Army Kills Comanche Helicopter Program

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

[BulletBobCo]

WASHINGTON

[Fudd]

I think a next generation replacement for the A-10 would be a better investment than a new helicopter.

The A-10 is without a doubt the best aircraft in the antitank role. However, it is, politically, the red-haired stepchild. The AF doesn't like it because it isn't fast and sexy. The AF doesn't want to give it over to the army because it's fixed-wing. Sure as anything the AF doesn't want the Marines to play with it - they might actually know how to use it better than the AF. I see a long life of upgrades and service extensions.

[AgentEcho]

I'll take it off hteir hands for just pennies on the dollar.

Æ

[muleskinner]

Most of these folks will just get transitioned over to FCS. Most of the money will, too.
Boeing will give Sikorsky some FCS UAV projects to look at - trade studies, etc.

[Just_de_facts]

I was there when the last Air Force F-15E rolled out of building 45 in St. Louis, Serial Number 229, in 2000. Most of those airframes on the E models probably have less than 2000 hours. Here at Lockheed this year we are scheduled to build one or two F-16's this year for the Air Force. There are hundreds, if not thousands of these aircraft at Davis Monthan AFB. They are not timed out, they are just simply waiting to be returned to service as needed.

[azcap]

What's the rationale behind the cancellation?

 

How about "It's too damn easy to shoot down helicopters." The days of traditional helicopters in the shooting zone are numbered.

[skip2myloo]

In the early years, the Army couldn't even decide what mission they wanted Comanche to do, at one point it would carry up to 8 troopers.

Kind of unfair for the article to say Bush killed a program inherited from Clinton, when it dates back to the Reagan years, conceptually even before that.

On the heels of Sgt York, I tried to kill Comanche in 1987, almost succeeded (along with others), instead Mad Max Thurman sent a bunch of money to Rand to rewrite the justification.

Having Program dollars is good, no Program dollars is bad - doesn't matter what the program is, just keep those dollars rolling in.

[BulletBobCo]

Maybe they can bring this out of mothballs.

[GreyFriar]

Actually the Commanche program started in 1983, under Reagan. This is an example of the requirements a program continuing to change and thus killing a program. I don't remember when Crusader started, possibly also during the Reagan years. As a former artilleryman, I saw it as a good development that would help offset US shortage in artillery. What isn't talked about from the campaign in Iraq is that both the Army and the Marines needed more artillery support during several of their fights, when the helo's were grounded for various reasons.

[Elliott Jackalope]

"The A-10 is without a doubt the best aircraft in the antitank role. However, it is, politically, the red-haired stepchild. The AF doesn't like it because it isn't fast and sexy. The AF doesn't want to give it over to the army because it's fixed-wing. Sure as anything the AF doesn't want the Marines to play with it - they might actually know how to use it better than the AF. I see a long life of upgrades and service extensions."

Bingo! Give that man a cigar! Bottom line: The A-10 is one of the best designed, most effective and useful aircraft in the history of aviation. Politics and turf wars are the only things that the A-10 design cannot overcome. The A-10 isn't the problem, the problem is how the Army and Air Force have defined their missions. The whole "fixed wing belongs to the Air Force only" strategy is beyond obsolete, and needs to be changed NOW. I would suggest the new "dividing line" between who gets what should be based on the role the aircraft is designed to fill: Air Force gets the high-speed fighter jets and bombers, and Army gets the ground-support aircraft.

[Rokke]

"The A-10 is without a doubt the best aircraft in the antitank role. However, it is, politically, the red-haired stepchild. The AF doesn't like it because it isn't fast and sexy. The AF doesn't want to give it over to the army because it's fixed-wing. Sure as anything the AF doesn't want the Marines to play with it - they might actually know how to use it better than the AF. I see a long life of upgrades and service extensions."

This is so much old and recycled crap. First of all, like the Marine Corps (the hands down CAS experts), the Air Force has recognized that the most effective CAS platform is one that can get to the battlefield quickly, and put its ordinance on target accurately. Interestingly enough, the Army is starting to agree, and in Iraq used a precision guided version of its MLRS to perform "CAS". The Marine Corps has no use for, and has never wanted the A-10. They prefer the Hornet. The Army doesn't have the infrastructure for the A-10, and wouldn't know what to do with it if they did have it. Just a quick look at how they employed their Apaches (a potentially excellent CAS platform) gives a clear illustration of the Army's poor understanding of performing CAS. Instead, the Air Force continues to use its ugly A-10's, and every single one of its other combat aircraft to perform the ever evolving CAS mission with effectiveness unmatched in history.

[antiRepublicrat]

Something doesn't add up:

"The Bush administration has now killed the two biggest Army weapons programs it inherited from the Clinton administration,"

and

The Comanche program was started in 1983

It would seem he just killed a project from the Reagan administration. IIRC, the Crusader was envisioned under GHW Bush and officially commenced under Clinton.

[lepton]

From what I have read about passive radar, current stealth technology will soon be obsolete, rendering the F-22 another plane without a mission.

Not exactly. It's still a darn high-performance airplane. It's just if that tech comes to be, it'll have a lot of useless bells and whistles adding to the cost.

[Rokke]

The F-16's in the boneyard are A models. They are to the current F-16 what the Apple IIe computer is to today's Mac. Each airframe would need to be gutted from end to end and refitted with new avionics, engines and structural support just to match what we currently fly today. But I would agree that new F-15E and new versions of the F-16 (already in production for foreign customers) would be a suitable alternative to the F-22 until the F-35 can come on line.

[The Dude Abides]

The F-22 will ensure U.S. air superiority for the next 20 years. The rest of the world will be flying F-16's.

I'm more concerned about the x-35. Seems like a repeat of the F-111, which, if I remember correctly, was supposed to be a carrier-launched navy fighter.

[avg_freeper]

!!! HAPPY NATIONAL ENGINEERS WEEK !!!!

[Blood of Tyrants]

Like I said, when passive radar is fully developed, current stealth technology will be obsolete and it will be dared hard to justify the $250 million per copy price tag.

[68skylark]

[Marines] do more with less money and materials than any other service.

Well, that's the image they cultivate. But those F/A-18's they fly aren't cheap -- the Army gets nothing comparable.

And whenever they get into something, they don't mind getting large amounts of help from the Navy and the Army also -- roles that are vital but which get very little press.

I've been reading about the first Gulf war -- how many people knew that out front of the Marines in Kuwait was the Army's Tiger Brigade, clearing the way with their heavy tanks? That was new information to me.

I hope I don't sound ungrateful about the wonderful USMC -- those guys are great. 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.

[TADSLOS]

It will be interesting watching the fallout on the Stryker and FCS programs since they both incorporated Comanche and associated support into their objective TO&Es.

I don't see any fallout on either. SBCT is in full stride, with Army Aviation transformation going back to pure aviation brigades in lieu of detachments within the Stryker Brigades. FCS hedged their bet early on by placing Comanche as a complimentary system, not a primary system of the FCS suite that now includes UAV. They made Comanche a cutout, just in case. Looks like they made the right decision.

[lepton]

I would suggest the new "dividing line" between who gets what should be based on the role the aircraft is designed to fill: Air Force gets the high-speed fighter jets and bombers, and Army gets the ground-support aircraft.

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

[68skylark]

Contrary to some reports, the Warthog lives.

Great news -- I had not heard that. Thanks!