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."
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?
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.
Unfortunately, in the United States, you don't scrap weapons.
They do, kind of...It's called "war".
What?
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
The United States Army names helicopters after Tribes both because of the warrior tradition present in the tribe's cultural history and because of a long tradition of American Indians serving with the United States military and the services that came before.
Permission is requested from the Tribal Elders and the proposed name is used only if permission is granted. At the roll out ceremony for the aircraft, representatives of the tribe are honored guests and a Native American ceremony to bless the aircraft is performed.
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
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.