ARMY AL&T
Maturation of Army Aviation Technology
By the 1970s, military aircraft were morphing into flying sensor platforms; making large amounts of electronic equipment work together was the new challenge. Integrating the steady stream of improved instruments, radios, radar, fuel systems, engine controls, and radio navigation aids brought the term “avi- onics” to the military lexicon.
Post-Vietnam Army aviation faced threats from the Cold War and North Korea. While mission planning remained largely unchanged from a technical standpoint, aviation mission equipment began to mature significantly. Aircraft radios began to “go secure” as electronic encryption, electronic countermeasures, and transponders became commonplace on all Army rotary-wing aircraft. Aircrews were taught how to fill the secure radio with a variety of keying devices. In-air coordination relied on voice communi- cation; passing of information was done by aircrews trained in use of the brevity codes and Signal Operating Instruction authentication techniques.
The fielding of the UH-60A Black Hawk and AH-64A Apache during the 1980s brought giant technological steps forward, including UHF radios with have-quick (anti-jam) capabili- ties. Battalions were streamlined into leaner organizations with smaller company units. Aviation Intermediate Maintenance units stood up to provide back-shop support that was not organic to the smaller battalions. Along with the Apache and Black Hawk, the first truly digitized aviation platform, the OH-58D (later renamed the Kiowa Warrior) Scout Helicopter, was coming online. The Kiowa Warrior’s ability to pre- cisely locate distant targets and digitally conduct call-for-fire missions was some- thing new to Army aviation.
The introduction of the Single Channel Ground to Air Radio System in the early 1990s ushered in more sophisticated FM communications, including the ability to frequency hop and transmit securely. The widespread use of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology for navigation in the late 1990s led the Army to integrate GPS capability into
FIGURE 1. AVIATION MISSION EQUIPMENT Improving Aircraft Performance through Avionics Acquisition
Special UH-60 CH-47 UAS AH-64 OH-58D
Operations Aviation
The fielding of the UH-60A Black Hawk and AH- 64A Apache during the 1980s brought giant tech- nological steps forward. Here, an Apache AH-64 helicopter conducts a mission in Iraq in April 2007. (U.S. Army photo.)
new systems and to configure GPS updates to many legacy platforms. The 1990s also saw the first-generation Aviation Mission Planning System (AMPS), which allowed aircrews to plan routes digitally on a dedicated computer system and transfer that information to an aircraft via a data transfer cartridge. The AMPS repre- sented a huge capability leap in mission planning, which previously was done with pencil, plotter, maps, and acetate.
Interoperability Efforts The 21st century has seen the interop- erability of Army aviation systems improve dramatically in the first decade. Emerging from the vision of then-Army Chief of Staff GEN Gordon R. Sullivan in 1994, today’s complex battlefields integrate elements from all branches of service with civil ele- ments and require interoperability never dreamed of during the Vietnam conflict.
HF ATCS DGNS CXP EGI JPALS
JTRS AMF
HF:
ATCS: DGNS: CXP:
High Frequency Aviation Tactical Communication System Doppler Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation System Common Transponder
21 OCTOBER –DECEMBER 2010 EGI: JPALS: JTRS AMF:
Embedded GPS Inertial Navigation Joint Precision Approach and Landing System Joint Tactical Radio System Airborne Maritime Fixed
Interoperability was formally defined by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ADM Michael Mullen in December 2008 as “the ability of systems, units, or forces to provide data, information, materiel, and service to and accept the same from other systems, units, or forces and to use … them to operate effectively together. Information technology and National Security System interoperability includes both the technical exchange of information and the operational
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
