Army Kills Comanche Helicopter Program

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

[BulletBobCo]

WASHINGTON

[SICSEMPERTYRANNUS]

somthing = something

[Pagey]

read later BUMP!

[Missouri]

Bump

[Schattie]

A crane collapsed on that bridge last week, it was all over the news.

[atomicpossum]

The Comanche program was started in 1983 and had survived many reviews. Initial production was scheduled to begin in 2006.

Could a project begun with 1983 technology be the best option for 2006+ world? Was it reflecting modern technology, or did it become obsolete on the drawing board? (I don't know the specifics of the system.)

[TADSLOS]

Was it reflecting modern technology, or did it become obsolete on the drawing board?

The on board sensors and C4ISR packages being developed were state of the art. The weapons systems was current technology (SAL/RF Hellfire; 2.75" rockets and 20mm turreted gun system. The airframe and most of its components used some of the same stealth technology found on the F-117/B2.

[68skylark]

Thanks for the great note, Sir -- it's very articulate, and you make good points. I have always been a huge admirer of the battlefield accomplishments of the USMC. And the Marine officers I trained with at Ft. Sill always seemed outstanding.

Seems to me that whenver the Army (especially the 82d Airborne) wins a battle, a couple of know-nothing reporters will say something like "U. S. Marines scored an important victory today when they . . . " I shouldn't let that bother me, but it drives me nuts! I guess my real complaint about that sort of thing lies with the reporters, not the Marines.

[Pukin Dog]

I'm a big fan of airpower, but I agree that the F/A-22 program should go the way of the Comanche. The F-22 is currently a giant ball and chain on all other Air Force modernization programs. Much of the research and development for the F-22 has found its way into the F-35. Cancel the F-22 and accelerate the F-35.

You and I need to debate this. I think you remember the last time we tried to take a single airframe and make it do all missions. The F-35 is a single engine lightweight version of the F-111 from a mission standpoint, with the same compromises for the sake of redundancy and costs as the Aardvark, the same need for better power, the same need for it's mission scope to be scaled WAY back, and the same over-confident procurment team expecting to turn a little piggy into a princess.

The stuff I hear about what the F-22 is doing to other aircraft in ACM in 1v3, 1v4 engagements is beyond anyone's wildest dreams. I'm told 4 Eagles against a single F-22 is not a fair fight. The Raptor locks and cocks before the Eagles get a blip. Angles off at the merge, nose on to a planview before the Eagle is halfway around, shots from just behind 3-9. You cant turn and burn from that.

[Pukin Dog]

The F-35 is not analogous to the F-111. It is more similar to the F-4, but even that isn't a good analogy. There really hasn't even been a weapons program like it with regard to the international and multi-service support it has generated before it even reaches production. But it seems to be making its goals so far. We'll see as the program matures.

Sorry, didn't see this.

However, I don't agree. From what I know about the F-35 program, it is as close to the F-111 program as one could get in this day and age. TOO MUCH mission creep. Too many design compromises. Space for gas gets smaller with every revision, engines not ready for prime-time, flight characteristics change DRASTICALLY with ordinance, and so on and so on.

[Pukin Dog]

The Comanche is dead because it's airframe, systems and stealth do not match up well from a cost-benefit standpoint against an AK-47 or against a lot of sand. Same reason there are not more Harriers. You cant build a tough AND light aircraft no matter how much money you have. What we learned in Iraq, is that the Apache is quite the sitting duck, and the Comanche does nothing to prevent the same fragility in it's own design. In fact, the Comanche was MORE susceptible to a lucky rifle shot, but for a LOT more money.

[JimRic54]

No, I don't think we should kill off the Comanche tribe. They're really good people.

[Paul C. Jesup]

After Clinton, I would bet that China has already secretly build a few of these for themselves.

[GeronL]

They did come up with some good stuff. I'd like to see that tail rotor and the quieter blades added to the next rebuild of the Apache!

[GeronL]

UAV?? Look up the Navy Firescout.

[GeronL]

look up: Navy Firescout

[GeronL]

I seem to remember a Flight Sim out a few years back based on the Comanche

I have a Commanche video game... #4 I think..

[TADSLOS]

What we learned in Iraq, is that the Apache is quite the sitting duck

Not quite. Only if employed and operated improperly against the threat(as it was with the 11th Avn Rgt deep attack mission that resulted in a bunch of shot up Apaches and a captured crew). Let's not condemn the airframe outright just because some of the leadership failed to plan and execute properly.

The AH-64 units of the 3rd ID and 101st aquitted themselves quite well during OIF because they switched up their TTPs on their first and subsequent missions to address the threat as it was, not as some doctrinal template said it should be.

Agree on the Comanche comment. When you trade weight for performance you degrade survivability and structural integrity. Also, stealth with a rotary wing aircraft is pretty much a falacy at low airspeeds/hover with corresponding high power settings at close ranges to the threat. Besides, all the stealth technology in the world applied to a helicopter can't hide the effects of a rotor system with something as readily accessable as a doppler radar.

[Johnny_Cipher]

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

That's assuming of course that you base your entire self-worth on what you do for a living. I don't.

[Pukin Dog]

Not quite. Only if employed and operated improperly against the threat(as it was with the 11th Avn Rgt deep attack mission that resulted in a bunch of shot up Apaches and a captured crew). Let's not condemn the airframe outright just because some of the leadership failed to plan and execute properly.

Point taken.

However, the fog of war is something that needs to be better factored into our designs. I love the Apache, and in the right mission it's effectiveness cannot be denied. The human will always be the weak link when it comes to tactics, so bump up the ponies and pack on the armor until we get our tactical act together.