Page:Airmobility 1961-1971.pdf/25
competition to develop a new helicopter, selecting at least two designs for full development, and competitive tests. The selected design would begin production in Fiscal Year 1964 and eventually phase out the existing observation aircraft, the L-19, H-13, and H-23. In the surveillance field, the Rogers Board believed that more testing on sensory devices, data link, and intelligence processing were necessary before military characteristics could be prepared for a penetration surveillance aircraft. Pending these studies, the Board recommended a new aircraft be developed with an operational target date by 1970. In the area of transport aircraft, the Board determined that more specifics were needed on exact requirements for Army airlift to support contingency plans and a program was needed to provide a vertical or short-take-off-and-landing long-range replacement for the Chinook and Caribou in the early 1970's.
Two other recommendations were made by the Board which are not generally well-known. The Board recommended the establishment of a policy to replace each model of aircraft at least every ten years or sooner if warranted by operational requirements or technological advances. It also recommended that Department of the Army and Continental Army Command prepare an in depth study to determine whether the concept of air fighting units was practical and if an experimental unit should be activated to test its feasibility.
On 19 March 1960 the Army Chief of Staff approved the Rogers Board recommendations with implementation for planning purposes and assigned various staff agencies primary responsibility to carry out these recommendations. Regarding air fighting units, he charged Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations with the responsibility for preparing recommendations in this area.
The importance of the Rogers Board has been somewhat obscured by the later Howze Board and tests of the 11th Air Assault Division. However, it was a remarkable milestone in Army airmobility. It set forward a chain of actions which had a profound effect on later concepts.
With historical hindsight, it is apparent that the scope of the 1960 Rogers Board review was limited. It obviously did not constitute a major advance in tactical mobility for the Army. But in comparison with the advances made during the 1950's, the Board's objectives, if obtained, would have represented a substantial gain in mobility through the use of aviation. The Rogers Board provided essential aviation guidance for development, procurement, and personnel planning.