COMANCHE: A GOOD KILL

New York Post ^ | February 27, 2004 | RALPH PETERS

[Cannoneer No. 4]

EARLIER this week, the U.S. Army scored a victory for our national security and the American taxpayer: It killed the Comanche attack-helicopter program, a $40 billion legacy of the Cold War.

It was a tough decision. Over two decades, billions have been spent developing the Comanche. Had it gone into production, it would have been the finest attack helicopter in the world. And the Army had a deep emotional investment in the system.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Stryker Brigade Combat Team Tactical Studies Group (Chairborne)

shit this HTML is a big pain in the ass, dammit!

[Cannoneer No. 4]

ping

[texasflower]

Interesting and informative article.

[1stFreedom]

I liked the comanche. I thought it was great. But what we need instead are helicopters which are tougher than the Apaches. A few apaches have been taken down by medium and large caliber rounds.

[SAMWolf]

Bump

[Cannoneer No. 4]

TF OLYMPIA SOLDIERS DETAIN SUSPECTS, COLLECT ARMS

[LibKill]

The troops like it and trust it. (The Stryker)

That's good enough for me.

[Poohbah]

I liked the comanche. I thought it was great. But what we need instead are helicopters which are tougher than the Apaches. A few apaches have been taken down by medium and large caliber rounds.

I have news for you: ANY helicopter would be taken down by medium and large caliber rounds.

One guy complaining about the Comanche getting axed asked me, "What would've happened if we'd had a couple Comanches at Mogadishu?"

My answer: "We would've had 100 megabucks of burning wreckage on the ground."

[68skylark]

I'm not sure I catch your point about the use of armed helicopters in smaller-scale conflicts like Somalia.

The book I read said Special Forces "little bird" helicopters were present all night, and they offered superb fire-support for the Delta and Ranger soldiers. I'm sure the Comanche could have done as well or better, but the cost in dollars would surely be high.

[Ottofire]

What we really need is an updated version of the A-10 and then give it to a service that'll appreciate it. The USAF is STOOPID to think the F-35 will replace the 'Hog.

Now a VTOL Hog would be something to see...

[Poohbah]

I'm not sure I catch your point about the use of armed helicopters in smaller-scale conflicts like Somalia.

The guy was thinking that using a couple Comanches with Blackhawks during the extraction phase would've ended the battle right there.

Actually, it would've just given the Somalis some very expensive targets to hit.

I'm sure the Comanche could have done as well or better, but the cost in dollars would surely be high.

Fifty megabucks each flyaway cost.

The Comanche was designed for a war that is extremely unlikely to happen, and is insufficiently stealthy to survive in an era of ubiquitous MANPADS, RPGs, and optically-aimed ZU-23s. (The thing would have to be invisible in the visible spectrum to survive those threats.)

[Gringo1]

Agreed....we need a dedicated close air support aircraft and tank killer more than a new helicopter.

[Poohbah]

Agreed....we need a dedicated close air support aircraft and tank killer more than a new helicopter.

Actually, we don't need an aircraft for the tank-killing job anymore.

One F-35 with some "smart pigs" (JSOWs) will be able to kill more tanks in one pass than an A-10, and stay out of the AAA envelope to boot.

[Servant of the 9]

I liked the comanche. I thought it was great. But what we need instead are helicopters which are tougher than the Apaches.

Commanche was designed to lead the way as we counterattacked the Soviets through the Fulda Gap. Any enemy we fight now will have their air defenses degraded before the armor and helicopters come in. Enemy radar avoidance is not a helicopter problem anymore.

So9

[Cannoneer No. 4]

what we need instead are helicopters which are tougher than the Apaches

How 'bout instead of helicopters we let the Army have purpose-built fixed wing mudfighters?

A dirty little secret of Army Aviation is that there are a lot of things fixed wings do better/cheaper, but fixed wings belong to the Air Force. Back when there were Army Air Forces and Army Ground Forces, each field army got a tactical air force to provide close air support and air interdiction, but ever since the Air Force became an independent service they haven't shown as much enthusiasm for CAS as the Army would like, so the Army has spent billions trying to replicate that level of support with the air assets allowed to it.

[CGVet58]

your remarks on the A-10 are on the money. The warthog costs (I think...) about 9-12 mil per and is probably the best ground attack fixed wing aircraft due to it's combination of lethality, armor and above mounted engines offering protection from ground fire, relative ease of maintenance, and ability to loiter above the battlefield as an "on call" support.

The only strike against the A-10 is not against the aircraft itself, but against the troubles we still have to overcome with interservice cooperation. Ground units requesting a Warthog would send the msg back to HQ, who then contact their AF counterpart - some of the reports from Iraq had the A10s arriving 30 minutes after the call, and that's unacceptable.

Since the A10 - and the ground attack mission in general - fits into the Air Force Air Superiority/Long Range Strike mentality about as well as a red-headed stepchild in tribe full of pygmies, I think Rummy should go ahead and designate All A10 assets as Army. TacAir belongs there, and that would solve the C2 problems (note how fast the Apaches respond to ground combat in their own support roles).

As for the Comanche killing, the author has some great points - let's hope Rummy keeps pushing in the right direction to keep our soldiers safe and loaded for bear.

Juan

[Ottofire]

Auigh! You must be fighter-mafia brainwashed! *splash* There, here's a bit of dirty propwash to get that evil meme offa you.

Yeah, those fighter-smart missile combos look pretty on paper, but to give close airsupport, you just HAVE to be able to loiter. Airframe over battlefield kills the baddies, not one quick pass, dropping bombs smarter than the pilots.

Flying off at the mouth. I am NOT a ground pounder or a close air support expert, this is just my non-expert opinion. I am sure that one of you 'Army-of-One' gun toters can give a better viewpoint...

[eseales]

While I am in agreement about the Comanche program being canceled, I do not agree that the F-22 should be canceled as well.

And I am 100% in disagreement with the notion that Rumsfeld has not changed the military for the better. His orders and personal pressure on the entire Armed Forces to give SOCOM (USA Special Forces) units more authority and range for attacking and killing terrorists has been extremely effective.

With regard to the F-22. The United States Military needs to always have the premier fighter/interceptor aircraft in the world (piloted by the best / most well trained pilots in the world). Currently are premier fighters the F-15C and the F-14D are aging aircraft (with the F-14 wrongheadedly being taken out of service by 2006).

For the Navy I think upgrading the F-14D (to the super-D) would have made much more sense then going to the F-18E...Reasons being payload, fuel capacity and radar ability to name a few.

For the Air Force, the F-15C is in need of a complete upgrade or the development of a whole new aircraft. With the stealth technologies that exist today and with the success shown by both the F-117's and B-2's....Having a fighter aircraft with stealth abilities will go a far way in ensuring American fighter aircraft have control of the sky's.

[Gringo1]

I agree yet again, as a former tanker I'd rather have the A-10's hanging around than some pie-in-the-sky uber-jet that has to get gas every ten minutes and is flown by some guy who never actually sees the tanks he needs to kill.