicatedto high-tech simulation training.Realistic training will provide confidence and practical experience.Crew members, however, inevitablywill find themselves on the groundand on the run.

An article in the July/August1993 Aviation Digest, pages 33through 37, focused on the 377thMedical Company (Air Assault),Republic of Korea (ROK). Onesection of the article dealt withtraining: "The ROK is unforgiving to the unsafe and ill-trained aircrewmember--especially aircrewscharged with the difficult and complex mission of aeromedical evacuation . . . . The unit conductsmonthly combat search and rescue(CSAR) exercises . . . . This is thetype of training that may possiblykeep DUSTOFF aircrews alive andavailable to perfonn their importantmission in the event of hostilities."

The ROK is not the only suchenvironment, and medical evacuation

(MEDEVAC) isn't the only aviationasset likely to find itself in a CSARsituation. Saudi Arabia was a veryunforgiving environment. Sanddunes claimed more than one aircrew. A downed AH-64 Apachejock was captured when Iraqi soldiers homed in on his PRC-90 radio beacon. Unit training cannotconsist of just mission training;there must be an integration of theominous "what if." What if the aircraft is downed during a mission?How well-trained are aircrews tosurvive the many environments thatthey may encounter; and how wellmaintained is the equipment thatthey will depend upon? A brieflookback through pastFlightFax articlesprovides the answer.FlightFax, 16 July 1986, Volume14, Number 40: "Although theyknew they would be flying overwater, neither pilot was wearing apersonal flotation device (PFD) asrequired by AR [Anny Regulation]95-17, the unit SOP [standingoperating procedures], and thecommander's flight briefing.

"After they reached the surface,they climbed onto the aircraft'sskids, which were about 18 inchesunder the water . . . . (The aircraftwas inverted), and tried, withoutsuccess, to make contact with theirAN/PRC-90 radios. There was a civilian airport about 7 nautical milesaway, and in line of sight. ...These pilots remained in the waterfor four hours before rescue and suffered severe hypothennia and skinirritation from fuel leaking from theaircraft.FlightFax, 22 April 1987, Volume15, Number 28: "The copilot wasunable to communicate with thesearch aircraft by using the AN/PRC-90 survival radio and attemptsto attract attention with penlightflares were unsuccessful." This accident took place at 1200 hoursunder clear skies. The aircraftcrashed into ~ f o o t - h i g h hardwood

U.S. ArmyAviation Digest November/December 1994

trees. How visible are the penlightflares in the SRU 21-P survivalvest? In the daylight-not very. Inthis situation, purple smoke grenades were popped to attract searchand rescue aircraft, not the orangesmoke illumination signal devicescontained in the aircraft survivalkits. The bum time for these devicesis short, and insufficient smoke isproduced to penetrate thick foliage.

FlightFax, 27 May 1987, Volume15, Number 33: "Sometimes machines break . . . . When it happens,a pilot's training and skills may avertan accident .... I f you survivethe crash you may need help and . . . .You're going to need some way toget that help .... Although bothpilots survived the crash, severalfactors could have meant life ordeath after the accident-limitedavailability of survival radios in theunit had led to a restriction of oneradio per aircraft.

"On this aircraft, however, therewere no survival radios. Only pilotsin command (PICs) were authorizedby flight operations to sign fo rsurvival radios, and the PIC onthis mission had originally deployed as a copilot and, therefore,had no radio. No cold-weather survival kits were on the aircraft. Thepilot had problems getting the firstaid kit open. The safety wire attachment on the kit's zipper required anexcessive amount of force to break."FlightFax, 4 November 1987,Volume 16, Number 7. "The IP[instructor pilot] . . . . tried touse a survival radio to summonhelp, but he wa s unsuccessful . . .When the crew . . . Attempted to usethe flares from their aircraft, onlytwo of them worked."FlightFax, 5 April 1989, Volume17, Number 12: "Although searchand rescue aircraft were immediately launched, it was 1 hour and 40minutes before the survivors werefound. The pilots' attempt to contactsearch aircraft with the downed

5


8/56

aircraft's radios was unsuccessful,and the survival radio was inoperative due to corrosion of the batterycap. There was no ELT [emergencylocator transmitter] on the aircraft."Corrosion on the battery springs isa common occurrence and can happen between scheduled inspections.However, crew member preflight ofALSE would have called attentionto this inoperative condition.With proper training, a simpletroubleshooting procedurewould have remedied the problem.Simply using the eraser of a pencilto clean the battery springs couldhave made the survival radioserviceable.FlightFax,August 1993, Volume21, Number 11. "... an MH-60[Black Hawk] struck water at a velocity in excess of 120 knots. All ofthe helmets . . . came off the wearers' heads. USAARL [U.S. ArmyAeromedical Research Laboratory,Fort Rucker, Ala.] evaluated the helmets and found that all of thechinstraps were fastened . . . . it issuspected that improper fit resultedin the helmets coming off." Oneaviator "who had an average-sizehead, was wearing an extra-largeshell with the retention systemplaced at the largest setting. In addition, the tiedown strap for the yokeassembly at the rear of the helmetwas tucked up into the helmet ratherthan holding onto the nape strap asdesigned." Losing a helmet duringa crash sequence greatly reduces thechance of survival. Trained and experienced ALSE personnel shouldbe the only people fitting crewmember helmets in the unit. Crewmembers should bring their helmetswith them to the flight surgeon annually for fitting during flight physicals. The next time you're preparingto fly, check the chinstraps and napestraps of your crew. Both strapsshould be snug. The more hazardous the flight environment, thetighter the straps.6

FlightFax, February 1994,Volume 22, Number 5: "Followinga recent OH-58 [Kiowa] accident,the crew's SRU-21P survival vestswere inspected and many items wereeither expired, missing, or unserviceable. There was no standardization concerning the placement ofitems within the vests. Had theneed arisen for the use of any ofthese missing or unserviceable components, the crewmembers couldhave been in a serious situation."

Circumstance and situationdictate action; action is a result oftraining and practical experience.The success of our action dependson the serviceability of our equipment and how proficiently we areusing it. Proper training and properequipment for crew members arelacking. This is not a revelation.Eleven years ago, a DARCOM[U.S. Army Materiel Developmentand Readiness Command] projectmanager generated a letter, 3 January 1983, to all aircrew personnel informing them of the resultsof a survey of 1,200 Army aircrewmembers: among the current problems at the time-"a major problemin the management of ALSE is thatthere is no ALSE technician specialist MOS [military occupational specialty]. Individuals with the Q2designator added to their M OS feltstrongly towards an ALSE MOSdue to the fact that the care andmaintenance is a full-time job andthose with the Q2 designator alreadyhave a primary duty ... [and]are responsible for maintainingproficiency in their assigned MOS."A recent article in the April 1994FlightFax, Volume 22, Number 7,written by MSG Keith A. Gallion,asks, "Where are all theALSEmain-tenance personnel?" MSG Gallionteaches the Aviation Accident Prevention Course (AAPC) for noncommissioned officers and travelsthroughout the aviation community.In addition to teaching, MSG

Gallion conducts $afety surveys. Hesays, "I find a problem that isprevalent in most units. Thereappears to be a lack of aviationlife support equipment (ALSE)maintenance or there is an insufficient number of qualified personnelto properly maintain the unit'sassigned equipment."All units surveyed within thepast year did have personnel maintaining the ALSE; however in mostcases, these personnel were notproperly trained .... About 400ALSE maintenance personnel aretrained per year. Based on findingsduring unit safety surveys, thesehighly trained personnel are not inthe unit ALSE shops where they aremost needed. Where do they go after graduation, and why are they notbeing utilized?"In 11 years, how much progresshas ALSE made? Actually, ALSEhas come a long way. Despitesome ongoing problems, a lot haschanged-thanks to the unselfish,untiring efforts of many peopleincluding dedicated and committedALSE technicians and officers.They sacrifice a lot of time and energy to see that crews are properlyequipped and trained and ensurecrews have every advantage for"making it out" when things don'tgo as planned. Attitudes havechanged. The "it-won't-happento-me" way of thinking is beingreplaced with the realistic "whatif" approach. Improvements inthe flight helmet, survival vest,and survival kits are improving theodds that crew members willsurvive.But we can make improvements.I suggest the following: Qualified personnel must be onhand to properly maintainALSE. Experienced personnel must be onhand to teach survival to aircrews. An ALSE training program mustbe incorporated into unit missiontraining that provides the hands-on

U.S. ArmyAviation Digest November/December 1994


9/56

testing of crew-member proficiencyin the proper use of all ALSE-not.just ALSE commensurate with aunit's peacetime mission and climate. We must seek a greater exchangeof ALSE and SEER information. We need an ALSE MOS. Themajor problems hindering ALSEwill never be remedied until thereis an ALSE MOS.

I f your unit was activated,mobilized, and deployed to a combat environment, would your aircrews enter th e game trained,equipped, and ready to play? Wouldcrew members have their helmetsrotate off during a crash sequence?Would crew members have theknowledge, training, and experiencenecessary to survive an over-waterditching? Would survival itemsin their vests and survival kits beon hand and serviceable? Wouldyour aircrews' knowledge, training,and experience of search-escapeevasion-rescue provide them withevery opportunity to survive on theground and return to friendly lines?An enormous amount of talent isavailable throughout Army aviation.Share your knowledge, experiences,viewpoints, and ideas. Sit down today and submit ALSE, SEER, andCSAR articles to Army aviationpublications (especially th eAviation Digest). We need a greaterexchange of information.Douglas W. SchmidtAircraft Survival/Flight Equipment Repairer122d ARCOM Aviation Support Facility200 Tower Drivelafayette, LA 70508-2124

Colonel Kavin Coughenour,acting commander of the U.S. ArmyCenter of Military History (CMH),has announced the Departmentof th e Army's 1994 MilitaryHis tory Writing Contest.

CPT Nathan K. Wantanabe wonfirst prize and a cash award of $500in the 1993 annual competition foran essay he wrote while attendingthe Aviation Officer AdvancedCourse at Fort Rucker, Ala. CPTWantanabe's winning essay wastitled "A Fight for Freedom, A Fightfor Justice:An overviewof he 442dRegimental Combat Team." His article will be published in a forthcoming issue of ARMYHISTORY, theArmy's professional bulletin ofmilitary history.Eligibility: All students who areattending officer advanced coursesor the Sergeants Major Academyduring calendar year 1994 are eligible to enter the competit ion (onlyonce). Be sure to include yourcourse title, number, dates attended,current and forwarding address, andtelephone number.Entries: Submit two copies ofpreviously unpublished manuscripts, typed, double-spaced.Maximum length of papers is 2,500words (about 10 double-spacedpages). Papers that exceed thislength will not be accepted. Documentation is required, but footnotesand endnotes do not count in length.Submit graphics, illustrations, orphotographs as if for publication.Topics: Essays should develop alimited theme related to the historyof the U.S. Army. Possible topicareas a re - Civil War, World War I, KoreanWar, etc. World War II (50th anniversaryperiod). Minority soldiers. Leadership. Training. Unit cohesion and stress incombat. Fighting outnumbered andwinning. Logistics.Deadline: Entries must bepostmarked before midnight, 31December.


Submission: Send two copies ofthe m a ~ u s c r i p t - a l o n g with al laccompanying photographs, maps,or other graphics-to U.S. ArmyCenter of Military History, ATTN:Writing Contest (Mr. Billy Arthur),1099 14th St., N.W., Washington,D.C. 20005-3402. Point of contactis Mr. Billy Arthur, DSN 285-5368or 202-504-5368.

Judging and prizes: A panel ofmilitary historians will judge eachentry based on the followingcriteria: historical accuracy, originality, writing style, and rhetoric.First place: $500 and publication in ARMYHISTORY (CMH'squarterly professional bulletin);second, $250; third, $100, or asthe judges direct. Winners shouldbe announced by 30 April 1995.

In a recently released Departmentof the Army promotion list for sergeant first class, 29 staff sergeantsof 129 soldiers assigned were selected for promotion to sergeant firstclass from the Advanced Attack Helicopter Division, Department ofAttack Helicopter Training, U.S.Army Aviation Logistics School,Fort Eustis, Va. This is most noteworthy as it represents only twomilitary occupational specialties,67R, AH-64 (Apache) AttackHelicopter Repairer, and 68X,AH-64 ArmamentlElectrical Systems Repairer. This could be an unprecedented promotion first-forsuch a small organization tohave received so many promotions.CW5 Graham T. StevensChief, Advanced Attack Helicopter DivisionSGM Earl HildebranNCOICU.S. Army Aviation Logistics SchoolDepartment of Attack Helicopter TrainingAdvanced Attack Helicopter DivisionFort Eustis, VA 23604

7


10/56

50th Anniversary of the AviationApplied Technology DirectorateColonel Randall G. OliverCommander/Director, Aviation Applied Technology DirectorateU.S. Army Aviation and Troop CommandFort Eustis, Virginia

On 16 December 1944, as Adolph Hitler beganthe Battle of the Bulge, his final offensive ofWorld War II, the U.S. Army TransportationBoard, the predecessor organization of the AviationApplied Technology Directorate (AATD), was estab-lished at Fort Monroe, Va. Through the years there havebeen numerous changes resulting in the current orga-nization. Located at Fort Eustis, Va., AATD is an ele-ment of the Aviation Research, Development, and En-gineering Center, U.S. Army Aviation and Troop Com-mand, St. Louis, Mo.

1be war in Etrrope ended within 5 months of this famousbattle and by this time the groundwork had been laid for anorganization that would become the U.S. Anny's principal8

aviation research and development (R&D) activity.The Transportation Corps Board was activated with

a mission to develop and execute an R&D program forthe youngest of the Army's technical services, theTransportation Corps. The mission included R&D onall transportation equipment to include marine, rail,highway, terminal and material handling, and aviation.

SOME EARLY ACCOMPLISHMENTSFollowing a brief move to Brooklyn Army Base,

Brooklyn, N.Y., in 1946, the Board relocated to FortEustis, in 1950.

In May 1965, the organization was designated as theU.S. Army Aviation Materiel Laboratories (AVLABS),

U.S. Army Aviation Digest November/December 1994


11/56

This Bell UH-1 B was extensively modif ied for a major research program that Investigated the high speed flightcharacteristics of rotary-wing aircraft. On 15 April 1969, this helicopter flew 274 knots (316 mph), unoff icial lybreaking the world record held by a Russian helicopter.and became totally oriented on Army aviation R&D.As AVLABS, it was the only aviation R&D activitywithin the Department of the Army dedicated to themission of air mobility R&D.

As aviation expanded into its current role in the Army,responsibilities for activities outside of aviation R&Dwere transferred to other agencies. AVLABS then focused its pioneering efforts on vertical/short take-off landing and rotary-wing aircraft. Included among many significant demonstrator programs were the Bell UH-IBHuey (above), the XC-142 Tilt-wing aircraft, the AlI-56A Cheyenne (predecessor to the AH-64 Apache) (be-

low), the XH-5lA Advancing Blade Concept demonstrator, and the heavy lift helicopter.

Organizationally, five technical divisions, a RotorcraftPilot's Associate (RPA) Office, two support divisions,a contracting division, and an office of the counsel makeup the Directorate "team" ofover 250 civilian and military personnel. Because of the technical nature of thework performed by AATD, over two-thirds of the teamare engineers, technicians, and other professionals associated directly with research activities.

AATD is organized to handle a large, varied, and continuous workload, while maintaining a high degree of flex-

Lockheed produced 11 AH-56 Cheyenne compound helicopters for the Army. This advanced gunship flew at215 knots In level flight, 245 knots In a dive. It demonstrated high maneuverability and excellent first-hitaccuracy with Its weapon systems.U.S. ArmyAviation Digest November/December 1994 9


12/56

ibility to meet unprogrammed projects. A unique in-housecapability exists for structural and ballistics testing as wellas signature measurements on helicopter engines. Facilities also are available to modify and fabricate aircraft components and to conduct various other investigations ofaeronautical systems. Major technical areas of effort include: propulsion; materials and structures; systems integration and weaponization; reliability, maintainability, andmission technology; and safety and survivability.

MISSIONSince 1965, the organization's mission has remained ba

sically the same-to improve Army aviation's warfightingcapability by developing effective and affordable technology for current and future aviation systems. More recently, the mission has been expanded to meet the requirements of the Aviation Program Executive Officer, program managers, and special mission users.

Technology development. Besides its rich history ofdemonstration programs, AAlD has sustained a strongtechnology development activity. The current modernizedfleet owes much of its demonstrated capabilities to thosetechnological advancements. The T-700 engine in theUH-60 Black Hawk and Apache helicopters evolved fromtwo engine demonstrator programs managed by AAlD.Individual components such as elastomeric bearings, reparable main rotor blades, infrared suppression, crashworthy designs for landing gear, airframe, seats, and fuel systems were available for fielding because of AAlD's developmental efforts.

TheKiowaWarrior (armed OH-58D) was originallyintegrated, tested, and fielded by a joint A T D / i ~ d u s -try team. AATD developed and demonstrated theLongbow Apacheconcept.

tinues to develop and integrate relevant and affordabletechnology for their aviation customers.

The first phase of a major turbine engine improvementprogram has demonstrated tremendous improvements inengine component technologies that will result in improved fuel efficiency and increased power from the nextgeneration of turbine engines. The second phase of thisprogram was initiated this past summer.A lighter, easier-to-operate Advanced Boresight Technology was demonstrated successfully recently on an Airtechnology's commonality by moving from one aircraftto the other and performing an accurate boresight on eachaircraft in a matter of minutes. Future demonstrations areplanned for adaptation to annor systems (MIAI).

The potential application of automobile air bag technology and inflatable restraint systems to helicopter cockpits was demonstrated during recent fuselage impact testsat the National Aeronautics and S p ~ AdministrationLangley Research Center, Hampton, Va.

A major study to reduce vibrations on CH-47D Chinook cargo helicopters, through the application of onboardvibration measurement and diagnostic equipment, is currently underway at Fort Hood, Tex., and Fort Lewis, Wash.

AAID also has initiated an advanced technology demonstration (AID) program known as the RPA This AIDprogram is focusing on technology that will assist futurepilots in managing the vast quantity of available information on the modem battlefield and to use that data to increase their combat effectiveness.

NAME CHANGEThe Directorate has undergone nine name changesand survived numerous threats of disestablis1;J,ment and

relocation (left).Its story is a record

The Comanche helicopter, which incorporates even moresophisticated technologies,alsowasdeveloped throughAAlD's technologybase program.

1944 Transportat ion Corps Board (TC Board) ofpastacoomplishments documentedin various test reports and also ondisplay at the localtransportation museum. Althoughthese are proudcontributions ofthis and our predecessor organizations, the history oftomorrow's Armyaviation is beingshaped today at theAviation AppliedTechnologyDirec-

AATD's effortshave helped Armyaviation to achievephenomenal successes in Panama, thePersian Gulf, andmore recently, in S0-malia. Not content torest on past achievements, AAID con-10

1950 Transportation Development and Experimental Station(TDES)

1950 Transporta tion Research and Development Station(TRADS)

1953 Transportation Research and Development Command(TRADCOM)

1956 Transportation and Engineering Command (TRECOM)1957 U.S. Army Transportation and Engineering Command

(USATRECOM)1965 U.S. Army Aviation Materiel Laboratories (USAAVIABS)1970 Eustis Directorate, U.S. Army Air Mobility Research and

Development Laboratory (USAAMRDL)1977 Applied Technology Laboratory (ATL)1985 Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD)

AATD Name Changes (1944-85)torate.

U.S. Army Aviation Digest November/December 1994


13/56

50AATOMANAGEMENT SERVICES DMSION

Mr. Joseph J. SilventChief, Management and Administrative Branch

The Management ServicesDivision is a cohesive administrative unit comprised

of diverse functions through whichall essential administrative operational support are provided to the Directorate. I t provides human resource, financial, and supply/logistics management The division is thefocal point for all administrative activities within these areas that support both the Directorate's workforceand its research and development(R&D) programs.

The division employs highly talented and skilled personnel in a variety of support service functions.These functions range from program-budget/management analysisto facilities operations. The division'spersonnel combine talent and skillwith professionalism and dedication.As the key ingredient within the established administrative infrastructure, they provide continued operational success in management services support.The present challenges of movinginto the 21st century are increasedwhen coupled with today's rapidgrowth in communication and automation technologies. These challenges require creative and innovative responses by the division to continually meet the administrative support needs of the Directorate. Thehuman resource element of the divi-

sion has been vitually important incoordinating and securing both inhouse promotional and career developmental opportunities fo r the

w o r k f o r c e . ~ r a d v a n c e m e n t a n ddevelopment are geared to providing the necessary leadership andtechnical and administrative knowledge and skills to ready the workforceto face new organizational and mission demands. Future Anny aviationR&D programs will continue to require the support of his crucial element of the division.

Astute financial planning and program execution by the program budget element enable the Directorate tomaximize available funding in support of science and technology program efforts, in-house R&D, andcustomer programs. A flexible andcomprehensive automated financialmanagement program has been developed internally. It is a key toolused in the effective and efficientmanagement of the Directorate's financial resources.An aggressive equipment managementprogramensures theDirectorate'sindustrial and plant equipment, aswell as other general purpose equipment, is maintained in good working order. This equipment is used tosupport in-house and customer R&Dprograms. It is continually evaluatedfor modernization. Accountability ofall Directorate property also is assured


under the program s umbrella. In addition, the equipment managementfunction serves as the source of requisition for all general operatingitems of supply.The mission supply and logisticselementof he division supports procurement and acquisition of all testitems and materials required forR&D programs. This ready sourceof supply is instrumental in expeditiously obtaining such items andmaterials and enables the establishment of aggressive program schedu1es and facilitates timely completion of program efforts.

The division also excels in handlingall types of general administrativeinitiatives for the Directorate.Thedivision's recent award for having thebest recycling program on the installation is an example of he excellenceachieved in implementing such administrative initiatives. The Directorate's program established by thedivision has been cited as a model forall other installation activities to foUow.The division is constantly trainingits workforce on new concepts suchas 6 Sigma manufacturability (engineering course) and Integrated Product Process Development It continues to educate its staff in engineering, technical, and administrativedisciplines including Total ArmyQuality. It also constantly maintainsits focus on support of customers.

11


14/56

50AATOTECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION

mTeclmical SelVices Division is the cornerstone ofAviation Applied TechologyDirectorate's (AATD's) research anddevelopment (R&D) program. TIrissmall, skilled group is highly responsive to the needs of Army aviationin terms of program support for research, development, test, and evaluation projects and, increasingly, interms of high-priority operationalmatters.This division has a wide array ofinstrumentation and fabrication tal-ents. These talents can be quicklyformed into support teams for flighttest programs, crash testing, infrared testing, ballistic testing, specialaircraft modifications, structural integrity tests, and a gamut of othersubjects. Add to these functions, several basic ongoing functions-computer operations, teclmical library,teclmical illustration, technical editing, and photo lab-and you roundou t a strong and integrated capability.

During Operations Desert Shieldand Desert Storm, this group offeredinvaluable support. They fabricatedcovers, developed training aids, manufactured needed devices, and providedthe technical expertise across the broad12

Colonel Randall G. OliverCommander/Director, AATD

spectrum of needs the harsh environment of Southwest Asia created.The best example of the group'scapability can be summed up in thearmed OH-58D Kiowa Warrior aircraft for the U.S. Army HelicopterImprovement Program (AHIP) supporting the U.S. Forces in the MiddleEast.

The AATD and the AHIP ProjectOffice, St. Louis, Mo., undertookthe AHIP Program as a joint, rapiddeployment effort. In less than 6months, the team designed, fabricated, and installed HELLFIRE missile systems onl5 OH-58Ds for usein the Persian Gulf.

Despite tight budgets, limitedequipment availability, and conflicting priorities for badly needed resources, the division met a drasticallyshort deployment schedule. Whileperforming a critical mission, ithelped to field an aircraft that exceeded all readiness projections.

Given time and materials, the tal-ented model makers, machinists,sheet metal mechanics, welders, andother specialists of the Experimental Fabrication Branch can handlejust about anything assigned to them.They are creative, experienced, andtotally oriented toward getting the

job done. While the shops are notrich in s t a t ~ f - t h e - a r t productionequipment, the specialists make theirimpact through their individual abilities and adequate machinery.

Projects have varied over the 50 -year history of his organization. Forexample, the shops have built aircushioned vehicles, paragliders; full-scale helicopters, wind-tunnel models, shallow draft boats, and the firstarmor kits used in Vietnam. In addition, branch specialists have fabricated the following: test facilities,displays, major test rigs, and fixtures; mockups and working modelsof aviation equipment; aviation intermediate maintenance (AVIM) systems toolsets; armor kits for the UH-60 Black Hawk; full-scale visualmodification kits for the NationalTraining Center, Fort Irwin, Calif.;and an endless list of other items.

Today, AATD prepares to celebrateits golden anniversary. The men andwomen of the Technical SelVicesDivision, faced with shrinking resources, will continue their missionto support Army aviation R&D programs. They will do so with the motivation, skill, and versatility thathasconsistently marked the previousendeavors of their predecessors.



15/56

50AATD

Army aviation has a big job:finding the enemy without beingseen, destroying threat air defensesites, supporting the battle commander's coordinated activities,delivering swift decisive strikesacross enemy lines, and performingnumerous other duties-all in thedark at tree-top level. And as battlefield complexity steadily increases, technology within the cockpitcontinues to advance, demandingmore and more of the crew's time,attention, and mental resources.New sensors are being developed,and existing ones are being givenmore capabilities. New and upgraded weapon systems have demanding interface and controlrequirements. Digital interconnectivityl means more complex and capable communications suites andthe ability to tap into large quantities of battlefield situational data.All of these "technological innovations . . . are giving rise to what isbeing called a 'military-technicalrevolution. ' ' '2

This revolution means that Armyaviators are being inundated with information while trying to fight thebattle. The aviator must "assimilate

Assessing the Mission and WarfightingImpact of the Intelligent Cockpit:

The Rotorcraft Pilot'sAssociate (RPA)Evaluation ApproachMr. Keith Arthur

Lead Engineer. System EvaluationRotorcraft Pilot's AssociateAviation Applied Technology DirectorateU.S. Army Aviation and Troop CommandFort Eustis. Virginia

and determine the significance of allavailable mission information [and]manage the capabilities and performance of the mission equipment"3in addition to flying the aircraft. Thegoal of the Rotorcraft Pilot's Associate (RPA) is to significantly enhance the Army aviator's missioneffectiveness by -

Containing and managing thisexplosion of information in therotorcraft cockpit.

Using that information toprovide timely and pertinent aid tothe crew.Rotorcraft Pilot's Associate

RPA will be a selective-authorityelectronic "associate" to thecombat helicopter crew, much likean additional crew member. It willmanage the myriad significant andinsignificant data available in thecockpit, freeing the crew to moreeffectively prosecute the battle. RPAwill also reason about the currentmission situation, develop plans,and take authorized action to assistthe crew in executing the mission.4

As shown in Figure 1, RPAconsists of two basic parts: thesystem architecture and the Cognitive Decision Aiding Subsystem

(CDAS). The system architectureperforms two functions: data distribution and data fusion. Data is distributed to and from the missionequipment an d the CDAS asneeded. Also, data from multiplesources, both on-board and offboard, are correlated and fused toeliminate redundant data and to increase confidence in the useful data.For example, in-flight intelligenceupdates may warn of an SA-15 airdefense system operating in a certain sector. As the helicopter teamskirts the sector, Radio FrequencyInterferometers (RFls) on two shipspick up an air defense radar insearch mode. Using advanced secure communications and triangulation, each helicopter's RPA canpinpoint the position of the air defense radar and, using the intelligence data, positively identify thethreat as an SA-15.

The CDAS lies at the heart ofRPA. CDAS is composed of five interdependent modules: externalsi tuation assessment (SA), internalsituation assessment, proactive planning, reactive planning, and cockpitinformation management. As thenames indicate, the first two modules

u.s Army Aviation Digest November/December 1994 13


16/56

System Architecture =I!ilCDAs=D

Cockpit Information ManagementProactive Planner

Advanced Mission Equipment Package

keep track of the battlefield situationand the status of all aircraft systems.The planning modules performreal-time, four-dimensional (x, y, z,and time) mission, countermeasures, weapons, sensor, attack, anddefensive planning before and during the mission, as well as in response to unexpected threateningsituations. The Cockpit Information Manager transfers the rightinformation to the crew-at theright time using the right channelsand takes commands from the crewthrough an intelligent and tailorableinterface. By taking advantage ofemerging advanced computingtechnologies, RPA ''will enable expanded use of the crew's perceptual,judgmental, and creative skills tocapitalize on their [sic] own strengthsand exploit adversary weaknesses."514

Figure 1

Predecessor programsTwo programs in particular pavedthe way for RPA. First was the U.S.

Air Force (USAF)/Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA) Pilot's Associate (PA)program, which investigated "thefeasibility of applying expert systems and advanced computing technologies to the cockpits of advancedtactical fighters of the next decadein order to improve combat effectiveness and survivability."6RPA took much more than justt w ~ t h i r d s of its name from the PAprogram; RPA built upon thetechnological, programmatic, andphilosophical successes of PA, forexample, by adopting a pilotcentered approach to designingRPA functionality. Second was theArmy Day/Night Adverse Weather

Pilotage System (D/NAPS) program.The objectives of D/NAPS were to"demonstrate enhanced missioneffectiveness . . . through theinnovative integration of advancedtechnology" and to "speed the application of artificial intelligence(AI) and cockpit automation."7Along with PA, D/NAPS did muchof the foundational work of integrating and coordinating disparate systems: mission equipment softwareand hardware, as well as expertsystems such as mission and tacticsplanners and situation assessors.

Although these two programsoperated in completely differentregimes (high and fast for PA andnap of the earth for D/NAPS), bothhad similar goals. RPA has thereforetaken full advantage of theirexperience. Particularly in the area

u.s ArmyAviation Digest. November/December 1994


17/56

of system evaluation, RPA haslearned and applied many lessonsfrom both PA and D/NAPS.Previous evaluations (lessonslearned)

Both PA and D/NAPS wereevaluated against a baseline aircraftusing high-fidelity manned simulators. Each was evaluated in the context of a specific mission scenario.The test matrix was fully exercisedby varying the appropriate test conditions of test subject, aircraft configuration, mission condition, andenvironmental condition. Each testsubject pilot flew both the baselineand advanced configurations undereach mission condition (for example, high-, medium-, or lowdensity threat laydown) and eachen-vironmental condition (for example,day or night).PA's baseline was an advancedconceptual fighter based on theYF-22, the USAF Advanced Tactical Fighter. Its mission was an advanced precursor sweep in whichthe crew's job was to attack andneutralize three enemy combat airpatrol stations (ground sites). D/NAPS's baseline was an advancedUH-60 Black Hawk. Its missionwas a covert, cross-FLOT (forwardline of own troops) troop insertionmission.Lessons learned about evaluationfrom these two programs fall intotwo categories: technical and methodological. Briefly, three types oftechnical issues were encountered:subsystem and system integrationproblems, which caused testschedule compression and worstcase testing using rudimentary substitutes for key software modules;lack of simulation maturity, whichcaused some unrealistic and erraticbehavior; and pilot-vehicle interface problems, which led toineffective information transfer between the system and crew, acrucial function in an intelligentcockpit.

Methodological issues weremore numerous. Training was probably insufficient to effectively usethe aiding provided by the two newsystems. The scenarios, as implemented in the simulation evaluations, were somewhat insensitive tothe benefits of the new systems.Insufficient time was planned forthe process of integrating the newsystems into the simulation environment and for the evaluationsthemselves. Development of theevaluation measures was notsynchronized with the developmentof system functionality (in otherwords, measures were decided uponup front without a full understanding of the potential operational benefits of the system).Finally, the evaluations tended tofocus on system-level performancemeasurement, somewhat to theexclusion of ensuring proper subsystem performance and measuringmission-context effectiveness.RPA's evaluation-the approachBecause an intelligent cockpithas so much potential on the battlefield, RPA will be evaluated at severallevels, by several methods, andby a multi agency, multidisciplinaryevaluation team. As RPA is developed, testing will proceed throughorganizational levels from subsystem to system to individual aircraft to combined arms team. Allthree simulation methods will beused: constructive (analytical modeling), virtual (man-in-the-Ioop),and live (flight test).8 Both the primecontractor, McDonnell DouglasHelicopter Systems (MDHS), andthe Army's Crew Station Researchand Development Facility (CSRDF)will provide facilities and techniquesto evaluate RPA. Figure 2 graphically shows relationships among allthree elements, level, method, andevaluation team member.

Subsystem- and system-leveltesting are done in most developmentprograms. But RPA will also beu.s ArmyAviation Digest. November/December 1994

evaluated beyond the system level.One of the premises upon whichRPA's evaluation is based is that anintelligent cockpit in the scout/attack helicopter improves not onlythe individual helicopter's missioneffectiveness, but it also producesbenefits that higher organizationallevels will reap. For example, RPA'sreal-time data fusion and enhancedsecure communications capabilitieswill make the individual helicoptera more effective reconnaissance asset. More effective reconnaissancewill increase the battlefieldsituational awareness of all involved: the individual aviator, hisaviation teammates, his combinedarms teammates, and several levelsof commanders. As another example, RPA's ability to plan all aspectsof the mission en route to the battlefield will make Army aviationmore responsive to battle commanders. They, in turn, can plan anddepend on tighter cohesion and coordination among all their assets.Therefore, to truly assess the mission and warfighting impact of theintelligent cockpit, RPA's evaluationmust identify and claim those benefits reaped at all levels-individualaircraft, team leader, and aviationand ground commander-becauseof RPA's use at the lowest level.

Such a broad evaluation demandsa similarly broad use of methods.Early in the program, newly developed functionality will be tested onthe Rapid Prototyping Mission Simulator (RPMS), a o w - t ~ m e d i u m fidelity manned simulator. As subsystem and system functionalitymatures, a domed, high-fidelitymanned simulator will be used. Subsequently, a high-fidelity simulatorwill be networked with other simulators over the Defense SimulationInternet to increase the numberof aviation and nonaviation players and thereby extend the scopeof the evaluation. A constructivesimulation will also be used to

15


18/56

RPA Evaluation RelationshipsVenn Diagram

Mesa, Ariz. Team-LevelPerformance Design

Moffett Field, Calif. DistributedSimulation AviationEffectiveness

Fort Hunter Liggett, Calif. Development Credibility Checkon Simulation Real-World

extend the scope further and allowa multiday battle evaluation. Finally, a live simulation (or flight test)will be conducted to evaluate theeffect of real-world stimuli and asa credibility check on the virtual (ormanned) simulations.RPA's evaluation-the structureOessons applied)

To make such a broad evaluationhappen, the RPA program has beenstructured to apply those lessonslearned in PA and D/NAPS andcountless other technology development programs. Technical issues are addressed through programstructure. The RPA program will

Figure 2

integrate the developed softwareand hardware into the simulation environment incrementally. Six software builds and two simulationenvironment builds, as well as a"sufficient time" commitment bymanagement, ensure that all developed functionality will be present,the simulation environment will bemature, and there will be sufficienttime for the final evaluation. Also,information transfer is a separatemajor contract task, which alongwith feedback from the incremental build assessments, will ensure aneffective pilot-vehicle interface.Also integral to the program structure

is the Evaluation MethodologySubgroup (EMS). This small working group of experts advises RPA'sevaluators by reviewing the evaluation methodology as it matures andby identifying both problems and,most importantly, solutions.

As well as through programstructure, methodological issues areaddressed through procedure. To beuseful, new systems, especiallycomplex ones, demand some minimum level of operator proficiency.Therefore, test subject training willbe structured to achieve high proficiency levels and will focus onunderstanding system behavior so

16 u.s Army Aviation Digest November/December 1994


19/56

that the crew can take advantage ofthe aiding provided by the system.And to ensure that the system's operational benefits are taken advantage of, realistic and doctrinallycorrect mission situations will beimplemented, which will allowRPA's benefits to be observed andmeasured and will cause realisticconsequences. Feedback from theincremental build assessments willhelp ensure that, during a simulatedmission, consequences of pilot orsystem action or inaction are not artificially negated. Additionally,RPAwill be evaluated in six missions, notjust one. CSRDF and other Government evaluation and combat development experts are workingclosely with the MDHS throughoutthe program to properly implementthe mission situations.

In the past, probably everyevaluation has run short on time.Tohelp ease the effects of this universal risk, RPA relies on two strategies: incremental builds and theirassessments and a commitment byprogram management to preserve

Notes

the planned evaluation time. Asmentioned above, these two strategies will help ensure that the evaluation time is not shortened byintegration problems and programpressures. The RPA program is alsostructured so that system functionality and the methodology tomeasure that functionality are concurrently developed and synchronized. Evaluation methodology is aseparate task paralleling the maindevelopment tasks. It uses the results of the incremental build assessments as well as communicationbetween the system designers andevaluators to ensure that themeasurement scheme is appropriate.The job of assessing the missionand warfighting effectiveness of anintelligent cockpit requires morethan just system-level performancemeasurement. RPA is structured toassess subsystem, system, and teamperformance-as well as the effectiveness of the man-machine systemas a member of the combined armsteam.

All of these will ensure properassessment of the Rotorcraft Pilot 'sAssociate: multiple assessments ofincremental builds, thoughtful andrealistic mission situation implementation, and evaluation over sixmissions by multiple organizationallevels and multiple methods.Summary

Evaluating an intelligent cockpitrequires an innovative and carefully thought-out evaluation methodology. By learning and applyinglessons from predecessor programsand infusing innovative thought,the RPA program is formulating theright methodology to evaluatetomorrow's cockpit.

Army Chief of Staff GENGordon Sullivan stresses the importance of winning the InformationWar.9 One of the most potentiallydangerous fronts in the InformationWar is in the cockpit of the combathelicopter. On this front, the intelligent cockpit of RPA will be a potent ally to the Army aviator, andArmy aviation will be an even morepotent ally to the Joint Forces.

1. George T. Singley III, Why RPA is Important Now, Inside theVision, Volume I, Number 1, p. 2. Mr. Singley is the DeputyAssistant Secretary for Research and Technology and the ChiefScientist for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army(Research , Development, and Acquisition). Inside the Vision isRPA's quarterly newsletter.

Integration Directorate, Wright Research and DevelopmentCenter, Air Force Systems Command , Wright-Patterson AirForce Base, Ohio, p. i.

2. GEN Gordon R. Sullivan and LTC James M. Dubik, LBndWarfare In the 21st Century, StrategiC Studies Institute, U.S. ArmyWar College, p. 12. GEN Sullivan is Chief of Staff of the Army. LTCDubik serves on the general's personal staff.3. Singley, p. 2.4. Bruce S. Tenney, RPA Executive Briefing Outline Script, (draft),p. 2. Mr. Tenney is the manager of the Rotorcraft Pilot's Associateprogram.5. Rotorcraft Pilot's Associate (RPA) Advanced TechnologyDemonstration (ATD) Technology Development Plan (TOP),Revision 2, 25 April 1994, p. 1.6. Thomas D. Aldern et aI., Phase I Final Report of the Pilot'sAssociate Program, report number WRDCTR-90-7007, Cockpitu.s Army Aviation Digest November/December 1994

7. Kenneth A. Wroblewski et al., Day/Nlght Adverse WeatherPilotage System (D/NAPS), USAATCOM Technical Report92-0-16, Aviation Applied Technology Directorate, ATCOM, FortEustis, Va., p. 1.8. Models and simulations are divided into three general types ,differing in realism and required resources. The lowest cost, leastrealistic is constructive, which consists of analytical tools (usuallywar games and battlefield models, such as CASTFOREM andJANUS; in the broadest sense, this type also includes other toolssuch as program management and computer-aided designtools) . Next in realism and cost is virtual, which consists ofmanned simulators in synthetic environments (such as a flighttraining simulator or the Aviation Test Bed at Fort Rucker , Ala.).Highest in cost and realism is live, which refers to real soldiersand real (or prototyped) equipment in a field exercise (such as atthe National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif.).9. Singley, p. 2.

17


20/56

50AATORELIABILITY, MAINTAINABILITY, AND MISSION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

Mr. Eugene BiroccoChief

"Where the Rubber Meets the Road"PROGRAMS/STAFF

The Reliability, Maintainability, andMission Technology (RM&MT) Division is, in fact, "where the rubber meetsthe road" in terms of Army aviation research and development (R&D) programs. It also might aptly be called thecollateral duty division because of thewide range of programs it tackles. Sincethe "One Stop Shopping Concept" ofthe U.S. Army Aviation Research, Development, and Engineering Center(AVRDEC), St. Louis, Mo., was initiated, the division has been challengedto support a diverse range of customerorder work. Projects come from theAviation Program Managers, the Weapons Systems Manager (WSM) for Aviation Ground Support Equipment(AGSE), and other services. The division also executes a wide variety of techbase, mission-funded programs. Thisarticle touches on a dozen of our current programs.

The division consists of the Reliability and Maintainability and Subsystem(R&M&S) Team and the Mission Support Equipment (MSE) Team. Eachteam is staffed with electrical, mechanical, and aerospace engineers to ensureexpertise is available for the broad rangeof programs worked within the division.Senior aviation maintenance soldiersalso work in the R&M&S Team to provide user inputs and expertise.

In addition, th e Mission Technology(MT) Team has an equipment specialist and two aviation sheet metal mechanics who have the knowledge and experience to prototype new systems andbuild mock-ups of critical componentsand assemblies. With these essential18

people-skills onboard, the RM&MTDivision has the innate capability to perform a myriad of widely diverse aviation and aviation support programs.

CUSTOMER ORDER PROGRAMSThe Flexible Engine Test System(FEDS) and the Onboard System forEvaluation of Rotors, Vibration, and Engines (OBSERVE), discussed below, aregood examples of two typical customerorder programs being worked at thistime. These programs are being performed for the AGSE WSM and theCH-47 Chinook Modernization Program, Product Manager, respectively.o Flexible Engine Test System(FEDS) (Figure 1): The FEDS programis an Army adaptation of the U.S.

Navy's NE37T-24 Turboshaft EngineTest System. It is managed and fundedby the AGSE WSM. Aviation AlliedTechnology Directorate's mission, at thedirection of the AGSE WSM, was tomanufacture two pre-production FEDSsand assemble a technical data packagefor future FEDS production.

The FEDS is capable of testing theArmy's T700, T53, T55, and T63 family of engines. It has growth potentialfor future engines such as the T800. Themultiple engine capability is a uniquefeature of the Army's configuration. Thesystem is designed to provide easy access to the engine for quick installationand repairs. Instrumentation is automatically configured by the system for eachfamily of engines. A data acquisition

Figure 1u.s. ArmyAviation Digest November/December 1994


21/56

system was added to the .PEDS to automatically record engine data, evaluateengine performance, and prompt the operator with test procedures. The preproduction units have been in operationat the Missouri Aviation Classificationand Repair Activity Depot in Springfield, Mo., since April 1992, and at theAircraft Engine Test Facility at FortCampbell, Ky., since February 1993.

The FEDS has proven to be reliable,easy to maintain, and transportable tomeet the Army's worldwide requirements. It provides the maintainer withthe test capabilities to keep Army aircraft flying for years to come.

o Onboard System fo r Evaluationof Rotors, Vibration, an d Engines(OBSERVE): This system is anonboard diagnostic and monitoring system for helicopter rotors, drive trains,and engines. OBSERVE uses a standardArmy aviation vibration a'nalyzer(AVA), which is operated from the cockpit of a CH-47D Chinook helicopter. Itmonitors inputs from rotor track andbalance, and other rotating componentsensors. The AVA, known commerciallyas the RADS-AT, currently is beingfielded within the U.S. Army as a pieceof AGSE. OBSERVE is used bymaintainers to adjust rotor track andbalance to reduce aircraft vibrations.

The system is currently under evaluation on 10 aircraft: 5 at Fort Lewis,Wash., and 5 at Fort Hood, Tex. Thistest will assess the ability of OBSERVEhardware to perform rotor track andbalance, and measure vibration of theoil cooler combiner fan, aft transmission fan, and engines. Maintenance onthese aircraft is being tracked and compared to aircraft without the system todetermine cost benefits.

BASIC RESEARCH ANDSYSTEM-SPECIFIC PROGRAMSThe Reliability and Maintenance

(R&M) Team performs both basic research and system specific programs foraircraft subsystem development andenhancements. Some of its ongoingprojects of are the Intelligent Fault Lo-cator (IFL), Smart IntegratedMicrosensors (SIMSs), the TurbineEngine Diagnostic System (TEDS), Fiber Optics Battle Damage Repair

(BDR) kits, and the Nondestructive Testand Evaluation (NDTE) Program discussed below.

o Intelligent Fault Locator (IFL)(Figure 2): The IFL is an off-aircraft,currently nonintrusive, comprehensivediagnostic expert system. It is housedin laptop computers for operation in aDOS [disk operating system] environment.

the following steps: analyzing AH-64Asubsystems, developing diagnostic information/schematics into knowledgeengineering formats, building knowledge and graphics databases, verifyingaccurate knowledge transfer, and downloading the IFL into PMAs.

The soldier/technician is led througha series of steps, schematics, wirechecks, read codes, instructions, etc., to

Figure 2This portable maintenance aid (PMA)

currently is configured for 22 AH-64AApache subsystems. It provides troubleshooting steps with appropriate schematics and diagrams; includes diagnostic information from engineers and fieldservice soldiers and civilians, as well astechnical manuals; and places all theinformation required to perform diagnostic maintenance at the aviation unitmaintenance (AVUM) level at the handsof soldiers/technicians.

The IFL is an in-house developmenteffort. Currently, it is undergoing fieldassessment at seven Army sites and hasundergone limited validation byDynCorp at Fort Rucker, Ala.

The development procedure involved

a successful diagnosis and resolution ofmaintenance problems. A problemanalysis may reveal the malfunction isnot traceable to the initially selectedsubsystem like the engine, but, in fact,is attributed to another interfacing subsystem such as the fuel system. I f so,the diagnostic logic transfers the userto that part of the IFL concerned withthose problems. Besides laptop computers, the IFL operates on the Portable Operations Maintenance Aid, Mobile Assistant, which is a head-mounted,video-voice, belt-mounted computer,hands-free device. Future developments include video, remove and replace procedures, and Apache bus electronic interface device.

U.S. ArmyAviation Digest November/December 1994 19


22/56

o Smart Integrated Microsensors(SIMSs): The current method of replacing flight-critical components with finite fatigue lives is based on operatinghours; it must assume a projected usage and take into account uncertaintiesin the actual usage by increasing theloads or modifying the starts and number-of-cycle curves or both. This provides clearly inefficient part replacement criteria. It is still possible for acomponent to see more severe usagethan originally anticipated, whichwould cause it to fail before the operating time limit has expired. It is morelikely that most components will not seethe loading originally predicted. Sincethe nature of fatigue is such that damage increases exponentially with load,these components will, therefore, be replaced long before they need to be.Many are replaced with little or no damage accumulated at all. There is no wayof inspecting for damage short of destroying the part; therefore, the partsmust be discarded. A significant amountof maintenance downtime is spent replacing these parts. Microelectronicsand new stress/strain analysis techniques make possible a microelectronics system that monitors, analyzes, anddisplays the remaining fatigue life in realtime. This provides an optimal meansof attaining good life data and maximizes the performance life of the helicopter.

The SIMS design concept provides amore accurate knowledge of the fatiguedamage than current techniques. Thisknowledge is presented to themaintainer in a clear, easy to understandread out of the real-time percentage offatigue life remaining. This concept willincrease overall system safety and reduce both parts usage and maintenancedowntime.o Thrbine Engine Diagnostic System (TEDS): The TEDS program willdevelop improved diagnostics and faultisolation techniques for the 1700 family of turboshaft engines. Its goal is toreduce the false removal rate of expensive components, minimize maintenance time, and decrease operating andsupport costs. Using data from a maintenance survey and engine testing, various concepts for improved engine di-20

agnostics will be evaluated. Conceptsto be considered include automatedmanuals with improved procedures,ground test sets, and airborne flight recorders for monitoring systems. Themost effective, cost-efficient conceptwill be prototyped and demonstrated onan engine test stand. This contract wasawarded to General Electric AircraftEngines in September 1993. The prototype demonstration will be conductedin May 1995.o Fiber Optics Battle Damage Repair (BDR): Fiber optic systems arebeing incorporated in major modifications and new aircraft such as the RAH-66 Comanche. Although fiber opticshave been used extensively in telecommunication systems over the past 10years, military aircraft fiber optic systems will require peculiar repairs because of the unique operational andmaintenance environment. An R&Dcontract was initiated to develop BDRprocedures for aircraft fiber optic systems. The optical component repair procedures program will analyze the damage modes of, and effects on, opticalcomponents (i.e., optical fibers, connectors, transducers, sources, detectors,databusses, etc.); it will develop combat damage criteria and damage inspection and repair tools/techniques for optical component repair. The damage inspection, assessment, and repair procedures and criteria developed will be incorporated into a fiber optics BDR kitand damage assessment and repairguide.o Nondestructive Test and Evaluation Program (NDTE): The NDTEprogram is developing a versatile, multimode, Army aviation, field-level, nondestructive inspection capability; it ismaking this capability as user-friendlyas possible with minimal operator training needed. With the dramatic increasein composite structures on rotorcraft,damage to composite structures in service also has increased. These complexstructural components can be fixed forward in the field. Thus, they must besubjected to nondestructive inspectionbefore repair, and again after repair,before release for flight. Detailed development of the system has been completed and incorporates these inspection

methods: ultrasonics or "pulse-echotime-of-flight," resonance, and eddycurrent. The system is being tailored tofunction in the Army maintenance environment and to reduce operator training and experience requirements. Aworking prototype has been availablefor several months. Under a follow-onphase of the program, expert systemsand artificial intelligence will be usedto improve the usability of the systemand further reduce the training and experience needed for the operator. At thecompletion of this phase, field-demonstrations will be conducted with representative user soldiers.

LOGISTIC MANAGEMENTTECHNOLOGY

The MSE Team performs basic research in logistic management technology focusing on programs that definenew logistic aircraft design and supportconcepts for improved efficiency, including battlefield reconstitution and resupply. System-specific programs areworked in the areas of common aviation ground support equipment (AGSE)and aircraft cargo handling systems.Some of the programs being worked arethe Advanced Unit Maintenance AerialRecovery Kit (A-VMARK), 30mmLoader Program, Shop EquipmentCombat Maintenance (SECM), Advanced Boresight Equipment (ABE),and Advanced Cargo Handling System(ACHS) Demonstration Program.o Advanced Unit MaintenanceAerial Recovery Kit (A-UMARK)(Figure 3): We developed the AUMARK for aerial recovery of disabledhelicopters by other helicopters. The AUMARK will replace the old AerialRecovery Kit (ARK) currently in thesystem and the Interim UMARK (1-UMARK) developed for Desert Storm.The A-UMARK is about 425 poundslighter than the ARK and 275 poundslighter than the I-UMARK. It has fewerkit components and is much more versatile and easier to use than either predecessor. The A-UMARK incorporatesa universal spreader bar for recovery ofthe OH-58D Kiowa Warrior and theAH-64D Longbow. The CH-47 Chinook also is included in the list of recoverable aircraft; it requires the use of

. U.S. ArmyAviation Digest November/December 1994


23/56

Figure 3two kits. Lightly to heavily damaged air- the fact that the Sideloader can load 330craft in any configuration may be recov- rounds of ammunition in 3 minutes cornered in multiple rigging configurations pared to 10 minutes for the currentin 15 minutes or less. The kit is con- method. During the evaluation, thetained in three ruggedized cases, each Side loader loaded more than 25,000weighing less than 100 pounds; it is or- rounds of ammunition without a failure.ganized so that only the case or cases The soldiers said the Sideloader was aneeded for a specific aircraft recovery significant improvement because it wasare used. simple to operate an d reduced

o 30mm LOADER (Figure 4): TheImproved 30mm Loader, called theSideloader, is an integral aircraft system used for loading 30mm ammunitionon the Apache. It was developed tosolve persistent problems with the current Uploader/Downloader (UL/DL)external system.

The problems arise from the locationwhere the UL/DL connects to theApache M230 gun. When the UUDLis attached to the gun, the ammunitionhandlers are forced to sit or lie on theground to work. At times it is impossible for them to load ammunition because of uneven, overgrown, soft, ormuddy ground. This location not onlyslows their performance but also creates a safety hazard since the loadingoperation cannot be seen by the pilots.

workload.The evaluation demonstrated many

advantages for the Apache battalioncommander: one-man operation, functions in any environment, improved access and safety of ammunition handler,reduced loading time by 75 percent, reduced forward rearming and refuelingpoint (FARP) turn-around time by 50percent, and eliminated the UUDL external system. A follow-on Sideloaderprogram is planned that will focus onreducing weight, enhancing components, and fabricating a second prototype.o Shop Equipment-Combat Maintenance (SECM) (Figure 5): The contact maintenance mission has been anapproved Army doctrine for manyyears. However, equipment required toperform contact maintenance does notcurrently exist for the aviation mission.The mission consists of a team of aviation mechanics, with the tools and partsrequired for a specific aircraft repair,who move to the site of a disabled aircraft as far forward as the tactical situation allows. Aircraft repairs are madethat return it either to fully mission capable or mission capable status. If thisis not possible, the aircraft will be pre-

The new Side oader design correctsthese deficiencies. The prototypeSideloader was installed on an AH-64AApache and evaluated by soldiers fromFort Campbell, Ky., in December 1993.The demonstration clearly established Figure 4

U.S. Army Aviation Digest November/December 1994 21


24/56

pared for aerial or ground recovery. Thisequipment was prototyped by thedivision's aviation sheet metal mechanics under the tutelage of our equipmentspecialist and SECM project engineer.

The program will define a self-


25/56


26/56

50AATOSAFETY AND SURVIVABILITY DIVISION

DefinitioD/FactorsHelicopter survivability, as defined byRobert Ball in his classic book on the sub-

Mr. Harold K. Reddick Jr.ChiefHelicopter Battlefield Survivabilityto reduce the vehicle' s susceptibility to being fired on and hit and its vulnerability todebilitating damage, given that it was hit.

advertised." In this situation, a UH-60 BlackHawk helicopter was impacted ballisticallyin 29 locations during the Grenada invasion,

ject, is the "capability of an air- r--------------------------------------.craft to avoid and/or withstand aman-made hostile environment."Two factors dictate survivability-susceptibility, the vehicle'sability to avoid being hit; and vulnerability, the vehicle's ability towithstand damage, given that it ishit.

Contained within each of thesetwo factors are specific technologies: signature control; activecountermeasures, and hardeningagainst ballistic, biological/chemical, and directed energy weapons;and operational considerations including mission planning, situational awareness, and tactics.

Figure I illustrates the analysistask flow for each of these factors.Aircraft Survivability FeaturesSurvivability, as we know it today, has been both threat and technology driven. During the VietnamWar, the U.S. Army employed helicopters as never before in bothtactical and non tactical situations.The helicopters initially employedhad few survivability features, notwithstanding a level of inherent ballistic hardeningaugmented over time with parasitic armorto protect crewmembers and flight criticalcomponents.

The first fielded application of infrared(IR) signature suppression for counteringheat-seeking missiles was through engineexhaust IR suppressors installed on the UH -1 Hueys and AH-l Cobras during this war.The Safety and Survivability Division developed and tested these suppressors.

As a result of the Vietnam war and futurethreat postulations, the helicopter's survivability to hostile threats became a focusedpriority. Government and industry worked24

SURVIVABILITY ANALYSIS TASK FLOW

FigurelClear evidence of this focus was in the UH -60 Black Hawk and AH-64 Apache helicopter developments that included verystrong emphasis in select survivability areas such as ballistic hardening and engineexhaust IR suppression, and resulted in excellent survivability against these threats.

The four-bladed main and tail rotors ofthese helicopters produced passive acoustical signature improvements over Vietnamera helicopters. These helicopters also contained significant technology advancementsin crashworthiness for reduced occupant fatalities and injuries, and loss in materiel.

Figure 2 illustrates testimony to this technology being implemented and "working as

including flight critical components such asthe rotor system, flight controls, and fuelcell; it was able to successfully complete itsmission. The Army's RAH-66 Comancheis designed to an extremely high level ofsurvivability against a spectrum of advancedtechnology threats.Recent Technology Developments

Figure 3 shows the divis ion's recent technology developments that contribute to theComanche's survivability effectiveness.

The division has been integral to this "survivability evolution." It has a long traditionof formulating technology programs to specific developer and user technology needs

u.s. ArmyAviation Digest November/December 1994


27/56

Figure 2SURVIVABILITY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMSTRANSITIONED TO COMANCHE

BALLISTICS RCS Ceramic Armor Detect Predictlon Code Fuel FIre Suppression Code Validation Vulnerability Analyses Ram/Rn Durability

FLIGHT SAFETY Frangible TIps wSPS

IR NBC Analytical Prediction Codes Engine Suppression

Regen Filte r Sealing Nuclear HardeningACOUSTICS CRASH WORTHINESS Measurement Pgms RPM Trend Data lightweight Crewseat Aural Detect Code Delethalized Cockpit

Figure 3and requirements, executing the programs,and assuring technology transition to specific systems.

As far as susceptibility reduction, thedivision has conducted extensive researchin rotorcraft signature control and reductionin the spectral bands of radar, infrared,acoustic, and visual.

Current and future thrusts in signaturecontrol focus on -

Figure 5 presents thecomputational fluid dynamic analysis of an advanced engine infraredsuppressor.

o Flight testing ofsurvivability enhancements to demonstrateconcept feasibility andto produce a qualitydata base for validatingprediction codes.Vulnerability Reduction Technology

The division has long

VISED OVERVIEW

Figure 4

fe- - - - .ADVANCED IR SUPPRESSOR DESIGN

o The operational durability of radar-absorbing materials and structures (RAMIRAS) to assure they are durable and maintainable in service, and retain attenuationperformance over long periodsof time; lowobservable kits are being flown today fordata gathering to address the durability issue.

been a leader in devel- ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~o High-fidelity engineering modeling and

simulation of threat systems and rotorcraftsignatures to understand the performanceof threat systems and how most effectivelyto defeat them. Figure 4 outlines a visual!electro-optic detection and analysis(VISEO) code for assess ing signature control techniques to defeat these threat types.

opment and implemen-tation of vulnerabilityreduction technology in such critical areasas helicopter hardening against ballistic,NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical),and directed energy weapon threats, andcrashworthiness and flight safety. Severalinitiatives in lightweight, low-{;ost armor toprotect the crew and flight critical compo-


Figure 5nents on the helicopter have ended in thefielding of several hundred armor kits suchas those shown in figure 6.Helicopter Crashworthiness

The division began its involvement in helicopter crashworthiness in 1955. Over the

25


28/56


29/56

50AATDMISSION EQUIPMENT AND INTEGRATION DIVISION

MISSIONThe mission of he Mission Equipment and Integration Division is toformulate and conduct exploratoryand advanced development proof

of-concept programs for subsystems; i.e., mission equipment andintegration into rotary air vehiclesystems. To accomplish otirmission,we coordinate and guide the planning and research ofmission equipment development in meeting aviation performance and aircraft interface requirements to ensure efficientand cost- effective integration ofthose subsystems into the air vehicle.By doing this, we enhance thewarfighting capabilities of currentand future systems.The mission requires extensive interface and coordination with theresearch and development (R&D)organization of U.S. Army MissileCommand (MICOM), Redstone Arsenal Command, Ala.; U.S. ArmyArmament, Munitions, and Chemical Command (AMCCOM), RockIsland, D.; and U.S. Army Communication-Electronics Command(CECOM), Fort Monmouth, N.J., aswell as the user aviation community.This interaction ensures the relevancy and system performance ofthe technology application in meeting user needs.

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENTEFFORTSThe following program descriptions are the most recent technology

Mr. John C. MacrinoChief

development efforts conducted by thed i v i s i o ~

o Integrated Air-to-Air Weapons(INTAAW) Demonstration. The objectiveof he INTAAW program wasto demonstrate a close-range1500m), defensive, air-tcraircapability using the AH-64 Apache/30mm automatic cannon as the testvehicle. Accordingly, the programwas structured to integrate andevaluate several relevant technologies developed under the aircraftweapons tech base program. Wecarry out this program in conjunction with the U.S. Army ArmamentResearch, Development, and Engineering Center (USARDEC),Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N.J.These technologies included advanced adaptive turret control algorithms developed by Integrated Systems, Inc., and active recoil attenuation developed by HR Textron.McDormell Douglas Helicopter Systems developed Air-to-Air FireControl processing architecture andintegrated all of the INTAAW components into the AH-64 test aircraft.

Tracking problems caused byautotracker limitations in Air-to-AirDynamic scenarios were originallythought to be manageable throughtest control procedures. 11tese problems prompted an additional phasein which autotracker improvementswere incorporated and evaluated.Results indicate the INTAAW program achieved its objective. Consequently, Air-to-Air Fire Control is


being transitioned into the fleetthrough the AH-64 Longbow upgrade. Furthermore, the INTAAWdata are being considered in theRAH-66 Comanche AutomaticCannon Subsystem Design. Thisprogram was conducted in close coordination with USARDEC.

o Integrated Fire andFlight Con-trol (IFFC). The marriage ofweapons control with the flight controlsystem was postulated to increase thecombat effectiveness of he rotorcrafias a weapon system. This combination also was supposed to realizethese benefits accurately. The ,pilotremains in complete control throughout the engagement, but his "flying"workload is reduced and the weaponis consistently and accurately placedon the target.

The IFFC program is a multi phasedeffort that

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	aviationspace-history-library
View:	222 times
Download:	2 times

Army Aviation Digest - Nov 1994

Documents