Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

COMANCHE: A GOOD KILL
New York Post ^ | February 27, 2004 | RALPH PETERS

Posted on 02/27/2004 4:24:58 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4

Edited on 05/26/2004 5:19:46 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: army; comanche; ralphpeters; raptor; sbct; stryker; transformation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
To: Michael121
History Channel Right now... speaking of the Wart Hog.... Heavy Metal presents the A-10 Wart Hog Tank killer....... WOO HOO
41 posted on 02/27/2004 7:01:53 PM PST by Michael121 (An old soldier knows truth. Only a Dead Soldier knows peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
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.
42 posted on 02/27/2004 7:03:02 PM PST by OldCorps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
how do you know about ags? were you an armor guy? work at tacom? just curious.
43 posted on 02/27/2004 7:06:00 PM PST by OldCorps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: Cannoneer No. 4
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.


45 posted on 02/27/2004 10:10:12 PM PST by VaBthang4 (-He who watches over Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ottofire
Relax, the A10 is slated to serve til 2025.

46 posted on 02/27/2004 10:12:43 PM PST by VaBthang4 (-He who watches over Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ottofire; Poohbah
"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.

47 posted on 02/27/2004 10:16:25 PM PST by VaBthang4 (-He who watches over Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OldCorps
No, just read Tom Clancy's "Armored Cav" and "Airborne" - that's all.
48 posted on 02/27/2004 10:22:41 PM PST by hchutch ("I never get involved with my own life. It's too much trouble." - Michael Garibaldi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Rhys Ifans
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.
49 posted on 02/27/2004 10:37:21 PM PST by 185JHP ( "And the pure in heart shall see god.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
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.
50 posted on 02/27/2004 10:37:38 PM PST by petertare (truth, justice and the American way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
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.
51 posted on 02/27/2004 10:45:29 PM PST by Flightdeck (Death is only a horizon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
Not an altogether bad idea. I had this nagging feeling that the Comanche was high-tech for the sake of high-tech.
52 posted on 02/28/2004 3:23:43 AM PST by R. Scott (My cynicism rises with the proximity of the elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
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.
53 posted on 02/28/2004 4:36:50 AM PST by SLB ("We must lay before Him what is in us, not what ought to be in us." C. S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: All
what happened to this aircraft?


54 posted on 02/28/2004 4:57:03 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: VaBthang4
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!
55 posted on 02/28/2004 6:26:19 AM PST by Ottofire (Fire Tempers Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
>...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?

56 posted on 02/28/2004 7:08:44 AM PST by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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

That sums it up.

57 posted on 02/28/2004 7:22:39 AM PST by TADSLOS (Right Wing Infidel since 1954)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: SLB

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

58 posted on 02/28/2004 7:51:10 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4 ("Government is not reason, it is not eloquence -- it is force.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: SLB
The Last of the Mohawks
59 posted on 02/28/2004 8:12:49 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4 ("Government is not reason, it is not eloquence -- it is force.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Ottofire; Poohbah
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.
60 posted on 02/28/2004 10:24:32 AM PST by VaBthang4 (-He who watches over Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson