Members of the nascent U.S. vertical-lift consortium, being set up at the request of the Defense Dept. to smooth the path for future rotorcraft, want more decision-making and funding specifics before committing to the initiative.

The m embers, comprising more than 80 entities —from U.S. helicopter primes and engine makers to smaller “nontraditional” contractors, research groups and academia—are expected to sign the pact set to be issued by the Defense Dept. on Jan. 22. It covers setting up an “other transactions agreement” (OTA) that sidesteps most contracting rules to fast-track awarding of research tasks, and initiates a chain of events that, some members say, becomes irrevocable .

The initiative is due to culminate by September with the proposed establishment of a partnership with industry, a newly crafted rotary development strategic plan, and science and technology (S&T) investment strategy, along with a proposal for new resources in the Fiscal 2012-17 budget cycle .

However, some vertical-lift consortium (VLC) members at the American Helicopter Society (AHS) conference in San Francisco are concerned that the initiative, as planned, could actually damage the struggling industry in the long run. AHS Executive Director Rhett Flater also sees the potential for a rift as some—particularly the major primes—indicate a willingness to sign the OTA while others, who are more reluctant to commit, may be compelled to agree for fear of being “left off the team.”

There are plenty who want to be on board, even though nobody knows all the details, he says. The initiative was crafted in response to the urgent military rotorcraft needs exposed by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as to a string of such acquisition fiascoes as the RAH-66 Comanche, Armed Reconnaissance , Presidential and Combat Search and Rescue helicopter programs.

Flater argues that the OTA, modeled on similar concepts used in the munitions and robotics industries, does not suit the needs of the more complex, well-established rotorcraft business. In addition, consortium members want to know whom they will be dealing with at the Pentagon after the imminent retirement of Tony Melita, director of land warfare and munitions and the official responsible for the future vertical-lift initiative. “His successor is unknown,” says Flater, who adds that establishing vertical lift under the land warfare and munitions group is likely bad news for the consortium. “Vertical lift will probably not be the No. 1 or even the No. 2 priority,” he observes.

Members here also expressed worry that the Pentagon has not answered key questions about additional funding to support the OTA. Just $110 million in rotary-wing vehicle S&T funds were provided in Fiscal 2009. Of that, 75% came from the Army, and despite earlier comments from Melita that the new process “ultimately will infuse additional resources that wouldn’t have been there before [thanks to] joint planning and higher confidence in execution,” some in the consortium say more recent evidence points toward declining defense budgets .

“Will funds be consolidated from existing agencies such as the Army’s Aero-flightdynamics Directorates, Advanced Technology Directorates, Aviation and Missile Research/Development/Engineering Center, Research Laboratory and the Naval Air Systems Command?” asks Flater. “If the answer is ‘yes ,’ the implications are troublesome. Today’s industry cannot replicate the vital S&T roles played by these institutions.”

Concerns are also being raised that, under the terms of the OTA, future S&T contracts need not be competed, and industry may not be allowed to appeal or protest awards. In common with current Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency practice, contract selection will also be made solely by the Defense Dept.

“Who within [the Defense Dept.] will determine which projects justify funding, and what will be the primary focus of the OTA/VLC initiative? Will it be heavy-lift or multi-role helicopter development? Or will the consortium be asked to undertake technology development and demonstration to be followed by competition for full development and production?” Flater asks.

Criticism is also leveled at the proposed make-up of the government board of directors to oversee the vertical-lift initiative, augmented by elected officials from the consortium representing different sizes of companies. Flater says “the OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] will put up one vote . . .  , which means they will be outnumbered by the nontraditionals on where the funding goes, developing the technology road map and the S&T plan. The consortium will not be able to block the vote, so what powers will it have?” Melita says this is a deliberate move to broaden the contractor representation. Commenting in November, he said, “I can’t tell them what to do, but I won’t be comfortable with a board of directors with six primes on it.”

Academic and research groups are worried the initiative poses questions about the future of the rotary-wing centers of excellence (RCOE) at Penn State University, University of Maryland and Georgia Institute of Technology, as well as the National Rotorcraft Technology Center (NRTC). Dan Schrage, a Georgia Tech engineering professor, is concerned about university personnel who helped fuel rotorcraft S&T for the past 28 years being shut out. “To sustain advanced multi-disciplinary rotary-wing research, provide competitiveness to U.S. industry and replenish an aging workforce, it is vital to restore funding to the RCOEs,” Schrage says.

Future funding for the NRTC, based at NASA Ames and formed to coordinate basic and applied rotary research as part of an agreement between the U.S. Army, Navy, NASA and FAA, is also uncertain, according to VLC members . “There’s nothing in [the OTA] that flows money down to the universities and NRTC,” says Schrage.

Image: Boeing