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.

[Michael121]

History Channel Right now... speaking of the Wart Hog.... Heavy Metal presents the A-10 Wart Hog Tank killer....... WOO HOO

[OldCorps]

i'm an old mech guy and am not against killing the comanche. what i am against is Rummy et. al. taking the money from the army and blowing it on big bucks defense fighter/ship contracts for the usaf/navy.

The main problem with the army right now is that it is over-committed. And we have yet to work the Korea issue hard. The rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching the army too thin. The $ should be spent activating and training a few of the divisions that were downsized/eliminated by commie/bore.

and yes, Shinseki was right (course i've been saying that all along).

It remains to be seen if OSD will take the cash from the army budget and further emasculate the army.

[OldCorps]

how do you know about ags? were you an armor guy? work at tacom? just curious.

[VaBthang4]

The author makes some 'decent' points within a wholly incompetent article. I was with him for a minute but then his ultimate perspective began to shine through and became plain when he took a shot at Rumsfeld.

BTW: The Army is getting it's new concept from none other than the United States Marine Corps.

[VaBthang4]

Relax, the A10 is slated to serve til 2025.

[VaBthang4]

"Yeah, those fighter-smart missile combos look pretty on paper, but to give close airsupport, you just HAVE to be able to loiter."

Totally, completely, utterly refuted by Afghanistan.

[hchutch]

No, just read Tom Clancy's "Armored Cav" and "Airborne" - that's all.

[185JHP]

Peters is amazing - not in a good way. His writing borders on being insufferable. I'd like to "buy his ability for what it's worth, and sell it for what he thinks it's worth." The good news is, he won't negatively influence many people of quality. Dandy Don won't be fooled by him.

[petertare]

Nn-expert concurrence with commanche canx. The Army did step up, is getting smarter. Could the poor performance with the one multi-helo attack early-on in the war have led to this conclusion? I do not understand why we build 50mill machines that could be downed with $20 worth of 1950 technology, or a few lucky small arms rounds. Even our economy cannot support that equation very long.

Equip the troops, reorganize, and step sprightly forward.

[Flightdeck]

After 8 billion dollars spent and another 2 billion in contract severence fees, I'm guessing there's something else up their sleeves. There was a big fight after 900 million was spent on NASA's spaceplane, and it was cancelled; I would bet that there exists a project better than the Comanche that the public shouldn't know about. And I'm happy.

[R. Scott]

Not an altogether bad idea. I had this nagging feeling that the Comanche was high-tech for the sake of high-tech.

[SLB]

From 1959 until 1961, my F-I-L was the chief combat developer for the Mohawk, the last fixed wing aircraft actually developed 100% by the Army. The actual title of the program was "High Performance Aircraft in Support of Ground Combat Operations." He says the Air Force had a fit and that DoD stepped in and directed the outcome be a reconnaissance aircraft rather than ground attack. Thus the birth of the Mohawk.

[longtermmemmory]

what happened to this aircraft?

[Ottofire]

Thought yes, a smart bomb from 10-20k feet will give those on the ground air support, an aircraft that is closer, and loiters can help keep those bombs from the good guys, as seen with the Canadians getting hit in Afganistan. Yes, closer does not guarentee a friendly-fire-free zone, but allow a better identification that someone doing a fast cruise-by can not do.

Note that in Afganistan the F-15 had its first use of cannon in ground support, ever!

[theFIRMbss]

>...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.)

Then do you believe
all helicopters are done
as battle platforms,

and only wiz-tech
optic-skin black-op type crafts
can survive these days?

[TADSLOS]

I had this nagging feeling that the Comanche was high-tech for the sake of high-tech.

That sums it up.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

The Air Force never felt secure enough to allow the Army to have fixed wing attack aircraft.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

The Last of the Mohawks

[VaBthang4]

I understand all of those things but you said: "Yeah, those fighter-smart missile combos look pretty on paper, but to give close airsupport, you just HAVE to be able to loiter."

You have to be able to loiter is a relative notion...the variables being how many air assets you have and when those assets arrive on station/payload/remaining fuel.

The idea that you 'have' to have a platform that can loiter as long as the A-10 can is not correct. In Afghanistan and Iraq we stacked aircraft at different altitudes depending upon their payload and remaining fuel.

Full battle rattle A-10s are a Godsend for any operator on the ground and I thought they were one of our greatest CAS assets back when the AF brass were trying to scrap it but it's loiter capabilities arent a must have requirement in the battlefields we will continue to shape...it is however a luxury I wouldnt want to get rid of. ;o)

I'm stunned the Marine Corps never co-opted the A-10. It is most definitely a Marine Corps type of aircraft.