Army kills comanche!

[ralphwiggum 6]

you wanna say that to the guy with a rifle?  

yes, the Iraqi farmer admitted after the war that he was asked to claim the shooting. he said he got annoyed by the rumors of him going to Kuwait and whole division running away after hearing his next destination.

[Mountain 0]

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that the army alone can't actually cancel a project but that congress is also heavily involved and could actually force the military to keep a project that it does not want. A quote from The Advocate

Quote[/b] ]

Connecticut Gov. John Rowland met with Sens. Christopher J. Dodd and Joe Lieberman, both D-Conn., and vowed to battle the cancellation in Congress.

"My concern is that this was done because of budgetary decisions alone," said Lieberman. "And we're being encouraged to believe the job loss will be slim or none. I say, show me."

but the article continues and states:

Quote[/b] ]

Defense analysts, however, said the program does not have the broad support it needs to reverse the decision.

The Comanche, said Lexington Institute analyst Dan Goure, "doesn't have sufficient champions in Congress."

And Aboulafia said keeping the program alive would be like raising the dead.

"This was never really a live program, it never had the funding or the priority (from the Army)," he said. "It was on borrowed time for the last 10 years."

So all we can do is wait and see what happens with the Congressmen and the new info about how much more it might cost the gov't to cancell the program then keep it open.

[Messiah 2]

Its a shame the commanche was canceled because it was sexy (lol, poor reason on my part)

but in an era of low tech enemies, high tech isn't needed - you can have all the tech and FLIR that you want in your chopper, but its useless against most of the worlds enemies today... and as was said, Satelites and UAV's adequatly fill this role today - like the Brits won't risk sending in their Longbows in iraq because they are scared to lose them, why send in a multi billion dollar commanche, when you can use a satelite or send in an unmanned craft? war is about the media as much as anything - losing the most advanced chopper to a rifle is bad press - losing a man and the most advanced recon chopper when a UAV could have done the same job - thats an election losing media

the landwarrior concept is a poor idea - electronics in the battlfield are doomed to fail - the new XM8 has a battery powered sight - thats going to be an issue - and while some american soldier is faffing around with some OICW sight, calibrating range, wind and brewing coffee at the same time (who knows) some bloke with a good old bolt action is going to have him dead in no time - the current M4's plus their modifications are the height of advanced weaponry not losing its classic roots (firing pin, magazine, etc etc)

as for the Osprey - yes, it seems to be steadily killing off the Marines, but its a potenially valuable project... granted the current chopper do lift and transport the needed numbers and equipment, but the osprey has the advantage of being fixed wing and hence having incredible range and speed compared to any chopper in use with the Marines - hence its development - i'd love to see this system working, both in real life and in ofp

[hellfish6 7]

Quote[/b] ]

Connecticut Gov. John Rowland met with Sens. Christopher J. Dodd and Joe Lieberman, both D-Conn., and vowed to battle the cancellation in Congress.

"My concern is that this was done because of budgetary decisions alone," said Lieberman. "And we're being encouraged to believe the job loss will be slim or none. I say, show me."

I think budgetary concerns are a very good reason to cancel something. Lets see... have enough money to fight the two wars (actually three - Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider war on terror) OR spend the money on something we really don't need and, frankly, don't want?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

just because a program is cancelled doesnt mean that the money was for nothing. Each development pushes the cutting edge know-how a bit further. Especially concerning software, material compositions, performance measuring systems aso. Some programs actually have a revival. Remember the big stealth boat of the americans. That is now being used again to push forward further stealth innovations.

[MLF 0]

Quote[/b] ]Osprey as a concept is what the USMC needs atm

A concept that crashes down every 5 minutes is no concept. It´s a bad technical developement.

Quote[/b] ]The $40 billion Osprey program has been plagued by mishaps and setbacks, from crashes to an allegation that a commanding officer ordered his crew to falsify maintenance records at the squadron’s headquarters in New River, N.C. The commander since has been relieved of his duties.

The Pentagon’s Inspector General is investigating the allegation of falsification and whether the squadron was pressured from Corps leaders to speed up testing phases of the program.

Quote[/b] ]The fifth prototype Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft crashed one

minute into its maiden flight on June 1st, according to Flight International

(19-25 June, p 16). The pilots reported control problems, with the aircraft

feeling tail heavy and rolling from side to side.

The other four V-22s have 567 flight hours in 463 flights. The maiden flight

of number 5 was postponed last week after tools were found to be missing, but

only a drill-bit was found under the fuselage floor.

Flight-control software problems in another V-22 were traced to a faulty

switch.

OSPREY TROUBLES

Quote[/b] ]MARK THOMPSON: Well, apparently, according to Mr. Coyle's report, the Pentagon chief tester's report, you reach a point in this airplane where once you have lost it there is no ability to recover and that becomes even more important when you're at a relatively low altitude which is where these guys were last night.

That doesn´t sound like a reliable system at all.

no thats all bad implementation and planning, the Basic premis of the osprey is something every military would want, a helicopter and its manouvarabilaty along with the attributes of a plane and can be switched at will, also heavy lift capable, thats not a bad concept just seems that the DOD seems a little hasty in pushing it through and thus lives have been lost.

[aj_addons 0]

isnt the f35 the jsf caise if that gets canceled britains got big problems looking for a harrier replacement

[Badgerboy 0]

...and as was said, Satelites and UAV's adequatly fill this role today - like the Brits won't risk sending in their Longbows in iraq because they are scared to lose them, why send in a multi billion dollar commanche, when you can use a satelite or send in an unmanned craft?

The reason we didn't commit our WAH-64's, is that no bugger can fly them! Most are sat in a warehouse at the moment collecting dust.

Aircrew training was to be carried out by a civilian contracter, who they later found out is woefully incompetent. Aircrew training is at least 2 years behind projected schedules, so the airframes have been put it storage for the moment.

[theavonlady 2]

Aircrew training was to be carried out by a civilian contracter, who they later found out is woefully incompetent. Aircrew training is at least 2 years behind projected schedules, so the airframes have been put it storage for the moment.

I smell new UK job opportunities for more OFP players!

[Matthijs 40]

Why cant they cancel military projects that I hate?

*Cough* OICW, F22, UCAV and Land Warrior *Cough*  

According to the German magazine Visier (ed. jan 2004), the OICW has been cancelled, as it is too bulky and too expensive. The HK XM8 will now become the replacement for the M16. First deliveries should be at the end 2004/start 2005 - if I remember correctly...

XM8 link:

http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html

EDIT: Maybe I got that wrong... XM29 (OICW) development will take too long. XM8 is an intermediate solution:

http://www.armytimes.com/archivepaper.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-2349045.php

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]

This seems to tell a different story. However, not the different terrain and condition of the Apache. It is possible that they recovered the helo and moved it to a FARP, which is why the photos are different. Or, this may be an entirely different helicopter

@ hellfish. If I remember correctly when the war was being broadcast on CNN and every other damn news network I recall distinctly hearing updates about that chopper in question and hearing about a mission to go destroy a downed chopper. Naturally if it was broadcast it probably had already happened hours ago.

There was footage albeit in poor light of an AH-64 getting blown up and it's ordinance cooking off as the charges went off. It was quite a thing to see.

[shadow 6]

The Apache Hellfish is referring to was bombed the night after by an F117. They can't afford the secrets of the Apache to be leaked.

They should have done it that same day when the iraqis had a group-photo on it

[killagee 0]

US Army Axes Comanche Programme

By Joshua Kucera JDW Staff Reporter

and

Andrew Koch Washington Bureau Chief

Washington, DC

The US Army has abandoned the multi-billion dollar RAH-66 Comanche reconnaissance helicopter programme, saying that the system was too vulnerable to anti-aircraft threats and did not fit with future army plans. Funding earmarked for it will be better spent on buying existing helicopter models, upgrading old aircraft and starting an entirely new armed reconnaissance helicopter programme, senior army officials said at a Pentagon briefing Monday.

Dropping the Comanche will save $14.6 billion over Fiscal Years 2004-2011, said acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker and Lt Gen Richard Cody, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations.

That money would have bought 121 Comanches and will now be used for 796 new helicopters and upgrading 1,400 more. "This is an army initiative," Schoomaker said. "It's not just about terminating Comanche," but part of a larger restructure.

The officials said the army will now start to plan an entirely new reconnaissance aircraft as a replacement for the OH-58 Kiowa.

The army also plans to buy a new version of the AH-64 Apache, known as Block III. Army officials Monday said this version will have all the advantages of the Comanche except stealthiness. The army will also:

* accelerate the fielding of Aircraft Survivability Equipment technology to forces in Iraq and Afghanistan,

* buy 303 new light utility helicopters to replace 422 UH-1 Hueys, which will be phased out,

* buy 80 additional UH-60L Black Hawk utility helicopters above what had already been planned,

* buy 25 new fixed-wing C-XX inter-theatre cargo planes to replace the C-23 Sherpa,

* buy 20 CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopters above what had already been planned,

* fund a joint heavy-lift helicopter programme to replace all the army's cargo and heavy-lift helicopters by 2020, and

* fund new plans for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

The army has spent $6.9 billion to date on Comanche, and over the life of the programme would have had to spend a total of $39 billion to buy 650, Cody said. The army will have to pay $450-680 million in termination fees to the Comanche's contractors, primarily Boeing and Sikorsky, said Asst. Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Claude Bolton.

The RAH-66's demise has long been predicted. The US, facing a burgeoning budget deficit, is expected to cut some defense programmes and Comanche's large slice of the pie had been thought to be particularly vulnerable.

Schoomaker ordered an aviation task force six months ago to examine all aspects of army aviation, including the Comanche, as part of an effort dramatically transform the army to a lighter, more modular force. The decision to cut the Comanche programme came out of this group, the officials said Monday.

The Comanche was intended to be a light reconnaissance helicopter with stealth capabilities. But advances in UAVs have suggested that they might do that job better, while simple rocket-propelled grenade and missile attacks on US helicopters in Iraq have shown that the Comanche's stealthiness would not be as useful as it was thought at the 1983 inception of the programme, when it was designed to face Soviet air defense systems.

However, army officials were until recently saying publicly that they were committed to the Comanche.

Gen. Richard Cody, deputy chief of staff for the army, took a Comanche for a test drive in December. In January, he called it "the best aircraft we've ever built ... We now have an aircraft with no limitations except the pilot."

Low-rate initial production was to have started in 2006.

[shadow 6]

I wonder what chopper they will use to replace the Kiowa. I doubt they'll make one from scratch. Probably a little bigger than the Kiowa to have room for all the new electronics, but at the same time small so it's not too easy to see and most important of all; very silent.

[miles teg 1]

Well they could always just make some more Kiowas with updated equipment.  Recon helicopters are still very useful however they are also very vulnerable.  More armor means a bigger helicopter.   So the obvious solution is using an existing gunship airframe and putting in state-of-the-art recon equipment.   The Super Cobra and Apache airframes seem the most obvious candidates.   However despite the heavy armor of the Apache, they still are far from invulnerable as many Apaches have taken severe dammage in both Iraq and Afghanistan.   Part of the problem is that apparently for some of its weapon systems it has to hover which makes it very vulnerable to AA gun fire and RPG's.  

But this is a seperate issue from recon work.  It also would need a modified main rotor as the Kiowa's is much quieter.  

Another idea is to abandon the idea of stealth recon and do recon by force in which the strategy becomes one of using the most heavily protected and armed helicopter that you can get up in the air and abandoning the stealthy "pop-up" strategy employed by helicopters such as the Kiowa.  In many cases helicopters like the Kiowa are simply too vulnerable for places like Iraq where scout helicopters find themselves taking a heavy amount of small arms fire that can shoot down a thin skinned helicopter like the Kiowa.

For a heavy scout helicopter/gunship the most obvious solution in my opinion is to look around the world for such a helicopter with a proven track record.  That helicopter is the Mi-24 Hind.   It has an excellent combat record and many times over has proven to be the decisive weapons systems in many conflicts all over the world.   One of the keys to its success is its very heavy armor over critical components that give the Hind a reputation for being extremely difficult to shoot down.  The other key to its success is that it rarely ever hovers.  As USMC Super Cobra pilots have testified from experience in Afghanistan, "Speed is the key to survival."  

Generally SA-7 shootdowns of Hinds are fairly rare but if outfitted with Western countermeasure systems it would likely become and even more formidable helicopter.  The latest versions of the Hind are also outfitted with FLIR "balls" similar to the Apache's nose FLIR/laser designator system and are capable of night/day, all-weather operations.

However the best thing about Hinds is that they are relatively cheap when compared to something like the latest Apaches.  

They also are versatile enough to carry a fully equipped squad of troops or to extract injured troops in a landing zone that might be too hot for more lightly armored medivacs.  

So personally in my opinion, I think the US is pretty stupid to not even try evaluating some of the more modern variants of the Hind as heavy recon helicopters.

Below is a Mi-35 Hind with one of the new FLIR/laser designator "balls" installed on its nose.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Pipski 0]

I don't care what anyone says, Russian helo's are the best! And the most value for money.

[hellfish6 7]

If I was building an army, I'd buy Mi-35s.

[ran 0]

If I was building an army, I'd buy Mi-35s.

i'd form Air assault wings with MI35's, AT and air support wings with HAC and HAP Tigers, aeromobile infantry units using either super Cougar/Puma's or NH90's

[red oct 2]

I'll take this MI-35 w/ the sleek airintakes on the side (asuming thats what they are)

do they ever put machine gunners in the back compartment on hinds?

wonder what kind of results we would get if the U.S. and Russia worked together in making a helo

[miles teg 1]

Those side pods are not air intake. They are actually a air cooling system designed to cool the hot exhaust from the jet engines of the Hind. US Army helicopters have similar systems to help reduce their IR signature as IR missiles are one of the biggest threats to helicopter gunships because they often strike without warning. At least AA guns can be suppressed once you start seeing the tracer fire seeking out your helicopter especially if the helicopters are flying in teams against limited AA defences where one gunship leads and the other attacks any AA guns that open up on the gunships.

For air assault however I would definitely choose a blackhawk. These have proven to be reliable and very solidly built helicopters that can take a lot of dammage. They also fly very nicely. I've flown in blackhawks (in the cargo section) and they are fast, carry many troops, and are highly versatile (and smaller targets then the big Super Pumas).

But with that said, the tried and true, Mi-17 HIP helicopter is a damn good assault helicopter that like the Hind, has a proven combat record and is VERY cheap. An up-engined, up-armored, and modernized Mi-17 HIP would be a pretty darn good platform for the US Army as well.

But I think the blackhawks have been doing a fine job overall.

The main system lacking is a gunship that can really take a beating and that can fly fast and fire on the move. The Hind fits that definition which is why I think it would be perfect for recon by force if outfitted with more modern Western counter-measure systems (along with the best of the Russian systems).

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[hellfish6 7]

What I really like about the Hind, and why I'd use it for at least landing the first wave, is the sheer force with which it can assault a potentially hot LZ. That and the fact that it is so well armored and was designed to support it's cargo once they're on the ground is important as well - with Blackhawks you can't cram a lot of troops in there if you've got weapon pods, so you'd need another helicopter to provide support. With the Hind, you've got the support already there.

Same for the Hip - you put a couple of rocket pods on that thing and it is just as effective in many situations as I think an Apache would be in providing direct support to infantry.

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

Those side pods are not air intake.  They are actually a air cooling system designed to cool the hot exhaust from the jet engines of the Hind.  US Army helicopters have similar systems to help reduce their IR signature as IR missiles are one of the biggest threats to helicopter gunships because they often strike without warning.  At least AA guns can be suppressed once you start seeing the tracer fire seeking out your helicopter especially if the helicopters are flying in teams against limited AA defences where one gunship leads and the other attacks any AA guns that open up on the gunships.

For air assault however I would definitely choose a blackhawk.  These have proven to be reliable and very solidly built helicopters that can take a lot of dammage.  They also fly very nicely.  I've flown in blackhawks (in the cargo section) and they are fast, carry many troops, and are highly versatile (and smaller targets then the big Super Pumas).

But with that said, the tried and true, Mi-17 HIP helicopter is a damn good assault helicopter that like the Hind, has a proven combat record and is VERY cheap.  An up-engined, up-armored, and modernized Mi-17 HIP would be a pretty darn good platform for the US Army as well.

But I think the blackhawks have been doing a fine job overall.

The main system lacking is a gunship that can really take a beating and that can fly fast and fire on the move.   The Hind fits that definition which is why I think it would be perfect for recon by force if outfitted with more modern Western counter-measure systems (along with the best of the Russian systems).  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Miles...seems odd that the air coolers would be on the exhaust intakes like they appear to be in that pic.

Are sure about this?

[aj_addons 0]

wasnt the us airforce thinking about buying su-27s off of russia

[miles teg 1]

Miles...seems odd that the air coolers would be on the exhaust intakes like they appear to be in that pic.

Are sure about this?

Well normally the air intakes are on the front. You can see them covered up with dust covers. The only way I would be wrong is if those "dust covers" on the front intakes are actually permanent covers and the intakes have been moved to the sides instead. It would make more sense that these are IR suppressors mounted on the engine exhausts just like many Western helicopter gunships.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[kegetys 2]

I'd say they are exhaust coolers like Miles said, the Hind has its exhausts on the side (Seen here for example)...

hereand here are more pics of those things, they seem not to go inwards at least... Plus the real intakes are covered with a fabric as seen here which doesnt seem so permanent...