Looking Back, September 2025
By Mark Albertson

Part II:  Army Aviation and its, Magna Carta

December 1961, the 8^th Transportation Company (Light Helicopter) and the 57^th Transportation Company (Light Helicopter) had arrived in Vietnam.  These were followed in January by the 93^rd Transportation Company (Light Helicopter).  Two developments were  evident here:  America’s commitment to Saigon; and, the Airmobility Concept was on trial.  Only the troops to be shuttled were not going to be American, but instead, those of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam.  Meanwhile events in the United States proceeded apace . . .

. . . with American helicopters and Army aviators deployed, testing a concept without an  accepted doctrine, official Washington, it seemed, was willing to accommodate the Army.

At the same time, the Air Force was certainly not ignored by the change in regimes in the White House.  1961 saw an expansion in strategic airlift capability, including an increase in the fleet of C-130s.  Cargo versions of the KC-135 tanker, effecting the development of the C-141 cargo transport showed Air Force involvement in Flexible Response.[1]  Be that as it may, the Army was wasting no time acting on its Magna Carta.

Also in 1961, Clifton von Kann, recently named Director of Army Aviation, scheduled a briefing with Secretary McNamara on Army Aviation and the importance of tactical aerial assets for the Ground Forces.  “McNamara indicated that the briefing helped him to see Army Aviation in a new light and he requested additional paperwork.”[2]

A mover and shaker behind the scenes was Robert R. Williams, a West Point grad and a member of the Class Before One and, the first Master Aviator.  Williams had been, for all intents and purposes, a political insurgent for the founding principle of Army Aviation, the Air Observation Post.

Following the defeat of the Axis Powers, Williams was sent by the Army Air Forces to Europe, so as to canvass Air Force officers and Ground Forces commanders with regards to the Army Ground Forces retaining their organic aerial assets.  “General Hoyt S. Vandenburg for example, felt that such an arrangement would permit the Army to convert its aircraft into close support fighter-bombers and airlift aircraft; others, such as Lauris Nordstad, felt that the atomic bomb had rendered the Army essentially irrelevant.”[3]

Williams, too, was on the McNamara staff and, from the inside, helped to channel the office of the Secretary of Defense towards nodding favorably in the direction of Army Aviation.  This resulted in a pair of missives penned by the Secretary of Defense on April 19, 1962:

1)  “Memorandum for the Secretary of the Army:  Subject:  Army Aviation.”  And . . .

2)  . . . “Memorandum for Mr. Stahr.”

Both directives compelled the Secretary of the Army, Mr. Elvis J. Stahr, to proceed in the fashion outlined above.  The latter ordered the Army to take advantage of recent developments in technological advances in aviation to effect improvement in aerial tactical mobility, noting it as a “’bold new look’ at land warfare mobility,” while the former was a more general directive requiring the Army to effect positive changes in tactical mobility.[4]

This culminated, of course, in the Tactical Mobility Requirements Board, created by the United States Continental Army Command, May 3, 1962.  Total staff amounted to 199 officers, 41 enlisted and 53 civilians.[5]

Lieutenant General Hamilton H. Howze, commander of the XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, was pegged to chair what would popularly be known as the Howze Board.

Per the directive of General Herbert Powell, of the Continental Army Command, the final draft of the board’s findings was to be submitted to the Secretary of Defense by August 20 to accommodate Mr. McNamara’s deadline of September 1.  A caveat here, though, was the voluminous nature of the report, which Howze questioned.  The Department of the Army asserted that it should be able to fit neatly into an Army footlocker.  And, of course, 300 copies were required.  To fulfill such a paper chase, the printers at the Adjunct General Department stated that to produce 300 copies of the report that could fit into an Army footlocker demanded that it have the report no later than August 1, so as to accommodate the August 20 deadline.  So the window of constraint was quite obvious here.[6]

The Board consisted of a review committee, composed of 17 officers and five civilians; together with an advisory panel with two members and a secretariat.  Board secretary to General Howze was Colonel John Norton.  Within the body of the memorandum addressed personally to Secretary of the Army Stahr, were individuals named by Secretary of Defense McNamara, who would be on the review committee chaired by General Howze and/or the secretariat:  Besides Howze, Brigadier General Delk M. Oden, Brigadier General Walter B. Richardson, Colonel Robert R. Williams, the aforementioned Colonel John Norton, Colonel A.J. Rankin, Mr. Frank A. Parker, Dr. Edwin W. Paxson and Mr. Edward H. Heineman.[7]  In addition, the commanding general of The Infantry Center, the special assistant to the Chief of Staff for Special Warfare and Brigadier Edward L. Rowney of the 82^nd Airborne Division, were attached to the review committee.  The Board would be settled at Fort Bragg in a school facility set aside as the headquarters.

Much of the work associated with the Tactical Mobility Requirements Board was done by seven working committees, from May 5 to June 21, 1962, and were as follows:  Operations Research; Field Tests; Tactical Mobility; Firepower; Logistics Operations and Logistics Support; Reconnaissance; Security and Target Acquisition; and, Programs, Policy and Budget.  On the heels of which were eight working groups, June 22 through July:  Logistics Forces; Combat Force; Counterinsurgency; Strategic Area; Operations Research; Long Range; Field Tests; concluding with, Programs, Policy and Budget.

General Howze was not only President of the Board, but Chairman of the Steering and Review Committee as well.  In addition to General Howze, seven other officers and six top level civilians originally composed the Steering Review Committee.  These included Major General Ben Harrell, Major General William B. Rosson, Brigadier General John J. Lane, Brigadier General Delk M. Oden, Brigadier General Robert R. Williams, Colonel William M. Lynn, Jr., Dr. Jacob A. Stockfisch, Dr. Edwin W. Paxson, Eugene Vidal, Fred Wolcott, Frank A, Parker and Edward H. Heineman.  Mr. Parker, General Rowney and Colonel Lynn also served as chiefs of working committees.  Other senior board members (eventually added to the Steering and Review Committees) were named working committee chiefs—Major General Clifton von Kann, Major General Norman H. Vissering, Brigadier General Frederic W. Boye, Jr., and Brigadier General Walter B. Richardson.[8]

“The Air Force sent down a brigadier general to act as a monitor.  He was privileged to see all the tests and exercises and could review anyone he chose, but we did not invite him to sit with the steering committee, and all the subcommittees were privileged to exclude him.  This, in retrospect, seems regrettable, but in some sensitive areas, frank debate would have alarmed the Air Force and that admirable establishment really needed no additional agitation.”[9]

Perhaps in an effort, though, to foster better service relations, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Roswell L. Gilpatric, on May 8, 1962, that in the support of Army efforts wanted to make sure that air transport was available when requested by the Board.    Such as a squadron of C-130s “which would provide the Air Force an opportunity to sell its services and capabilities.”[10]

Howze further explains in his book that in preparation Army Intelligence was petitioned for the latest intelligence on doctrine and capabilities of the Warsaw Pact as well as the People’s Republic of China.  Weapons experts, designers and scientists were vetted for weapons types expected for the period 1963-1975, including opinion from the newly minted Combat Developments Command.  Robert R. Williams was sent with a team to Southeast Asia to assess the potential of Army Aviation in such an environment; and Army logistics experts, in accordance with civilian equivalents from a dozen aircraft companies to advise on the current capability of the Army aircraft support system and its potential.[11]    

Howze, added, that some 400 letters were posted to officers, those on active duty as well as those who had retired, for their expertise.  Another 300 letters or more were forwarded to airframe, engine, armaments and electronic firms for their input, creating in essence, a reference source of unquestioned value, as well as being a sales pitch for companies to consider Army Aviation as a viable market.[12]

“Two agencies under contract with the Army, Research Analysis Corporation (R.A.C.) and Technical Operations Incorporation (C.O.R.G.), did studies and analysis for use as requested.  Rand Corporation and Stanford Research provided several analysts and scientists for consultation and evaluation of committees at work.”[13]

Computer simulations, together with actual field work, saw Airmobility challenged through four battle models:  A Warsaw Pact attack on Western Europe; versus Chinese Communist Forces in Asia (obviously the stalemate of the Korean War was still fresh in the minds of the planners); and, the blunting of threats to Africa as well as Central and South America.  And, of course, the Army’s choice of vehicle to carry forward Airmobility . . . the helicopter.

The Howze Board released its finding on August 20, 1962.  From the viewpoint of history, a fascinating perspective arises:  The Army’s attempt to base Airmobility on the helicopter during the 1960s was not too unlike the transition in mobility from the horse to the truck and tanks, during the 1920s and 1930s.  However an important factor to appreciate here was that the United States was not the only power wrestling with mobility during that period leading up to the continuation of the 1914 conflict, sharing the stage with Germany, Britain and the Soviet Union. . .   And the living embodiment of the criteria set forth by the Howze Board . . . the 11^th Air Assault Division (Test).

* * * * *

11^th Air Assault Division (Test)

The resolution of the Tactical Mobility Requirements Board set the stage for that next step in the quest to implement Airmobility.  Lieutenant General Hamilton H. Howze urged the conversion of the 82^nd Airborne into the air assault division as projected by his committee.  He was overruled by Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, who instead authorized an expansion of Army personnel for fiscal year 1964, from 960,000 to 975,000.

McNamara’s authorization would enable the new unit to be organized from scratch.  And on January 7, 1963, orders were issued to commence the operation.  The 11^th Air Assault Division (Test) was activated at Fort Bragg, North Carolina on February 15, 1963.  In command was Brigadier General Harry W.O. Kinnard.[14]

11^th Air Assault Division (Test) had its roots in the 11^th Airborne Division.  The “Angels” were activated on February 25, 1943, seeing action in the Philippines at Leyte and Luzon.

With the cessation of hostilities, the 11^th Airborne landed in Japan as part of the postwar Army occupation of the Japanese home islands.[15]  The “Angels” were deactivated on June 30, 1958; reactivated briefly on February 1, 1963, then re-designated 11^th Air Assault Division (Test) on the 15^th.

Among those units attached to the 11^th A.A.D early on were those from the 187^th Infantry Regiment;[16] as well as the 227^th Assault Helicopter Battalion.[17]  In addition to the activation of the 11^th A.A.D, a logistics support unit was organized in the name of the 10^th Air Transport Brigade.[18]

Training focused on air assault; drilling infantrymen on the new concepts of joining combat and engaging the enemy.  Provisional supply bases of fuel and stores were made available and organized to keep pace with helicopter units on a fluid battlefield.

Hence the concept of F.A.R.P. or the Forward Arming and Re-Fueling Point.[19]

Another innovation was artillery fire support for landing zones.  This included rocket-firing helicopters to support attacks by air assault troops; bolstered, in part, by experience gleaned from Army Aviation support of Army of Republic of Vietnam (A.R.V.N.) units in Southeast Asia.[20]

In September 1963, Air Assault I exercises at Fort Stewart in Georgia, saw the Airmobility Concept put through its paces on the battalion level of operations.  The following year, October 1964, Air Assault II was conducted and by comparison, an exercise on a far grander scale.

Air Assault II sprawled across two states, the Carolinas, taking in some 4,000,000 acres.  35,000 troops were committed, with the 11^th A.A.D. squaring off against the 82^nd Airborne Division; the latter engaged in the role of an enemy conventional force as well as that of insurgent opposition.

The first of the four weeks slated for the exercise was conducted during a hurricane, “Isabel.”  Flying conditions were abysmal; a swirling vortex of wind, rain and fog, leaving many aviators peering through windscreens opaque as a bucket of mud.

Yet 120 helicopters managed to shuttle an infantry brigade 100 miles through the ire of Mother Nature.

General Kinnard summed it up thus:  Beyond what I believe to be its capabilities to perform roles normal to other divisions, I am even more impressed by what I feel is its ability to  perform in unique ways beyond the abilities of other divisions.

For example, in a low-scale war, I believe it can exert control over a much wider area and with much more speed and flexibility and much less concern for the problems of interdicted ground communications or of difficult terrain.

In higher scales of war, I see this division an unparalleled reserve or screening force capable of operating over very large frontages.

By properly picking times, places and methods, I believe it can also operate with devastating effect against the rear of the enemy.

Faced with the threat or use of nuclear weapons, I believe it can widely disperse, and yet, when required, quickly mass, even over irradiated ground, blown down forests or rubled cities, strike an enemy, then disperse again.[21]

Kinnard’s men will get a chance to showcase their training in Southeast Asia.  Up to 1965, airmobility consisted, for the most part, of Army aviators ferrying South Vietnamese troops into action against the Viet Cong.

But Hanoi was raising the ante.  With the Gulf of Tonkin incident, it was certain as sunrise that the first string American air assault troops would be coming off the bench to spell A.R.V.N.’s second eleven.

On July 1, 1965, 11^th Air Assault Division (Test) was reflagged as the 1^st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) and 27 days later, President Johnson ordered the airmobile division to Vietnam.[22]

In November, at Ia Drang, 1^st Cavalry air assault forces took their peacetime training into action against North Vietnamese Regulars, decisively defeating same in a game-changing exercise in mobility not seen since Hitler’s panzers had steamrollered Poland in 1939.

A point worthy of remark here is the freshness of American troops, most of whom went into action for the first time and versus a tough and wily opponent.  They came away with a victory, as opposed to similar initial efforts by American troops at such places as Bull Run, Kasserine and Osan with Task Force Smith.

Despite the fact there was still much to learn, the transition of peacetime development to wartime employment of airmobility seemed to be on its way.

The advent of the 11^th Air Assault Division (Test) was an important step in the evolution of airmobility.  But more than that, it was the attestation of a factor that was not only a prerequisite, but without which the efforts of folks such as Howze, Williams, Kinnard, Seneff and others would have come to naught.  And then there was that ingredient that made this stew palatable, that everyone was basically on the same page—from Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to Secretary of the Army Elvis Stahr, to General Hamilton Howze to General Harry Kinnard and so on down the food chain.  Minus this continuity, victory at Ia Drang would not have been possible.

* * * * *

Appendix[23]

Memorandum from Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara:

The Secretary of Defense

Washington

April 19, 1962

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

SUBJECT:  Army Aviation (U)

This is in response to your two November 1, 1961, memoranda which discussed Army Aviation and presented the Army’s proposed procurement program.

These studies greatly enhanced my understanding of what the Army is seeking to achieve through its organic aviation.  However, the quantitative procurement programs fall considerably short of providing, in the near future, modern aircraft to fill the stated requirements.  While it appears to me that the Army can and should turn increasingly to aviation to improve its tactical mobility, your memoranda do not give a clear picture regarding either the optimum mix of aircraft types or the absolute total numbers that will be required.

Attached is an analysis of your studies made by my office. I would like your comments on this analysis with particular emphasis on the proposed increased buy of Army aircraft for 1964 and on the position that your predicted requirements in this area through 1970 are too low.  These comments should be submitted by 15 May 1962.

Furthermore, I would like the army to completely re-examine its quantitative and qualitative requirements for aviation.  This re-examination should consist of an extensive program of analyses, exercises and field tests to evaluate revolutionary new concepts of tactical mobility and to recommend action to give the Army the maximum attainable mobility in the combat area.  It appears to me that air vehicles, operating in the environment of the ground soldier but freed from the restrictions imposed by the earth’s surface, may offer the opportunity to acquire quantum increases in mobility, provided technology, doctrine, and organization potentials can be fully exploited.  I believe further that these mobility increases can be acquired without increased funding by reducing less effective surface transportation systems concurrently.  The Army’s re-examination should therefore give special attention to the following:

(1)  To what extent can aviation be substituted for conventional military surface systems of vehicles, roads, bridging, engineer troops, theater supply and hospital complexes, etc?

(2)  Should newer concepts of VTOL or STOL fixed-wing-aircraft be substituted for helicopters, as a means of avoiding some of the high procurement and operating costs of helicopters?

(3)  May we use heavy tactical lift. Combined with new techniques in air dropping and possibly better airlift construction and repair capability, to provide part of the logistic support for ground operations?  There should be considered the possibility that Air Force lift may be available, after the first thirty or so days of a strategic lift, to augment Army tactical lift capabilities.

(4)  What qualitative requirements can be defined for immediately developable V/STOL air vehicles optimized for such purposes as surveillance, target acquisition, weapons platforms, command posts, communications centers, or troop and cargo carriers of significantly heavier loads?

(5)  What organizations and operational concepts are required to exploit the potential increases in mobility?  Consideration should be given to completely airmobile infantry, anti-tank, reconnaissance, and artillery units.

(6)  What other concepts and ideas, as well as major limitations, bear on this subject?  We should seriously consider fresh, new concepts, and give unorthodox ideas a hearing.

The results of the study should be presented in terms of cost-effectiveness and transport-effectiveness factors.  The study should involve the full use of field tests and exercises to test new concepts of mobility.

In addition, the use of operations analysts in planning, observing, recording data, and analyzing results for the field test program appears to me to be essential to the effective accomplishment of the entire re-examination.

As a first step in your re-examination of Army aviation requirements, I would like by 15 May 1962 an outline of how you plan to conduct the re-examination program.  The re-examination should be completed and your recommendations submitted by 1 September 1962.

/s/ Robert S. McNamara”

* * * * *

The Secretary of Defense

Washington

April 19, 1962

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. STAHR:

I have not been satisfied with Army program submissions for tactical mobility.  I do not believe the Army has fully explored the opportunities offered by aeronautical technology for making a revolutionary break with traditional surface mobility means.  Air vehicles operating close to, but above, the ground appear to me to offer the possibility of a quantum increase in effectiveness.  I think that every possibility in this area should be exploited.

We have found that air transportation is cheaper than rail or ship transportation even in peacetime.  The urgency of war time operations makes air transportation even more important.  By exploiting aeronautical potential, we should be able to achieve a major increase in effectiveness while spending on airmobility systems no more than we have been spending on spheres oriented for ground transportation.

I therefore believe that the Army’s re-examination of its aviation requirements should be a bold “new look” at land warfare mobility.  It should be conducted in an atmosphere divorced from traditional viewpoints and past policies.  The only objective the actual task force should be given is that of acquiring the maximum attainable mobility within alternative funding levels and technology.  This necessitates a readiness to substitute airmobility systems for transitional ground systems wherever analysis shows the substitution to improve our capabilities or effectiveness.  It also requires that bold, new ideas which the task force may recommend be protected from veto or dilution by conservative staff review.

In order to ensure the success of the re-examination I am requesting in my official memorandum, I urge you to give its implementation your close personal attention.  More specifically, I suggest that you establish a managing group of selected individuals to direct the review and keep you advised of its progress.  If you choose to appoint such a committee, I suggest the following individuals be considered as appropriate for service thereon:  Lt. Gen. Hamilton H. Howze, Brig. Gen. Delk M. Oden, Brig. Gen. Walter B. Richardson, Col. Robert R. Williams, Col. John Norton, Col. A.J. Rankin, Mr. Frank A. Parker, Dr. Edwin W. Paxson and Mr. Edward H. Heinemann.

Existing Army activities such as Fort Rucker, STAG (Strategic and Tactics Analysis Group, Washington, D.C.), and C.D.E.C. (Combat Operations Development Experimental Center, Ft. Ord), and, C.O.R.G. (Combat Operations Research Group, Ft. Monroe), combined with the troops units and military study headquarters of CONARC, and in cooperation with Air Force troop carrier elements, appear to provide the required capabilities to conduct the analyses, field tests and exercises, provided their efforts are properly directed.

The studies already made by the Army of airmobile divisions and their subordinate airmobile units, of airmobile reconnaissance regiments, and of aerial artillery indicate the type of doctrinal concepts which could be evolved, although there has been no action to carry these concepts into effect.  Parallel studies are also needed to provide air vehicles of improved capabilities and to eliminate ground-surface equipment and forces whose duplicate but less effective capabilities can no longer be justified economically.  Improved V/STOL air vehicles, and as short range prime movers of heavy loads up to 40 or 50 tons.

I shall be disappointed if the Army’s re-examination merely produces logistics-oriented recommendations to procure more of the same, rather than a plan for implementing fresh and perhaps unorthodox concepts which will give us a significant increase in mobility.

/s/ Robert S. McNamara

     

Endnotes

[1]  See page 12, “The 1962 Howze Board and Army Combat Developments,” by J.A. Stockfisch.

[2]  See page 110, Chapter 5, “The Dynamics of Insurgency,” The Army Gets an Air Force, by Frederic A. Bergerson.

[3]  See pages 99 and 100, Frederic A. Bergerson.

[4]  To read both memorandums by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, see pages 39-42, “The Howze Board and Army Combat Developments,” by J.A. Stockfisch.  Or, the reader may shortcut his or her search time by referring to the Appendix at the conclusion of this article.

[5]  See page 15, J.A. Stockfisch.

[6]  See page 237, 19, “The Howze Board,” A Cavalryman’s Story, by Hamilton H. Howze.

[7]  See paragraph 4, page 1, “Memorandum for Mr. Stahr,” April 19, 1962.

[8]  See page 21, Chapter 1, “The Growth of the Airmobile Concept, “ Vietnam Studies:  Airmobility 1961-1971, by Lieutenant General John J. Tolson.

[9]  See page 239, Hamilton H. Howze.

[10]  See page 21, Lieutenant General John J. Tolson.

[11]  See page 239, Hamilton H. Howze.

[12]  See page 240, Hamilton H. Howze.

[13]  See page 240, Hamilton H. Howze.

[14]  General Kinnard was among those of the 101^st Airborne Division who were encircled by General Baron Hasso  von Manteuffel’s Fifth Panzer Army at Bastogne.  He is popularly known to have urged General Anthony McAuliffe to respond to German entreaties for surrender with the most eloquent yet steadfast rejection of “Nuts!”  See page 193, Part Three, 2, “Nuts!” Battle:  The Story of the Bulge, by John Toland.

[15]  See page 551, U.S. Army in World War II, Special Studies:  “30 August:  JAPAN—Occupation of Japan in force is begun by U.S. forces, 11^th AB Dn is flown to Atsugi Airfield and 4^th Marines, 6th Mar Div lands at Yokosuka Naval Base.”

[16] The “Rakkasans” were attached to the 11^th Airborne Division in World War II, and, were the first Allied troops to set foot in Japan on August 30, 1945.

[17] According to Major Thomas I. McMurray and Major Larry E. Scoggins in the “History of the 227^th for Year of 1965,” on February 11, 1963, the 31^st Transportation Company (Light Helicopter) was re-designated and activated as Company B, 227^th Assault Helicopter Battalion, and brought to the battalion its twenty-two CH-34 helicopters.”  See page 2, McMurray and Scoggins.  “On February 15, 1963, Company A, 227^th Assault Helicopter Battalion was activated as the second of the battalion’s units.  Company A was designated the aerial weapons armed escort company:  Their UH-1Bs and armaments systems arriving in late April 1963.”  See page 2, McMurray and Scoggins.

[18]  The 10^th Air Transport Brigade was not organic to the 11^th AAD; rather, a unit of logistics support.

[19]  See page 20, Forward Arming and Refueling Points for Mechanized Infantry and Armor Units, Chapter 2, “Review of Literature,” by Captain Jerrold M. Reeves, Jr., U.S.A.  “The Vietnam War and its heavy reliance on helicopters led to the F.A.R.E. (Forward Area Refueling Equipment) study and caused the research and development of Forward Area Refueling Equipment.  The F.A.R.E. not only provided the equipment for the Forward Area Refueling Point for helicopters, but also for ground equipment.”

 “The culmination for the original plan of action was the development of the Forward Arming and Refueling Point Doctrine explained in FM 1-104, Forward Arming and Refueling Points, published in 1985.”  See page 3, Captain Jerrold M. Reeves, Jr., U.S.A.

[20]  The use of rocket-firing UH-1s in support of air assault units at landing zones was much like the Luftwaffe’s employment of the Junkers Ju-87 dive bomber to support panzer units at the point of the Wehrmacht’s armored thrusts.

[21]  General Kinnard’s affirmation, then, coincides with the following practitioners of regular and irregular warfare:  “When the situation is serious, the guerrillas must move with the fluidity of water and the ease of blowing wind.  Their tactics must deceive, tempt and confuse the enemy.  They must lead the enemy to believe that they will attack him from the east and north, and they must then strike him from the west and south.  Guerrilla initiative is expressed in dispersion, concentration and the alert shifting of forces.”  See pages 103 and 104, On Guerrilla Warfare, by Mao Tse-tung, translated by Brigadier Samuel B. Griffith, U.S.M.C., (Ret.).   And . . .

. . . “Therefore, with the development of our forces, guerrilla warfare changed into a mobile warfare—a form of mobile warfare still strongly marked by guerrilla warfare—which would afterwards become the essential form of operations on the main front, the northern front.  In this process of development of guerrilla warfare and of accentuation of the mobile warfare, our people’s army consistently grew and passed from the stage of combats involving a section or company, to fairly large-scale campaigns bringing into action several divisions.”  See page 24, III. “The Fundamental Problems of Our War of Liberation,” People’s War, People’s Army, by Vo Nguyen Giap.

[22]  See page 16, Lieutenant General Harold G. Moore, (Ret.) and Joseph L. Galloway. We Were Soldiers once . . . And Young.

[23}  See pages 39-42, J.A. Stockfisch.

Bibliography

Adamczyk, Richard D. and MacGregor, Morris J., editors, United States Army in World War II, Reader’s Guide, CMH Pub 11-9, Center of Military History, United States Army, Washington, D.C., 1992.

Bergerson, Frederic A., The Army Gets an Air Force:  Tactics of Insurgent Bureaucratic Politics, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1980.

Carland, John M., “How We Get There:  Air Assault and the Emergence of the 1^st Air Cavalry Division (Airmobile), 1950-1965,” The Land Warfare Papers, No. 42, The Institute of Land Warfare, Association of the United States Army, Arlington, Virginia, May 2003.

Graves, Major Thomas C., United States Army, Transforming the Force:  The 11^th Air Assault Division (Test) from 1963-1965, School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 1999.

Howze, Hamilton H., A Cavalryman’s Story:  Memoirs of a Twentieth-Century General, Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington and London, 1996.

Mao Tse-tung, On Guerrilla Warfare, Praeger Publishers, Inc., New York, NY., 1961.  Translated and Introduction by Brigadier General Samuel B Griffith, U.S.M.C., (Ret.).

McMurray, Major Thomas J. and Scoggins, Major Lary E., “Company A, 227^th Helicopter Battalion, 1^st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), from History of the 227^th Aviation Battalion, July 1, 1965-31 December 1965. a227ahb.org/History227th1965.html

Moore, Lieutenant General Harold G. and Galloway, Joseph L., We Were Soldiers Once . . . And Young:  Ia Drang—the Battle That Changed the War in Vietnam, The Random House Publishing Group, New York, 1992.

Olinger, Mark A., “Conceptual Underpinnings of the Air Assault Concept:  The Hogaboom, Rogers and Howze Boards,” The Land Warfare Papers, No. 60W, The Institute of Land Warfare, Association of the United States Army, Arlington, Virginia, December 2006.

Reeves, Captain Jerrold, Forward Arming and Refueling Points for Mechanized Infantry and Armor Units, AD-A272 826, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 1993.

Stockfisch, J.A., “The 1962 Howze Board and Army Combat Developments,” RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, 1994.

“The Airmobile Division,” D.A. Pam 360-216, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., 30 November 1965.

Toland, John, Bulge:  The Story of the Bulge, Random House, Inc., New York, 1959.

Tolson, Lieutenant General John J., Vietnam Studies:  Airmobility 1961-1971, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., 1989.

Vo Nguyen Giap, People’s War, People’s Army:  The Viet Cong Insurrection Manual for Underdeveloped Countries, Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., New York, NY., 1962.

Weber, Colonel William (Ret.), “Unit History of the 187^th,” www.thedropzone.org/units/187history.html

Story by Lt. Col. Cain Claxton

POZNAN, Poland – V Corps and Poland’s 1st Aviation Brigade conducted their third Polish Apache Initiative Summit Aug. 27-29 at Poland’s Air Force Training Center near Ustka, Poland, and Drawsko Combat Training Center near Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland.

Since 2024, Poland and U.S. Army aviators have worked together to establish Poland’s Apache aviation program through a series of meetings called Polish Apache Initiative Summits. After Poland signed a procurement deal for 96 Apaches in 2024, the 12th Combat Aviation Brigade saw an opportunity to help Poland accelerate the integration of the new capability when the helicopters are delivered in 2028.

“The Polish Apache Initiative provides the Polish Army with training events and leader engagements that will successfully integrate the AH-64 Apache helicopter into their military structure,” said U.S. Army Maj. Matthew Conner, director of aviation at V Corps Forward headquarters at Camp Kosciusko, Poland.

The summit this week involved two live-fire exercises followed by discussion between members of the U.S. and Poland Apache aviation communities.

At Ustka Range, V Corp’s 12th Combat Aviation Brigade successfully fired two Spike missiles from a AH-64Ev6 Apache Guardian helicopter, marking the first time the missile system has been tested in Europe. Spike is a non-line of sight missile system capable of engaging targets over 30 kilometers away. It can be mounted on multiple ground, marine and aviation platforms.

Observers from several countries, including senior military representatives and defense officials, witnessed the successful operational integration firsthand. For Poland’s 1st Aviation Brigade, the demonstration highlighted what possibilities are in the future for its Apaches.

The SPIKE NLOS missile’s successful integration on the AH-64E Apache emphasizes the system’s capability to meet evolving mission needs, particularly in maritime and beyond-line-of-sight scenarios. The event underscored the growing strategic cooperation between the United States and Poland, further enhancing collective deterrence capabilities along NATO’s eastern flank.

This joint campaign not only demonstrates current operational effectiveness but also highlights the potential future direction for integration of SPIKE NLOS missiles onto Poland’s own AH-64E Apache fleet, enhancing national and regional defense capabilities.

Meanwhile, at Drawsko Combat Training Center, Poland’s 12th Mechanized Division integrated Apache air support from the U.S. Army’s 1st Armored Division Combat Aviation Brigade. The air-ground integration live-fire exercise demonstrated tactical capability and readiness between two NATO Allies, Conner said.

“The (air-ground integration live-fire exercise) provided a live-demonstration of the utilization of the AH-64D Apache helicopter supporting a ground unit in a defensive operation,” Conner said. “In addition to the AH-64D demonstration, a tactical forward arming and refueling point will also be implemented that will display expeditionary arming and refueling in a combined arms fight.”

Afterward, Polish and American Apache aviators met at DCTC and Utska ranges to discuss the live-fire exercises and other topics related to Poland’s Apache program.

Story by Leslie Herlick

FORT RUCKER, Ala. — In a bold move to modernize battlefield capabilities and close critical training gaps, the U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence (AVCOE) has launched its inaugural Unmanned Advanced Lethality Course (UALC) at Fort Rucker. Designed to rapidly train soldiers on the lethal employment of small UAS (SUAS), including First Person View (FPV) drone operations. The course lays the foundation for standardized UAS employment across warfighting functions, redefining how small UAS platforms are used in reconnaissance, fires, and maneuver operations.

Maj. Wolf Amacker, the chief of the AVCOE Directorate of Training and Doctrine UAS and Tactics Branch, is one of many personnel at AVCOE who played a key role in developing the course.

“This is the first time the Army has done this in a TRADOC setting, coordinating between three difference COEs,” Amacker said. “We’re helping to train the most people, the quickest, on FPV systems that are having a real impact on the battlefield.

Capt. Rachel Martin, the course director, was tasked with building the program from scratch just 90 days ago. With a background as an intelligence officer in an attack helicopter battalion and an air cavalry squadron, air cavalry troop commander, and Gray Eagle company commander during a 2023 deployment, Martin brought deep operational experience to the challenge.

The three-week course begins in the classroom, where students use commercial off-the-shelf drones and simulation software to develop FPV flight skills. After 20 to 25 hours of simulator time, identified as the proficiency threshold through interviews with allied forces, students transition to live flight exercises at the Military Operations on Urban Terrain (MOUT) site.

Instruction also includes fire support integration, with Fires Center personnel teaching students how to adjust fire using drone video feeds in the Call for Fire Trainer.

“An 11B [infantryman], 13F [fire support specialist] out there with a SUAS calling for fire and adjusting based on drone video is a relevant skill for the current and future battlefield,” Amacker said. “This may be the first time our students are introduced and trained to do that.”
This training not only enhances lethality but also demonstrates how small UAS platforms can support traditional fire missions in dynamic environments.

The course currently hosts 28 students from across the Army, including infantry soldiers, cavalry scouts, 15W and 15E aviation personnel, and warrant officers from the 150U career field. Participants were selected based on rank and certification as SUAS master trainers, and Transformation in Contact Units. Cadre from the 2-13th and 1-145th Aviation Regiments at Fort Rucker, along with additional aviation personnel, are supporting instruction.

Observers from the Maneuver and Fires Centers of Excellence are evaluating the course for potential adaptation, providing feedback and implementation. The goal is to empower operational units to create their own basic qualification programs while Fort Rucker evolves into the hub for advanced UAS training.

“Aviation becomes that central integrator,” Amacker said. “We’re helping all the warfighting functions and branches get into this space. Maneuver and Fires care about how SUAS helps them engage targets and keep their operators alive, while we also care about how sustainment and MI use small UAS to fulfill their responsibilities.”

The course is designed as both a resident program and eventually a mobile training package (MTP). The accompanying Training Support Package (TSP) will allow units a way to conduct basic FPV training independently, while Fort Rucker will host advanced iterations focused on munitions, diverse UAS platforms, and tactical employment.

“Right now, we’re doing basic things,” Amacker said, highlighting that this is the pilot course, emphasizing the tasks and academics being taught are what units out in the force are struggling with right now.

Students also learn to manufacture and repair drone components using 3D printing. Instruction covers resin, filament, and carbon fiber printers, CAD software, and STL files. The course aims to build a centralized repository of print files for students to take back to their units.

“Eventually, we want students to build and test their own FPV bodies,” Amacker said. “We’re teaching and learning from the force on what’s possible and how to sustain these systems in the field.

The long-term vision for the course aligns with Fort Rucker’s broader innovation goals. Martin hopes to integrate the program with the post’s emerging innovation lab, creating a collaborative hub for data sharing and tactical experimentation.

“This course is a catch-up,” Martin said. “We’re behind globally, and this is our aggressive attempt to close that gap.”

The course also collects performance data on five different drone systems, tracking variables such as crash rates, environmental resilience, and operational effectiveness. This data will inform future procurement and training decisions across the Army.

Designed to evolve with battlefield needs, the UALC will adapt its curriculum as new technologies and tactics emerge, ensuring soldiers remain at the forefront of unmanned systems employment.
“This is constantly changing,” Amacker said. “We’re building something that can grow with the force.”

Martin emphasized the challenges of launching a drone training program from scratch.

“Most of my peers, including myself until 90 days ago, didn’t know how to do this,” she said. “Now we know what it takes, how many people, how much equipment, how much money, and we are sharing this information already with our partners out in the force.”

The pilot iteration is already producing results. Soldiers are eager to learn, and many report a lack of resources and expertise at their home units. The hope is that graduates will return to their formations equipped to train others and establish sustainable programs.

Ultimately, the course aims to empower soldiers to return to their units as trainers and innovators. Many participants are self-taught hobbyists or informal experts. This program, however, provides structure, certification, and a pathway to build unit-level drone programs.

Future iterations will expand into advanced tactics, including one-way attacks using purpose-built FPV drones. By February, Martin envisions students employing low-cost systems to prosecute targets with precision, an ambitious leap toward integrating UAS as a lethal, scalable weapon system.

“We’re creating operators who are not only lethal but also survivable. sUAS operators are the most sought-after high pay-off target on the battlefield right now,” Martin said. “I am very aware that my team has been entrusted with developing solutions for a critical need in emerging Army tactics.”

SFC Jeremy Charm, a 15W UAS Operator with the AVCOE Directorate of Evaluations and Standardization and primary flight instructor for the UALC said, “Teaching our students to know under what circumstance to use these systems to achieve commander’s intent and how to tactically employ them and survive post engagement is our ultimate goal.”

As the Army continues to modernize its approach to warfare, the UAS Lethality Course at Fort Rucker stands as a bold step toward integrating unmanned systems across all domains, and empowering soldiers with the tools and training to dominate the modern battlefield.

Story by Cheryl Marino

As the battlefield evolves, so must the aircraft that support and protect Soldiers on the ground. The Army’s Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) aims to do just that—ushering in a new era of speed, range and adaptability. Backed by cutting-edge digital engineering, FLRAA isn’t just a new rotorcraft, it’s a leap forward in how the Army plans, flies and fights in tomorrow’s conflicts.

“It’s a game-changing capability in terms of speed and range,” said Col. Jeffrey Poquette, FLRAA project manager at Program Executive Office (PEO) for Aviation. He characterized the next-generation tiltrotor assault aircraft (designed by Bell Textron) as “twice as far, twice as fast” at the annual Association of the U.S. Army Global Force Symposium, held in Huntsville, Alabama, in March 2025. The implementation of digital engineering will be “a digital engineering pathfinder for the Army,” serving as a model for how digital engineering can be adopted and implemented by the Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition enterprise to improve efficiency, reduce costs and accelerate the development and test of capabilities. The challenge, he said, is that this is new territory, but the level of insight that the government gets into the design is unprecedented and “what we get from that is ensuring that we build the right thing.”

Gone are the days of building something, setting it aside and forgetting it. Digital engineering allows the Army to leverage the power of technology to create a design digitally and determine the impact of changes to that design prior to bending metal.

“Digital engineering isn’t magic,” said Poquette. “It’s just a really deep look in a common environment where we have a single source of truth. We never don’t know what the design is today. I can take my phone out right now and look at the design and see where we are … that’s powerful.”

Poquette said when prototypes are built and tested, often things are found that have to be fixed. Some of those fixes could be big, some could be expensive, and they inevitably will extend the timeline of the acquisition because the test program gets much longer.

“I’m not even going to say that digital engineering is faster upfront. It’s an investment in time. It’s an investment in intellectual capital. But when we build the prototypes we’re going to be so confident that anything we need to fix should be small, should not be expensive, and that we can quickly fix those prototypes, continue on with the test program and get the capability into Soldiers’ hands as soon as possible,” Poquette stated. “Together [with industry] collaboratively, we’re going to build the aircraft that meets the Army’s requirements and is truly going to change the nature of the assault aviation platform.”

FLRAA COMES TO FRUITION
The science and technology (S&T) effort behind FLRAA began in 2013 as the Joint Multi-Role Tech Demonstrator program, which was aimed at proving out a platform that could fly twice as far, twice as fast and be sized appropriately for the Army. As the S&T effort transitioned to an acquisition program, the question became how to approach the program differently and succeed.

“We went and looked at published lessons learned from various programs, not just Army, but across the DOD. We identified a theme that [the] lack of upfront systems engineering attributed to increased cost and schedule on many programs,” explained Michelle Gilbert, technical management division chief at PEO for Aviation FLRAA Project Management Office (PMO). She and her team were then tasked with developing a strategy that would ensure rigorous upfront systems engineering while supporting an accelerated program schedule beyond historical timelines. “That’s what initiated the development of our digital engineering strategy. We found that if we did some upfront investment in digital engineering, it would give us some of the tools that we needed to help support those two objectives.”

Initially, a technology demonstrator (constructed as a proof of concept) was built to demonstrate “twice as far, twice as fast” capabilities, but it was not fully compliant with all requirements. The FLRAA program is currently executing a detailed design to ensure that the FLRAA system meets all requirements (survivability, sustainability, integrated mission systems, etc.).

As part of the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase, Gilbert said, Bell Textron will build six prototype aircraft, as well as two “limited user” test aircraft—the prototypes will be used to verify that the system meets performance and airworthiness requirements and to validate operational effectiveness, suitability, safety and survivability. There are also virtual prototypes, which are like aircraft simulators that accommodate a pilot and co-pilot, with surrounding screens that emulate the view and behavior of the system itself. These virtual prototypes are used to help inform the design as well as the development of operator tactics, training and procedures.

THE DAWN OF NEW DIGITAL
Digital engineering enhances FLRAA missions by enabling faster, smarter and safer operations. This includes the use of model-based systems engineering tools like Cameo—a collaborative environment for defining, tracking and visualizing all aspects of a system through models and diagrams. Additionally, 3D models support design, manufacturing and assembly processes, streamlining development from concept to execution.

Gilbert explained that FLRAA is using model-based systems engineering to create the digital models of the systems architecture and requirements, merging them into a digital twin that defines the system, demonstrates its behavior and predicts performance. “[This is] establishing a digital thread which captures the relationship between system and program data. The digital thread provides the PMO, stakeholders and Bell [Textron] with a better understanding of the system. We are also utilizing a collaborative digital environment to enable near real-time access to this data.”

The performance models are used to emulate and simulate the performance of the FLRAA aircraft to understand the behavior and tweak flight control laws (modifications to the flight control system’s algorithms, which govern how pilot inputs translate into aircraft control surface movements).

“We can also use it to help ensure that from a user interface standpoint everything is correct and suitable before we go and actually build the system, [and] we’re doing all of this digitally,” she explained. “We have a lot of digital models that represent our system that have allowed us to reduce the risk before we go and bend metal on our prototypes.”

The digital engineering strategy, Gilbert noted, is incremental. She and her team are currently focused on using digital engineering to design and document the system during development. As the program progresses, these efforts will expand into testing, eventually incorporating sensor data from the aircraft and linking it to various enterprise sustainment tools. For now, the priority remains on building a solid digital foundation before moving into test and evaluation.

“Using our digital environment to link test data together with the system design of the aircraft can help make the verification process more efficient. It can help correlate information together, where before there wasn’t a linkage between information, and provide easier access to all supporting program data,” Gilbert said. “For our stakeholders who are trying to qualify our system, that’s very helpful. And then our digital engineering efforts will expand beyond that to support sustainment. Conceptually, every single aircraft in the field could have its own digital representation.”

Gilbert noted that one outcome they’ve already encountered from using the digital tools is that it forces both Bell and the U.S. government “to have a deeper understanding of the system and how onboard systems interact with each other.”

Additionally, the digital tools have enabled the team to create linkages to all of the data. Before this, Gilbert explained, “we were dealing with siloed pieces of information, so you weren’t able to make those correlations. By utilizing these tools, we’re finding things like architecture concerns that we may not have found before, just because now it’s all connected and it’s easier for us to consume and assess if the design meets our objectives.”

Crews also benefit from immersive virtual training, accelerating readiness for unfamiliar or high-risk scenarios. This makes FLRAA more agile, reliable and adaptable to the demands of future battlefields.

“We have a virtual reality [VR] capability that’s here in our office and it’s updated regularly to reflect the system under design,” Gilbert said. “We have monitors set up; we have the VR headsets. It doesn’t take a lot of infrastructure and that capability is there for us to utilize whenever we want it. This is truly a revolutionary capability that informs engineers or logisticians and any stakeholders who need to understand the system better.”

During system design, acquisition engineers may not fully grasp design specifics, such as how the hydraulic system will fit into the system, Gilbert said. “It doesn’t exist yet in physical form, but we are able to go in, put on a virtual reality headset and they can see exactly where it is in the current design. Our engineers or maintainers can look at it and say, ‘I’m never going to be able to maintain that system with the way it is now.’ We’re able to catch things like that earlier and influence a design change.”

GETTING THE MOSA FOR YOUR MONEY
While digital engineering provides the tools to design, simulate and evolve systems faster, a Modular Open Systems Approach, or MOSA, ensures those systems are built in a way that allows rapid, flexible upgrades.

According to Gilbert, the MOSA is an approach to achieving certain objectives, not just through open standards but by following specific design processes to ensure the architecture supports those goals. She and her team developed an architecture framework to guide how the system should be built and analyzed to confirm it meets MOSA objectives. Examples are enabling third-party upgrades without full reliance on the prime contractor or rapidly fielding a capability update with minimal delay. The framework defines these expectations and the prime is required to comply.

“The other thing that we’re doing is we put in a requirement for an infrastructure on our aircraft that we call the digital backbone. The digital backbone is the onboard network that’s responsible for all data exchanges between different components. Any component integrated on the system must follow the defined open standards,” she said. “And what that does is it allows for easier integration by not having to update multiple systems on the aircraft when upgrading a capability.” This concept is similar to the MOSA plug-and-play concept.

MOSA offers a modular and scalable solution for aircraft upgrades, eliminating the integration complexities associated with legacy systems. This approach significantly reduces downtime and modification work by enabling the rapid installation and interchangeability of components.

“For FLRAA, we ensure we have robust processes and requirements in place to design and analyze our architecture and the onboard digital backbone. This, coupled with a robust intellectual property strategy that ensures the right level of data rights are acquired by the PMO, summarizes the FLRAA open systems approach,” she explained. “To ensure that, we do have an open architecture on our platform.”

This, she said, will make it easier and more affordable to upgrade and sustain, with the ability to do some of that sustainment on the government side or with third parties. Because of how the system is architected, there’s less reliance on the prime contractor, which can help with sustainment costs.

SOLDIER TESTING AND TIMELINES
Soldier testing and feedback are crucial when implementing new digital technology to ensure it meets real-world operational needs. Direct input from end users helps identify usability issues, improve functionality and ensure the technology enhances mission effectiveness and Soldier readiness.

For the FLRAA program, there are two ways of achieving Soldier feedback. One is through special user evaluations, or Soldier touch points, using mockups of the aircraft to ensure optimal seat configurations and whether users can egress and ingress from the aircraft safely, etc. A user evaluation in spring 2025 observed how Soldiers conduct mission planning on the system, which will impact the software requirements for mission planning.

Another Soldier touch point is through virtual prototype simulation.

“We’re using the virtual prototype to help us get user feedback that can either support changing the user interfaces, our flight control laws, etc.,” Gilbert said. “We’re planning on using the virtual prototypes as part of special user evaluations all the way through our development stage. This will support iterative user feedback through development until we have physical aircraft prototypes.”

CONCLUSION
The FLRAA program has come a long way since April 2024, when FLRAA took a hybrid approach with a preliminary design using a middle tier of acquisition pathway and developed virtual prototypes. In July 2024, at Milestone B, it transitioned to a major capability acquisition program and program of record.

“We’re going to be focused on the detailed design in the near term, but our acquisition strategy is such that we don’t wait to complete our detailed design before we begin building our prototypes. We deliberately did that when we set up our acquisition strategy so that once a subsystem reaches the appropriate level of maturity, it can immediately move into build and assembly,” Gilbert said. “Even though the design and supporting analysis may not be fully documented, we can begin building those subsystems with an informed level of risk. This helps support schedule objectives while maintaining rigor.”

Currently, the Army is scheduled to begin equipping the first Army unit in fiscal year 2030 and completing the first unit equipped in fiscal year 2031. “Our current focus is on getting the design right, which is crucial for successfully prototyping and future production,” Gilbert said. “We are building and testing prototypes to make a production decision by Milestone C, which is currently scheduled in 2028.”

“It [development] takes a few years, especially on an aviation platform because there’s a lot we have to do from an airworthiness perspective to ensure it’s safe,” Gilbert said. “We have a lot that we have to do before a Soldier can begin operating the system. That’s why using things like the virtual prototype and other things like mockups are so important to us—because it’s a way of getting them in early while we’re still proving out the airworthiness of the aircraft itself.”

For more information, go to https://www.army.mil/PEOAviation.

CHERYL MARINO provides contract support to the U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, as a writer and editor for Army AL&T magazine and TMGL, LLC. Before USAASC, she served as a technical report editor at the Combat Capabilities Development Command Center at Picatinny Arsenal for five years. She holds a B.A. in communications from Seton Hall University and has more than 25 years of writing and editing experience in both the government and private sectors.

Story by Maj. Ryan Finnegan

A HH60M Blackhawk medical evacuation helicopter of the Montana Army National Guard’s 1-189th General Support Aviation Battalion rescued three hikers from the Princess Lake area of the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness on August 17, safely transporting them to receive medical attention.

After getting a mission request for Guard assistance early Sunday morning, the aircraft departed from the Billings Army Limited Aviation Support Facility at 7:50 a.m. The hikers, suffering from hypothermia and illness, were recovered and transported to Columbus to receive further medical care. The helicopter returned to Billings by 9:20 a.m.

The crew onboard the aircraft included pilots Chief Warrant Officer 3 Zach Lundgren and Chief Warrant Officer 2 Cameron Olson, hoist operator Sgt. Sydney Stephenson, hoist rider Sgt. Justin Asher and flight medic Sgt. Patrick Northrup. Billings Fire Department Paramedic Rob Gersbach provided additional on-board medical support.

“The entirety of the rescue operation was executed seamlessly due to the dedication and level of expertise of all personnel involved,” said Northrup. “It reflects a tremendous amount of credit and pride to not only the Montana National Guard, but also the flight crews of the 1-189th and Billings Fire Department.”

This rescue marks the 5th search and rescue mission performed by Montana Army National Guard helicopters stationed in Billings this year. Since the facility in Billings began operations in January 2023, rescues have included a hunter stranded on an island in the Yellowstone River in December 2023 and a hiker who suffered a heart attack and was rescued near Albino Lake in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness in July 2024.

Story by Cameron Porter

POWIDZ, Poland – Poland’s 33rd Army Prepositioned Stocks Battalion (33rd APS Bn.) at the Powidz Army Prepositioned Stocks-2 (APS-2) worksite in Poland received some valuable training on Supply and Support Activity (SSA) operations and Global Combat Support System-Army (GCSS-Army) from a small team of U.S. Army automated logistics specialists from the Combat Aviation Brigade, 1st Armored Division (1st AD CAB), recently.

Invited to the APS-2 worksite by the commander of Army Field Support Battalion-Poland (AFSBn-Poland), the 1st AD CAB Soldiers spent a couple of days with their Polish counterparts in August explaining the systems and processes used when receiving deliveries of supplies and Class 9 repair parts, said Chief Warrant Officer 2 Stephen Valentine, 1st AD CAB SSA accountable officer.

“The main focus was training them on systems and processes and GCSS-Army familiarization,” Valentine said. “The Polish service members at the APS-2 site are using the system, now. Only a few of them currently have access, but they do use the GCSS-Army system under the supervision of Army civilians.”

GCSS-Army is a web-based automated logistics system of record that focuses on property book actions and supply and logistics management operations. It serves as the Army’s property accountability and financial system of record and can manage large volumes of transactions, providing current item location updates while interfacing with the General Funds Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) for financial data tracking and feedback.

Valentine said before he and his team came out to the Powidz APS-2 worksite, he spoke with the AFSBn-Poland commander, who has mission command of the site, and the site’s accountable officer to get a clear understanding of what the training should focus on. From there, Valentine and his platoon sergeant, Staff Sgt. Javon Hines, provided that information to his team who conducted the training.

“It was train the trainer, within my team,” said Valentine. “I provided them with all the information they needed along with my guidance. The Soldiers then conducted the training, and my platoon sergeant and I provided oversight. They did a really good job.”

Valentine said the Polish service members from the 33rd APS Bn. were very receptive. The ones who spoke English well acted as translators and “were able to walk the other guys through the training as we were teaching it.”

“We would show them the process and let them go through it a couple of times to get their reps in,” said Valentine, who added that he had never visited an APS worksite before and was thoroughly impressed with the Powidz site and the team there.

The Powidz APS-2 worksite encompasses 650,000 square feet of humidity-controlled warehouse space, plus a vehicle maintenance facility and various supporting structures and houses an entire modernized armored brigade combat team’s worth of APS-2 tactical vehicles and equipment sets.

AFSBn-Poland operates under the 405th Army Field Support Brigade, which oversees four battalions in Europe. The Powidz site is one of six APS-2 worksites across the continent, with others located in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy.

The 405th AFSB’s APS-2 program alleviates many of the deployment requirements typically associated with sending major combat units to Europe from the U.S. By providing turn-key power projection APS-2 packages ready to employ at a moment’s notice, the 405th AFSB’s APS-2 program is a key component of U.S. Army Europe and Africa’s power projection, warfighter readiness and logistics support missions.

The 405th AFSB is the premier logistics integrator and synchronizer for U.S. European Command, enabling readiness solutions to ‘Support the Warrior’ by operationalizing U.S. Army Materiel Command capabilities and delivering readiness within the U.S. Army Europe and Africa areas of responsibility at the point of need.

The 405th AFSB is assigned to U.S. Army Sustainment Command and provides materiel enterprise support to U.S. forces throughout Europe and Africa – providing theater sustainment logistics; synchronizing acquisition, logistics and technology; and leveraging U.S. Army Materiel Command’s materiel enterprise to support joint forces. For more information on the 405th AFSB, visit the official website at www.afsbeurope.army.mil and the official Facebook site at www.facebook.com/405thAFSB.

Story by Nicholas Janeway

The U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command held a memorial ceremony to honor 27 of its team members who passed away during the year.

Maj. Gen. Lori Robinson, AMCOM commander, hosted the annual ceremony on Aug. 5 in the Bob Jones Auditorium on Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.

Those honored worked for AMCOM G-3/5, AMCOM G-8, Letterkenny Army Depot, Corpus Christi Army Depot, Aviation Logistics Center, AMCOM Combined Logistics Command and the U.S. Army Test, Measurement and Diagnostics Equipment Activity.

Robinson thanked family members, friends and coworkers who attended to honor their loved ones.
“I think one of the most important things you can give to show how much you care is your time,” she said. “I appreciate everyone for being here today.”

During the ceremony, friends and coworkers shared stories about how each honored employee impacted their lives and how much they would be missed.

“They were supervisors and leaders within the organization, and all were dedicated to the Soldiers and warfighters on whom AMCOM remains focused on a daily basis,” Robinson said. “But as much as we appreciated their professional attributes, we appreciated having each one as a teammate and a friend.”

Robinson said photos of the employees honored during the ceremony would be added to the “AMCOM Remembers” display wall outside the Bob Jones Auditorium.

“It is our vow today that their service to AMCOM, to the Army and to our nation will never be forgotten,” she said.

Employees honored at this year’s memorial:

AMCOM G-3/5:

• Alex Brock

AMCOM G-8:

• Avina Birt
• Jeffrey Jenkins

AMCOM Combined Logistics Command:

• Amy Rodriquez
• Cory Tipton

Letterkenny Army Depot:

• Paul Gottfried
• Michael W. Kline

Corpus Christi Army Depot:

• Jerry Garza
• Esequiel Ochoa
• Thomas Sutherland
• Michael Barrera Torres
• Stanley Vela
• Jack Worthington

U.S. Army Test, Measurement and Diagnostics Equipment Activity:

• Robert Mozeleski
• Othel Winslett

Aviation Logistics Center:

• Bradley Bullard
• Yolanda Dean
• Adan Fuentes
• Matthew Gallegos
• Jeff Haulk
• Joe Kilpatrick
• Gavin Mills
• Adra Pedro
• Diane Pineda
• Jean Schmittle
• Ricky Stevens
• Karen Tann

Video of the ceremony: https://www.dvidshub.net/video/972770/amcom-memorial-ceremony

Story by Staff Sgt. Hannah Tarkelly

MORRISVILLE, N.C. – U.S. Army Col. Daniel McAuliffe assumed command of the 449th Combat Aviation Brigade in place of U.S. Army Col. Benny Collins during the change of command ceremony at the 449th Combat Aviation Brigade Armory, Aug. 2nd, 2025.

“As I passed the brigade colors today, I did so with immense pride, humility, and gratitude,” Collins said.

During his time as the brigade commander, Collins exhibited remarkable leadership and an unwavering devotion to the Soldiers under his command. Collins remained steadfast and led the way as the 449th Hurricanes responded to calls for service amidst natural disasters here in the Tar Heel state.

With the passing of the guidon, McAuliffe assumed command of 5 battalions with almost 850 Guardsmen and more than 130 aircraft.

“The 449th Combat Aviation Brigade has a proud history and a vital mission for both the Nation and the state of North Carolina,” McAuliffe said. “I am incredibly proud to re-join your ranks and serve as your commander.”

McAuliffe’s military career began in 1995 when he graduated from the U.S. Military Academy and went on to graduate from Army flight training a year later. During his time in the military, McAuliffe has taken on various leadership roles and been awarded a plethora of medals to include the Bronze Star Medal for his meritorious service.

McAuliffe’s extensive experience and dedication to his fellow Guardsmen displayed a confident readiness to lead the Hurricanes.

“I am confident that we, as a team, are ready to answer the call and accomplish our mission when our Nation or the citizens of North Carolina need us to respond,” McAuliffe said.

Things are moving quickly in Army Aviation and your AAAA team is doing everything we can to support the Branch and the Army in the Chief of Staff Army’s new guidance on “Continuous Transformation.” From our event themes to the magazine editorial focus, membership outreach, and the Army Aviation Congressional Caucus, AAAA is strongly endorsing and supporting this vision.

You will notice in the just released agenda for the annual Cribbins Futures Forum, November 17-20, 2025 in Huntsville, AL, that the focus is totally on the Concept Driven Transformation phase of Continuous Transformation. We will work on specific subjects like Air Space Management, Drones/Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Artificial Intelligence, Accelerated Acquisition, Sustainment on the Contested Battlefield, Launched Effects and Mission Planning. Our intent is to spur intellectual debate on each topic so that we better understand future challenges and the best way for our branch to meet those challenges.

The actual shape of the event has changed as well to best capture feedback and input from Soldiers and Industry. Specifically, members of the Army Aviation General Officer Steering Committee (GOSC) will present a problem set in their specific mission area during their morning general session presentations.

Then, during the afternoon session, in the embedded exhibit hall theater, we will have sequential “Open Mic” sessions for one hour each addressing each problem set managed by a senior “facilitator” to elicit thoughts from the audience.

Following those discussions, each facilitator will summarize the comments, best practices and suggestions from Industry and Soldiers, and on the last day of the event, will back-brief the Army Aviation GOSC in an open session, in the same exhibit hall theater, on the potential solutions to their problem sets that were presented during their introductory briefings.

The objective is to present solutions from a broad spectrum of the Aviation Enterprise; the actual folks working on the flightlines, workshop floor, contracting officers, as well as Industry and others seeking to contribute to the Concept Driven Transformation phase of Continuous Transformation. This will posture Army Aviation to not only meet the emerging threats but provide leapfrog capabilities to maintain our nation ‘s dominance across all domains.

Our National Executive Group, led by AAAA Treasurer, MG (Ret.) Todd Royar, has seized the initiative in developing the path ahead for AAAA’s support to the Branch. Summarized, this initiative is designed to focus Cribbins on the future which is captured in Concept Driven Transformation, and the Summit more on current capabilities as we continue to transform.

I want you to know that your NEG is totally engaged and in synch with the Army Aviation GOSC as we support their initiatives to achieve the CSA’s vision to keep the U.S. Army at the leading edge of technologies, capabilities and tactics to fight and win in any potential scenario.

Be part of the process and register now for Cribbins at www.quad-a.org/25Cribbins.

Above the Best!

MG Wally Golden, U.S. Army Retired
37th President, AAAA
Wally.golden@quad-a.org

I am excited and honored to have been elected as your new AAAA National President at our annual Mission Solutions Summit in Nashville back in May. I’m also excited to share some insights with you in this, my first installment of  “The Cockpit.”

First, let me thank our outgoing President, and my friend, MG (Ret.) Walt Davis, who led AAAA so well during the last two years, establishing a cohesive team of your National Executive Group (NEG), including BG (Ret.) Tim Edens, now our Senior VP, and MG Todd Royar, our new Treasurer. It has been an honor to serve with and for Walt. I pledge to build on his many successes and work every day to represent you all, as we work through these times of change and challenge.

Congratulations to our new NEG Secretary, BG (Ret.) Ray Davis, along with our new VP Chapters, COL (Ret.) John Broam and new VP Membership, COL (Ret.) Liz Martin. My heartfelt thanks to Jan Drabczuk and Becki Chambers for their long and distinguished service to AAAA as the previous VPs for Chapters and Membership. I’m also proud to announce that MG (Ret.) Laura Yeager, former 40th Infantry Division Commanding General, has accepted a National Executive Board (NEB) Member-at-Large Position and will replace Ray Davis as Chairperson of our AAAA Army National Guard and US Army Reserve Committee.

Your AAAA NEG has been busy since the Summit in May. I was honored to attend the Grizzly Chapter Ball in June at Clovis, CA. What a great event! My thanks go out to Chapter President, Shiloh Briggs, and his entire team for their warm welcome and hospitality. Their event epitomized the AAAA pillars of networking and recognition as they provided a venue for camaraderie and fellowship while awarding many outstanding individual members and units during their event. I thoroughly enjoyed the evening and look forward to visiting many other chapters during my tenure as president.

A couple of weeks after the AAAA Summit our new National Executive Group (NEG) met for three days at the AAAA National Headquarters in Connecticut to coordinate our efforts to best serve you. We reviewed everything from our almost finalized Strategic Plan, to sponsoring UAS drone centric events, and reshaping our major events, all to make sure that AAAA is future-focused and relevant to you, the Branch, and the Army for decades to come.

If my years in uniform taught me anything, it is that change is inevitable, and that Army Aviation and our Nation always come out better, stronger and more capable in the process. All of us at AAAA are moving out smartly to better serve you in all of our four pillars of Networking, Recognition, Voice and Support as we embrace unmanned systems, autonomy, counter drone and all the realities of the emerging battlefield as we prepare for future conflict.

I guarantee that the AAAA will be there for you to provide the venues, platforms and opportunities for the entire community to come together to achieve these objectives.

The future of the U.S. Army and Army Aviation looks exciting for sure! Your AAAA leadership team looks forward to being a supporting change agent as we all continue to Support the U.S. Army Soldier and Family!

Above the Best!

MG Wally Golden, U.S. Army Retired
37th President, AAAA
Wally.golden@quad-a.org