The United States Army has begun studying whether to include other nations in its fledgling Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program, a former defense official said Jan. 30.
“That’s being looked at” as part of the program’s overall review of options, or analysis of alternatives (AoA), said Frank Kenlon, former acting director of international cooperation in the Department of Defense acquisition office. The AoA is expected to pave the way for developing a family of next-generation helicopters.
Kenlon, now a professor of international acquisition at Defense Acquisition University at Fort Belvoir, Va., said he learned about the status of potential international participation during a recent meeting with Army representatives.
“The Army staff members that we talked to plan to engage prospective partners and buyers as part of the AoA process to see what the FVL might look like in the future as it goes through development and production,” he said during a panel discussion on international joint development at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.
Australia is among the countries being considered for involvement. Whether to pursue international cooperation will ultimately be decided by Army and DoD acquisition officials, “but the staff work has to be done” now to inform that decision, Kenlon said.
A new CSIS report says that international joint development programs can improve interoperability, economies of scale or relationships with allies. But it cautions that such programs tend to be more complex than single-nation acquisition programs and that the risks must be known and carefully managed.
Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at the Teal Group, expressed doubt that foreign countries will be able to afford the fast aircraft that the FVL program envisions.
“International cooperation is basically a non-starter, unless the cost premium associated with high-speed vertical flight is drastically lower than expected,” Aboulafia told sister publication Defense Daily. “Few countries are willing to pay this large premium. I have my doubts about the U.S. military’s willingness to pay this premium, too.” The exact amount of the cost premium is unclear, “which, of course, is a huge warning sign,” Aboulafia added.