Army Promotes Troubled Comanche

The Army wheeled out its top guns Thursday to promote its next-generation armed-reconnaissance RAH-66 Comanche helicopter, which is under fire in Congress and at the Pentagon.

Top officers from the Army's infantry, armor, indirect-fire and aviation branches voiced support of the Boeing-Sikorsky helicopter at a symposium near the Pentagon presented by the Association of the U.S. Army.

The Army expects Comanche in the field in 2009. It will be used as a collector of information from sensors on and off the aircraft, pulling information together to send to a common operating picture available to many levels of command and also sending precise real-time targeting and other information to combatants.

The symposium was timely. Several congressional committees have criticized the Boeing-Sikorsky helicopter, which has been restructured six times over two decades and has cost $6 billion. At the Pentagon, the Defense Planning Guidance for 2004 through 2009 is considering Comanche as one of four developmental programs that could be terminated or cut as irrelevant to the future military. The others are the CVN(X) carrier, the Air Force F-22 Raptor fighter and the Marine Corps and Air Force V-22 Osprey tiltrotor.

"The Comanche is not just another helicopter," said Maj. Gen. Joseph Bergantz, program executive officer-Aviation. It would contribute to the commander's "situational awareness" and allow the commander to choose from Army, joint or coalition assets. These qualities will help make the adversary "irrelevant," said Brig. Gen. (p) Michael Vane, deputy chief of staff for doctrine at the Army Training and Doctrine Command, based at Fort Monroe, Va.

Future joint campaigns will be characterized by a mobile force with 360-degree coverage of its battlespace and the ability to understand the situation as it unfolds, Vane said. Beyond that future forces must have immediate and accurate battle damage assessment.

"Comanche is among the first systems to be fielded that will truly achieve this goal," Vane said.

Maj. Gen. R. Steven Whitcomb, commander of the Armor Center at Fort Knox, Ky., said the connection between sensors and the shooters will pull the branches together from "the foxhole to space," and make a variety of weapons available to help.

"I don't care who shoots it [the target]," he said. "I care about what's shooting at me and how I can stop that from happening."

However, "I don't mean to imply that Comanche is the center of the universe," Whitcomb said. It is a way to multiply combat power.

In an urban-warfare simulation, the Comanche's ability to tell the ground commander "what is real" helped soldiers, said Col. Paul Melody, director of the Infantry School. Troops operated on knowledge of the immediate situation, as it unfolded, not on perception or guesswork.

Brig. Gen. David Ralston, deputy director of the Artillery Center, said Comanche's abilities to link precise target-location information with the ability to choose fires from numerous platforms expanded the effectiveness of fire support.

"We can put downrange a precision munition and we will hit the grid as given to us," Ralston said. "If that grid, however, or that target is given to us inaccurately, we're going to precisely hit a non-target."

Comanche "is a bold venture," said Lt. Gen. John Abrams, commander of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command.

"If this aircraft [is] delivered to standard by Boeing and Sikorsky—and they know we are very direct about this—expectations are very high," Abrams said. "If they can match up to our requirements logic, it will give us a very key capability."

"The mission package on this platform is everything," Abrams said. Preempting critics who contend unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, can take on many of the Comanche's planned reconnaissance and surveillance and perhaps attack capabilities, program executive officer Bergantz said working with UAVs is under consideration.

An advanced concept technology demonstration called the Hunter-Standoff Killer Team with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is under way to run through fiscal 2006. It involves teaming an AH-64 Apache, as a surrogate for the Comanche, with a short-range Hunter UAV, some joint assets and the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon.

This demo will look at controlling UAVs from the Comanche, over a yet-to-be determined tactical common data link, at ranges up to 100 nautical miles.

As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ruminates canceling or cutting the program, Army Secretary Thomas White made his view clear to reporters in March: "We'll terminate it ourselves," if the service doesn't get it right. He won't wait for Rumsfeld to cancel it.

Meanwhile, the program is preparing for a Defense Acquisition Board production decision at the end of the summer.

In Congress, the House Appropriations Committee said its "full support for this program is now in jeopardy unless the Army can show marked progress over the next fiscal year."

The House Armed Services Committee approved the Army's $910 million fiscal 2003 budget request for Comanche but fenced the funds until the service submits a report on the cost of completing engineering and manufacturing development and provides a new timeline to attain initial operational capability.

The Senate approved the budget request in the authorization bill, but the appropriators have yet to act.

Or how about all of the negative press about the Abrams tank, both during testing and prior to DESERT STORM.
There are a whole lot of weapons systems out there that didn't work during the testing phases or that didn't have kinks in them in early production phases.

But, hey, we could always go back to the Stuart tank, the Brewster Buffalo, or the M1 Garand, right?

As a matter of fact, the Brazilians have indeed gone to a lighter tank, their M1A2, that's based on a stretched and improved Stuart tank chassis. One of the projects I had been tasked with as a civilian Dept. of Defense ordnance employee was the creation of weapons packages to replace the aged M6 37mm main gun of obsolete M5 Stuarts and M8 armoured cars still in use in many allied foreign nations with a 20mm automatic cannon, more useful for internal security and crowd control purposes.

And I seem to recall that though the Brewster Buffalo was obsolescent to be sure, those that were shipped to Finland served that country's aie fiorce admirably, and several Finns became aces in that aircraft shortly after the 1939-40 invasion of their country by the Soviet Union. We'll see if the Comanche is a feasable system, with a few flaws and bugs to be worked out in its developmental and initial issue stages, as is not uncommon, or if it's another boondoggle procurement of a piece of really unsuitable equipment like the M114 tracked recon vehicle or the *Sergeant York* DIVADS 40mm SPAA weapon. Too it may be in the same category as the V22 Osprey, a state-of-the art answer to a shortfall of desperately needed equipment that remains flawed unless those critical cutting-edge flaws can be cured, but which is a potential deathtrap for troops if they are not.

-archy-/-

This thread needs a picture!

Indeed, and preferably of some that indicate the Comanche will be capable of more than just sitting on the ground. I'm not sure if this one is an artist's rendition or a shot of a preproduction testbed, But yes, the Comanche is about as *pretty* as it's possible for a rotary-wing aircraft to get.

Yeah Pretty damned ugly....

^^^^The AH-1Z, The Marines cheaper and better answer to the Apache.

Well at least I know that the Marines won't be getting this technological tinker toy until the army figures out that they can't make it work as advertised. As for the MV-22 Osprey, anyone that thinks it is deadly doesn't know the history of the aircraft it is replacing, the CH-46.

Now, I don't know how a helicopter flying in the trees can rely on stealth and I also don't see spending billions for fifty extra miles per hour.

If you're pinned down and surrounded, I would think you would care a lot about how quickly help was coming

It looks like the future of air-to-ground warfare will revolve around standoff weapons which will be fired from a large-capacity platform sitting a safe distance away, and guided to the target by ground troops and choppers that need to get as close to the action as possible without getting blown away

from the comments at the bottom of the page these people obviously are still thinking old school about platforms (in this case airframes). The mission equipment package in the Comanche does not have to be Comanche specific.. It is hardware (line replaceable units) being drawn together with software code. Once this platform is developed the code can literally be picked up and put elsewhere (into another platform). That's what we do now on other existing (albeit not as complex) Mission Systems. There is comment about the sci-fi channel in there.. What I always say is that we can do just about anything but are you willing to pay and wait for it, we just can't snap or fingers and make it happen.. I'm not defending the Comanche by any means. I think if there was one prime integrator instead of two fiercely competitive companies (Boeing and UTC) working on this then we'd be a whole lot closer. .Lets not also forget the the expansion of the mission profile that the Comanche has been directed to accommodate (from scout to attack and now more).

What I always say is that we can do just about anything but are you willing to pay and wait for it, we just can't snap or fingers and make it happen

Good comment, and, I believe is the crux of the problem-too many Acquisition and Contractor hands in the pie trying to turn it into the one all, be all system (similar to the Joint Strike Fighter). I'm sure this drives design engineers nuts, aside from running up R&D costs and delaying fielding of the aircraft. Now they face termination of the program from too much "adding of ingredients" instead of "letting it cook."

"Why on earth would you want that thing back in service?"

Shooter, a previous poster made a comment that seemed to mention the Garand in a negative context. The M1 Garand is probaly the finest service rifle this country has ever produced. I was was just stepping up in its defense. The M14 which shares many of the same components as the M1 would probably be more practical. These statements are made in light of the recent comments made on the stopping power of the M16

from the comments at the bottom of the page these people obviously are still thinking old school about platforms (in this case airframes).

I couldn't agree more. Nobody on this thread has made a cogent argument as to why the same capabilities (other than stealth) could not be installed on a different platform, such as the Apache or Cobra. As for the significance of stealth, reasonable people can disagree. From my perspective, the Comanche is designed to fly more or less low to the ground, i.e., within visual engagement range. Yes, the absence of a radar signature will increase its survivability, but I don't think anywhere near enough so to justify its cost. In addition, the Comanche won't even be fielded for what, another 7 years? How can we possibly have any assurance that its current level of stealthiness will have any meaning at that time?

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.