Army kills comanche!

[madmedic 0]

They cancelled it because it causes my computer to lag  

Seriously though, It really was a program that was "long in the tooth", and was going to produce a weapon system that would likely be already obsolete (or close to it)

Air to ground attack, and recon are already being done well by so many different platforms...another one that is NEW, and accompanied with its own set of bugs to be worked out is just not needed.

Gulf War 1 convinced the pentagon to keep the A-10 around for a while longer because they saw how well it did (it was scheduled for retirement)

It also saw the F-16 filling a new role.

I would guess some other lessons were also learned in the past conflicts that made people in high places decide that the Commanche just didnt have that big of a role to fall into

[Baphomet 0]

Yeah. It seemed like too vulnerable an aircraft to be of much use..

I doubt on a side note, that the OICW will make it very far. It's bulky and it's got a crummy little g-36c/k? for the assault rifle component. While the g36 is a fine gun. The average infantry soldier it sounds like it's rather inadequate. Imagine the batteries you'd have to take for the targeting system for the oicw... and most of the 20mm shell is the fire control chips as I saw from a diagram of them once... it makes the whole controlled aerial burst feature very specialised and perhaps not very versatile. I think the OICW is mostly a propaganda thing. If you've ever seen one of the promo things for it talks about how "nobody is safe from the aerial burst capability of the oicw!"

I'm not sure what UCAV or Land Warrior is exactly. What's the deal with them?

[ozanzac 0]

First impressions: Wow, after investing so much, and a cancelation just now! Ten billion dollars down the gurgler.....Jeeze, I wish I could throw money around like that. And if I were a taxpayer. I'd be right royaly pissed off. Over two decades of investment, you'd think that if they were gonna drop it, they'd have done it many years ago.

After some thought. It's probably for the best. At the moment, I see the US armed forces as jumbo sized in what is really, just a small world. Force number reductions are necessary. No doubt about it. But I don't think cancelling entire projects is the way to go.

I still can't get over the fact that someone knowingly let $10,000,000,000 go *poof* in an instant.

[toadeater 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, but the USMC were putting their money on that. Without an OSPREY, they have to continue to rely on CH-53 and the UH-1N

Yes but isn´t it better to cancel a program that has shown not to work than to force it through without eliminating the risks just for the sake of it ?

Cancel it if it doesn´t work and look for something else.

These projects are done by private contractors who's primary concern is their own profit and what their stockholders think. In other words, corporations, not the military, who's interest might actually be that the thing really works as advertized.

Now, have you ever heard Microsoft admit that Windows is seriously flawed? It's basically the same situation. If the contractor admits they can't get the project to work, then they'll lose the contract. So instead, they keep the problems quiet and keep saying "oh yeah, sure, we'll have it ready by next year, just give us another billion."

Maybe they could get it to work "one day", but how much $ would they have spent to do it? No one seems to be watching them, or holding them accountable.

[hellfish6 7]

After some thought. It's probably for the best. At the moment, I see the US armed forces as jumbo sized in what is really, just a small world. Force number reductions are necessary. No doubt about it. But I don't think cancelling entire projects is the way to go.

Actually, the US Army is expanding. It's getting rid of divisions as we know them and moving to a brigade force.

From Strategypage.com:

Quote[/b] ]The U.S. Army wants to spend $20 billion over the next seven years to create a force of 42-48 active duty combat brigades (from the current force of 33), and increasing the number of National Guard combat brigades from 15 to 22. In addition, many unneeded field artillery, air defense, engineer, armor and ordnance battalions will be disbanded while increasing the number of military police, transportation, petroleum and water distribution, civil affairs, psychological operations and biological warfare detection units. The new combat brigades would be smaller than the current ones (two combat battalions each versus three) and have more support units attached to enable the brigades to operate independently. The current 33 brigades include 11 light infantry, 17 heavy mech infantry and armor, 5 Stryker brigades) will be turned into 15 infantry brigades, 22 armored brigades and five Stryker brigades. The new armor brigades will combine tanks and mech infantry by having four companies (two tank and two mech infantry) per each of its two battalions. The armor brigade would also have a recon battalion. The exact details of the reorganization are still being worked out. For example, the fourth and fifth brigades in divisions would use the current headquarters of the aviation and engineer brigades to form headquarters.

[shadow 6]

I thought this would happen a couple of years ago.

Why?

Because they've used 20 years to develop something that is still not ready for production due to complex development-related problems. And The Apache D has pretty much the same capabilities except the semi-stealth capabilities, and it only took 7 years to improve the Apache.

Main difference between AH-64D and RAH-66:

RAH-66 has 3rd generation FLIR (higher resolution) while the AH-64D has the 2nd gen.

RAH-66 has the 2nd gen FCR (lower profile, same specs) while the AH-64D has the first generation FCR (huge).

The AH-64D has higher top-speed but the RAH-66 is alot more maneuvarable (sp?). The RAH-66 is also semi-stealth (not fully stealth like the F-117).

Any way. The Comanche would have cost a fortune each.

The army would start crying if they brought it to a war due to the costs. The Comanche can see everything except humans. Now all it takes is a human with a regular rpg-launcher to take it down. None of the high-tech avionics will help the crew there. So no, extreme hightech vehciles alone on the battlefield are doomed. There will always be lowtech combatants (humans), who will not be picked up by the avionics. Ref: the big Apache-assault on Iraq (where they got their wings clipped).

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]The U.S. Army wants to spend $20 billion over the next seven years to create a force of 42-48 active duty combat brigades (from the current force of 33), and increasing the number of National Guard combat brigades from 15 to 22. In addition, many unneeded field artillery, air defense, engineer, armor and ordnance battalions will be disbanded while increasing the number of military police, transportation, petroleum and water distribution, civil affairs, psychological operations and biological warfare detection units. The new combat brigades would be smaller than the current ones (two combat battalions each versus three) and have more support units attached to enable the brigades to operate independently. The current 33 brigades include 11 light infantry, 17 heavy mech infantry and armor, 5 Stryker brigades) will be turned into 15 infantry brigades, 22 armored brigades and five Stryker brigades. The new armor brigades will combine tanks and mech infantry by having four companies (two tank and two mech infantry) per each of its two battalions. The armor brigade would also have a recon battalion. The exact details of the reorganization are still being worked out. For example, the fourth and fifth brigades in divisions would use the current headquarters of the aviation and engineer brigades to form headquarters.

Is this bigger than cold war era US army?

[MLF 0]

Osprey as a concept is what the USMC needs atm, but the concept of a comanche is not what the Army needs atm.

[Jojaboy 0]

This all brings me back to my theory...why cant we all just get along.

anyways sad they closed it but with a new enemy(terrorism)we dont need the fansy stealth and good looks we need fire power.Land warrior and OCIW they need to continue working on them both cause i mean what more could you ask for :P anyway they go there going to take away bushes dranking money and he doesnt like that as i can see.

[Balschoiw 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.

[shadow 6]

I've also heard the Osprey has always been plagued with problems since it left the sketchboard.

If I'm not mistaken, the V-22 project is the project that has cost the most lives.

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

@ Feb. 23 2004,22:12)]Wrong helicopter, wrong war, wrong enemy, too expensive, too specialized, too thin-skinned, etc. Take your pick as to why the program was cancelled. Aside from it being yet another aviation marvel that will never see production, what other reason was there to continue the program? With the advent of UAVs and the increasing sophistication of satellite surveillance and programs like JSTARS, what real reason is there to continue pouring money into a reconaissance helicopter that, although incredible in its own right, has a job description that can be carried out by cheaper (or more versatile) platforms, in addition to being incredibly vulnerable in a battlefield environment despite the massive amount of funds expended to perfect its stealth components. Ultimately, the Commanche is a case of a program that was outpaced by the realities of what the military needs from its combat helicopters, and its cancellation is a textbook example of the Pentagon doing something it rarely does- cutting their losses while they still could.

Nailed it Tex...good post.

Don't get me wrong....I'm a BIG fan of the Commanche...but putting personal feelings about the Commanche and the technology poured into it, Tex has nailed the practicality of the decision.

[Rastavovich 0]

Well, even if a lot of money was spend, not all of it is lost, since quite a lot of it was spend for basic research which will be used in next generations equippment.

[shadow 6]

Let me get this right?

Boeing made the Comanche for the US army only?

That's strange. Only one customer for such a big project.

Prolly alot of the avionics will be put to good use in the Apaches as they use allmost identical type avionics. But that still does'nt make the 8 billion dollar loss much less.

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

Read another article on this and yes Shadow, both Boeing and Sikorsky will be asking the military what they want done with manufacturing processes and classified research they have funded for the past 10+ years. Hopefully we get to see some reuse in other platforms...like the Apache.

Want hear the funny part....they still are asking for proposals for a new "less expesive" type of recon helo.

*slaps head*

[Ironsight 1]

Face it the US Army doesn't need such a helicopter, they're mostly fighting terrorists now, and then you don't need a radar stealth recon helicopter, since terrorist mostly don't rely on radar. They can better spend their money on anti-terrorist units.

That's my theory

[theavonlady 2]

A friendly reminder why this project is canceled:

[Ironsight 1]

Ahhh those brave farmers what kind of rifle did they have to penetrate the apache's armor?

M82 Barret

[theavonlady 2]

Ahhh those brave farmers what kind of rifle did they have to penetrate the apache's armor?

Some single bolt WWI era hunting rifle.

[Baphomet 0]

I thought it was heavy machinegun fire that brought it down. If not that's pretty sad.

Still. It's a good point that the majority of the opponents of the united states are significantly less advanced technologically and therefore the benefit of such a thing is completely missed.

I recall in croatia or somewhere around there in the mid/late 90's an f117a was shot down.

[havocsquad 0]

The F117 is an aging stealth design that should be retired by 2010 or earlier.

The F-22 has better stealth design and features than the Nighthawk and it can defend itself better from ground based air defense by it's supercruise speed and excellent sensor suite.

It can serve the stealth precision strike needs better than the F117 now. Can't wait for the full squadron to be finished.

[Pipski 0]

One advantage the Comanche did supposedly have over the Apache that's not been mentioned is proper modular hardware - i.e. if one part conks out the other systems could supposedly take over its workload. As well as improving survivability it makes maintenance easier. A plug & play helo! That was the plan anyway, how far they got towards implementing it I dunno. But remembering how much time Apaches spent grounded in Bosnia by technical snafus it wouldn't be a bad thing. Personally I always thought the Comanche was an overpriced white elephant. Nice idea but in terms of cost effectiveness you might as well start making X-wing fighters!

[shadow 6]

The more complex the machine becomes the more complex the maintenance get (and expensive). Noone knows how the Comanche would perform under a real scenario, but my bet is the Apache would stay less on the ground compared to it due to the simplicity of the Apache compared to the Comanche.

More complex parts = more parts are bound to break.

The Comanche was designed to avoid mechanical failures if the pilot yanked the cyclic to extremes, but not even that feature is/was foolproof. Might seem laughable, but yanking the cyclic to its extreme is 90% certainty to break something on all helos.

[hellfish6 7]

Apache hit by a bolt-action rifle?

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.

And the future of the F-22:

Quote[/b] ]February 24, 2004: The U.S. Air Forces new F-22 fighter is already in production, with 25 built (for testing and training), and 19 to be manufactured this year. The air force wants to eventually buy 276, at a cost of over $250 million each. The F-22 is the pinnacle of 20th century warplane design and technology. Unfortunately, it's now the 21st century and new aerial threats are appearing that may make the F-22 obsolete before it even enters service at the end of the decade.  

One thing that has always threatened the F-22 has been cost. Development costs kept growing beyond constantly increased budgets, to the point where the development bill was nearly $30 billion. The large cost of the F-22 was always a threat to the project. Originally conceived in the 1980s as the successor to the F-15, and the primary weapon to keep the Soviet air force from controlling the skies, the F-22 prototypes first flew just as the Cold War ended. At that point, the air force planned to buy 648 aircraft. That number has come down steadily as development costs escalated, and no credible threat to American air supremacy appeared to replace the Soviet Air Force.

What's sneaking up on the F-22 now are combat UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles.) These UCAVs are being built and tested by the air force and navy. The technology is mature and widely available. The rest of the world is waiting to see what the United States comes up with, knowing that this is the future and it will be software, more than anything else, that will make a superior UCAV. At the moment, the U.S. appears headed for dominance in the UCAV department. But if other nations start building UCAVs, the current American fleet of manned warplanes will be threatened. UCAVs are cheaper than manned aircraft, and can be used more aggressively. You don't have to worry about losing pilots. Not just because you don't like to see your pilots get killed, but also because of the time and cost required to produce effective combat pilots. UCAVs are cheaper to build, use and lose.

Another threat to F-22s are advances in radar technology that are making the stealthiness of these aircraft less effective. A lot of this has to do with improvements in computer and software technology, but the end result is more vulnerability for a few very expensive aircraft. Many UCAVs will be bombers, and the air force sees it's new F-35 threatened as well. UCAVs being developed are stealthy, and can take risks you would avoid when using manned aircraft.

If the air force decides it needs a lot of UCAVs in a hurry, Congress will probably not put up with buying expensive F-22s and F-35s (which only cost about $40 million each) as well. So the air force is looking into the possibility of cutting or canceling F-22 and F-35 production, and upgrading current aircraft (F-15s, F-16s and A-10s) to hold the fort until the UCAVs are available in quantity. The huge development costs for the F-22 and F-35 won't be wasted. Those technologies can be applied to UCAVs, which can be built cheaper (at least 20 percent cheaper) because these aircraft don't have to carry a pilot. That means F-22 class UCAVs could be built for under $100-150 million each. The F-22 UCAV would also be a more capable aircraft, being able to perform maneuvers a human pilot could not survive.

The army is facing many of the same problems with it's Comanche reconnaissance helicopter. The army cancelled the Comanche program this week, losing $10 billion in the process ($8 billion already spent on development, plus $2 billion in cancellation fees to the manufacturers.) The Comanche cancellation, and the air force contingency plans, don't auger well for the F-22.

[madmedic 0]

Apache hit by a bolt-action rifle?

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.

And the future of the F-22:

Quote[/b] ]February 24, 2004: The U.S. Air Forces new F-22 fighter is already in production, with 25 built (for testing and training), and 19 to be manufactured this year. The air force wants to eventually buy 276, at a cost of over $250 million each. The F-22 is the pinnacle of 20th century warplane design and technology. Unfortunately, it's now the 21st century and new aerial threats are appearing that may make the F-22 obsolete before it even enters service at the end of the decade.  

One thing that has always threatened the F-22 has been cost. Development costs kept growing beyond constantly increased budgets, to the point where the development bill was nearly $30 billion. The large cost of the F-22 was always a threat to the project. Originally conceived in the 1980s as the successor to the F-15, and the primary weapon to keep the Soviet air force from controlling the skies, the F-22 prototypes first flew just as the Cold War ended. At that point, the air force planned to buy 648 aircraft. That number has come down steadily as development costs escalated, and no credible threat to American air supremacy appeared to replace the Soviet Air Force.

What's sneaking up on the F-22 now are combat UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles.) These UCAVs are being built and tested by the air force and navy. The technology is mature and widely available. The rest of the world is waiting to see what the United States comes up with, knowing that this is the future and it will be software, more than anything else, that will make a superior UCAV. At the moment, the U.S. appears headed for dominance in the UCAV department. But if other nations start building UCAVs, the current American fleet of manned warplanes will be threatened. UCAVs are cheaper than manned aircraft, and can be used more aggressively. You don't have to worry about losing pilots. Not just because you don't like to see your pilots get killed, but also because of the time and cost required to produce effective combat pilots. UCAVs are cheaper to build, use and lose.

Another threat to F-22s are advances in radar technology that are making the stealthiness of these aircraft less effective. A lot of this has to do with improvements in computer and software technology, but the end result is more vulnerability for a few very expensive aircraft. Many UCAVs will be bombers, and the air force sees it's new F-35 threatened as well. UCAVs being developed are stealthy, and can take risks you would avoid when using manned aircraft.

If the air force decides it needs a lot of UCAVs in a hurry, Congress will probably not put up with buying expensive F-22s and F-35s (which only cost about $40 million each) as well. So the air force is looking into the possibility of cutting or canceling F-22 and F-35 production, and upgrading current aircraft (F-15s, F-16s and A-10s) to hold the fort until the UCAVs are available in quantity. The huge development costs for the F-22 and F-35 won't be wasted. Those technologies can be applied to UCAVs, which can be built cheaper (at least 20 percent cheaper) because these aircraft don't have to carry a pilot. That means F-22 class UCAVs could be built for under $100-150 million each. The F-22 UCAV would also be a more capable aircraft, being able to perform maneuvers a human pilot could not survive.

The army is facing many of the same problems with it's Comanche reconnaissance helicopter. The army cancelled the Comanche program this week, losing $10 billion in the process ($8 billion already spent on development, plus $2 billion in cancellation fees to the manufacturers.) The Comanche cancellation, and the air force contingency plans, don't auger well for the F-22.

That is a different helicopter than the one "Bagdad Bob" claimed was taken down by the farmer with the rifle. (It is pictured in the post by Avon Lady)

The whole "bolt action rifle" thing was an attempt to rally the Iraqi people against American forces.

Anyone who believes an 8mm Mauser is shot down that Apache...lol...has issues  

On a sidenote: In OFP it is ABSOLUTELY possible to shoot down the Apache with one shot (even from a pistol)...because, for some reason the side windows are not solid.