Army Leaders Recommend Canceling Comanche Helicopter Program

American Forces Press Service ^ | Feb. 23, 2003 | By Kathleen T. Rhem

[Calpernia]

Army leaders have recommended canceling a multibillion-dollar helicopter program, citing an Army study that suggests the funds would be more effective improving other areas of the service's aviation program.

Acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee today announced that he and the service's chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, recommended canceling the 11-year-old Comanche helicopter program after a comprehensive review of Army aviation technology and structure.

The roughly $14 billion allocated to the program between now and 2011 will go toward other aviation programs, he said.

The study "reflects lessons learned and experiences gained in the recent 2½ years of combat in the global war on terror as well as the operational environments envisioned in the foreseeable future," Brownlee said in a late- afternoon Pentagon press conference.

He said the study shows that the capabilities the Comanche, an armed reconnaissance helicopter, would bring to the service are not consistent with the most vital needs of Army aviation. According to the review, those needs include upgrading, modernizing and rebuilding the Army's attack, utility and cargo helicopter fleets as well as replacing aging aircraft in the reserve component, Brownlee said.

"Our revised plans for the next several years, out to fiscal year 2011, include the procurement of almost 800 new aircraft for the active and reserve components, and the enhancement, upgrade, modernization and recapitalization of over 1,400 aircraft," he said.

Brownlee said he and Schoomaker began briefing Congress on their plans this morning and will submit an amended budget request for fiscal 2005.

Schoomaker also mentioned that Army leaders had assurances from President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the funds previously allocated for the Comanche will stay within the Army aviation program.

Both Army leaders suggested funds already spent on developing the Comanche won't have been wasted, because the service and the aviation industry have learned a great deal through work on the program.

Brownlee said relevant technologies will be retained in the aviation technological base and will lead to "research and development more applicable to future aviation initiatives." He specifically mentioned the Joint Multirole Helicopter and the Joint Airlift Aircraft programs.

Schoomaker said it's important to not see this as "just about terminating Comanche," but about "fixing Army aviation for the future -- for today and for tomorrow."

The Comanche program's cancellation is going hand in hand with a major plan to restructure the Army's aviation brigades, Brownlee said. Officials plan to standardize aviation brigades throughout the Army and "provide the modularity and flexibility we must have to achieve the joint and expeditionary capabilities that are so essential to the Army's role now and in the future," he said.

"It's a big decision," Schoomaker said. "We know it's a big decision, but it's the right decision."

[Calpernia]

Pro Military News!

"Our revised plans for the next several years, out to fiscal year 2011, include the procurement of almost 800 new aircraft for the active and reserve components, and the enhancement, upgrade, modernization and recapitalization of over 1,400 aircraft," he said.

Private Mail to be added to or removed from the GNFI (or Pro-Coalition) ping list.

[writer33]

I don't know. It took something like sixteen years or so to complete the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. I don't know if this is the right move.

Helicopters can be an awful effective weapon when deployed properly. Of course its easy for me to sit here and second guess when we don't have all the facts. What are the other planes they are acquiring? That seems to be the biggest question.

[longtermmemmory]

1. in what state is this helicopter made?

2. Don't they have that new VTOL prop airplane comming online for marines? perhaps the army is getting some.

[Mark Felton]

Who could stand having a $6M helicopter shot down by a $15k SAM?

Particularly when this helicopter doesn't have a missile worth firing at low- medium-value targets. Nor does it have a missile effective in low visibility (forget the Longbow).

The best attack helicopter today is the AH-1W Marine Corps Whiskey Cobra. IMHO

[donmeaker]

There are nearterm and far term answers:

Right now NorthropGrumman Mission Systems (former TRW)is providing a system called "Hunter" that is unmanned, and fixed wing.

Northrop Grumman makes a system called the "Fire Scout" that is unmanned. That has been selected by the Army, and is going through final development and test. It is being tested by the Navy and is on offer to the UK Army as part of the UK Watchkeeper.

The Fire Scout can carry hellfire missiles, like the Comanche. It is not particularly stealthy, but with stand off missiles, and being unmanned, stealth is not so important.

The Firescout is developed from a Schweitzer 333, which was developed or licensed through several versions from its grandpapa, the Vietnam war era Hughes OH-6.

The Army is looking far term at another project called Unmanned Combat Air Rotorcraft or UCAR. It would probably add stealth, have greater range, speed, and payload.

Boeing is also working on a suite of systems under the name "Future Combat System". It is mix of ground, wheeled, tracked, and leg weapons with aircraft systems.

12 years ago the Comanche would have been great. Now- the world has gone beyond it.

[CasearianDaoist]

Try a $50 million helicopter.

[Poundstone]

Wow. Cancelled. Just like the Lockheed Cheyenne attack helicopter of the early 1970s. Both were at similar stages of development (with similar amounts of constant dollars having already been expended) when they were cancelled.

Note to America's helicopter manufacturers: don't bid on any future military attack helicopter proposals. Not a good track record.

[writer33]

"12 years ago the Comanche would have been great. Now- the world has gone beyond it."

Maybe, but a good man serving next to you really can't be replaced. No matter what the technology. It still needs human judgement.

I'd rather have a human up there flying around, determining whether they're going to fire on my position or not. There is nothing quite like humans on the ground so to speak. And a man in a helicopter relaying that information can be the same exact thing. Just my thoughts.

[baltodog]

I work for a composites subcontractor.

I was involved in several RAH-66 projects from the get-go. It is a remarkably well-engineered aircraft, but I often wondered about its' contribution to our armed forces.

Personally, I think that UAV's are the future of close-combat air support.

I believe that the Comanche was more of a "stepping stone" for Boeing/Sikorsky, to get their feet into the advanced warfare agenda. There is some really great -66 footage on Sik's website.

Sikorsky and Boeing Space and Defense are, IMHO, really great companies to do business with....of course, I'm in the inspection/source inspection end of the spectrum. The thing that impressed me the most is the fact that two major aircraft companies could work together with a group of nationwide suppliers, making parts to unbelievably tight METRIC tolerances, and everything fit and function so well from the start. Even if this aircraft doesn't make it, it stands a testament to what American industry can accomplish ifthe right people are on the right team at the right time doing the right things.

[longtermmemmory]

Saw a graphic of a sqadron of drones being lead by a single manned fighter.

Imagine being able to have virtual bombers through the use of slave drones. A bombing run could take infinite configurations with minimal risk of expensive pilots.


I would like to see the drone that carries the MOAB.

[El Gato]

reflects lessons learned and experiences gained in the recent 2½ years of combat in the global war on terror

Which won't mean didly if we have to go up a real military, like the Red Chinese, or even someone supplied by them, the Russians or the French. Then the low observables of the Commance might just come in pretty darn handy.

How about we just cancel an entitlement program, say food stamps, instead?

[paleolibertarian]

The Osprey should be taken off-line not the Comanche, but when is anything done right at Pentagon... Having the latest and greatest is nice, but lifespan on Comanche should have been longer. Scuttling Comanche program means existing Comanches want be service and they'll be removed. Comanche is a potent gunship by 1980 standards and 2010 standards.

[joesnuffy]

What a shame...going the way of the AH-56 Cheyenne ...one landed at Ft. Wolters in a field I happend to be walking by one day back in '68....it was awesome...It may as well been a Klingon Bird of Prey de-cloaking in front of me...it was so radical....I was very dissapointed to hear they scrubbed that one to...

The Cheyenne even had a pusher prop aft...

[writer33]

That's true, but the pilots are only expensive if you're thinking in taxpayer terms. When on the ground, depending on air support, pilots are worth ever dime, nickel, and penny spent.

Now if a drone can do it and provide the judgemental powers of a human being, then we're making great strides. That would be neat. When scrambling for cover, because something dropped where it wasn't supposed isn't the most pleasant of thoughts. That price is definitely expensive.

[yonif]

Connecticut?

[Alamo-Girl]

Bump!

[Only1choice____Freedom]

I would like to see the drone that carries the MOAB.

Like two sparrows carring a coconut.

[windchime]

Bump!

[donmeaker]

unmanned aircraft are fearless. pilots tend to be tied up in tweaking the engine, or adjusting flight controls, and their tactics are conservative, so they come home. Better to let a machine be exposed to the enemy. better to use an automatic pilot rather than a "meat servo". The human operates the unmanned vehicle as a "herder", planning ahead, thinking tactics, and making key decisions.

It analogous to using a machinegun instead of using a rifle company in volley. The old rifle company firing a volley is tactically as useful as a machine gun with a crew size of 100.