Army Kills Comanche Helicopter Program

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

[BulletBobCo]

WASHINGTON

[185JHP]

Osprey $$$ flows into 42 states. Foul corporat greed and incompetence.

[taxed2death]

.....he, he, he...Sikorski built a whole new building to produce parts for this "wundercopter".....my buddy just spent the last two years making spare parts for this thing....."my tax dollars at work"

What do you do with 2 years worth of spare parts for a helicopter that will never be built?

Titanium Christmas tree ornaments, anyone?

[GreyFriar]

Actually I was ruminating on years of seeing the number of tubes of US artillery outnumbered by the Soviets in Europe. Also that we didn't have any rockets until MLRS was deployed and then the army used it to replace the 8inch M110, instead of making the MLRS as additional battalions.

The Crusader would have given the 155s more range, and made them equaled to the 152s and European 155s. Also the automated portion would have permitted an increased rate of fire. The ammunition carrier, though heavier than the old M548, would have provided protection for the ammnunition and ammo handlers from counter battery fire.

[samtheman]

Take half of the money saved and build more smart bombs, MOABS and of course, thousands of next-generation cruise missles.

Yup.

[ladtx]

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

Considering over 41000 hours of your life has gone for naught, I would say that takes a pretty big chunk out of your self-worth.

[TADSLOS]

Was not such copters designed to ambush Russian tank columns in Germany from tree covers and they were not meant to function as offensive insertion weapons?

Both. The requirement to field the AH-64 was to counter the threat of Warsaw Pact and North Korean armored formations both in the close fight and deep as a counter attack force against 2nd echelon forces.

That their mission was transformed from defensivce to offensive after the end of the cold war?

The entire Army changed course during the height of the Cold War from the Active Defense to Airland Battle. The advent of the Apache was just a small part of that transformation. Other ground systems came into being, such as the M1 Abrams, M2/3 Bradley and MLRS, thanks primarily to Reagan's defense buildup during the early eighties. The Airland Battle concept was played out extensively with Brigade sized formations against a replicate Warsaw Pact opposing force (OPFOR) on the desert floor of Fort Irwin, CA. This concept proved itself during Desert Storm and has been modified over time to the warfighting doctrine used today(and still evolving).

The Russian never used copters for offensive capabilities in Afghanistan - only to transport troops with protection.

Not true. The Soviets used their Mi-24 Hinds extensively in Afghanistan as close air support and overhead protection for ground forces.

[Darksheare]

Agreed, you cannot control land without having people to occupy it.
You also cannot remove artillery from the ranks and expect to be able to have fire support when you need it.
We had air superiority for quite some time during the first Gulf War, and without people actually sitting on the ground we'd just flew over, it didn't mean squat.

And as you mentioned, polaying number games will only hurt soldiers in teh end.
My old unit did that.
We started out 125%over strength, meaning we had more people than we 'needed' which was good.
Some of Clinton's ideas started to hit us, and we started losing people.
Then the brass implemented stop loss, which merely made things worse.
We started hemorrhaging soldiers and actually ended up going from a 6 gun unit to a 3 gun unit.
In actuality, we were truly down to 2 full howitzer sections.
The third section was only about four people, the minimum number of people you can use to actually run fire misssions on an M119A1 light towed howitzer.
So even saying we were a "three gun unit" was a number game.
I'm told things have changed since I left the uniform, but I do not have firsthand knowledge of any actual differences between then and now.

We still face alot of difficulty in filling the ranks.
And the cutting of MOS and units from the plan only makes things worse.
(They honestly have to work on maintaining MORALE. Artillery types aren't by nature MP's, an dthis brainchild of having them be trained and MOS'qed as MP's is against their nature. 13B's blow things up and break things, they do not by nature detain or arrest things.)

[Rokke]

"I think you remember the last time we tried to take a single airframe and make it do all missions."

Are you talking about the F-4, 14, 15, 16, 18 or 22? I don't at all think the F-35 can be compared to the F-111. In fact, I think there is a better comparison between the F-111 and the F-22. The F-111 was an expensive program full of leading edge technology that was made operational before it was really ready. The initial results were disasterous. Fortunately, the problems were worked out, and I would argue that the F-111 became a very successful strike aircraft that served its role well.
It's great that the F-22 can dominate a 1 v 3 ACM engagement. Now find me a scenario where we send our fighters into an environment where they might face a WVR 1 v 3 engagement. You show me an F-22 driver that commits to a 1 v 3 merge and I'll show you a guy who didn't know how to use the sensors the F-22 is built around.

[IYAS9YAS]

Paul Sr. is going to kick junior's butt now. They already built the bike!I was wondering when I'd come across the post that mentioned OCC!!!! Pretty cool bikes from that disfunctional family. In all honesty, as much as they are at each other, I think they'd go nuts without each other around.

[Pukin Dog]

You are leaving out one thing, regarding your F-22-F-111 comparison.
The F-22 works, buddy. The sucker has exceeded every expectation. While there wont be many 1v3 engagements, should it occur, our boy will likely be coming home with both ass cheeks intact.
There was never a time when any variation of the F-111 met initial design goals. TFR was running boys into mountains, and lets not even begin to talk about the TF-30, the bane of my early years. The F-22 is redefining what a man can do with an airplane. Hell, I'd fly it for free if they'd let me. I might even pay them.

[Rokke]

"The F-22 works, buddy. The sucker has exceeded every expectation."

Well I guess that explains its extensive delays and huge cost overruns... You can call the F-22 many things, but you cannot call it development success story. And considering it is not yet operational, it is a little early to pass judgement on its operational success. The thing has been in development for over 20 years and isn't scheduled to be operational until 2005. It is still full of bugs, so the 2005 date is a bit iffy. And each of its delays and cost overruns are dragging down development in every other fighter program. By comparison, the F-16 only took 7 years from introduction of design specifications to delivery of the initial production variant.

[Rokke]

"Hell, I'd fly it for free if they'd let me. I might even pay them."

Well there's a surprise! lol

[Pukin Dog]

Hell, man. The Tomcat is STILL in 'development', though it's a dead duck.

[RayChuang88]

They don't need the Comanche. The predator is the new scout. Carries Hellfires and no humans in jeopardy.

The success of General Atomic's Predator UAV is big reason why the US Army has decided to end the RAH-66 program. It can do the reconnaissance work that the RAH-66 was intended for, and the cost per airframe is a tiny fraction of that of the RAH-66 cost per airframe.

Besides, the availability of JSTARS with its powerful side-scanning radar that could see hundreds of miles inland controlling attack planes dropping GPS-guided weapons has also obseleted the idea of the RAH-66. Indeed, during Operation Iraqi Freedom that was how many Iraqi military units were attacked. I can imagine after 2010 a JSTARS plane operating in conjunction with the Global Hawk high-flying UAV controlling fast-flying stealthy combat UAV's that will attack targets with GPS-guided weapons and TV/laser-guided missiles.

[Rokke]

That's because the Tomcat is still screwed up ;). But if the Tomcat was allowed the same development time as the F-22, the initial production of the Tomcat would have hit the fleet in 1988. Heck, you were already a crusty old veteran by that time!

[Rokke]

Look, no one loves a new fighter more than me. Especially an Air Force fighter. The F-22 is an incredibly capable aircraft. But for the money, I think we can do better. The money we've spent on the F-22 certainly isn't wasted. Almost all of it has flowed into its younger brother (F-35). At some point, the costs of continuing outway the benefits. We are very close to that point.

[sully777]

I thought Comanche looked awesome on the Discover Wings Channel.

Seems whole thing is a big mistake but par for the government. Government contracts=the least amount of work for the most money.

---

"Better sharpen up your pencil, your bid is coming in WAY too low for our annual budget. Think $******." Anonymous said to me, after I charged my premium rate for the trouble of dealing with government agency in the first place.

I doubled everything, won the bid, and never asked to do the work. Just got a call yesterday from the same agency. They want a new bid and they need three independent bids. But wait. They've changed all the configurations.

I laughed at them, told them they never called me back to do the job last year, then thanked them and said, "Don't call me; I'll call you."

[sully777]

"By comparison, the F-16 only took 7 years from introduction of design specifications to delivery of the initial production variant."

---

Wasn't the F-16 and F-14/15 (Apaches and Blackhawk for that matter) initial configurations developed during Viet Nam? STM wartime development makes for quicker introductions. The subsequent variations were needed upgrades. I also remember the Carter Admin. thinking about shelving F-16 and F-14s as too costly and obsolete.

Typical SNAFU in pentagon red tape.

[Johnny_Cipher]

Considering over 41000 hours of your life has gone for naught, I would say that takes a pretty big chunk out of your self-worth.

But the cancellation of the program wasn't the worker's fault. If he were to be hit by a bus or the plant were hit by a tornado and destroyed on his last day before retirement, does that also invalidate all he has done up to that point?

Our hypothetical worker shouldn't let an event triggered by forces beyond his control affect his self-esteem.

[GigaDittos]

I will agree with you partly. I will say that I work for an organization close to this project. In the beginning a new aircraft was thought to be needed to replace the aging OH-58 Kiowa and AH-1 Cobra helicopters. Therefore a combined light, attack/reconnaisance helicopter was envisioned; it was called LHX (Light Helicopter eXperimental). In fact, there were two versions in the beginning....a scout/attack version and a utility version. The latter version was dropped and today's Comanche is the former. The Army could not tell the Pentagon what this aircraft should be or look like (generality here). So the the Chief of Staff or some big-wig up top came back and said, "Okay I'll tell you what it's going to be." This aircraft will weigh 7500 lbs, cost $7.5M and be ready for fielding in 7.5 years. This is the basic story I was told. Now, here begins the dilemma that doomed the helicopter from Day One. Look at this weight; the helicopter companies stated from the beginning this weight goal could not be met. The weight of the Comanche is closer to twice that much now. It would have been easy to project the $7.5M down the road as being ridiculous. To complete all R&D, testing and prototyping of the first ever stealth helicopter in 7.5 years was insane. So it was not the engineers who developed the technology that screwed the pooch on this project, it was the uninformed, know-it-alls at the top that set the requirements that never could be met. They haven't been met to this day, although a lot of good technology has been developed. In the meantime, our threat and doctrine have now changed from fighting the Russians at the Fulda Gap to fighting terrorist ragheads in the mountain caves and desert foxholes. Bottomline, Comanche doesn't fit the bill anymore.