New US Army helo engine lifts off, but may be headed for cancellation
But as the Improved Turbine Engine Program leaps that hurdle toward the finish line, the effort is in jeopardy as the service looks to cut large programs to make way for the pursuit of what it sees as higher priorities amid the need to cut its budget by 8% as directed by the defense secretary.
Army Vice Chief of Staff, Gen. James Mingus told reporters at the Army Aviation Association of America confab here that the service is waiting to see where it lands with the fiscal 2026 budget. Officials are trying to gauge how much flexibility the service has in the budget reconciliation process to fully understand if it can afford to pay for ITEP.
'The future of ITEP is largely going to depend on where all these things land inside the '26 budget,' Mingus said.
Currently, there is no funding planned to move the program from development into production.
Amid mixed messages on the engine's fate over the past several weeks, following the release of an Army directive outlining sweeping change to the service dubbed by the service secretary as the Army Transformation Initiative, Army aviation leaders are working on various potential paths for the engine.
Options include outright cancellation, a continuation of the development program followed by its closeout, or a decision to proceed into production.
'We have two weeks, and now there are several programs named, you know, each of them come with a set of courses of action that we have been working on to make sure that we can meet Army senior leaders' intent,' Brig. Gen. David Phillips, the Army's program executive officer for aviation, told reporters May 15 at the Army Aviation Association of America.
The ITEP program kicked off in a competition 15 years ago to replace the engines in both the UH-60 and the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter. But the engine effort has been plagued by various delays across its life as the service wrestled with funding, development strategies and a protest from the Advanced Turbine Engine Company – a Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney team, which competed against General Electric's aerospace division to build the engine for the Army.
More recently, the engine was hit with more delays due to technical issues as well as the coronavirus pandemic, which caused supply chain problems.
When GE won the contract, it touted a plan to move more quickly, but that window to accelerate closed and the Army subsequently predicted a two-year delay getting the T901 engine into the UH-60 Black Hawk, the first aircraft in the current fleet to receive the new tech.
The Army was able to garner some important data when it chose to integrate the ITEP onto two competitive prototypes for the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft. The companies in that competition – Bell and Sikorsky – had both received the engines and were installing them when the service decided to cancel the FARA program early last year.
When the service canceled the FARA pursuit, it also delayed a production decision for the ITEP engine by three years.
Sikorsky had taken advantage of fiscal 2024 FARA program funding before the Army officially closed the program at the end of the year to run tests of the ITEP in the prototype, ahead of integrating the engine into the UH-60, in order to drive down risk.
The company received the first ITEP engines for the Black Hawk last fall and began ground runs earlier this year.
'We're currently still under contract to execute the program we were for ITEP,' Rich Benton, Sikorsky's head, told Defense News in an interview at the AAAA event. 'There's still budget in 2025 to continue that work. Will there be budget in the future years or not? You know, that's up to the Army and the [congressional] appropriators,' he said.
'The budget we have today, we'll get the Black Hawk in the air,' he said in a May 14 interview. 'How much flying and how much data we get from that will be up to the Army,' Benton said.
'We're looking at a path ahead in real time on the options and the options could be finish [integration], because there's not just the aircraft integration going on, but there's also the engine qualification testing that is going on in test stands,' Phillips said. 'We've had engines in test stands now for several years gathering low altitude, high altitude, low performance, high performance data. All of that data is very rich and informing the path ahead.'
Additionally, the Army continues to have discussions with its joint partners regarding their interest in the engine and how they might integrate it onto their aircraft and a potential path forward there, according to Phillips. And foreign partners have also asked the same question about how they could potentially move forward with the ITEP engine as well.
'We're presenting all those, on how we could get Army senior leaders to meet their intent but get the most out of the dollars that we've invested in the program,' he said.
Overall, the Army has spent over an estimated $1.5 billion over the past two decades on ITEP and its precursor development. The service had spent approximately $720 million on the program by 2016. The Army's contracts to competitors in 2016 totaled $256 million and the service awarded a $517 million contract for the engineering and manufacturing development phase to GE in 2019.
What is under consideration for a different path to modernize the Black Hawk and Apache's engines, if the Army chooses to end the ITEP program prior to production, is unclear.
'If I had to decide today, hey, if that engine isn't going to be available in the future, what would I do differently? Integrate a different engine? I would quickly pivot to the engine the [Special Operations forces] flies. The SOF flies with a more powerful engine,' Benton said. 'Today it's been integrated in Black Hawk, it has been demonstrated. It is available today, so there would be commonality that would provide some more capability than I have today, [but] not as much as ITEP.'
The Army is 'always looking at new ways to provide more performance to the aircraft, whether it's making components lighter, whether it's adding more power, whether it's adding additional fuel consumption capabilities,' Phillips said, 'We always look at that and I think we'll continue to look at that regardless of the outcome.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Miami Herald
A clash over a promotion puts Hegseth at odds with his generals
WASHINGTON - In the spring, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth decided not to promote a senior Army officer who had led troops over five tours in Afghanistan and Iraq because Hegseth suspected, without evidence, that the officer had leaked sensitive information to the news media, according to three people with knowledge of the matter. When Lt. Gen. Douglas A. Sims II was cleared of the allegations, Hegseth briefly agreed to promote him, only to change course again early this month, the officials said. This time, Hegseth maintained that the senior officer was too close to Gen. Mark Milley, a former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff whom President Donald Trump has accused of disloyalty. Hegseth's sudden reversal prompted a rare intervention from Gen. Dan Caine, the current chair of the Joint Chiefs. He urged Hegseth to reconsider, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Hegseth met with Sims one final time but refused to budge. Sims is expected to retire in the coming months after 34 years in the military, officials said. Through a spokesperson, Sims and Caine declined to comment. A Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment on Hegseth's role. The standoff over his promotion reflects an ongoing clash between Hegseth's highly partisan worldview, in which he has written that the Democratic Party 'really does hate America,' and the long-standing tradition of an apolitical military that pledges an oath to the Constitution. Hegseth's actions could shape the military's top ranks for years to come. His insistence on absolute loyalty, backed with repeated threats of polygraphs, also creates uncertainty and mistrust that threaten to undermine the readiness and effectiveness of the force, officials said. The tension between top military officers and their civilian leaders has been persistent since the earliest days of Trump's second term, when senior administration officials ordered the removal of Milley's portrait from a Pentagon hallway. Caine, who pressed Hegseth on Sims' behalf, got the job of Joint Chiefs chair after Hegseth and Trump fired Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., his predecessor. Hegseth accused Brown, who is Black, of prioritizing diversity over the combat effectiveness of the force. Also removed during the first months of the new administration were the first woman to command the Navy, Adm. Lisa Franchetti; the first woman to command the Coast Guard, Adm. Linda Fagan; Hegseth's senior military assistant, Lt. Gen. Jennifer Short; and the U.S. military representative to the NATO military committee, Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield. All were dismissed as part of a campaign to root out diversity, equity and inclusion from the military and restore what Hegseth has described as a 'warrior ethos.' Hegseth also recently withdrew the nomination of Rear Adm. Michael 'Buzz' Donnelly to lead the Navy's 7th Fleet in Japan -- its largest overseas force -- amid reports in conservative media that seven years earlier the admiral had allowed a drag performance to take place on the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan. The decision not to promote Sims, who is white, seems unrelated to any issues of race or gender. Rather, the general's career seems to have become tangled up in broader suspicions about leaks and a mistrust of senior military officers that have defined much of Hegseth's first six months on the job. Hegseth, a former Fox News host and an Iraq War veteran, came to the Pentagon with little managerial experience. Since his arrival, a series of firings and resignations in his inner circle have left him with only a skeleton staff of civilian aides to run his office. He has been without a permanent chief of staff since late April. Ricky Buria, a recently retired Marine colonel who has forged a close relationship with Hegseth, has been serving in the critical role. But White House officials, who have concerns about Buria's competence and qualifications, have blocked Hegseth from formally appointing him to the job, officials said. Buria, meanwhile, has clashed repeatedly with many of Hegseth's closest aides and some officers in the Pentagon. This spring, Eric Geressy, a retired sergeant major who served with Hegseth in Iraq and now advises him in the Pentagon, threatened to quit after an argument with Buria, according to people with knowledge of the situation. Around the same time, the White House directed Hegseth to cease using polygraph tests on his team, after one of his senior aides complained, a former Pentagon official said. The rift and the decision to stop the polygraph testing were reported earlier by The Washington Post. Geressy briefly went to his home in Florida before Hegseth persuaded him to return, officials said. Hegseth is also still contending with a review by the Pentagon's inspector general related to his disclosure on the Signal messaging app of the precise timing of U.S. fighter jets' airstrikes against the Iranian-backed Houthi militia in Yemen in March. The office has received evidence that the information that Hegseth put in the commercial chat app came from a classified Central Command document, according to two U.S. officials with knowledge of the review. The classified origins of the information were reported earlier by the Post. The infighting, investigations and personnel churn have strained Hegseth's ability to manage critical operations in the Pentagon. Hegseth found himself in the crosshairs this month after Democrats and Republicans in Congress blamed him for pausing critical shipments of interceptors and other arms to Ukraine without sufficiently consulting with the White House or the State Department. The suspension was particularly jarring because just days earlier Trump had said he was open to selling more weapons to Ukraine after meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines of a NATO meeting in The Hague. It also left the impression that Hegseth and his top aides had failed to keep the president and senior White House officials in the loop. As aides to Hegseth traded blame, and then tried to play down the impact of the pause, Trump dramatically overruled the Pentagon, saying he was unhappy with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. In a further twist, Trump endorsed a plan for NATO countries to send Patriot antimissile systems to Ukraine and replace them by purchasing new arms from the United States. It was an approach conceived by NATO countries. Hegseth has delegated responsibility for working out details of the arms transfers to senior U.S. military officers in Europe. The frustration with Hegseth is seeping out. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who cast the deciding vote to confirm Hegseth, this month called him ill-suited to lead the Pentagon. 'With the passing of time, I think it's clear he's out of his depth as a manager of a large, complex organization,' Tillis told CNN. For now, Hegseth's missteps do not seem to have hurt his standing with the person who matters most: Trump. Like Trump, Hegseth had a career in television before joining the administration and relishes the performative aspects of his job. As defense secretary, he regularly posts videos that show him exercising with troops. The photo ops -- known inside the Pentagon as 'troop touches' -- are a central part of almost all his public appearances, current and former aides said. Several officials have complained that the photos and videos -- including one that he posted from Omaha Beach in Normandy in which he joins Army Rangers carrying a soldier on a stretcher as part of D-Day remembrances -- are distractions that serve primarily to bolster his image. Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said that Hegseth retained Trump's 'full confidence' and cited the 'critical role' he played 'in ensuring the flawless execution' of the strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June. Current and former military officials said that Trump largely bypassed Hegseth in the days leading up to the strikes and instead relied on Caine and Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla, the head of Central Command, for counsel. But officials with knowledge of the president's thinking said Trump especially admired his defense secretary's combative response at a news conference to reports questioning the effectiveness of the attack. Today Hegseth is managing the Pentagon with a smaller immediate staff than when he started in January. Several top aides were forced out or quit. In late April, three top aides were fired and escorted from the building. Hegseth has repeatedly accused them, without offering evidence, of leaking classified information to the media. The fired aides, who have not been charged with any wrongdoing, were recently told that an investigation into the allegations against them was in its final stages and would soon be shared with the Pentagon's senior leaders, officials said. In the wake of their dismissal and a series of negative stories about Hegseth's performance in the job, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, offered a window into how Hegseth views the department he now runs. 'This is what happens when the entire Pentagon is working against you and working against the monumental change you are trying to implement,' she said. That same spirit seems to animate the Pentagon today. Only a few months ago, Sims' promotion to four stars seemed to be a given. Of the last 21 officers to hold his current position, 19 were promoted to four-star rank. 'He's the type of person you would want your kids serving under -- extremely dedicated, selfless and loyal,' said Brynt Parmeter, who stepped down in June as the Pentagon's chief talent management officer and has known Sims for more than three decades. The Pentagon gave a more muted assessment. In a statement, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon's chief spokesperson, thanked Sims for his 'decades of service.' 'We wish him well in his future endeavors,' Parnell wrote. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
16 hours ago
Renaming of military bases stirs debate over Confederate ties
In 2023, amid a national reckoning on issues of race in America, seven Army bases' names were changed because they honored Confederate leaders. Now, those same bases are reverting back to their original names, this time with different namesakes who share Confederate surnames — the Army found other service members with the same last names to honor. The move is stirring up conversation in and outside military circles. Skeptics wonder if the true intention is to undermine efforts to move away from Confederate associations, an issue that has long split people who favor preserving an aspect of southern heritage and those who want slavery-supporting revels stripped of valor. Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, a civil rights group, said the latest renaming is a 'difference without a distinction.' The wiping away of names that were given by the Biden administration, many of which honored service members who were women or minorities, is the latest move by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to align with Trump's purging of all programs, policies, books and social media mentions of references to diversity, equity and inclusion. Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of the Army responded to emailed requests for comment. Federal law now bars the military from returning to honoring Confederates, but the move restores names know by generations of soldiers. Following the election of President Abraham Lincoln, who opposed the expansion of slavery, 11 southern states seceded from the United States to form the Confederacy, or the Confederate States of America, to preserve slavery an institution that enslaved millions of African Americans. Their secession led to the Civil War, which the Confederates ultimately lost in 1865. By restoring the old names with soldiers or figures who were not Confederates, 'they are trying to be slick," Morial said. For example, Fort Bragg in North Carolina, which was changed to Fort Liberty by the Biden administration, was the first to have its original name restored, in June. The Army found another American service member with the same last name, a World War II soldier. Hegseth signed an order restoring the name in February. 'By instead invoking the name of World War II soldier Private Roland Bragg, Secretary Hegseth has not violated the letter of the law, but he has violated its spirit,' Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., wrote in a statement opposing the defense secretary's 'cynical maneuver.' In March, Hegseth reversed the 2023 decision changing Fort Benning in Georgia to Fort Moore. The same name restoring process applied to the additional seven bases: Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Pickett and Fort Robert E. Lee in Virginia, Fort Gordon in Georgia, Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Polk in Louisiana and Fort Rucker in Alabama. Last week, Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry announced that he was restoring the name of the state's largest National Guard training site. In a social media post announcing the name, Landry wrote that in Louisiana, 'we honor courage, not cancel it.' Attached was what seemed to be an AI-generated image of a headstone with the word 'Wokeism' on it. 'Let this be a lesson that we should always give reverence to history and not be quick to so easily condemn or erase the dead, lest we and our times be judged arbitrary by future generations,' Landry wrote. Bases aren't the only military assets being renamed. In late June, Hegseth announced that the USNS Harvey Milk would be renamed after a World War II sailor who received the Medal of Honor, stripping the ship of the name of a killed gay rights activists who served during the Korean War. Morial said there are other ways to recognize unsung heroes instead of returning a base to a name that has long been associated with Confederate leaders. 'No county on Earth would name its military based after people that tried to overthrow the government,' Morial said. 'So, why are people holding on to these names?' Stacy Rosenberg, associate teaching professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College, said she is concerned with the inefficiency of renaming bases. She said the cost of changing signages across seven bases could be used for something else that might have more impact. There is no immediate cost estimate for changing all the signs at the bases. Rosenberg said it made sense to move away from Confederate heroes as namesakes but that the latest move seems like a way to appeal to Trump's political base. 'I think what we really need to consider is does whoever the base is named after have such a service record that warrants the honor of having their name associated with that base?' Rosenberg said. Angela Betancourt, a public relations strategist at Betancourt Group and a United States Air Force Reservist said the ongoing renaming of military bases is a form of branding for what each administration views the military should represent. While she understands why people are upset about military bases reverting to a name associated with the Confederacy, Betancourt said that should not take away from the new namesake's heritage and legacy. 'It doesn't mean it's not a good thing to do,' Betancourt said. 'There's certainly heroes, especially African American and diverse heroes, that should be honored. I think this is a good way to do it.'
San Francisco Chronicle
17 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Renaming of military bases stirs debate over Confederate ties
In 2023, amid a national reckoning on issues of race in America, seven Army bases' names were changed because they honored Confederate leaders. Now, those same bases are reverting back to their original names, this time with different namesakes who share Confederate surnames — the Army found other service members with the same last names to honor. The move is stirring up conversation in and outside military circles. Skeptics wonder if the true intention is to undermine efforts to move away from Confederate associations, an issue that has long split people who favor preserving an aspect of southern heritage and those who want slavery-supporting revels stripped of valor. Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, a civil rights group, said the latest renaming is a 'difference without a distinction.' The wiping away of names that were given by the Biden administration, many of which honored service members who were women or minorities, is the latest move by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to align with Trump's purging of all programs, policies, books and social media mentions of references to diversity, equity and inclusion. Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of the Army responded to emailed requests for comment. Federal law now bars the military from returning to honoring Confederates, but the move restores names know by generations of soldiers. Following the election of President Abraham Lincoln, who opposed the expansion of slavery, 11 southern states seceded from the United States to form the Confederacy, or the Confederate States of America, to preserve slavery an institution that enslaved millions of African Americans. Their secession led to the Civil War, which the Confederates ultimately lost in 1865. By restoring the old names with soldiers or figures who were not Confederates, 'they are trying to be slick," Morial said. For example, Fort Bragg in North Carolina, which was changed to Fort Liberty by the Biden administration, was the first to have its original name restored, in June. The Army found another American service member with the same last name, a World War II soldier. Hegseth signed an order restoring the name in February. 'By instead invoking the name of World War II soldier Private Roland Bragg, Secretary Hegseth has not violated the letter of the law, but he has violated its spirit,' Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., wrote in a statement opposing the defense secretary's 'cynical maneuver.' In March, Hegseth reversed the 2023 decision changing Fort Benning in Georgia to Fort Moore. The same name restoring process applied to the additional seven bases: Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Pickett and Fort Robert E. Lee in Virginia, Fort Gordon in Georgia, Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Polk in Louisiana and Fort Rucker in Alabama. Other name changes Last week, Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry announced that he was restoring the name of the state's largest National Guard training site. In a social media post announcing the name, Landry wrote that in Louisiana, 'we honor courage, not cancel it.' Attached was what seemed to be an AI-generated image of a headstone with the word 'Wokeism' on it. 'Let this be a lesson that we should always give reverence to history and not be quick to so easily condemn or erase the dead, lest we and our times be judged arbitrary by future generations,' Landry wrote. Bases aren't the only military assets being renamed. In late June, Hegseth announced that the USNS Harvey Milk would be renamed after a World War II sailor who received the Medal of Honor, stripping the ship of the name of a killed gay rights activists who served during the Korean War. Morial said there are other ways to recognize unsung heroes instead of returning a base to a name that has long been associated with Confederate leaders. 'No county on Earth would name its military based after people that tried to overthrow the government,' Morial said. 'So, why are people holding on to these names?' Stacy Rosenberg, associate teaching professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College, said she is concerned with the inefficiency of renaming bases. She said the cost of changing signages across seven bases could be used for something else that might have more impact. There is no immediate cost estimate for changing all the signs at the bases. Rosenberg said it made sense to move away from Confederate heroes as namesakes but that the latest move seems like a way to appeal to Trump's political base. 'I think what we really need to consider is does whoever the base is named after have such a service record that warrants the honor of having their name associated with that base?' Rosenberg said. Angela Betancourt, a public relations strategist at Betancourt Group and a United States Air Force Reservist said the ongoing renaming of military bases is a form of branding for what each administration views the military should represent. While she understands why people are upset about military bases reverting to a name associated with the Confederacy, Betancourt said that should not take away from the new namesake's heritage and legacy. 'It doesn't mean it's not a good thing to do,' Betancourt said. 'There's certainly heroes, especially African American and diverse heroes, that should be honored. I think this is a good way to do it.'
