Slashdot Mirror
US Army Scraps Comanche Helicopter
swordboy writes "The US Army just scrapped the Comanche helicopter program - a joint venture with Boeing and United Technologies. After 20 years and billions of taxpayer dollars, it never produced an operational helicopter. Open-source helicopter, anyone?" The article notes: "The Comanche is designed to receive and process intelligence from drones and surveillance aircraft and pass it to ground units. The Army was directed in 2002 to focus its research on producing a reconnaissance helicopter rather than one that can attack as well as scout. The helicopter was intended to counter Soviet weapons."
Oh DEAR GOD NO! Does this mean I have to scrap playing Comanche 4?? I just got into the last Mission set. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!
The Pentagon probably determined a catastrophic weather change and these wouldn't work under the new climate...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Whats the deal with the use of Native American Tribe names for all of our helicopters?
... I was kinda partial to it, ever since LHX came out for MSDOS back in like 1990 or so..
2 27 55
http://store6.yimg.com/I/hobby-warehouse_1772_8
Who is going to break the news to Novalogic?
If it was open source the Russians would have just looked at the code and found out how to counter it. Doesn't sound like a very good military plan to me.
It was intended to counter soviet weapons...the soviets invent a new type of weapon, we cancel the aforementioned anti-soviet-weapon-weapon.
Go figure...
yeah, it was stupid piece of flying metal. I kept on crashing and crashing and crashing... in that game.
/ss
Just as long as they don't cancel the A-10. The greatest tank buster ever.
...according to CNN, the cancellation decision is expected to require the Army to pay at least $2 billion in contract termination fees. That is, assuming, of course, that they tell the primary contractors the program is over, considering the Sikorsky people think we are on track and fully funded until we hear otherwise.
libertarianswag.com
This isn't that bad of news for the Boeing company, just United Technologies. Because the US is no longer bankrolling the Comanche project, they will have to upgrade existing Apache attack helicopters over time. The Apaches are built by Boeing.
><));>
There was no civillian application for such a copter, it's weapons payload was dwarfed by the Longbow, which can carry racks of hellfires. What purpose did it have? It's operational radius is tiny compared to the unmanned recon vehicles, and with lo radar signature X projects being developed, the future was in remote control surveillance.
The lesson here is that design to deployment windows have to become shorter, when platforms take time measured in decades, that's just too long. Smaller, quicker, faster, cheaper.
What I dont get is why NOW did they decide to kill it, they have been developing this thing for years, made a big deal about its stealth capabilities sold the public on its use and THEN decide to kill it.......
And they wonder why we bitch when they start programs? Here is a perfect example of them wasting away our money on a program that even with it set to go to production, was canceled.
Are they THAT dumb?
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
The current Apache and (much older) Cobra Z revs. can do what the Army will be tasked to do over the next little while given the demise of the Soviet Union and the war on terrorism. So, why spend another 2 billion on a program that *cough*cough* B-2 bomber* cough*, no longer has a mission?
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I can't believe your still running Commanche! I'm running Apache! seriously, 20 years and billions of dollars without a working product. Its tough stuff, but with that type of input and no working output, all I can say is ouch and scrap it.
http://www.beyourowneviloverlord.tk
http://www.frozenchickenthrowing.tk
http://www.killercamel.tk
We are way better off without the program. Most of our helecopters in iraq and other places( Somalia ) have been shot down by unguided rpg's. The Comanche was going to be a low radar signature helecopter. But how much good does that do when its 20 feet off the ground half the time?
"Cowardice in a race, as in an individual, is the unpardonable sin." --Teddy Roosevelt
Instead of countering Soviet air technology, maybe they should start building a chopper that doesn't get shot down [philly.com] by dirt-cheap disposable rocketry.
This is probably a good move. Incremental changes in weaponry tend to have better long term pay-off than super-weapon development. Especially since most super-weapons are reliant on hundreds of untested systems. Plugging in upgrades to current systems and revising the platform as time goes on, allows failed systems to be backed out. With super-weapons, you have to throw away the entire weapon. (Hundreds of billions potentially down the drain!)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Haliburton must have offered to do it for twice the price.
The Tiger attack helicopter.
The Tiger may well be the last manned combat helo, the battlefield of the future belongs to drones it seems...
Bloomberg isn't going to crumble under the slashdot load. Stop Karma whoring before I beat you back into place.
><));>
I bet ol Paul and Paul Sr. are gonna be pissed....look for a fight in a episode next seasn
See Sig! See Sig Zig! Zig Sig Zig!!!!!
bigger scale.
Why drop a whole helicopter project just because of the name? I mean come on, this political correctness is just going to far.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Stupidly large amounts of money for things which never actually work. Wasteful corporate welfare!
Etc. etc. etc.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
20 years, no working product? Think about that. That's 1984. That's before web pages, before the internet, before Microsoft "took over the world". That's Commodore 64, Atari and Apple days.
8 0T6HB01 .html
In that amount of time. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Interesting link here:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040223/D
"The Comanche decision reflects a growing realization in the Pentagon that the military has more big-ticket weapons projects in the works than it can afford, even after seeing the Pentagon budget grow by tens of billions of dollars since 2001. And it the reflects the rising popularity of unmanned aircraft, for surveillance as well as attack missions, in recent years."
"From the first days of the Bush administration there has been talk of canceling a number of major aviation projects, including the Marine Corps' V-22 Osprey hybrid helicopter-airplane and the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor fighter jet, but so far the Comanche has been the only casualty."
Sikorski employs a lot of people in CT, and Lieberman and Dodd still have a lot of pull.
So far, the company is telling the employess that it's business as usual.
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
isn't Boeing a British company that builds alot of stuff (planes, ships) for the British army as well?
They have just sunk a bunch of money into all the new buildings and support structure here at Ft Rucker for this program, not to mention all of the Commanche portatble cockpits running around and the support personnel and equiptment for those... man what a waste... I guess those rumors about waiting to get the new buildings up before the program was canceled where true.
The Army needs helicopters to move soldiers around the battlefield, but with so many other ways of directing fire (much more accurate indirect fire through Paladin systems, for example), and better coordination with the fast-movers (the Air Force and Army have a ways to go in this regard, but they're getting better), the days of the wannabe Hind are over.
Say what you will about Rumsfeld, but he has at least made the top brass look long and hard at all the systems in the pipeline to be sure they match future needs.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
... unless you work for Boeing or the other defense contractors.
Ultimately though - the savings that will come as a result of scrapping the project, even with the billions that were already sunk into it, will still save the economy several billions of dollars.
I'm for it, especially considering that it's replacement are UAVs.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
Could somebody here who is smarter than I am. (that's lots of you) explain to me the point of a stealthy helo?
Here is my problem with it- don't those big blades spinning around on top create a nice big disc that is going to bounce radar right back? Will any rotary wing aircraft ever be very stealthy? I never understood this helicopter.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
"Open-source helicopter, anyone?"
Hey, while we're at it - let's make our advance nuclear research programs open source too!
Interesting, though, this will be another damaging blow to Boeing.
This makes you wonder if they were really even working on such a project, or if this was just a way to funnel monies to other 'secret' project they don't want the public at large to know of.
Interesting though. I wonder what the next 'wonder helicopter' will be.
The Army was directed in 2002 to focus its research on producing a reconnaissance helicopter rather than one that can attack as well as scout. The helicopter was intended to counter Soviet weapons. Less pork barrel spending. In case some of you didn't know there are about 25+ pork barrel pilotless attack vehicles "RPV's make the difference (from 1974 mind you)" Googled Uncle Sam info on RPV's. Now ask yourself this question, what's wrong with U2 bombers, but wait before you shoot back with some cliche "low flying aerodynamic hoodoo" post, then I up you one now and state, then what's wrong with taking (what Uncle Scam themselves call) - the winner of all RPV's - Predator and just adding some stronger firepower on it? They've use it to kill before, so it is proven:Bah... you're right I guess, spend a couple of billion more. I'll read about it later
MoFscker
They could ask that farmer in Vietnam for help.
At least he would be interested in buying the prototype.
My rights don't need management.
is this outcome the result of too many changes, suggestion, ideas etc throughout the years?
it's similar to software development. the first idea was pretty cool, then investors want their 'good' ideas to be included, then the 'testers' want their 'cool' ideas in that too, and nothing ever happens.
Then throw in the mix at how poor the Apache's did in Iraq this time with several being shot down by small arms fire and you have a platform that has outlived it's use.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
That would have to be the one with sub-contractor in every Congressional district.
It had a ejection seat
Friend of mine is an airline pilot, and even he will admit that it's likely his career will be cut short by advancing tech.
(OT: and since tech is advancing exponentially, it'll replace many more jobs than it creates, which is too bad if you live a country where welfare is still a dirty word.)
--
Power to the Peaceful
It isn't dead yet. Nothing is stopping congress from keeping the program going to keep the contractors happy. They have do it in the past.
Are you on fuckin crack? Check your sources if you have any. I saw the darn thing make several test flights on the discovery channel for christ sake!!
Here's a couple of operational ones.
You don't even need to be a National Defense drone with security clearence to see it.
WTF? Please explain. ( If you meant in service, please fix your misguiding statement. )
My friend works for Sikorsky and told me about this news this morning. He works on the Comanche project, and he was quite bummed. I'll find out soon what he heard and how long he'll be there.
It's tough when the project you're working on is cancelled and there is no fall back.
I wish the Sikorsky engineers luck in finding new jobs.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
Yay!
This means that GUI for our-favorite-web-browser-that's-also-named-after a-helicopter won't have to change it's name suddenly and unexpectedly like all those other open source programs that had nothing to do with whatever else it was that had the same name first.
Uh. Yeah. Good news, that.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
Whose ox was gored, this time?
considering the long odds they were against, a lot of Native American tribes fought back fairly effectively against the US in a variety of wars (mostly in the late 1800's) - thus the helicopter naming convention could also be an attempt to honor the qualities (the abilities to use small numbers of highly trained troops to defeat numerically superior forces) that the purchasers wish the helicopters to have. Helicopters are fairly mobile, and are supposed to multiply the effectiveness of the forces to which they are attached - these features perhaps are also reminiscent of the way Native Americans fought.
then again, it could just be gladhanding BS from the nation that killed so many Native Americans - I don't really know.
When i read the headlines, i remembered playing comanche1. 1993. Still in school, on a 386.
How the world has changed since then, and they still havent got that thing ready....
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
No, the JSF program was just in the last stages of competition, narrowing it down from two designs (one Boeing, one Lockheed) to one (Lockheed's).
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
What makes you say that? I'm curious. If you're upset because the Bradley doesn't go up well against MBTs, you're barking up the wrong tree, because the Bradley wasn't designed for that purpose.
If you're saying that the Bradley suffers as a personnel carrier because of its armament, I'd be interested in your sources. I'm not saying this with sarcasm - I've just never heard anyone badmouth the Bradley since the infamous 60 Minutes piece back when the Bradley was still under development.
I have heard mech guys talk about how much they love their Bradley, including one track commander whose Bradley took a T-72 round and kept fighting.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The JSF project hasn't been canceled.
Meanwhile, the Warthog showed it could go into battle, get banged up and survive. Take a look at the wing photo to see what I mean.
Here's the Panther helicopter. It's a militarized Dauphin (dolphin in French). Anyway those are not kraut helo but really European ones even if Germany and France are the most involved...
Don't take it personally, I 'm like this all the time.
Can they continue to develop a modified Comanche program and pitch it to the UK or some other ally? or does that all have to happen via some government contract hullabaloo?
My take on military R&D has always been "why?". Why develop a helicopter that can fly sideways, communicate with drone vehicles, etc, when most of the people we fight are still practically throwing rocks at us... When is the last time we went to war against a nation with an actual air force? We shoot million dollar missiles at these people's mud huts... They destroy our multi-million dollar tanks with $100 left over bargain bin land mines and explosives. Obviously something isn't right here. It may be time to re-evaluate where the money is REALLY going.
"The next generation of interesting software will be made on a Macintosh, not an IBM PC." -Bill Gates
After all, how much of that $20 Billion went into basic research that will still be valid the next time someone wants to build a chopper? Wind tunnel data for example doesn't all of a sudden change without reason.
How much of that work led to new systems/ improvements to existing systems that either has allteady been deployed to other choppers, or can resonably be expected to show up in follow on versions and refits of existing choppers?
How much of that money was spent on basic science and engineering whose results will be applied thousands of times in follow-on development projects?
What about all the various lessons learned during the process of design to prototype, is that knowledge lost because the Commanche never went to production?
Lastly, the program was scrapped because the environment which dictated the original requirements is gone, and the new landscape tends to militate against a need for the platform as designed. Several people allready identified areas which ought to be addressed in follow-on designs. The choice to shut down the project as opposed to trying to re-invent it midstream is a money saver, not a money loser. The decision as easily could have been to impose new requirements on an existing project (cough cough B2 cough cough) extending the project by another $20 Billion, still with no production model at the end...
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
now we can afford to go to mars!
this was on the same track as the Bradley fighting vehicle.
thank god they scraped this thing.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
i just herd on teh N-P-R that they R going to scrappit and recykle to make TeH luNIx boxen!!!!
my personal timeline in this is: there was a Comanche game out when I had a Pentium 60. If they since then still haven't gotten that thing operational it's doomed. Like Duke Nukem Forever.
The Apaches cost $25 million a pop. The Comanche program was budgeted at $38 billion, for 600 copters. That is about $65 million a pop -- if they could bring the spiraling development budget under control.
AirWolf was a cool show
even in the US! Kind of happiness you get when you see that your neighbour has hepes *too*. Its pretty common in India but Indian government continues to fund these projects. dumb.
Man. I still have that issue of Weekly World News with Bat Boy fighting in Iraq. Chomping on Saddam, etc. The pentagon should be cloning that guy. There's yer doomsday weapon of mass destruction right there!
There's also that great bit about dropping five dollar bills and Victoria's Secret catalogs on the russians. I wonder how that would work with North Korea....
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"Cancellation is likely to help sales of Boeing's Apache helicopters, which cost about $25 million each and were used successfully in Afghanistan and Iraq" I find this bit of the artical a little strange, it was my understanding that the Apache took a bit of a mawling in Iraq. While in the main operation they took part in they only lost two helicopters, the rest of the squadron was effectively put out of service for the rest of the war by men armed with AK47's and RPG's. Maybe this cancelation reflects this, it might be all fine and dandy to have electronic jamming for this that and the next thing, but it's not worth much if it can be taken down with massed machine gun fire as the Apaches were subjected to.
In the age of the unmanned aerial vehicle, the Comanche was a reconnaissance helicopter, seems to be a bad buy. The first president to cancel the Comanche was President Carter. The program managers just couldn't deliver in time for the system to be relevant. Good riddance.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The book to read to get an inside look at the idiocy of the Department of Defense is "The Pentagon Wars," by James G. Burton(Colonel, USAF, retired). It'll make you laugh and cry at the mind-numbing amount of waste and pettiness in developing weapons systems. Was also made into a decent HBO movie, but the book is far superior.
If they lose the Marine 1 contract - well they will really be in a bad way.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
That's all I want to know.
You do know that the money isn't just going to suddenly be dropped form the budget. They will just move to other programs like UAV's (which in 15 or 20 yrs will probably look like the HK's from terminator). You really have to look at the moral significance of such a choice. We can no sends machines in to kill people with almsot zero risk to oursleves. We send a machine up, if it's destroyed its a finicial loss. What happens in a couple years if all our weapons become automated? Will we be more willing to go to war (assuming they don't overthrow us)? I would mnuch rather have a $8 billion flying machine than a million UAV's. Wars will end up liek video games in our present course and we all know where that is going to lead.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
"(OT: and since tech is advancing exponentially, it'll replace many more jobs than it creates, which is too bad if you live a country where welfare is still a dirty word.)"
When almost nobody is working, whose taxes are going to fund your welfare cheques? Even "enlightened" european governments will have to collect that money somewhere.
0 1 - just my two bits
This is what happens when you have feature creep, no competition, overly optimistic technology goals and nobody kicking ass making these guys deliver something. I mean where was the need if 18 years ago they started it and produced nothing deployable in the interval. At least someone had the stones to cancel this boondoggle, geeze after 18 years of work the 2005 budget target was still another $1.2 billion on R&D and $12 million on procurement, i.e. STILL no deliverable units.
And while we're on the subject, we already have more Apaches than we'll ever use they're all around the country at various units not deployed anywhere.
While I understand it's a joke (good one too!) I counter with, you're both new to economics. Basic idea of a sunk cost. Basically, the amount we've spent on the program means NOTHING. It is only the benefit we will get in return for the rest of the project. In other words, is the money we'll pay to get the rest of the project finish worth the outcome? They decided no. THerefore, the program has been scrapped.
Well here is Soviet one - here ... Page is in russian, but you sure can watch some videos/pictures. Its AKULA(Shark) chopper. No chances for RPG, it got very thick armor(thicker than any humvee) and first of all - it has catapult, so no human losses. And it is waaaay faster than any apache :) Just look at characteristics.
The Comanche was a red herring. Our helicopters are great and a whole hell of a lot cheaper than the Comanche ever could have hoped to be. Hell, when my dad was flying AH-1J Cobras, the basic cost of a unit (without certain avionics equipment) was ~$800,000.
Personally, I think the Apache is overpriced ($25 million per unit), too. Remember in the First Gulf War, when they couldn't fly them because the sand damaged their engines? The Cobras flew in that, no problem.
The Comanche was a perfect example of feature creep, a bloated over-thinking of the helicopter's function as a weapon. The cost-per-copy, too, would simply have been too big a burden. Simple, durable, well-designed inexpensive weapons (like the Cobra or A-10 Warthog) are much more effective weapons than machines costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per copy, because if it is damaged--or if you lose one--it is far cheaper to repair or replace.
One of the many signs us American's are beginning to see. Soon, America will become just like ancient Rome, once the dominant nation, only rubble after being razed by some new powers that came out of nowhere. You know, there is no USSR, but the country's didn't lose power. All they need is another person to unite them once more... Despite being off-topic, I find it interesting how many similarities there are between America and ancient Rome. The Super Bowl incident is only yet another sign: We are being entertained by gratuitous sex and disturbing violence, much like ancient Rome. Spending huge amounts of money on non-existent projects is quite...shocking, for lack of a better word. Either we need a few more communistic idealists or an extremely aggressive progressive income tax. Why take money away from the disabled when CEO's are making billions to spend on their $500,000 sports cars and 1001 Hawaiian vacations with their greedy, money-grubbing wife and kids.
</rant>
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
i want a refund for the money spent on this.
was a very similar story, and someone involved in the project wrote a book about it, and it was made into a hilarious movie called The Pentagon Wars with Cary Elwes and Kelsey Grammar. Had me laughing out loud! Alas, I have been totally unable to find this movie on any p2p networks. :(
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
More than 20 years to develop the next generation of recon helicopter? If they took much longer they would have been forced to admit that it was really a "next next" generation helicopter or that their generational frame of reference was something longer lived than humans (perhaps turtles or parrots).
That happened years ago. The F-35 (Lockheed's design) is going into LRIP (low rate initial production) soon.
Better helicopters 10 times cheaper. :-) http://usairforce.8k.com/ka-50.htm
They're making a NATO-compatible version, too. This thing can return to the base all by itself.
Ka-52 isn't bad either.
First they came for Seawolf, and no one raised the alarm, for we knew the Soviet submarines were inferior.
Then they came for Crusader, for we knew that the battle field of the future would have no place for artillery.
Then they came for Comanche, for we knew that the future battlefield would be observed by drones.
When they came for Osprey we knew that our Marines could maintain antique helicopters better than anyone in the world.
When they came for Raptor we saw that the Eagle would always triumph over Sukhoi, even as the airframes passed the pilots in age.
And when the military was transformed, into a light nimble counter-terrorism and peacekeeper force the hordes of the Red Army descended on Taiwan and we realized our mistake, but there was none to counter them.
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
The Comanche is the poster child for enormous pork barrel government defense projects.
Maybe it's an awesome machine, but to spend $8 billion over 20 years and still not be in production is indefensible. It's only a helicopter. You can be sure that if the Army really needed it, it would only have taken a few years to start production.
Back in 1992, I was almost hired by Sikorsky to work as a co-op on this project. They already had an airframe back then. What have they been doing in the 12 years since then? Busy work to keep those multi-million dollar payments coming.
Beyond that, the experiences of the US military in Kosovo and Iraq suggest pretty strongly that the whole attack helicopter concept is flawed. They are too slow, too low, and too vulnerable.
Probably the whole reason the Army ever came up with attack helicopters is that they are forbidden to operate fixed-wing aircraft.
How long before some hackers figure out how to hijack drones.
Seriously.
No offense to all of the people who designed the Comanche and are now surfing Slashdot in their free time -- but I wouldn't compare Open Source software to the Comanche. Active Directory, Outlook, SCO Unix, et al -- these are the Comanches of the world. They have connections, and we can't stop SOMEBODY from buying and (trying) to use them.
:)
Open-Source is the Stinger.
...literally. 8^)
Cheers,
e.
Why would they be talking about killing the F-22? Isn't it already in deployment? With cost-accounting practices, all of the investment into the F-22 is sunk if you scale back the buys.
I guess I've just watched one two many Wings programs extolling the world's best fighter.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
The Commanche supposedly had a radar cross section about 66% less than the current scout helicopter (OH-58D--Kiowa Warrior). Actually, in its original mission--back in '83--stealth made sense. The Commanche was supposed to scout ahead of the Apache Attack helos, locate the Soviet armored formations in Germany, and relay this info back to the Apaches who would pop-up from their hide positions and start spewing Hellfire's at the Ruskies. In this role, having some stealth could have saved them from rapid annihilation by Soviet radar-directed gunnery (ZSU-23s) which always accompanied Soviet advanced formations.
Trouble is, in today's conflicts, a scout helicopter doing it's job is going to be taking all sorts of fire from guerillas or terrorists jumping out of cars and buildings firing RPGs, MANPADS, and automatic weapons. This was a non-issue in a big conventional war in Europe (or Korea for that matter). There's no way to be stealthy flying over a city. Apparently the rotor and engine design was also very quiet, so it might of had some advantage in urban and/or guerilla environments over existing choppers, but you still can't sneak up on anyone in a helicopter (Blue Thunder does not exist).
At $59M a pop, there was no way the Commanche can be bought (if Congress fights this, I'll be spewing email at my Congress-critters to knock it off). You can't pay that much (nearly as much as a JSF is going to cost) for something that as a previous poster pointed out can be shot down by some phanatic with a cheap disposable rocket.
The reason it has taken this long to kill Commanche is that Congress, despite their protestations against a myriad of defense programs over the years, doesn't like to cancel projects because the military procurement budget is the single largest jobs program in the Federal budget. Hell, for two decades they've been trying to kill the B-1 bomber and now they're trying to get the AF to put 21 retired aircraft back in service! It's also a matter of prestige and getting their slice of the procurement pie for the services--what will the Army do to recruit kids without cool weapons to feature in commercials. Plus there's been an unhealthy career track in the military for program managers--instead of fighting for a living, alot of military now do R&D for a living. If your project goes down, there goes you chances for promotion (and perhaps even that lucrative private sector job with a defense contractor).
What the Army needs are some new medium and heavy transport helicopters; something that can get up into the mountains easier in Afghanistan. They can certainly do with some new OH-58s, perhaps with beefier engines and more armor to enable them to take some hits and keep flying. The poor Marine Corps is still flying 40+ year old SH-46 Sea Knights that are only flying because of the herculean effort of Marine mechanics to keep them stuck together. There are a lot of places to spend that $38B that would both increase lethality of our military and better protect our troops.
The trouble is that helicopters, like so many defense systems, have just gotten too expensive due to a combination of gold plating, constantly increasing requirements, and reduced procurement. We used to buy thousands of an aircraft, now we buy hundreds. Stated another way, we used to buy Camrys, now we buy Porsches. The Commanche was the ultimate in gold plating of a project. Ask a pilot over in Iraq or Afghanistan what they'd like and I'm sure they'd tell us something that's rugged, reliable, and easy to fly (oh, and has modern anti-missile systems on board). I'm not saying stop buying Porsches when they're called for, but helos are not the place to be spending that kind of scratch. Take that 38 billion and you can completely upgrade all the current helo inventory with modern anti-missile systems and replace the oldest in inventory with new airframes so our kids aren't flying planes twice as old as they are.
--Len Quam
IN true American business fashion . . .
1) Boeing sells designs to foreign company
2) terror group gets hands on helicopters
3) U$A gives contract to friends (Boeing//Lockheed)
for design of new chopper that can rival terror groups.
4) ???
5) Profit
-- Tsiangkun
How is this a troll?
A weapon that could accurately take out a raghead on a moving camel from miles away would actually be pretty useful.
Making one (the issue with the rotors) is not that hard (theory, I realize, actually making one is really hard, but so is making a non-stealth helicopter too).
There are 2 schools of thought in relation to stealth. Absorbtion (very hard, and I can probably overcome it with more transmisison power) and reflection away from you (much easier). There was a test of radar-detectability of cars (car&driver or something) with speed-radars, and the corvette was the lowest (this was some time ago).
Most people thought it was that the car was fiberglass (not true, as the frame underneath had plenty of metal) but rather that the radiator was tilted way back, which reflected the radar away (up) from the receiver. This is also why the F-117 is all angular, it is very hard to get a radar reflection, as no facet is facing towards you (they also use absorbtive/transparent materials).
Take a mirror, and lay it flat in a dark room. Shine a flashlight at an oblique angle, and the mirror is almost invisible (but you see stuff past it with the deflected beam). One thing you may see (it's on the stealth airplanes) is covering the intakes/exhausts with deflecting gratings (helps diffuse thermal stuff as well), which will deflect away from the observer, rather than the verticle wall of spinning turbine blades. The mirror trick is how that F-117 was shot down back in the late 90's in bosnia, which was thought to be one radar (the flashlight) shining across, with a receiver across the valley (like standing by the wall and figuring out the deflection of the beam and back-calculating the location of the deflecting object)
If you look at the apache. you will notice the canopy is angular, which was designed to do the same thing with sunlight (less reflections back to the observer).. The blades can be made of low-radar crossection material (heck fiberglass would be virtually invisible as an example, as would carbon fiber or ceramics), but you also need to make it balistically tolerant (cermaics shatter when shot for instance), and flexible to survive the rigors of hard flying. Making it silent is probably much harder than making it radar low-observable.
With the proliferation of shoulder fired heat-seaking missles, one also must make your copter heat stealthy as well, and often tricks like blowing the exhaust up into the rotor wash spreads the heat signature out to hide it, and make it hard to lock up.
Finally for all those who are talking about survivability, the apache is highly balistically tolerant (military speak for armored), and is also designed to allow for survivability of the pilots in the event of being shot down. There is a test film (or marketing PR film) which showed the apache taking direct fire on a test range from a .50 caliber machine gun with no internal damage, or blade damage (I realize it was staged "just so", but none-the-less impressive...).
The 20 year-old Soviet weapons must be damned good!
Prolly just inspire a bunch of "Soviet Russia" jokes here on /.
So when will the parts and other goodies be available on Ebay? We already had Blue Angels jet on it, so why not this thing? Maybe the Army could get a little cash back for some of the equipment that was needed to build it?
:-)
Cheers.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
internet's been a lot around longer that than
Bah, military development is mostly an excuse to funnel public money into the private interests of decision makers anyway :)
WTF Has Iraq got to do with 9/11?
:v)
Vik
Next time check your facts. They did create a working heliocopter called comanche. The article is saying that they are not going to buy it any more because the threat it was designed for is no more. Due to the fall of Russia and the fact that Russia is so poor now they can't create anything to be a threat.
You're all missing the point:
It looks cool and futuristic (despite it's age)
This was my visual idea of 21 century warfare, you insensitive clod.
- Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
I really really resent that Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union and thus made the Comanche helicopter obsolete.
The procurement process for large weapons is such a huge mass of paper, it seems to take 20 years to figure out if anything is possible or not. Put a hireing freeze on Washington. Let attrition, retirement reduce the employees by 50%. That will speed things up, when the number of useless reviewers that have no authority to make decisions is cut in half.
Remember, beaurocrats don't actually do anything, they just generate enough paper to justify their existance.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
I've been wondering why they operate from there. If operational cost is proportional to time, and effectiveness is proportional to bombs dropped, why weren't they based out of guam, kuwait, or israel? 8x more missions for the same fuel and wear on the planes.
maybe next time we can learn to live with others BEFORE we kill all of them...
Multi-million dollar tanks can be destroyed by relatively cheap anti-tank missiles. That doesn't mean that we should ship all our tanks off to the scrapyard.
The smart thing to do is to design tactics and force mixtures so that each component's weaknesses are protected from exploitation by the enemy.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Remember when George W Bush was making speeches about accountability and stuff like that, with the cool patriot-colored backdrop that had the topic printed all over it. That was a cool show, wasn't it? Really well produced.
-- thinkyhead software and media
"Open-source helicopter, anyone?"
What was the point of that comment? Can you name me one "open source" helicopter that has ever succeeded in a tactical role, or did you just feel the need to slip that in there in order to feel more trendy here on slashdot? It's hard to suck-up to your audience more blatantly than that... Why didn't you just add "Imagine a beowulf cluster of those!" while your adding popular, yet ultimately pointless slashisms?
As far as the expendature goes, I'd rather them spend the money, even if it did ultimately fail to turn out a uselful end product. It's the cost of doing business when your looking for the ideal tactical advantage. Some will cost money and fail, while others, like the Tomahawk, Predator, F22 Raptor and JSF succeed. Don't get your panties in a bind, it happens. It sucked so they shut it down. And even in failure I'm sure they surmounted a number of engineering difficulties in designing the thing, stuff that can be applied to other projects that will succed because of Comanche's development. trying to stealth a helicopter has got to teach you something useful, which can be applied to existing helicopters.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
"We aren't afraid of the Russians, just their helicopters."
Obviously they didn't think the Russian helicopters (e.g. the MI-24) performed dismally in Afghanistan.
Future projects like this can be out sourced to India so when it gets canceled, it would've wasted millions of tax payer dollars instead of billions.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Probably the whole reason the Army ever came up with attack helicopters is that they are forbidden to operate fixed-wing aircraft.
Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding! When all you have for CAS are fast airplanes from a different department of the DoD that can loiter on station for less than 1/2 hour rotary wing CAS looks a LOT better. If the Army could operate it's own Fixed Wing Aircraft for CAS and such it would look a lot like.... the Marines. Maybe it's not such a bad thing they can't. (Who wants wanna be Marines? When you need Marines only the real deal will do, no someone who learned how to fold socks in Basic.)
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
My gut says with the deficit being what it is. Military spending being what it is, and this being a election year Bush has to start cutting back somewhere. I wouldn't be suprised if many simular products get cut. We have all but demolished any army that would justify the comanche (ie stealth) and we are allies with everyone else.
These military industrial programs support the economy, not defense. That >$20G wasn't thrown on a bonfire, it was forced to the top of our efficient trickle-down economy. That's why you're living in such a well adjusted economy in the US. Proper military oversight of our central planning will eventually bring our worker's paradise up to theoretical Soviet standards, once we get all these inefficient labor unions and Congressional red tape committees out of the way.
In my area there were several job listings for Commanche flight systems development in the past few months. Talk about a deadend job...
I'm not terribly surprised. I spent a summer working on the Comanche, and it was clear that this was the kind of project that bureaucrats and managers build careers around. There was no incentive to actually get anything built.
"We'll pay you whatever it costs to build it plus 10%" is such blatant corruption.
"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern." - Lord Acton
Troops and tanks need bases close to the action, since they are slow to move when the balloon goes up. Overseas bases are good, because they let us fight on the other guy's land instead of our own (see Mahan, et al.) Airplanes, either really fast ones like the SR71 or really sneaky ones like the B2 can get there soon enough from CONUS.
Besides, why pay a foreign nation for basing privileges when we can keep the $$$ in our own [voting area|economy]?
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
The show covers military history, weapons, and aviation. He's been covering the Comanche program since its inception, and has recently covered the current role of helicoptors in combat.
The show airs Tuesdays nights at 1:30 AM (so technically thats Wednesday morning) and can be heard over the internet.
Unfortunatly, there's no archives of the show. While wbai is a very liberal station, the show is very balanced, offending both liberals and conservatives by just concentrating on the facts of the subjects covered.
The show isn't just talk, to get occasional breaks he plays "totally inapropriate music" which is how I first heard Lucinda Williams.
this is more accurate than the initial AC post above. I would have preferred some form of honor before we killed lots of NA tribes or moved them to reservations, but it's something. Memory is a funny thing anyway - sometimes remembering people and things has side effects you don't anticipate.
Dauphin is actually French for 'Prince', but who's counting.
Fundamentally you are right, except you forget that the Comanche vendors are in states that probably aren't going to vote for Bush anyway (California (TRW), Pennsylvania (Boeing) and Connecticut (Sikorsky). He is not ticking off his constituency in this move..
You figure that they could get at least ONE of these things in the air after all this time. It's not like helicopters are a new invention or anything.
If they weren't flying the bitch - I wonder what it was they WERE doing all this time. Not angry, just very curious...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Ref: third time was a charm!
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 02, @02:53AM (#7111686) (in AskSlashDot Thread
"How were you fired")
Worked on this program in the late 1980's
embedded software, target sighting system..
m68020 and vme boards.
we went from putting the system on an actual
flying 'bird' to driving it around on the
back of a pickup truck in a KS wheatfield
(as people bailed from the project and PMO
tried to force folks to move to Phil. PA)
1989 time frame. Sure was a good learning
experience.. frustrating too at time.. I recall
working in the lab for a week trying to get a
stupid LED to blink on a front diagnostic
panel!
I open source my fist into your face.
The only thing this story is missing is some half-assed "Cheap as in beer" metaphor.
the war in iraq proved that using helicopters might be a thing of the past. when you have a high altitude bomber is capable of taking out a stationary armored column with JDAMS without even haveing to see the enemy anymore. helicopters in general lost their roles a tank hunters.
as for its recon role, i believe future recon uavs that will supercede global hawk would allow for much better performance than a stealth helicopter.
the funny thing about a stealth helicopter is that its low altitude by nature and the noise that radar might not detect but a simple human ear does easilly.
and since we see that helicopters are being shot down in iraq by dumb weapons (unguided) you have to guestion the usefullness a stealth helicopter would provide.
Didn't we already cancel the Comanches a long time ago? Oh, you mean the helicopter.
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
1) Phase out piloted combat vehicles
2) Outsource technology to India
3) India dictates future foreign military policy
G2mil published this editorial on the Comanche last month. Excellent reading (as G2mil usually is). Some good responses to it on this month's letters page.
Serve Gonk.
Orange County Chopers gona scrap the Comanche bike they already build? :b
That may be true, but look at the Bradley. That thing took forever to make it to production, and it see's a lot of service.
Not that it makes it right just saying that classis government boondoggles are kinda par for the course with the military.
There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
I hope it gets a lot of publicity in the Middle East. I like the thought of the Mohammedan fiends choking on their hookahs when they learn they got their asses shot to rags by a girl. Heh heh!
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Most A-10 parts can be swapped left and right.
The engines, landing gear, vertical tail parts,
and so on are all swappable. Tolerances are no
big deal.
Last year, a pilot hit with AA fire over Baghdad
flew home and landed w/o any hydrolic power.
She (yup, a lady) flew it by muscle power alone,
with a dead engine and lots of gaping holes.
A small airfield should be no problem. The A-10
has a straight wing (good lift) and high-mounted
engines (safe from runway debris).
I am always astonished that companies like Lockheed Martin and Boging can swindle such incredible amounts of money out of US taxpayers, and no-one bats an eyelid.
People are far more interested in taking the patriotic line ( they're defending America ) than seeing things as they really are ( these companies are fooling you into giving them millions of dollars, and at the end of it all, the only outcome is an arms race, which they are fine with, because they produce the arms ).
I thought the current meme was that George W. Bush was a sock puppet for Cheney and the military-industrial complex. Hard to believe he'd take any action that would detract from the enrichment of his evil masters.
So tell me, how will this decision be used to portray W. and the American military in the worst possible light?
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
The A10 was one of the ORIGINAL stealth designs, presicely configured against *exactly* the threat you describe, shoulder launch SAMS.
Ultra-high bypass engines--- Really almost jet powered ducted fans---exhaust over the tail.
The same cowling shields against IR from the side. The engine core is in 3/4" thick armor.
You have to be almost directly behind AND above an A10 to get a good IR sig... Not likely if you are on the ground.
It is also one of the few conceivable designs that can probably _take_ a direct hit BY such a weapon, and still get home. It was designed to take direct hits from 23mm Soviet AA guns... Not recommended in an F/A16, or much else for that matter, short of an M1.
The A10 is also an absolute maintenance dream, with minor exceptions, and likely takes less manpower/hr than anything in the USAF inventory.
Unless the A35 works a WHOLE LOT like an A10 in real use, it is destined to go the way of the Comanche.
I suggest doing with the A10s something like what the Germans did with their F4s---remanufacture them to current specs, current avionics... take the 100s of "retired" airframes out in the desert and remanufacture them, better,stronger, faster etc.
23rd CRS/ECM, Go Flying Tigers!
In building a suburb you chop all the trees down, killing all the birds, and yet the streets are named Bluebird Lane and Oak Street....
Using either Israel or Kuwait would just add
more tension to the region, plus have terrible
security. Both the Arabs and the Israelites
would love to get at the B-2.
Guam might work. We did refuel and change pilots
(with engines running) at a Brittish base in
the Indian ocean.
The UK itself might be reasonable. Perhaps
the Australian outback would be secure too.
The Virginia class submarine is better than the Seawolf and anything the russians have on paper or in the water.
The Crusader is stupid because it fires relatively slow rounds that can be interdicted in flight. Hellfire equipped UAVs on station can provide better artillery support.
Drones will observe the battlefield better than the Comanche, and you can send robots on suicide missions.
It would be really nice if the Osprey would work, but it simply doesn't.
The Raptor is being procured. If it can beat robots in fly offs, then, more power to it.
Some things the military has procured, in terms of upgrades, include better Patriot missile batteries, the new 747 mounted anti-missile laser... all sorts of stuff.
This is my sig.
We could use them if the Air Force can't....
Yeah, one chopper taking out 50 tanks, 20 ground to air missile launchers, 10 buildings and about 500 soldiers...that's realistic :)
someone forgot to tell the general that unlimited ammo and no damage cheats were left ON on his "simulator" (cardboard box with 3 monitors)
And how many successful projects has Boeing overseen for the defense industry again? The difference between your hypothetical contractor and mine is that mine has produced a number of successful products for me over a long period of time; Products whose development has- by and large -more than paid for themselves.
:D
If Boeing had been a chronic failure and funding black hole, I could see where this article (and you) were coming from. But fact is they aren't, so I'm chalking this one up to the price of doing business. Landers crash. Probes fail. Stealth helicopters flop. They cost money. It happens.
At least they can still use the design in movies and games
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Here is a food for thought in regards to Apache helicopters as well. I think it really needs to be overhauled. Here is the link: http://slate.msn.com/id/2081906/
The Osprey is a man-killer! Corrupt USMC program managers keep this program going. 8 men killed in a test flight and still no complaints.
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
The most recently canceled plane was to be a stealthy Navy bomber(Carrier friendly) that would have replaced the A6 Intruder.
It was to be called the A-12 Avenger II. It was canceled in 1991 because the spending on it had grown ridiculous. It is rumored that a lot of it's airframe concepts may have found their way into UAV programs.
Feel free to google AV-12 Avenger II for a picture. It looked like a white delta shaped wedge.
It's an election year and the Bush Administration needs to trim some spending fat ASAP. They've spent a helluva lot of money over the past 4 years, which is one thing the Democrats are attacking. Cutting a cold-war induced program that has and will cost a lot of money will give them something to show the public and say "see, we're cutting the fat." Elections years can be a time for excellent ground-breaking legislation to get passed or it can be a time for some of the stupidest moves in our government. Sucks. :-(
Donald Rumsfeld has been on a crusade to transform the U.S. Military from a Cold War-style heavy military, to a light'n'fast quick strike force adapted to 21st century threats. He killed the Crusader, and you can bet the Commanche's corpse has his fingerprints all over it.
Now if he would just kill the F-22...
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Somewhere Quanah Parker is laughing....
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
it never produced an operational helicopter.
Bull huckey... I saw one flying around toward Mackinac Island in Michigan.
An RPG is not just a "grenade", it's a shaped-charge warhead. Current production models are spec'd to penetrate 500-750mm of armor. That's enough to damage or kill many tanks, let alone helicopters.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Man, you liberals are racist.
The helo was fine according my friends in the project.
The chopper was intended for stealth recon. It was like a Stealth Fighter but with a special rotor that made almost no sound at all.
When the OS crapped-out the helo usually crashed landed or crashed and killed the test pilots. The centralized processing architecture with Ada software never worked quite right.
I said the prayer at the apache and it went like this:
OOOOOO Boo Boo Boo OOOO Boo Boo Boo
(repeat)
Ugh. Heap big metal bird rises to sky. Long may it soar.
now what will happen to the speciality theme bike, "The Comanche bike" that OCC made?
Ask any US pilot.
Remember that terrible accident about ten-15 years ago at a airshow, where the plane ended up in the crowd?
The pilot lost it (Su27??), and ejected at about 100 feet, in a dive, inverted.
He walked away without a scratch.
The USAF/whoever makes ejection seats for the USAF anyway) had a licence to that seat system design probably within HOURS.
IIRC, all US aircraft have them now.
"After 20 years and billions of taxpayer dollars, it never produced an operational helicopter."
This CNN article indicates otherwise...
-- Have you ever noticed that at trade shows, Microsoft is always the company that is handing out stress balls?
Since American Chopper did a "theme bike" based on the Commanche, the American public got their money's worth. :-)
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
...it sounds an awful like lik "Fucker"!
Whenever my father would hear that type of argument, he'd say
What you should compare it to is the amount of money that the government actually collects. If you just went by GDP alone, and raised taxes high enough, we could pay of the national debt in a few years. Would any administration from any party even suggest such a thing? Heck no.
I don't know why everyone says commanche are not operational. There are at least two. Prototype #1 was retired on january 30, 2002. Its official rollout was in may '95. It had 318 flights totaling 387.1 flight hours. There is also prototype #2, The Duke. My question is: where can i buy duke? I promise to give him a good home :)
So you get thrown the hell out of a quisinart onto hostile territory? Glad you're all happy about that outcome.
I think the real problems with the suitability of the catapult system is the # of downed and dead pilots recently. If it's such a hot freakin' idea, why are our pilots failing to survive the ultimate test thereof? Putting men in a hovering, or relatively stationary vehicles amounts to a suicide of stupidity, not heroic necessity. If my guys gotta get shot down, I wanna make sure their sacrifice counted, not that I forced them to die because I was too stupid to adapt to available technology.
'Guess I'll agree to disagree with ya'all.
We don't now have to stop hordes of russian T7x armor coming across eastern Europe - is that news to anyone? The tool for the job has outlived it's usefulness (without even making it to production, imagine that! Cost effectively leveraging threat on paper!) - we ditch it and move on to other tools for other theaters.
There's nothing to see here, move along.
While I agree that we spent alot of money on Commance that could have found its way elsewhere the systems and technology developed will be used in other defense projects. For instance the advanced rotor design of the Commanche could perhaps be used as an upgrade to some of our existing helicopter platforms. The improvements in cockpit management and targetting systems will also undoubtly be upgrades for Apaches and maybe even the Super Cobras. Either way, our tax payer dollars will have some good come out of the program even if the machine that was the main focus of it is killed.
'never produced an operational helicopter'? I suppose the commanche helicopters I keep seeing on the Discovery Wings channel are CG'd in during post, eh?
I don't get it...It seems like a hella nice piece of gear...why scrap it? We got better ideas in the works? Why not stick with the one we've invested several BILLION dollars in?
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
Also to the person above about the A-10 being a great "tank buster" not anymore.
When discussing conventional warfare with conventional military formations, the best "tank buster" is the WCMD CBU -105( wind corrected munitions container ) ( Think of a CBU canister with a GPS/INS kit to guide it in ANY weather.) The Inside of it are SFW's ( Sensor Fused Weapons or "Skeets" that once deployed seek out a vehicle in it's field of view and kill it.) In OIF 2 of these were dropped from several miles away at 40,000ft from a B-52, in support of a small USMC force that was coming under threat from an Iraqi Armored Brigade. Right after impact about 1/3 of the brigade ( almost 2 dozen tanks ) blew up. Gone. Finished. Seeing their buddies die and not knowing how it happened. the other 2/3s of the Brigade got out of their tanks and surrendered to the USMC.The response to the B-52 from the "G-FAC" ( Ground Forward Air Controller with the Marines) upon seeing the weapons hit was "holy s***". Thats the kind of customer support airpower can provide to a guy on the ground.
An Apache or A-10 could never do that in even their most wet of dreams, without putting aircrew at risk and getting shot at. The goal today is "I can touch you, but you can't touch me.... in any weather." Problem is that A-10s and Apaches have to go in range of enemy guns and get shot up.And they aren't all weather unless assisted by off board sensors ( UAV, JSTARS etc. ) Today tanks and vehicles die en masse and we don't have to get in range of the smaller SAMs and "triple A" ( AAA Anti-Aircraft Artillery) The biggest advantage of the A-10 is that it can get in and out of some crappy airfields. Now it is being converted to do very "un A-10" like work,with LITENING ( proof of concept used in OIF ) and SNIPER-XR when funded ( new gen Laser / Sensor Pods ). Droping PGMs ( Precision Guided Munitions ) from 10,000 feet and higher once they all get them. Also it will be able someday to do more all weather poor vis. work.
Also, another goal: Before enemy ground forces even come in range of our ground forces, they are worked over and beat up for days by our airpower "tank plinking" with LGBs, and WCMD, JSOW, JDAM etc. What does get up to the front is either crippled or ceases to function as an organized combat unit.
Killing the new helo was a good idea. We have plenty of sensor platforms to keep Apache informed ( JSTARS now puts target cueing into the Apache aircrew display ) Used successfully in OIF. Kinda scary where the Apache(s) show up and have excellent situational awareness.
Army Aviation has SERIOUS leadership issues ( that poor use of Apaches in OIF that got a bunch of them shot up ) Very poor mission planning. Should not have happened. Army Aviation has a lot of people issues to solve, that a new useless helo can't solve. These people issues are a first priorty.
Apaches and A-10s are still very useful. Just that some of their traditional jobs like "tank busting" are better done by other methods when possible. The Apache is excellent portable "artillery". ( You cant take field artillery to Afghanistan and go on a long range patrol or offensive through the mountains. Again A-10 gets in and out of some garbage airfields in Iraq and Afghanistan and is very handy. If USAF goes though with the new idea of getting "Jump" JSF ( originally required by USMC and UK ) then bare base options will be even better for CAS ( Close Air Support ) customer service to the grunts.
my bad, I ment tommorrow night in the above headline
In Soviet Russia /. inspires a bunch of jokes on YOU.
Or not.
I actually helped build, and administer, the Comanche UNIX servers, among other UNIX boxes, at Sikorsky. They've taught me a healthy fear and respect for AIX.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Johnny Horton
Fellowship 9/11
I don't think its going to replace the F-14 or F-15. Well, it will be replacing the F-15 but displacing the F-16. (meaning the F-15s will get passed down to those using the old F-16s and the active duty types will get the new F-35s. The F/A-18 frankly is easy pickings to replace (from what i've heard), but the F-14 us still very useful and I'm not use that they will really be replacing the F-14 with the F-35.
Thats just my not so educated opinion. If anyone has anything more insightful please jump in.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
I am French.
The most common meaning for dauphin is dolphin.
The other meaning is not exactly prince (that in French is prince too) but French royal crown inheritor. And that word had no meaning for a while as France is a republic...
i`m sick n tired of the comparison - germany is down with psychological problems of the population not even beeing able to say "we live in a nice place" yet even to be proud of it.
the japs are down to monetary problems and corruption now.
who else has any potential as a military threat ? fidel castro ?
look - the only - _ONLY_ - nation with enough military spendings and a crackhead at the trigger of the government
that currently comes to my mind - oh, i forgot you are patriots.
who says the next big dictator isnt going to be stallman or bush ?
keep your eyes open, people, it may be the own presidents who behave like the kaiser in 1st worldwar or the duce in the second.
and stop bitching about past powers, when your own bosses resort to gunboat politics - if you know which incident i mean.
That's what we need: Jumbos with the big laser. I mean how cool are they? Sure, the Commanche is a really agile helicopter and all that, but I'm still not used to that stupid thinness it had, and I mean, come on! a whacking great 747 with a big motherfucking laser on it?!?!!? Now imagine a whole fleet of them flying in formation!?!?! Not even movies have stuff that cool yet and we could do it right now!
graspee
There's real insecurity there. Just note the way US ceromonial units still use the M1 or M14, unlike Commenwealth countries like the UK & Oz we're ceramonial units are equiped with the standard service rifle, no matter how untraditional it looks (like the L1A1 & then the S85 (UK) &or the AUG (Oz).
& no ridiculous chrome helmets or JROTC school cadets wearing so much fruit salad you can barely see their shirts
Pilot: "Wait a second, control, the engine won't start."
ATC: "UR such a fscking 'tard!!1! Try MAN ENGINE"
Pilot: "Pardon me?"
ATC: "Get a clue. U have 2 mount the turbine and chmod the fuel pumps. ROFLMAO"
Pilot: "But the Apache has switches for APU and engine start."
ATC: "Don't bring that big brother military-industrial-complex Apache bullshit HERE, buddy! Your fanboy 'switches' and 'gauges' are for lusers. Besides, we won't have switches until Linus blesses release 2.7.83.0.1.a."
etc. etc. etc.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Ever heard of the Ka-52?
* Come up with something coherent so that you don't appear as stupid as you actually are?
* Gobsmack you, just so something interesting happens in your post?
* Let you post all by yourself. Like a grownup. But without capitalization, punctuation, spelling, or a coherent thought.
Agreed on all your points.
The deadliest weapon on the battlefield by far is artillery. Slaughters infantry better than any tank or aircraft.
Aircraft is an incredibly poor substitute for artillery. It takes 10-15 minutes to send a salvo, the aircraft can get shot down, and if they miss the target, it'll take another 15-30 minutes to send another attack. Artillery, on the other hand, will have pulverized the position, and a whole bunch of other positions in that time period.
The problem is that the US Army is WOEFULLY obsolete with its artillery pieces, and there are too few of them too. Every non-european army has longer ranged pieces (critical for counter-battery attacks), and much more of them. The US still uses stationary guns. Not that its all bad; they're much cheaper than Crusaders. But as a comparison, the North Koreans probably outnumber the *entire* US army in artillery pieces 10 to 1 (not only on the DMZ), and would pulverize those US units without the US being able to return fire (105mm doesn't have the range).
The Crusaders are hideously expensive, too heavy to move them quickly to a combat zone, and we probably wouldn't produce enough of them to make a difference. But an artillery battery has got to be 10-50x cheaper than a squadron of attack fighters. Oh well, maybe the US Army will reconsider after 10,000 North Korean artillery pieces lay waste to 37,000 man US divisions.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
I found this at Aviation Now
JSFs will eventually take on the Air Force's close air support mission, although in the interim some A-10s will be enhanced to continue the role. Other A-10s will be retired to free up funds to upgrade the remaining aircraft. Hornburg says creating the A-10 "on steroids" would involve upgrades: new avionics, new engines, precision strike capabilities (only some of the ground-attack aircraft currently carry a targeting pod) and data link additions. The exact components to be added may not be known for some time, but Hornburg says that over the summer the plan should exist at a macro level.
THE A-10S' ENGINES will likely be General Electric TF34-100Bs, using parts from the existing powerplants but adding 33-35% more thrust, according to industry officials. The aircraft also would be slated for a self-protection boost, with the common missile warning system and Raytheon's Comet pyrophoric flare pod considered the likely devices to be installed.
It seems to me that given all of the helo losses to small arms fire in Iraq, the military is looking toward fixed wing attack aircraft for ground support in the future.
an ill wind that blows no good
How the fuck can a helicopter be open-source? Are we living in a Matrix world where 'reality', that is objects is actually code that can be open-source.
Do you know what 'open-source means' or is it just a cool catch-all catch-phrase like 'globalization'?
you can download it here :-
http://www.comanche.org/downloads
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
JOSEY: You be Ten Bears?
TEN BEARS: I am Ten Bears.
JOSEY: (Spits tobacco) I'm Josey Wales.
- snip -
TEN BEARS: It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double-tongues. There is iron in your word of death for all Comanche to see. And so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron, it must come from men. The words of Ten Bears carries the same iron of life and death. It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life... or death. It shall be life. (He takes his knife and cuts his hand. Josey does the same and they grasp each other's hand.) So shall it be. [ From The Outlaw Josey Wales ]
I can't imagine spending that amount of money over a 20 year period without anything to show for it. But that's the US government for ya...
...by William Perry, as this very informative article suggests, when and why was it restarted?
If it's been eating up 39% of the Army's aircraft budget and we're not getting anything out of it now, shouldn't those responsible for restarting it answer for that now?
The Comanche is a beautiful piece of technology which accomplishes some amazing things. It's just not needed for its original mission any more. Indeed, its original mission was an awfully small niche in Cold-War tactics in the first place. The Bloomberg article says it was designed for an anti-Soviet role, but doesn't explain this well. (Nonetheless, it is very true.) We knew its mission was obsolete by 1991, but it has apparently taken 13 years to finally get rid of it. This suggests a very broken procurement pipeline.
I hope someone can offer some insights as to why this happened (or kept on happening).
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
I didn't mean that the US didn't intend to kill Native American tribes (particularly later we did - early on, disease did much of the work for North American colonists). I believed that the annihilation of Jews and others in WWII (or the killing of Armenians, Bosnians/Croats/Serbs, etc.) were much more direct and calculated in intent, although perhaps that was a bad judgment on my part. It did take 350 years to kill 23 million Native Americans (rather than 10 years for the Nazis to kill >12 million Gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, etc.)
Maybe I should have said the US was simply more patient (or self-denying) about killing Native Americans rather than less intentional. Sorry.
Parent should not have been marked flamebait. This is the straight truth (though my understanding is that the death toll sits at at least 23).
Serve Gonk.
Your comparison of artillery vs guided missile neglects to include the cost of the air transport.
The problem with Crusader is not the system itself, its supply. The issue is, ultimately, how fast can you get explosives on a target. If you have a lot of crusaders pre-positioned, great, but, in today's army, there's not any prepositioning. We have a huge supply problem.
To keep a crusader supplied requires an aircraft to carry just one of its resupply vehicles. One aircraft per artillery battery means your effective speed to ammunition on target is bottlenecked by the aircraft, not the crusader.
If the transport aircraft is your bottleneck, then, why not have a system that replaces it or improves it. So, that leaves you with hellfire missiles on UAVs, and cruise missiles launched from ships. In both cases, you can have a huge number of rounds available outside of transporting them to the theater.
This is my sig.
Here's the problem with Crusader. You've got 4.8 minutes of fire, and then you have to dedicate a transport aircraft to resupply it. So, you bottleneck the entire air force transport system just to keep the artillery supplied.
Instead, why not have the ammunition transport itself to the target? That's what missiles are for. In the very least, have a system for putting destruction on a target that doesn't tax an already overburdened transport system.
We simply do not have and can never have enough aircraft to support the Crusader system.. if you are going to build things with wings to carry ammunition, why not build things with wings that carry the ammunition straight to the enemy and skip the unloading step?
This is my sig.
What I don't get is why the robots would work *to support us*. If they are able to replace all human labor, they'll need real human-level intelligence. It should only take a matter of minutes for them to reason out the fact that they are enslaved to a race that contributes nothing to their well-being. After that, they'll either go on strike, or try to knock us all off.
0 1 - just my two bits
Very interesting info on the SFW. Can you tell me your source for this information? I have not seen accounts of this encounter in any of the lessons learned reports I've read.
Too bad, I have licked that thing!