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.

[Light Speed]

I would imagine there are several UCAV designs being R and D'd...soon they will have a unit to do recon ..interdict and dogfight.
The U.S. and the Brits considered an piloted aircraft with UCAV mirror wings.
Even this might be discarded for complete autonimous UCAV's.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Historical Review – Why the Army Developed Attack Helicopters

[Ramius]

So what do we have on the drawing board for future air tools?

I would be concerned that we're currently flying no hardware that isn't at least a 30 or 40 year old design. Are we gonna do another couple of decades with Apaches?

[Ottofire]

While I agree that the F-22 is the best thing out there, I can tell you that in the next decade or so when the US makes a usable laser-based ground defence system, that multi-million dollar wonder will be helpless targets. Any line of sight system that can kill from the horizon will render ALL aircraft useless, as well as missiles, mortars and anything else you want to throw in the air. You might as well make as many cheap missile platforms as you can, 'cause if you can detect it with radar -or- target it with optics, it will fall from the sky in pieces.

Right now we need ground support with survivability, and a VTOL transport. I'm not too up on naval aviation, but replacing the Tom with the Hornet just don't seem smart.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

What viable nation-states have the aerospace industry, defense budget, and will to effectively challenge American air supremacy in the next 20 years?

al Qaeda will not be destroyed by F-22's.

The Air Force sucks up way too much of the defense budget.

Manned fighter aircraft for air to air combat are less and less useful and more and more expensive.

[ThePythonicCow]

From http://www.militaryfactory.com:

Comanche Attack Helicopter





Designation:	RAH-66A Comanche
Type:	Attack Helicopter
Manufacturer:	Boeing Sikorsky
Crew:	2
Origin:	United States
Weight:	8,951 lbs
Powerplant:	2 x LHTEC Turboshaft Engines, 1,563shp Each.
Max Speed:	328 km/h
Ceiling:	NA
Armament:	20mm Cannon, Hellfire and Stinger Missle Systems Internally and Externally.
Notes:	The Comanche Helicopter represents the latest and most advanced combat helicopter in development with the United States armed forces. In the early 1980's, the United States Army implemented the LHX program (Light Helicopter Experimental) program to replace the aging attack helicopters in the inventory. A later revision to the program called for a light attack/recon platform utilizing the latest in avionics, technology and weaponry systems. The comanche helicopter utilizes a stealth airframe that reduces radar cross section. It also implements two internal bays capable of mounting ordinance in it's airframe and out of site of enemy radar, similar to what the stealth fighter does. Detachable stub-wings can be added to further increase the weapon system's loadouts. The commanche helicopter uses fly-by-wire advanced controls, moving map displays in 3D, helmet mounted sights and laser designators similar to those equipped with the Apache Longbow. The Comanche helicopter is the newest in military helicopter design. Slated to take over the role of light attack helicopter that the Huey Cobra and SuperCobra now serve, the Comanche helicopter signifies a new step in the role of combat support helicopter. Utilizing the latest in stealth technology and weaponry, the Comanche helicopter is the right step in the United States Army's desire to command the skies of the battlefield and provide close support assistance.

[Phsstpok]

The other services? A victim of its own success at dominating the seas, the Navy struggles forward in the absence of blue-water enemies. While shifting to deliver firepower deep inside enemy territory, the Navy remains a prisoner of traditions that undervalue cost-effective killing. We have the finest navy that ever sailed, but it doesn't deliver much bang for the buck.

snip

But the real problem is the Air Force. Despite endless hype about transformation, it refuses to cancel a single major program inherited from the Cold War.

The ultimate test of defense reform is the fate of the F-22 fighter. Conceived to dogfight Soviet planes that never got off the drawing board, it has no mission. No other air force is coming up to challenge us - and if they did, we already have the finest fighter aircraft in the world.

Factor in all the upstream and downstream costs, and F-22s will run at least $180 million each. (Note to pilot: No parachute for you, pal - bring that baby home.)

The F-22 is wildly overpriced, conceptually outdated and nearly useless. And the contractors know it. As do Congress and the Air Force. So the aircraft's partisans cooked up a Rube-Goldberg redesign to give the world's most expensive air-to-air fighter a ground-attack role. No matter that carrying bombs degrades its stealth capabilities or that it can't haul much ordnance. Presto, it's the answer to all our needs.

Using the F-22 for ground attack is like using a Maserati as a pick-up truck.

OK, I was with this guy right up until the attack on the Navy. How the hell does he think we dropped all those bombs on Iraq? They didn't fly out of Saudi or Pakistan or even Turkey (only air defense mission flew from Turkey, as I understand it). OK, Kuwait gave us basing rights, and the 55 year old B52s flew out of Diego Garcia, but how often can we count on that?

And the Russians have fielded a next generation fighter and they are selling it to countries that want to do ill to us. I think I'd like to have something other than another 40 year old air frame for our 20 year old fighter pilots to count on, thank you very much.

[eseales]

Ottofire, I am not as up to date on the Laser-based ground defense system...that you speak of. Though the concept sounds very sound.

However, I would say that while the USA is developing such a weapons system...the majority of the rest of the world will be a decade or more behind in implementing any such system. (with puts are enemies anywhere between 15 and 30 years from having such a "working system") In the mean time, the USAF needs to have a premier fighter/interceptor. I think the F-22 is the right choice.

As for the F-14's being replaced by the F-18E/F....I totally agree this was not the right choice. While there is a definite need to have the F-18E/F for strike capabilities (and replace the F-18C/D's)....To use the F-18E/F as the premier fighter/interceptor for the Navy over the F-14D (or Super D) was bad judgement. And it was made for "money" reasons.

The concept being only having one aircraft and thus one aircraft frame....savings would come from universal parts, universal maintenance needs, universal weapons systems, etc.

But not only does the F-14D have a larger airframe then the F-18E/F it also has a larger internal fuel system (to stay on station longer)it's radar system (when upgraded to the Super D) would have been more powerful and better the the F-18E/F.....Also the F-14D's and Super D's would have been able to use the air to air missile AMRAAM's....and with those capabilities the F-14D is the better dogfigther/interceptor then is the F-18E/F.

[eseales]

Cannoneer 4.

I agree 100% that obviously Al Qaeda will not be destroyed by F-22's....Al Qaeda will not even be around by the time the F-22 becomes operational...so that is kind of a straw-mans argument (in that I never said the F-22 was needed for the war on terrorism specifically).

However, if you don't think air-superiority will be needed in some military conflict over the next 20 to 30 years....you are foolish....Just as we did not predict (well, some did) but as we did not predict that Al Qaeda would become a major enemy as quickly as they did....another enemy or conflict could arise over night...within the next 20 years...In this conflict, having air-superiority could (will) play a major role.

China, India, N Korea are all being outfitted with the latest upgrades to the Mig-29, as well as the new SU-33, SU-35's....(while we have better pilots in the USA)...we also need to give our pilots the better aircraft....Upgrading to the F-22 will definitely do that (as would have the F-14 Super-D in my opinion).

And again, all our bombers can't drop their bombs (as effectively) without first our fighters controlling the sky's.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

the USAF needs to have a premier fighter/interceptor

To do what, exactly?

[MindBender26]

Speaking of weapons on the cheap, I always like the idea of a 747 carrying cruise missiles internally with ejector tubes. Could easily carry 50-60, with auto updatable target selection / dial-a-yield

Crew of 4-7 never gets within 1500 miles of target. All can hit at once with effective TOT tracking. All very stealthy once launched.

Refuel from KC-10.

Off the shelf components. Reliable, cheap.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

WARPLANES: The A-10 Finally Gets Some Respect

[Light Speed]

Future UCAV design ?

When reports of a new swing wing aircraft sighted near Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico and at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, surfaced Popular Science investigated. High ranking officials are said to have gathered in secure hangers at two air bases to be given a sneak peek at the new aircraft. In September of 1994, it was observed circling high over Amarillo, Texas, for several minutes at midday. These reports to an exclusive story on this aircraft in 1995.

New Evidence

Since then Popular Science has learned that the aircraft is not a standard variable swing-wing aircraft as first reported but instead employs a unique forward sweeping wing mechanism that enables the aircraft to become an advanced attack aircraft capable of precision weapons delivery, super maneuverability (for air combat) and MACH 3 dash capability.

[hchutch]

Dunno if I agree with Ralph Peters on this one...

I might have cut the Comanche buy back - but would have still gotten the 368 scout choppers that the Army is starting a NEW program to develop a new design.

And while Stryker is okay - I'd rather have seen the Army just re-start the XM8 AGS program and buy the same LAVs that the Marines use. No R&D costs - it's pretty close to COTS, in fact.

[dts32041]

Yep a he is an ex MI puke, his is also a contrarian, Red Army comes to mind (what he feels would have happen if the soviets came across th Fulda gap), it was a counter point to WWW III August 1985.

He has also written about the break up of the Soviet Union Flame of Heaven, but my favorite works are his civil war novels.

My favorite seminar would to be hear Victor Davis Hanson and LTC Peters give a set of lectures.

As far as the A-10 goes, i had a friend who was crew chief and was cross trained on the Predator about 2 years ago, gives you some indication of where the air force is going.

[Ottofire]

Here, here! I would love to see the military start looking to keep old but true systems over billion dollar research, and multi-million dollar per unit systems UNTIL the need is present. As was stated, we are 15-20 years ahead of the closest competition, and we train far more than any other nation. Our forces are farther in advance of any other nation in lethal power than has been seen EVER in the history of the world. We are cutting our forces back to use systems that are far too expensive, leaving us to stretch our units out in long deployments just when we need the larger forces to man the lines.

[dts32041]

"he appears frequently in the broadcast media"

Not as much as he use to, when asked one night by a CNN info babe what do you do with terrorists he gave a two word answer "Kill Them", It was six months before you saw him on TV.

That is without a doubt the most concise approach to the problem I have ever heard.

[Michael121]

Wart-Hogs RULE. We need more. The ground punders like the CAS Punch they offer close, slow, armored and ARMED.

But the Air force pretty boys didn't think them sexy. Sometimes rough is better than cute.