Crusader Lessons Loom Large As Leaders Try To Save Comanche

Army Times ^ | August 5, 2002 | By Sean D. Naylor, Times staff writer

[TADSLOS]

If Army leaders want to save the embattled Comanche helicopter program, they must learn from the mistakes they made during the recent Crusader controversy, Army officials in the Pentagon said.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld canceled the Crusader howitzer program on short notice, surprising Army leaders who thought he supported the program. Now published reports suggest the Army’s RAH-66 Comanche reconnaissance helicopter program may be next on the chopping block.

Army leaders cannot assume that just because the requirement for a major weapons program seems obvious to them, it will seem equally obvious to their civilian bosses in the office of the secretary of defense, said one field grade Army officer in the Pentagon.

In the case of Crusader, "We assumed that everyone understood the need for cannon artillery," the officer said. "Well, clearly, not everyone agreed on that."

"The carry-over to Comanche might be that we assume that everyone understands the need for manned scout aircraft. Well, maybe some people don’t. Maybe some folks would say ‘Well, why can’t they be replaced with an" unmanned aerial vehicle?’

"You may need to make the case. You can’t really assume that there’s a common starting point in terms of understanding the rationale behind the system or the need for it."

Army Secretary Thomas White put it more bluntly during a July 11 visit to Fort Benning, Ga.

"We’re in a fight to the death over Comanche, to be brutally frank," he said. The Army, he continued, must be able to explain why Comanche "is in fact the airborne quarterback" of tomorrow’s battlefield.

The Comanche was conceived in the early 1980s as a stealthy reconnaissance helicopter that also packed a punch with Hellfire antitank missiles and a 20 mm cannon. But as the Army’s budget dwindled in the 1990s, the program’s development timeline slipped repeatedly. It is now not scheduled for fielding until 2009.

Army officials say the Comanche’s digital communications suite means it will have a crucial role in the high-tech units the service plans to start fielding in 2008. The Army calls that force, organized around a yet-to-be-designed Future Combat System, its Objective Force. The process of redesigning the Army around much lighter combat systems enabled by digital communications is called Transformation.

The service refers to its heavy units organized around the Abrams tank and Bradley fighting vehicle — which were first fielded in the 1980s — as its Legacy Force.

But because the Comanche program’s roots are in the 1980s, the Army must work hard to convince its political masters that the helicopter has an important role to play in the Objective Force, according to the field-grade officer.

Army leaders must prepare to answer the question "Are you tying [Comanche] to Transformation, or is it merely a modernization of your Legacy Force?," the officer said. "Because if it’s just a modernization of the Legacy Force, it’s probably not going to survive the cut.

"It is a platform that is capable of network-centric warfare, but have we communicated that? I don’t know. We probably need to do a better job of communicating what is transformational about programs like this."

The Army must not only ensure that Rumsfeld and his lieutenants understand the need for Comanche, service leaders also must ensure they are in step with the office of the secretary of defense if the Comanche does retain its place in the budget, said one Army general.

"We’re going to reach resolution with OSD — whether they want to or not — for their own good, we’re going to reach resolution on this thing before the ‘04 budget goes to the Hill," the general said. "Because it is just essential that the Department [of Defense] not put itself through what it’s put itself through with the whole Crusader business.

"That’s for the good of the department, and in the long run it’s for the good of the Army. Because the last thing we need to do is think we have support on an issue and then find that we don’t later on.

"So I think there will be enormous effort expended by Army leadership to make sure that we have full resolution of where we’re going on Comanche before the ‘04 [budget] goes to Capitol Hill."

Vice Chief of Staff Gen. John Keane defended the Comanche in a meeting with reporters July 24. "Comanche is integral to the Objective Force," he said. "We see it working hand in glove with the Future Combat System."

The Army does not have fall-back plans if the Comanche were to be canceled, Keane said. But he acknowledged there was an ongoing debate in the Pentagon over whether the emergence of unmanned aerial vehicles had invalidated the need for manned reconnaissance on future battlefields.

"I think there’s tension around that issue," he said, but added that such debate was healthy.

"UAVs and UCAVs from the Army’s perspective are part of the future of warfare," Keane said. "As we move toward the Objective Force, they’re going to be integral to what we’re doing. We also believe that there’s a vital role for manned armed reconnaissance, because of the fluidity of that battlefield and the flexibility and response that that [manned armed reconnaissance] gets you, we think it’s integral to future warfare as well as what we’re doing today."

Keane described Comanche as "a solid program" that would be reviewed by Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Pete Aldridge in August. But he denied the Army had any sort of game plan to preserve the program.

"It’s under review, and Sec. Aldridge will get our recommendations," Keane said. "He’ll make his decision in August and he’ll make a recommendation to the secretary of defense. In terms of tactics or gaming, we’re not involved in any of that."

[TADSLOS]

FYI and comment.

[StockAyatollah]

First Crusader and now Comanchee. Nice to see some federal boondoggles getting the axe. Now how about the non-defense ones: farm subsidies, Dept of Education, Social Security, etc.

[Psalm 73]

"First Crusader and now Comanchee. Nice to see some federal boondoggles getting the axe."

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.

[spetznaz]

I like, and have always liked the comanche, so my post is not directed against the Comanche at all. Let's first get that out of the way.

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.

[Psalm 73]

Sooo....Comanche is NOT a boondoggle. br>Granted, some things are definitely boondoggles, and some are needed weapons systems that are under budgetary crunches.
Apache was designed strictly to shred massed Soviet heavy armor formations, although it has adapted well to the changing needs of the Army - but Comanche was designed specifically with the next century in mind.
It's much faster and more manuverable, but sadly, as so often happens, the Army changed Specs many times since the initial design - it's now much heavier than was intended.
An aircraft cannot be all things to all people!

[mrsmith]

'‘Well, why can’t they be replaced with an" unmanned aerial vehicle?’ '

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.

[TADSLOS]

UAVs can be the cheap, adaptable, low-risk eyes and targeters for the front line troops.

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.

[mrsmith]

Sorry, slightly off topic I admit:
Is there an operational laser-guided system for ballistic field artillery?
All I hear about targeting is that it's done by ground troops for the air forces.

Seems it would be a little harder guiding ballistic weapons than gravity bombs.

[bosniajmc]

yes. its called copperhead, and it works fairly well.

[TADSLOS]

Copperhead is the munition used by conventioanl tube artillery. It is fired from the 155mm howitzer and is tracked via laser designator. It's not that it's harder to guide, just not very cost effective, from a fire supporter's point of view. It's another option available to the ground commander if he's out of bullets or if there's more targets than he can knock out with his own assets (SABOT/TOW/Hellfire/CAS precision guided munitions)but he has to have a laser designator either on the ground or in the air (could be a UAV).

[CaptRon]

Saw a documentary about this on the Discovery Wings channel this weekend. Looked like quite and aircraft to me. Can pivot around it's rotor regradless of the direction of travel, can fly sideways at 80 knots and backward at 40, and the electronics were awesome.

[RoughDobermann]

and unlike a jet a copter can be able to fly low enough to evade almost all detection

Can they? Yes. Should they? Well.... :-)

[mrsmith]

Thanks, I see it was a success back in Desert Storm- shows how far behind the curve I am on munitions!

(Back to just lurking on these threads...)

[RoughDobermann]

Or this one...

[RoughDobermann]

Or this....

Please, someone stop me.

[George W. Bush]

Army Secretary Thomas White put it more bluntly during a July 11 visit to Fort Benning, Ga. "We’re in a fight to the death over Comanche, to be brutally frank," he said. The Army, he continued, must be able to explain why Comanche "is in fact the airborne quarterback" of tomorrow’s battlefield.

At least Rumsfeld does not think and speak in such juvenile terms. It's rather pleasant to see adults in charge of the nuclear weapons again.

[spetznaz]

Why jets should not fly that low you ask? Well, let me stop you(as you asked) and tell you why. Here is why:

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!

[KneelBeforeZod]

All I can say is, they need to get it thru before one-term-Bush leaves office...

[RoughDobermann]

Easy tiger. Please note my :-) I was kidding. I realize the dangers of fixed wing aircraft flying too low.

[spetznaz]

LOL .....maybe a paper tiger. :D