Posted on 07/29/2002 7:08:59 AM PDT by TADSLOS
Apples and oranges.
One (Crusader) is an immobile replacement for an existing system that is not even used (Paladin), Comanche is a whole different animal.
By your rationale, maybe we should scrap submarine and fighter aircraft modernization also.
My only question is this: according to the article the greatest asset of the Comanche will be its 'digital communication network' which would be a vital strength in the battlefield of the future. Now, my question is how would this be different from a future AH-64 with LongBow and digitized communications, plus upgrades to it pertinent to a 2008 timeframe? And i know the Comanche is stealthy, but from what i know about the AH-64 from its use in the Gulf war it has been used very effectively to evade enemy radar and other forms of detection by flying very low thereby evading detection (and unlike a jet a copter can be able to fly low enough to evade almost all detection).
Anyway i think the greatest obstacle to the Comanche will be proving to Congress that an imporved enhanced Apache with upgraded digital communications circa 2008 will not do the same job as the Comanche for less cost. Not to say the Comanche is moot ...i would personally like to see it fielded by the army, however i think it will have a hard time getting approved by congress, especially with the budget tied up with other military projects like applying systems like the Raptor and JSF as well as researching new stuff like the Tactical Tomahawk and the Nest generation of Naval Cruisers (the ones that look like the Monitor).
My guess is that the Comanche will only be an Apache pilot's wet dream! Sadly.
Seems like the way to go to me.
UAVs can be the cheap, adaptable, low-risk eyes and targeters for the front line troops.
'Targeting' UAVs would make artillery a dreadfully precise weapon. Heck, adapting mortars to be laser-guided to their targets by UAVs could be worthwhile.
The brass can see the tapes after the battle, or on CNN- it's the platoon leaders and seargents who need the UAVs.
Yes, they can be and already are, but are still just a part of the whole. Reliance on a single brand of technology can have distasterous results as well. Nothing, so far, beats the six senses of a human soldier on or near the scene in real time to report, develop the situation and take the initiative. A combination of UAV and humans in contact is the right mix. We are also moving away from a linear battlefield. The new mantra is assymetric warfare. Soldiers on the ground will still be required to root out non-linear forces and having UAV support and control of them will be a great tool, just not an end all. Hopefully, the armchair generals will avoid using UAV technology to play squad leader (aka the Vietnam C2 bird flying circles at 1500 ft AGL). That would be counter-productive.
Seems it would be a little harder guiding ballistic weapons than gravity bombs.
Can they? Yes. Should they? Well.... :-)
(Back to just lurking on these threads...)
Please, someone stop me.
US Fighter Jet Crashes in Mediterranean, One Crew Member Killed, Navy Says
The Associated Press
Published: Mar 2, 2002
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Tomcat fighter jet crashed Saturday during a training exercise in the Mediterranean Sea, killing one of the two crew members, the Navy said.
Or maybe this may stop you:
F-14 Tomcat Just crashes off Deck of USS JFK
MSNBC | 3/2/01
Just on MSNBC F-14 Tomcat just crashes off Deck of USS JFK. 1 Serviceman Dead - Developing
Or even this:
F-14 Tomcat Crashes at Philladelphia Air Show - Fate of Crew Unknown
Source: KYW Radio and AP
Posted on 06/18/2000 16:01:54 PDT
WILLOW GROVE, Pa. (AP) A military plane crashed during an air show today at Willow Grove Naval Air Station. The F-14 Tomcat, with two crew aboard, was performing at the Willow Grove 2000 Sounds of Freedom show, according to radio station KYW 1040. The plane went down in a wooded area, police said. The fate of the crew was not immediately known. There were no immediate reports of injuries among spectators.
Or maybe i should include a picture:
Here is one of a Ukranian SU-27 Flanker kissing the earth kamikaze style!:
.
In essence jet aircraft can fly low ....but even with terrain mappin, fancy aerobatics, and competent pilots they should still leave tree top flying to helicopters. Why? Because that is where copters are most efficient!
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.