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."
Who is going to break the news to Novalogic?
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.
I hate to break it to you, but 'Comanche 4' will no longer be realistic anymore.
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
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...
It was discovered most of the Soviet Weapons were a bluff and it took this long to scrap the program.
No conflict of interests here, move along...
ob: In Soviet Russia, weapons scrap YOU!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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!!!!!
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."
Perhaps they decided to cut their losses at this point, and just go with upgrades and maintenance on the Apache helicopters, rather than bank on the Comanche program somehow turning itself around rather than committing itself to an unknown amount of additional time and money to get the Comanche program deployed.
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
Sheesh!
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
This happens all the time. Look, when the copter was first designed, it was the mid-80's and we were expecting twenty more years of Cold War or more. Then, in the 90's, we weren't sure how the post-Cold War period would play out. Or which technologies would work out and which wouldn't.
So after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we realize that drones are effective, useful and reliable. And cheap. So now that we have proof, we cancel the project. It would be more wasteful to cancel programs willy-nilly without a combat test of the alternatives.
If it's any consolation, most of the technological advances that went into the program (improved usability, reduced radar cross section, engine reliability, data aggregation, etc) are not lost. They'll find their way into other projects soon enough-- including drones.
Look, these systems take decades to finish. The whole time you're guessing about the future and what it will look like. Production is much more expensive than R&D usually (in the quantities the DoD buys in). So you do what you can.
The Paladin artillery system was cancelled for similar reasons. I'd rather have a weapon ready if it's needed then have to wait ten years to invent it. And I'd rather cut my losses if it turns out to be unnecessary than buy it just because I already have money on the table.
" I hate to break it to you, but 'Comanche 4' will no longer be realistic anymore."
A single helicopter taking out hundreds of armed military personnel, dozens of tanks, handfulls of other helicopters, jets, submarines, battleships, chemical weapons plants, anti-aircraft vehicles and artillery, missile launchers, and terrorists on snowmobiles on a single tank of gas isn't realistic because some vaporware military project got scrapped? I've only got one thing to say to you...
pass THAT shit...
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
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.
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
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
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...).
Exactly! When George Bush needed to assassinate Saddam Hussein's waiter, the B-2 was the go to weapon of choice.
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.
Actually it is the ability to be shot up and still fly that keeps the pilot safe in A-10s. Planes like the F-16 can be shot down with a single rifle shot and I'm sure the newer planes like the F-22 and the F-35 will be the same because there are so many critical components.
When you actually read about the design criteria for the A-10 it is actually pretty surprising. They were originally very cheap to produce and design because they don't have much technology at all. Just basic physics. The wings on the A-10 actually produce twice the lift required to keep it flying. In theory they could have half a wing shot of and still fly home.
In Gulfwar 1 they didn't even have many of the more advanced combat systems that they have now because they were on the verge of being mothballed and they demonstrated to be the most effective air platform in that war. The same thing happen a year ago as well. They're effective both because they can get really close to the action and therefore be accurate but they also have a psycological affect on the enemy. Look for some videos of the A-10 fireing its cannon. Its sounds scary.
One problem with making an aircraft stealthy is that stealthy characteristics are very aerodynamically unstable characteristics and therefore require computers to make them fly and translate what appears to be an easy control job by the pilot into a very complex aerodynamic control job by the computer. This is completely the opposite of what makes the A-10 effective.
-?-