It was the talk of the town in Nashville.  The US Army's senior aviation leadership tried their very best at the annual Army Aviation Association of America ('Quad A') symposium and exhibition to present a united front in the face of a series of financial and capability challenges as a result of the recently announced Army Transformation Initiative (ATI). The Army has responded swiftly to the challenge laid down by the new Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, to deliver 'peace through strength'. 

"To achieve this, the United States Army must prioritize defending our homeland and deterring China in the Indo-Pacific region. Deterring war, and if required, winning on the rapidly evolving battlefield requires soldiers who are physically and mentally resilient, rigorously trained, and equipped with the best technology available."

To release the funding for the 'best technology available' requires the army to divest old equipment more rapidly than previously planned, restructure headquarters, reduce the number of Starred officers and, finally, cut programs deemed 'redundant and inefficient'.  At Quad A the language was very much along the lines of 'we were doing most of this anyway, we're just accelerating the process' and 'we're excited about the mandate to transform the force rapidly'.

While the infantry branch is reeling from the loss of the M10 Booker light tank / assault gun program (ostensibly because it's not air-droppable), the Aviation Branch is facing a reality of fewer manned helicopters and large UAVs, and, potentially, cuts in its Jet ISR program (HADES) from 12 to six airframes.  The major 'hit' on rotorcraft is the proposal to deactivate all eleven Air Cavalry Squadrons (ACS), a third of which are equipped with the AH-64D.  The Army admits that the direct cost of operating the older, legacy, AH-64D is nearly twice that of the newer, 'digital', AH-64E per flight hour and, coupled with the early retirement of the RQ-7B drone and the previous cancellation of the intended replacement ACS platform, the Future Attack and Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA), the ACS units are considered redundant.  The Army is also seeking to accelerate the divestment of the UH-60L Black Hawk in order to standardise on the UH-60M.

The cancellation of FARA has also now claimed another victim it seems.  The Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) is also in line for cancellation, or at the very least, some form of stasis.  The project, designated the T901 engine, has been a long-running effort to, initially, provide a replacement powerplant for the AH-64 and UH-60 fleets, promising significant improvements in power, fuel burn, and running costs.  With the culling of FARA and uncertainty now about the future fleet sizes of both AH-64 and UH-60, the Return on Investment for the T901 is deemed not worth continued funding at the current burn rate; the money, it seems, is better spent elsewhere.

Senior aviators were at pains to point out that nothing has been formally cancelled yet.  The proposed cuts are all going to flow up to the senior military and political leadership to better judge the totality of the proposals.  Some programs may be spared; others put on hold.  ITEP may well find itself as 'shelfware' for a few years, but something the Army might yet come back to if circumstances change.  It was noted by one Army 2* that the context could be altered in two years (likely referring to mid-term elections), four years (there will be a new President) or, more ominously, if conflict broke out.

The T901 is funded until the end of the current contract to continue the Engineering and Manufacturing Demonstration (EMD) phase.  The Army tacitly admitted that the T901 powered UH-60 demonstrator had actually achieved a hover the week before the show - an announcement that would normally receive much fanfare had to almost be extracted from the Generals.

There is, however, some 'good news' amongst the 'bonfire of the projects'. 

The Army is asking the question of Bell as to how much the freshly titled MV-75 Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) program can be accelerated.  At the moment, the first production-standard prototypes are in build, with, it seems, some significant differences to the FLRAA program-winning V-280 Valor to ease production and support costs.  Bell currently expect the MV-75 prototype to be further refined through a Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) batch for delivery in the 2028-30 timescale and used for Operational Test and Evaluation by Army crews before a formal entry to service in 2031-32.  The narrative at Quad A was that the Army is looking at bringing that entry to service forward to as soon as 2028 if at all possible and is prepared to invest some of the savings from the cuts to other capabilities to fund it.  The Army, and Industry, will have to accept the inevitable increased program costs and risk in doing so.  Both will climb as previously panned series activity will need to be overlapping, if not concurrent, to drag the timeline to the left.

Why the rush?

The clue is evident in Sec Def's statement - 'deterring China'. For the Army to offer a credible capability in the Pacific Theatre, with the vast distances between basing options, it needs the range and speed the MV-75 offers.  It's therefore no coincidence that the Army announced at Quad A that it's 'tip of the spear' unit, the 101st Airborne Division, would be the first unit to receive combat coded MV-75s, in line with the ambitious acceleration, in 2028. 

Quad A 2025 may well be seen, in hindsight, as something of a pivot.  Priorities and programs have both come under intense scrutiny, but the requirement to transition to a leaner, agile, and more innovative force was plain to see.  Opportunity or threat?  Maybe there will be some answers by the time Quad A opens its doors again next year.