Comanche IPT Says Helicopter Nowhere Near Ready For DAB Review

The restructured RAH-66 Comanche program is far from ready to be presented to the Defense Acquisition Board for approval as many details remain unresolved, a recent review determined.

According to the Comanche Overarching Integrated Product Team, which is chaired by Glenn Lamartin, director of strategic and tactical systems within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Army must complete nearly a dozen tasks before it can take Comanche to the DAB. The service recently restructured the program for the sixth time, much to the consternation of OSD and many in Congress.

The Army is trying to keep a low profile regarding Comanche's troubles until the DAB assesses the program. According to sources, service leadership has decided only to discuss Comanche's operational capabilities and benefits in public. The details and status of the restructure, particularly cost, schedule and the results of the June Army Systems Acquisition Review Council evaluation are to be avoided. Many have questioned whether the ASARC should have blessed the new program baseline given that key data -- notably an independent assessment by the Cost and Economic Analysis Center -- were missing.

At a July 11 aviation conference, top Army brass appeared to follow this public relations formula, promoting what Comanche would bring to the fight and how it would enhance the capabilities of the Objective Force. During a press conference following the symposium, however, Maj. Gen. John Curran, chief of the Aviation Center and Schoolhouse, and Maj. Gen. Joseph Bergantz, program executive officer for aviation, declined to answer questions on program details and multiple reviews of the restructure ordered by the Army and OSD.

According to the OIPT, which met June 28, the Army's Comanche plan has many gaps. The service so far has not provided an adequate vision for the Objective Force nor explained how Comanche supports that vision in terms of schedule, requirements and acquisition objectives, sources said. Specifically, a tie to networked fires and Objective Force maneuver requirements must be demonstrated.

The Army also must identify, with help from the Joint Staff, "time-phased" alternatives to certain requirements that would reduce risk and, if possible, accelerate fielding to warfighting units. The OIPT concluded that alternative program blueprints must be crafted and the service should consider: deferring some activities from Block I to Block II; adding subsequent blocks to the program and spreading out program tasks amongst them; adjusting the time and scope of low-rate initial production to moderate risk; and reducing concurrency between the research and development and production phases, which would also lower risk, through changes to developmental and test activity.

Additionally, the OIPT wants to see "a comprehensive and executable plan" for: controlling the helicopter's weight; developing and integrating the engine, including potential upgrades; completing the RAH-66's complex software; and setting maintenance and support processes.

Results from multiple studies of the Comanche program must be presented before the effort goes before the DAB, as well. The OIPT wants to see the conclusions of an OSD study of Comanche and alternatives mandated by the Defense Planning Guidance and the findings of the most recent "graybeard panel" commissioned by the Army. The OSD Cost Analysis Improvement Group has yet to complete its review of the new baseline and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council must validate the aircraft's key performance parameters. These latter items are not expected until late August or early September, according to sources.

Without all of this material, the OIPT will not recommend that Comanche proceed to the DAB, sources said. The OIPT will meet again when everything is completed to determine whether Comanche is ready for the DOD-level review. Army Acquisition Executive Claude Bolton had pressed for a DAB session in June. However, sources say the DAB will not occur before September, at the earliest.

What the hell is the deal with this program? I'm pretty sure I recall reading about the Commanche back in 84-85 when I had just ETS'd. They've been working on this for what, eighteen years?

Side-note- what have you heard about the Longbow program? Eric Umansky (lefty journalist) had some blurb in Mother Jones re: AH64 missing some performance requirements,(climb rate, hover height) but being fielded anyway.

Thoughts?

Eric Umansky (lefty journalist) had some blurb in Mother Jones re: AH64 missing some performance requirements,(climb rate, hover height) but being fielded anyway

Pure B.S. The AH-64D's are all outfitted with the newer and better performing GE 701C engines. Hover height is more of an equation of ambient conditions (PA/DA/wind speed and direction with relation to the aircraft heading) and gross weight of the aircraft. Bottom line: the AH-64D has all the power it needs to maintain a steady hover Out of Ground Effect (OGE), carrying a standard weapons load, for all but the most severe conditions.

Just my two cents, but I think these programs are taking a new direction due to the changing face of modern warfare.

The JSF and the F-22 are looking more and more irrelevant thanks to the success of UAVs as combat aircraft. Stealth is a great thing, but China and Russia have been working overtime to come up with viable countermeasures. Today's stealth aircraft won't have the ability to dominate the battlefield in 5 to 7 years quite like they did in Iraq. With the advent of less than 100lb turbojet engines and GPS/Sat guidance, you can expect to see "flying" munitions with ranges well in excess of 1000km.

The V-22 Osprey has been under fire from the get-go. It's extreme flight dynamics make it a tough sell. Add to that the fact that its only advantage over rotary wing transport is its range and its prospects look even dimmer. Don't expect the USMC to be flying these in the future.

The Crusader...artillery, big guns, they always make me smile. Unfortunatley, the Crusader was obsolete before it came off the drawing board. Even though our military hasn't been exactly chatty about it, we field tested EMP weapons during the Gulf War. EMP weapons emit a burst of electromagnetic energy, frying anything with a circuit board in its effective range. It was an accidental discovery by our scientists during the nuclear weapons tests in the 50s. In Iraq, it worked like a charm, it not only wiped out a substantial portion of their early warning capabilities but it played monkey-hell with the Iraqi communication systems. You can be sure China and Russia noticed and aren't too far behind us in its development. When these weapons are arrayed against us, you'll see field artillery on the battlefield become the prominent weapon again, something that hasn't been the case since WWI. That artillery will be the good old fashioned 155mm type with red-legged artillery crews slamming in shells by hand and gun officers aiming the guns with a compass and a map. The Crusader relies exclusively on solid state electronics and would be turned into a really expensive picnic table in an EMP engagement. Most of the noise during its cancellation was made by politicians who stood to lose $$$ on Crusader contracts in their districts, not the forward thinkers in our armed forces.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.