Lost me here...
"No military equipment has been more pivotal for U.S. forces in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere over the last decade than rotorcraft..."
I think you could make a pretty strong argument that airborne ISR has also been pretty pivotal...but the author doesn't seem interested in defending this position, he just sorta leaves it hanging out there. I think that maybe " no more integral part of operations " might be valid...I don't think we could conceive of a ground war anymore, without the battlefield mobility that helicopters provide. However, that's nothing new. The same has been true since the Vietnam era, and despite the decried lack of innovation since, we seem to be able to do what we need.
The author goes on to make several valid points, namely, that most cutting edge R&D is dedicated to fixed wing acquisition programs. However, he seems almost purposefully ignorant of the reasons behind some of the choices we've made with statements like this:
"Our military leaders -- and the public -- should demand the same level of technology in their vertical flight assets as they do in their fighters and bombers."
The simple fact is that what drives battlefield technological innovation is the need to maintain a capabilities advantage over some adversary. An arms race if you will. We don't just do them to do them. The F-22 and F-35 programs, boondoggles that they are, are driven by the need to maintain a decisive capabilities advantage over the rapidly modernizing Chinese F-10, F-11 and SU-30 MKK type aircraft. Where is the similar threat to our battlefield capability that would dictate a technological revision of the Apache/Longbow series? Ditto with any rotorcraft in the arsenal...Sure, longer legs on the -60 might be great and a faster CSAR platform could be useful, but where is the demand signal?
Similarly, the rotorcraft industry isn't receiving a demand signal from the private sector either...the author decries a lack of government funding that precludes cost-effective innovation but lest we forget, civilians and other nations buy helicopters too...The simple fact is, the product (Comanche etc...) doesn't exist because nobody needs it.
I think the best point in the article is why we aren't funding research to combat things like brownout and general battlefield SA enhancements. These things are the reason, as the article points out, that helos experience mishaps. How about a device which detects energized power lines based on the EMF emissions? Goggle that see through dust? This is R&D with a demonstrated market and demand that will really save lives and dollars...Comanche? Please...
