Army Kills Comanche Helicopter Program

FOX NEWS ^ | Monday, February 23, 2004 | AP

[BulletBobCo]

WASHINGTON

[beelzepug]

"The whole "fixed wing belongs to the Air Force only" strategy is beyond obsolete, and needs to be changed..."

I went to Army multi-engine, fixed-wing school at Ft.Eustis, Va. in 1966. My two main combat aircraft were the CV-2 Caribou, designed by the Army, for the Army, and the OV-1 Mohawk, ditto and ditto. The Air Force then decided that transport was their department and took away the Caribou. They found out we were using the Mohawk for ground support as well as surveilance and demanded that the hard-points be removed from the wings. I might as well have not even bothered to enlist. It's all just a stupid inter-service pissing contest.

[CasearianDaoist]

Well, that is s different argument then saying the plane does not have revolutionary attributes. If they built the original flight it would cost a lot less per unit fly away cost. Also they need to break it up between competing production lines. They will not do this because they are pushing CUAVs. Also, they should do some innovative "mating" between the maufacturing "cells" in the F35 production lines and the f22 line.

I disagree with you on the cost benefit issue. All I can say is look at the B2 debacle. We should have built out the original flight, not the twenty something we built. At a bil a pop it looks like small change now. With block upgrades we would now have an extremely creditable strategic bomber forces as well as a masterful tactical force. N. Koreans perhaps would not be so foolhardy (nor China, for that matter) if we had a hundred plus of those things. Soon we will have to rebuild our bomber force and at much more cost than the B2. The same could be said for the Lancer.

While I agree that there are bad programs that should just be cut - the Crusader is just such and example - I do not believe the judgment should be on price alone.

I feel that if we cut the f22 now, or severely limit the flight - we will deeply regret it in ten to 15 years. I say built it and build it in sufficient numbers to be a creditable mainstay fighter. Let us not make the same mistake as we did with the B2.

As for the Comanche, I am not close enough to the program to know the truth. The specs were amazing so I would not be surprised to learn that it was mostly BS. If it was not BS, however, I would say go for it. I do not trust relying just on UAVs in combat. sooner or later you have to put a man on the line to get a job done. Something always goes wrong.

[rmlew]

Again, it isn't the F-22 that will guarantee our air superiority. It is our capability to identify the enemy and destroy him before he can shoot at us that guarantees our air superiority. We're talking satillites, AWACS etc.
You presume that our enemies do not have planes with similar capabilities to the E-3C. However, Israel and the EU have developed some very nice Synthetic Aperture Radar systems. The Israeli Phalcon uses an Active Phased Array Electronic Scanning Technology rather than a mechanically rotating antenna (rotodome) of the E-3. Israel uses this and has sold it (with US permission) to India.
Ericsson developed their own phased array system.
The Russians have their own system. It is not the equal of the E-3, but the newer modeels are probably significantly upgraded. China is trying to get its own program using Russian or Western technology.

Our current fighters can all see the enemy long before they can shoot it. The F-22 will be armed with the very same missile that is carried by the F-14/15/16/18
The AIM-120C AMRAAM is a wonderful system, but don't think that newer ones won't come on line. The BAE/Matra Meteor is marketed as the equal of the Amraam.
The Russians have developed their answer to the AMRAAM, the R-77 Adder.

The capabilities the F-22 brings to the table are way beyond its ability to maneuver. But those same capabilities are transferable to the F-35.
You forgot range and supercruise.

[Redbob]

"That would have to be a little ego-deflating when your grandkids ask what you accomplished in your lifetime. "Nothing, kids, nothing at all."

Join the crowd...

[bmwcyle]

[Rokke]

No argument that there are other AWACS systems and newer missiles (although any new missile that can fit in the F-22 will also fit on any of our current fighters). But our integration of the systems and the depth of our collection capability is beyond comparison.
The F-22 does have good range, but I can supercruise in a 1985 vintage F-16. No kidding.

[TADSLOS]

As for the Comanche, I am not close enough to the program to know the truth. The specs were amazing so I would not be surprised to learn that it was mostly BS.

The requirements weren't BS per se, just the design applications to meet them, and the fact that the actual airframe was to undergo developmental testing without aircraft critical mission components fielded along the way.

I do not trust relying just on UAVs in combat. sooner or later you have to put a man on the line to get a job done. Something always goes wrong.

Agreed and so does the Army. The "man in the loop" argument is as valid as ever. It just doesn't have to be from a 50M a copy "state of the art" airframe.

[buwaya]

I understood that the divisions sent north in Iraq were deliberately short of part of their organic artillery and had no corps-level artillery. This was to make them lighter and impose a smaller logistics burden. The artillery units were available, just not deployed.

[PISANO]

Too bad the Bush administration won't kill Social Security and Medicare

What a GLORIUS day that would be!!! However, our SUN will expand and comsume the entire solar system, FIRST.

[cynicom]

Lieberman says he is "outraged"..Tough, Joe.

[cynicom]

Sikorsky does not mention that they are prime contractor for "UNMANNED" helicopters.

[Temple Owl]

They should have given Weldon's daughter the P/R contract.

[68skylark]

I think that what GreyFriar was trying to say is that Army and USMC artillery is badly out of date compared to enemy artillery becuase of the short range of our systems. I don't think he was saying we need more tubes, but that we need longer range capabilities. (Please correct me if I'm making the wrong interpretation.)

I've been an artilleryman myself. For me, it's a little hard to understand why we don't simply buy some foreign designs that have the capabilities we need -- that's what our enemies are doing.

[GreyFriar]

You are correct the 3rd ID and the Marine Division were sent with only their organic artillery, which was not enough, especially when they train to fight with corps assests providing additional fire.

[ampat]

Don't know why it was cancelled, but given helo missions, they are extremely vulnerable, and easier to shoot down. That has been recently shown in Iraq. Better to use UAV's, and smart bombs. We didn't have many airplanes shot down in the latest war. The closer you get the more vulnerable you are. We have very accurate stand-off technology, so we should use it. It will save lives.

[Ronzo]

Here's the Reuters report on the cancellation:

Pentagon to Cancel Comanche Helicopter

[xrp]

You mean "They are FINALLY going into production."

[Oztrich Boy]

Which just creates two new problems: Who is going to support the aircraft? and who is going to protect it?

maybe a United States Army Air Force is needed?

[NonValueAdded]

Why is no one talking about the self-esteem impact on the Comanche Indian Nation? You got your AH-64 Apache, your OV-1 Mohawk, the AH-1 Sioux, even the OH-58 Kiowa. Kiowa? I'll bet the Comanche could kick the butt of any of those tribes but nooooo, Rummy has to go ahead and cancel their Helicopter. I think this is a terrible shame to traumatize all those little Comanche children and we need to get that program started back pronto. </humor> - in case any DU lurkers think this is a good idea.

[SICSEMPERTYRANNUS]

But as an American soldier I gotta say the Marines sure know how to get the maximum amount of press adoration -- maybe it wouldn't kill them to give a little credit to other services once in awhile.

Harry Truman once said somthing along the lines of, "the Marines have a propaganda apparatus greater than that of Stalin." As a Marine I understand why they do it. The Marines have been on the permanent chopping block of history many times. We have to do it better and let the American public know it to keep ourselves around. The late former Commandant General Alexander Vandergrift and his staff had to fight like hell after WWII to get the Marine Corps permanent status, parity within the DON and a seat on the JCS (See National Security Act of 1947). Its a constant sell and the Marine Corps takes the PR effort very seriously. As far as utilizing the services of the other branches, read the MC website. There are always articles posted talking about joint exercises and how the other services help us out. Additionally, I don't think I've read one book about the Marines' experiences in the Gulf War without hearing about the great support of the Tiger Brigade. In fact, I've heard that members of the Brigade wore the 1st Marine Division patch on their shoulder after the war. My .02

SIC
Captain of Marines