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."
Whats the deal with the use of Native American Tribe names for all of our helicopters?
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
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 Tiger attack helicopter.
The Tiger may well be the last manned combat helo, the battlefield of the future belongs to drones it seems...
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."
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
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?
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.
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
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.
I once saw a statistic in the Harper's digest that stated that the Pentagon cannot account for well over a trillion dollars in missing expenses. Now, in the real world, financial mis-management on this scale would be punishable by some serious prison time, but for the Petagon, it's just another "Ooops! Our bad!"
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
you know what, the Irony of your Soviet Russia comment is that the weapons REALLY DID SCRAP YOU!!!
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
"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.
I know that this is a joke, but many people actually believe that Haliburton ripped of the government. Many people don't understand that the contract involved risk that Haliburton needed to absorb in case massive oil needs were necessary. They've lost money on these kinds of deals before, and they happened to make money this time. There wasn't anybody available who could take that risk cheaper.
This kind of mis-information just bothers me. Sorry for being off-topic.
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.
Nice PR post, yeah like Haliburton has been bleeding money ever. And yes there was people who could do it cheaper, faster and better. It is called the US Army. This is a sick and twisted world, when dumbasses are writing posts trying to paint war profiteering corporations (the lowest form of dirt in the corporate food chain) as being some kind of victim. Meanwhile our boys over there are eating dirt fed to them by the good ol' boys at Haliburton. Nice.... but hey no one could provide shit to our troops, right?
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.
Unfortunately, in the United States, you don't scrap weapons.
They do, kind of...It's called "war".
What?
I say that cause every book and acidemic paper on it says so... many written by people who know a LOT more about these systems than you or me or the grunt on the front line would know. It was developed as a personnel carrier.. that was it, then they decided to add tow missles and machine guns and anti-tank arrmament and BAMB we have a jack of all trade master of none. It has been fixed somewhat, but even my sisters fiance who was a scout in bosnia said that they cringed when they got assigned bradleys for scouting missions because of how bad they where compaired to their other vehicals, not to mention he knew 3 guys from basic who where killed in them from something as stupid as small arms fire
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
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.
Because of the LO (low observable) design, there is no way we would give this to another country. So, these companies will just drop it and move on.
"We need a fourth law of Robotics: Stop Fingering My Wife"
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.
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).
The biggest problem with the Bradley was that so much got added to it, and it got so large that it became necessary to remove its side armor to fit it onto a C-130 --- even though the original spec was for a vehicle which could be driven on / off a C-130 and be ready for duty immediately.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Saying the Apache has had dismal performance in desert environments is hyperbole: they have performed extrememly well in a harsh environment for which they were definitely not designed. Blaming the Apache for the helicopters vulnerability to RPGs and ground fire is silly, too. If that is the metric, every Soviet helicopter failed miserably in Afghanistan.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
To respond to the parent comment, America hasn't really worried about countering Soviet/Russian weapons since the First Gulf War (when Soviet T-72's were blowing up like boxes of matches after contact with the plethora of Allied weapons).
There has been a long standing history of the 2 nations responding to weapons (or threat of weapons). The XB-70 scared the Soviets so much that they developed a whole class of fighters (the MiG-25 series) to counter what they saw as a serious threat. America built 2 B-70's and abanoned the project when they realized that high level super-sonic strikes would never succeed.
I think the fact that the Army is looking at unmanned aircraft to handle some of these missions is a good move. It should make for some interesting projects. I think it would be an advantage to be able to send a weapon into a very dangerous situation - one that would be a suicide mission - and not risk the life of our troops. Trained men costs more than machines. Germany and Japan in World War II were still able to produce airplanes even though most of their experienced pilots were killed. Unmanned vehicles would make for a much more efficient and stronger fighting force.
I just hope they don't outsource the software for unmanned vehicles over-seas.
e. Faust
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.
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...
This was against the inept Iraqi army. If Apaches ever went to battle against an actually competent opponent, none would be coming back.
"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.
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.
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).
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!
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
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.
*BZZZRT* Oh I'm sorry. That's incorrect. Here have this loving parting gift of Rice-a-Roni "The San Francisco Treat".
In Kosovo, the army didn't use Apache helicopters. NATO only used fixed wing aircraft. That's it. Just attack jets. No men. No boats. Definatly no helicopters. Gen. Clark (SACEUR at the time) wanted to use helicopters since they were trying to taking out soviet era tanks and APCs, but the Clinton administration forbade him from ordering them into the theater, because Clinton wanted a casualtyless war (which he got). Instead the Apaches sat on the ground (so to speak) in Macedonia. I remember when this happened. You don't have to take my word for it though. Read Gen. Clark's book Waging Modern War.
As far as Iraq goes, we haven't lost that many (less than 20 I think). We've lost some attack helicopters almost everytime they've been used, but that's to be expected. They are low. They are slow compared to fixed wing aircraft. But to say that you don't need air support that can loiter is absurd. Attack helicopters tear through armored divisions. They do their job extremely well.
That said. 20 years and still having nothing is absurd.
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.
Uncle Cecil does not say the claims are untrue, merely "controversial." From your link,
All that having been said, fears of coercion weren't just paranoia. HEW had imposed relatively stringent regulations only because of a federal court order in 1974, issued after two poor black girls were involuntarily sterilized. The judge in that case noted that 100,000 to 150,000 poor women were being sterilized each year under federally funded programs. A fair number of them were Native Americans. Were some of them coerced? Possibly. All of them? No way. Many? I'm not buying it.
Other researchers differ and find flaws in the GAO report. The link above also disagrees with Cecil about the GAO's conclusions regarding consent,
The conclusion of the GAO investigation reported that IHS consent procedures lacked the basic elements of informed consent, particularly informing a patient orally of the advantages and disadvantages of sterilization. Furthermore, the consent form had only a summary of the oral presentation, and finally the form was lacking the information usually located at the top of the page notifying the patient that no federal benefits would be taken away if they did not accept sterilization (Wagner, 1977: 75).
I should probably have used the word coerced rather than involuntary, however it is not categorically untrue, as you claim. Merely controversial, as your source says.
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
South Africa was sanctioned for doing things the US is getting away with today
Such as?
If you can settle for a shorter range, something like this would be better. 2x120mm mortars, 26 rounds per minute, first 14 rounds hitting the target simultaneously. I have seen it in action, and it's very impressive.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.