"Pentagon axes development of Comanche helicopter"

[Mike]

Pentagon axes development of Comanche helicopter
The Pentagon announced yesterday that it is canceling the Army's
program to build a new helicopter after spending about $7 billion in
development costs.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040223-105809-1679r.htm

[[email protected]]

I sorta kinda agree with the reasoning that was given by the Army (as
detailed in the newspaper today), but

(a) did they have to spend $7B before deciding this?

(b) I was really looking forward to its deployment - selfishly, as a
helicopter pilot/enthusiast I think it's a beautiful aircraft.

(c) may I please have one of the airframes that is currently on the
production line to put in my pasture? I think it would make fine Yard
Art.

Dave Blevins

On 24 Feb 2004 09:08:44 -0800, (Mike) wrote:

>Pentagon axes development of Comanche helicopter
>The Pentagon announced yesterday that it is canceling the Army's
>program to build a new helicopter after spending about $7 billion in
>development costs.
>http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040223-105809-1679r.htm

[jimmineecricket]

>(a) did they have to spend $7B before deciding this?
>

I find it amazing that they were able to come to the conclusion at all. The
system so often just keeps on going after the momentum is initiated and we are
left with weapon systems that either dont work right or are obsolete before
they are deployed.
Anyone see the report on the Patriot Missile? We have been misled on how well
it works....or should I say how it doesnt work. Unless you count shooting down
your own aircraft as working.

[[email protected]]

BTW for my Real Job I did a customer visit to Lockheed-Martin in Florida
last year, and one thing that blew me away is that they had been working
on Comanche hardware and software for TEN YEARS. That kind of
development cycle puts some interesting challenges in front of the
companies that provide their hardware/software development tools - i.e.
we would like to obsolete incredibly old versions of our development
tools *eventually*.

In other words, I believe that Windows 3.1 was state-of-the-art ten
years ago. Or was it Windows 2.0? It's been so long...

I just hope that some aspects of the Comanche development effort are
used in some other products/systems, so that those 1o years of many
peoples' work and sweat equity wasn't a complete waste.

May DOS rest in peace,

Dave Blevins

On 24 Feb 2004 23:40:15 GMT, (jimmineecricket)
wrote:

>>(a) did they have to spend $7B before deciding this?
>>
>
>I find it amazing that they were able to come to the conclusion at all. The
>system so often just keeps on going after the momentum is initiated and we are
>left with weapon systems that either dont work right or are obsolete before
>they are deployed.
>Anyone see the report on the Patriot Missile? We have been misled on how well
>it works....or should I say how it doesnt work. Unless you count shooting down
>your own aircraft as working.

[Peter Seddon]

Sorry to hear about its axing - the Comanche was featured in a recent UK
terrestial TV programme and looked amazing.

On that TV programme did I hear correct that the Fenstron tail fan absorbs
900hp - I'm sure that was what the presenter said.

Regards Peter


"Mike" > wrote in message
m...
> Pentagon axes development of Comanche helicopter
> The Pentagon announced yesterday that it is canceling the Army's
> program to build a new helicopter after spending about $7 billion in
> development costs.
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040223-105809-1679r.htm

[mm]

"Peter Seddon" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry to hear about its axing - the Comanche was featured in a recent UK
> terrestial TV programme and looked amazing.
>
> On that TV programme did I hear correct that the Fenstron tail fan absorbs
> 900hp - I'm sure that was what the presenter said.
>
That would be a peak of up to 900 HP in severe maneuvers.

[jimmineecricket]

>
>BTW for my Real Job I did a customer visit to Lockheed-Martin in Florida
>last year, and one thing that blew me away is that they had been working
>on Comanche hardware and software for TEN YEARS. That kind of
>development cycle puts some interesting challenges in front of the
>companies that provide their hardware/software development tools - i.e.
>we would like to obsolete incredibly old versions of our development
>tools *eventually*.
>
>In other words, I believe that Windows 3.1 was state-of-the-art ten
>years ago. Or was it Windows 2.0? It's been so long...
>
>I just hope that some aspects of the Comanche development effort are
>used in some other products/systems, so that those 1o years of many
>peoples' work and sweat equity wasn't a complete waste.
>
>May DOS rest in peace,
>
>Dave Blevins
>
I saw the briefing on TV and the general said that the block 3 apache will
incorporate much of the comanche technologly with the exception of the stealth
stuff. So it is not going to be a complete waste.

[Peter Seddon]

And what are the main engines rated at then? I am intrigued as I had
expected the tail to take no more than 10% of total power.

Regards Peter


"mm" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Peter Seddon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Sorry to hear about its axing - the Comanche was featured in a recent UK
> > terrestial TV programme and looked amazing.
> >
> > On that TV programme did I hear correct that the Fenstron tail fan
absorbs
> > 900hp - I'm sure that was what the presenter said.
> >
> That would be a peak of up to 900 HP in severe maneuvers.
>
>

[Dave Jackson]

The tail rotor is tilted to the side. Therefore it has a slight vertical
component to its thrust.

Perhaps, the tilt was a tentative step by Sikorsky toward having both rotors
face upward, and both contributing to lift. :)

The world's first production helicopters had two main rotors.
(http://www.unicopter.com/0474.html &
http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/focke_drache-r.html). IMHO, rotorcraft
configurations will move away from the tail rotor and back to where they
should have been all along.


> Peter Seddon" wrote in message
> And what are the main engines rated at then? I am intrigued as I had
> expected the tail to take no more than 10% of total power.

[Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh]

The reason for the high Hp rating on the Fantail is the sideward flight
capability - 80 knots.

Dan Hollenbaugh
Comanche Test Engineer

Dave Jackson wrote in message ...
>The tail rotor is tilted to the side. Therefore it has a slight vertical
>component to its thrust.
>
>Perhaps, the tilt was a tentative step by Sikorsky toward having both
rotors
>face upward, and both contributing to lift. :)
>
>The world's first production helicopters had two main rotors.
>(http://www.unicopter.com/0474.html &
>http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/focke_drache-r.html). IMHO, rotorcraft
>configurations will move away from the tail rotor and back to where they
>should have been all along.
>
>
>> Peter Seddon" wrote in message
>> And what are the main engines rated at then? I am intrigued as I had
>> expected the tail to take no more than 10% of total power.
>
>
>

[Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh]

Wanna know why the development period was so long? Lack of funding. I
joined Comanche PMO in 1989. We awarded the first EMD contract in 1991,
then funding was slashed by over 50% in 1992. For TEN YEARS we wandered
along without sufficient funding to achieve the stated program objectives.
We were restructured FIVE TIMES in that period, with the same result each
time - not enough money to really complete the program. It was only with
the last restructure in 2002 that we were given enough funding to do the
program right. That's the cruel reality - we were finally funded and on
track to complete on schedule, and we were cancelled....

Dan Hollenbaugh
Comanche Test Engineer

wrote in message ...
>BTW for my Real Job I did a customer visit to Lockheed-Martin in Florida
>last year, and one thing that blew me away is that they had been working
>on Comanche hardware and software for TEN YEARS. That kind of
>development cycle puts some interesting challenges in front of the
>companies that provide their hardware/software development tools - i.e.
>we would like to obsolete incredibly old versions of our development
>tools *eventually*.
>
>In other words, I believe that Windows 3.1 was state-of-the-art ten
>years ago. Or was it Windows 2.0? It's been so long...
>
>I just hope that some aspects of the Comanche development effort are
>used in some other products/systems, so that those 1o years of many
>peoples' work and sweat equity wasn't a complete waste.
>
>May DOS rest in peace,
>
>Dave Blevins
>
>On 24 Feb 2004 23:40:15 GMT, (jimmineecricket)
>wrote:
>
>>>(a) did they have to spend $7B before deciding this?
>>>
>>
>>I find it amazing that they were able to come to the conclusion at all.
The
>>system so often just keeps on going after the momentum is initiated and we
are
>>left with weapon systems that either dont work right or are obsolete
before
>>they are deployed.
>>Anyone see the report on the Patriot Missile? We have been misled on how
well
>>it works....or should I say how it doesnt work. Unless you count shooting
down
>>your own aircraft as working.
>

[Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh]

Answers to your questions:

(a) Yes, because fundiing was spooned out in totally inadequate portions.
Had we been allowed to keep the initial funding profile we were given in
1990, we would have fielded the aircraft in 1995 for far less than the $6B
(not 7) spent to date. Instead, the Army just waffled along, wasting money.

(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.

(c) Nope - I'm the civilian test director, and I own the only two
airframes. I'm hoping to send #1 to the Ft Rucker Aviation Museum, and put
#2 on a stick in front of my office at Redstone Arsenal. (But I'm just the
test guy, and probably won't get to decide)

Dan Hollenbaugh
Comanche Test Engineer


wrote in message
>...
>I sorta kinda agree with the reasoning that was given by the Army (as
>detailed in the newspaper today), but
>
>(a) did they have to spend $7B before deciding this?
>
>(b) I was really looking forward to its deployment - selfishly, as a
>helicopter pilot/enthusiast I think it's a beautiful aircraft.
>
>(c) may I please have one of the airframes that is currently on the
>production line to put in my pasture? I think it would make fine Yard
>Art.
>
>Dave Blevins
>
>On 24 Feb 2004 09:08:44 -0800, (Mike) wrote:
>
>>Pentagon axes development of Comanche helicopter
>>The Pentagon announced yesterday that it is canceling the Army's
>>program to build a new helicopter after spending about $7 billion in
>>development costs.
>>http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040223-105809-1679r.htm
>

[Steve Waltner]

In article .net>,
Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh > wrote:
> [snip]
> (b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.
> [snip]
>
> Dan Hollenbaugh
> Comanche Test Engineer

I hope you got to see the last flight of the Comanche this week. My
brother said it was a pretty impressive demonstration. Hopefully
someone was running the video camera. ;-) Too bad this impressive
airframe is going away. I would have liked to see one in person, but
some odd thing about national security. Oh well, hopefully one will
show up in a museum somewhere so we can get a close look at it.

Steve

[Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh]

I have the PM's permission to bring it to Redstone for one last demo. I
expect to see the final flight.

Dan H.

Steve Waltner wrote in message >...
>In article .net>,
>Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh > wrote:
>> [snip]
>> (b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.
>> [snip]
>>
>> Dan Hollenbaugh
>> Comanche Test Engineer
>
>I hope you got to see the last flight of the Comanche this week. My
>brother said it was a pretty impressive demonstration. Hopefully
>someone was running the video camera. ;-) Too bad this impressive
>airframe is going away. I would have liked to see one in person, but
>some odd thing about national security. Oh well, hopefully one will
>show up in a museum somewhere so we can get a close look at it.
>
>Steve

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 05:28:54 GMT, "Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh"
> wrote:

>Answers to your questions:
Dan -

Obviously I was joking on question "c" - but it is fun to get an answer
from you on it nonetheless, even if it is "no" 8^) .

BTW my "condolences" on the cancellation of your program. As I said I
kinda sorta see the reasoning behind the cancellation - i.e. that the
Comanche was conceived when the threat was Russian tanks rather than SAM
(SAndal-Mounted) or TOW (Turban Optical Wire) missiles - but now it
seems that we won't have any truly new rotary airframes in the US
military for many years to come. So every helicopter in our arsenal is
like a giant billboard radar-wise - hmmm.

BTW#2 are there any web-accessible diagrams or high-quality photos of
the Comanche cockpits?

cheers,

Dave Blevins

>(a) Yes, because fundiing was spooned out in totally inadequate portions.
>Had we been allowed to keep the initial funding profile we were given in
>1990, we would have fielded the aircraft in 1995 for far less than the $6B
>(not 7) spent to date. Instead, the Army just waffled along, wasting money.
>
>(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.
>
>(c) Nope - I'm the civilian test director, and I own the only two
>airframes. I'm hoping to send #1 to the Ft Rucker Aviation Museum, and put
>#2 on a stick in front of my office at Redstone Arsenal. (But I'm just the
>test guy, and probably won't get to decide)
>
>Dan Hollenbaugh
>Comanche Test Engineer

[Micbloo]

>(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.

Saw it fly once on the "Discovery Channel" show "American Choppers" where the
team was making a motorcycle
to look like the Comanche.
Very cool looking ship.
Damn shame with all those jobs lost also.
And I thought I'd get a chance to see one or two buzzing around NYC on a test
flight
out of Ct.
I guess after The Hulk did a number on them in the Midwest the writing was on
the wall. :O)

Gerard

[Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh]

Something to think about when you're trying to understand the cancellation -
if the reason really was the lack of a Soviet tank army-type threat, why
weren't we cancelled ten years ago? Could it be that the stated reason for
cancellation is (gasp) not true? You'd be amazed at what I'm hearing about
signatures - it seems that, since no aircraft in the world can hover 200 ft
above a guy with an SA-7 (or an RPG), the folks in charge of the Army have
decided that low observable helicopters are no longer worth pursuing. Look
for the announcement of a large buy of Little Birds.

Don't know about any online pics of the cockpit. I have a few, and I'm
trying to gather up more for my record, and to build my own model. Drop a
note to my e-mail address, and I'll send what I can find.

Dan H.

wrote in message
>...
>On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 05:28:54 GMT, "Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh"
> wrote:
>
>>Answers to your questions:
>Dan -
>
>Obviously I was joking on question "c" - but it is fun to get an answer
>from you on it nonetheless, even if it is "no" 8^) .
>
>BTW my "condolences" on the cancellation of your program. As I said I
>kinda sorta see the reasoning behind the cancellation - i.e. that the
>Comanche was conceived when the threat was Russian tanks rather than SAM
>(SAndal-Mounted) or TOW (Turban Optical Wire) missiles - but now it
>seems that we won't have any truly new rotary airframes in the US
>military for many years to come. So every helicopter in our arsenal is
>like a giant billboard radar-wise - hmmm.
>
>BTW#2 are there any web-accessible diagrams or high-quality photos of
>the Comanche cockpits?
>
>cheers,
>
>Dave Blevins
>
>>(a) Yes, because fundiing was spooned out in totally inadequate portions.
>>Had we been allowed to keep the initial funding profile we were given in
>>1990, we would have fielded the aircraft in 1995 for far less than the $6B
>>(not 7) spent to date. Instead, the Army just waffled along, wasting
money.
>>
>>(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.
>>
>>(c) Nope - I'm the civilian test director, and I own the only two
>>airframes. I'm hoping to send #1 to the Ft Rucker Aviation Museum, and
put
>>#2 on a stick in front of my office at Redstone Arsenal. (But I'm just
the
>>test guy, and probably won't get to decide)
>>
>>Dan Hollenbaugh
>>Comanche Test Engineer

[[email protected]]

....mmmmm... i think they cancelled the program bcs they had *very*
serious handling qualities problems. Who had worked on that machine
knows about them.

My personal idea is that helicopters are not good machines to fight,
and, overall, reality is confirming that.
It's better to have some millions in our pockets, rather than having
it flying.


"Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh" > wrote in message .net>...
> Something to think about when you're trying to understand the cancellation -
> if the reason really was the lack of a Soviet tank army-type threat, why
> weren't we cancelled ten years ago? Could it be that the stated reason for
> cancellation is (gasp) not true? You'd be amazed at what I'm hearing about
> signatures - it seems that, since no aircraft in the world can hover 200 ft
> above a guy with an SA-7 (or an RPG), the folks in charge of the Army have
> decided that low observable helicopters are no longer worth pursuing. Look
> for the announcement of a large buy of Little Birds.
>
> Don't know about any online pics of the cockpit. I have a few, and I'm
> trying to gather up more for my record, and to build my own model. Drop a
> note to my e-mail address, and I'll send what I can find.
>
> Dan H.
>
> wrote in message
> >...
> >On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 05:28:54 GMT, "Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Answers to your questions:
> >Dan -
> >
> >Obviously I was joking on question "c" - but it is fun to get an answer
> >from you on it nonetheless, even if it is "no" 8^) .
> >
> >BTW my "condolences" on the cancellation of your program. As I said I
> >kinda sorta see the reasoning behind the cancellation - i.e. that the
> >Comanche was conceived when the threat was Russian tanks rather than SAM
> >(SAndal-Mounted) or TOW (Turban Optical Wire) missiles - but now it
> >seems that we won't have any truly new rotary airframes in the US
> >military for many years to come. So every helicopter in our arsenal is
> >like a giant billboard radar-wise - hmmm.
> >
> >BTW#2 are there any web-accessible diagrams or high-quality photos of
> >the Comanche cockpits?
> >
> >cheers,
> >
> >Dave Blevins
> >
> >>(a) Yes, because fundiing was spooned out in totally inadequate portions.
> >>Had we been allowed to keep the initial funding profile we were given in
> >>1990, we would have fielded the aircraft in 1995 for far less than the $6B
> >>(not 7) spent to date. Instead, the Army just waffled along, wasting
> money.
> >>
> >>(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.
> >>
> >>(c) Nope - I'm the civilian test director, and I own the only two
> >>airframes. I'm hoping to send #1 to the Ft Rucker Aviation Museum, and
> put
> >>#2 on a stick in front of my office at Redstone Arsenal. (But I'm just
> the
> >>test guy, and probably won't get to decide)
> >>
> >>Dan Hollenbaugh
> >>Comanche Test Engineer

[Shaber CJ]

>were given enough funding to do the
>program right. That's the cruel reality - we were finally funded and on
>track to complete on schedule, and we were cancelled....
>
>Dan Hollenbaugh
>Comanche Test Engineer

I was sorry to hear that the program was canceled. I certainly do not know
anything of the technical achievements or hurdles yet to overcome, but it
certainly looked like an exciting new airframe. I felt the same way about the
Navy's A-12 and then they ended up with the F/A 18E/F.

Craig

[Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh]

You're very wrong. There were some early problems with directional
stability and rotor vibrations, but those were solved long ago. Handling
Qualities were not a problem. If you don't think helicopters are good
fighting machines, you're in the wrong newsgroup.

Dan H.

wrote in message
>...
>...mmmmm... i think they cancelled the program bcs they had *very*
>serious handling qualities problems. Who had worked on that machine
>knows about them.
>
>My personal idea is that helicopters are not good machines to fight,
>and, overall, reality is confirming that.
>It's better to have some millions in our pockets, rather than having
>it flying.
>
>
>"Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh" > wrote in message
.net>...
>> Something to think about when you're trying to understand the
cancellation -
>> if the reason really was the lack of a Soviet tank army-type threat, why
>> weren't we cancelled ten years ago? Could it be that the stated reason
for
>> cancellation is (gasp) not true? You'd be amazed at what I'm hearing
about
>> signatures - it seems that, since no aircraft in the world can hover 200
ft
>> above a guy with an SA-7 (or an RPG), the folks in charge of the Army
have
>> decided that low observable helicopters are no longer worth pursuing.
Look
>> for the announcement of a large buy of Little Birds.
>>
>> Don't know about any online pics of the cockpit. I have a few, and I'm
>> trying to gather up more for my record, and to build my own model. Drop
a
>> note to my e-mail address, and I'll send what I can find.
>>
>> Dan H.
>>
>> wrote in message
>> >...
>> >On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 05:28:54 GMT, "Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh"
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Answers to your questions:
>> >Dan -
>> >
>> >Obviously I was joking on question "c" - but it is fun to get an answer
>> >from you on it nonetheless, even if it is "no" 8^) .
>> >
>> >BTW my "condolences" on the cancellation of your program. As I said I
>> >kinda sorta see the reasoning behind the cancellation - i.e. that the
>> >Comanche was conceived when the threat was Russian tanks rather than SAM
>> >(SAndal-Mounted) or TOW (Turban Optical Wire) missiles - but now it
>> >seems that we won't have any truly new rotary airframes in the US
>> >military for many years to come. So every helicopter in our arsenal is
>> >like a giant billboard radar-wise - hmmm.
>> >
>> >BTW#2 are there any web-accessible diagrams or high-quality photos of
>> >the Comanche cockpits?
>> >
>> >cheers,
>> >
>> >Dave Blevins
>> >
>> >>(a) Yes, because fundiing was spooned out in totally inadequate
portions.
>> >>Had we been allowed to keep the initial funding profile we were given
in
>> >>1990, we would have fielded the aircraft in 1995 for far less than the
$6B
>> >>(not 7) spent to date. Instead, the Army just waffled along, wasting
>> money.
>> >>
>> >>(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.
>> >>
>> >>(c) Nope - I'm the civilian test director, and I own the only two
>> >>airframes. I'm hoping to send #1 to the Ft Rucker Aviation Museum, and
>> put
>> >>#2 on a stick in front of my office at Redstone Arsenal. (But I'm just
>> the
>> >>test guy, and probably won't get to decide)
>> >>
>> >>Dan Hollenbaugh
>> >>Comanche Test Engineer

[DumDum]

El Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:46:41 GMT, Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh =

> escribi=F3:

> You're very wrong. There were some early problems with directional
> stability and rotor vibrations, but those were solved long ago. Handl=
ing
> Qualities were not a problem. If you don't think helicopters are good=

> fighting machines, you're in the wrong newsgroup.
>
> Dan H.

No Dan, I'm also a system engineer, the Pentagon choice, was the correct=
, =

the Commanche was visualized early the 80's, then the Robotics, =

communications and the AI evolved to levels never foreseen, at Afganista=
n =

& Iraq the UAV's and UCAV's performed excellently.
The Commanche really is a wonder, but a wonder out of time.
The stealth reconnaissance can be performed better by an UAV than any =

helicopter, the UAVs are much smaller, so are hard to detect, and no cre=
w =

run risk.

Will be developed an VERY small ucav to be used on helos and ground =

troops, launched on a rocket. Will fly to the reconnaissance area and th=
en =

will start an prop to flyover and mark hard targets. then missiles like =

the hellfire will eliminate all objectives.

Is not only the economy, also is strategy, the robots will be the next =

battlefield troopers.

Regards,

[Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh]

I've heard of these wonders before - a robot can never replace an autonomous
human with two eyes and innate human curiousity.

Dan H.

DumDum wrote in message ...
El Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:46:41 GMT, Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh
> escribió:

> You're very wrong. There were some early problems with directional
> stability and rotor vibrations, but those were solved long ago. Handling
> Qualities were not a problem. If you don't think helicopters are good
> fighting machines, you're in the wrong newsgroup.
>
> Dan H.

No Dan, I'm also a system engineer, the Pentagon choice, was the correct,
the Commanche was visualized early the 80's, then the Robotics,
communications and the AI evolved to levels never foreseen, at Afganistan
& Iraq the UAV's and UCAV's performed excellently.
The Commanche really is a wonder, but a wonder out of time.
The stealth reconnaissance can be performed better by an UAV than any
helicopter, the UAVs are much smaller, so are hard to detect, and no crew
run risk.

Will be developed an VERY small ucav to be used on helos and ground
troops, launched on a rocket. Will fly to the reconnaissance area and then
will start an prop to flyover and mark hard targets. then missiles like
the hellfire will eliminate all objectives.

Is not only the economy, also is strategy, the robots will be the next
battlefield troopers.

Regards,

[Steve Waltner]

In article >, Micbloo
> wrote:

> >(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.
>
> Saw it fly once on the "Discovery Channel" show "American Choppers" where the
> team was making a motorcycle
> to look like the Comanche.
> Very cool looking ship.
> Damn shame with all those jobs lost also.
> And I thought I'd get a chance to see one or two buzzing around NYC on a test
> flight
> out of Ct.
> I guess after The Hulk did a number on them in the Midwest the writing was on
> the wall. :O)
>
> Gerard

http://homepage.mac.com/swaltner/flying/comanche.mov

For those that missed it the last time I posted the URL to the
newsgroup, I've got a 4.5 minute video of the Comanche flyinng around
at the Sikorsky facility stored at the URL above. I smile every time I
watch that video and hear that unique sound signature of the Comanche
in the high-speed flyover. Enjoy.

Steve

[DumDum]

El Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:30:42 GMT, Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh =

> escribi=F3:

> I've heard of these wonders before - a robot can never replace an =

> autonomous
> human with two eyes and innate human curiousity.
>
> Dan H.

Yes, the robots lacks the autonomous human with two eyes and innate huma=
n =

curiousity. But the Robot's controllers are Humans, that's the differenc=
e =

and the reality of the new technology, the key is the real time =

transmission of data. Also the AI could give to the robot's eye's a leve=
l =

of intuition and "curiosity" that no human could reach.

Sorry are the facts.

-- =

Regards,

[Al Denelsbeck]

DumDum > wrote in news:opr4ahr8gs2nlmxq@localhost:

> El Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:30:42 GMT, Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh
> > escribió:
>
>> I've heard of these wonders before - a robot can never replace an
>
>> autonomous
>> human with two eyes and innate human curiousity.
>>
>> Dan H.
>
> Yes, the robots lacks the autonomous human with two eyes and innate
> human curiousity. But the Robot's controllers are Humans, that's the
> difference and the reality of the new technology, the key is the real
> time transmission of data. Also the AI could give to the robot's eye's
> a level of intuition and "curiosity" that no human could reach.
>
> Sorry are the facts.


Until somebody jams transmission...

Sorry, facts are demonstrations of reality. And you have a long long
ways to go before you understand the severe limitations of "AI" controlled
systems. "Intuition and curiosity" indeed!


- Al, whose buddy is designing autonomous explorer systems and "swarm
technology" for future Mars landings...

--
To reply, insert dash in address to separate G and I in the domain

[DumDum]

El Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:11:50 GMT, Al Denelsbeck > =

escribi=F3:

>
> Until somebody jams transmission...
>
> Sorry, facts are demonstrations of reality. And you have a long l=
ong
> ways to go before you understand the severe limitations of "AI" =

> controlled
> systems. "Intuition and curiosity" indeed!
>
>
> - Al, whose buddy is designing autonomous explorer systems and "swarm=

> technology" for future Mars landings...
>
You didn't know the performance of modern anti-jam transmitters, also =

Laser Beam Transmitter couldn't be jammed, and you don't know any thing =
on =

robotics, is not the same to control a rover on Mars than a plane at few=
=

kilometers, also you know the OCR software that works in your scanner, =

well cameras are like scanners, and the software can be programmed to =

recognize a wide set of targets.

Sorry, don't cry, the war is not a romantic question, is a survival =

question.

I loved the commanche, but more apaches and UAVs/UCAVs are better partne=
rs =

on the battlefield.

Regards

[Al Denelsbeck]

DumDum > wrote in news:opr4a55mgc2nlmxq@localhost:


> You didn't know the performance of modern anti-jam transmitters,
> also
> Laser Beam Transmitter couldn't be jammed,...

Really? Do you have the faintest idea what "smoke" is? And
unfortunately, open-air laser transmission is a "line-of-sight"
communication, which not only requires a straight line between the two
transmitters, but also enough power (before you even start spouting the
word "satellite") to effectively reach between them. AND THEN you need the
ability to hold target on your receiver with enough accuracy to maintain
communication. Wanna tell me about laser-guided bombs and accuracy? Feel
free - I'll show you the reports of the ones that missed when the
transmission blipped. And then point out how your 'target' on a satellite
based communication system is the relative size of a grain of sand in
comparison, and not only does the UAV have to maintain the target of a
satellite while jinking around in a combat zone, but the satellite has to
maintain the UAV as a target. How do you suspect it'll do that?


>,,,and you don't know any
> thing on robotics, is not the same to control a rover on Mars than a
> plane at few kilometers,...

You're absolutely right - it's several thousand times easier. The
entire point behind swarm technology control of Mars explorer "bots" is
that they work totally autonomously, requiring NO guidance communication
whatsoever with anything but a lander base on Mars (and the use of this is
debatable), share their information among numerous units all performing the
same tasks, and function on only rudimentary programming. That means small,
light, inexpensive, power efficient, and dedicated to a task. They also
have very simple terrain to handle.

"AI" as you so charmingly put it was a staple item among several of
my friends at the UNC-CH Computer Science Department, and one of them still
works in the field. The cold hard facts of the matter is that they are
light-years away from any kind of system that has the faintest ability to
function with "intuition" and "curiosity" in any way that you attempt to
define it, much less in, as you say, "a way no humans could reach". And
this is being done with a roomful of mainframe computers. At no point has
anyone come even close to the concept of "creative thinking", which means
taking input from an environment that does not match into programming or
"past experience" and determining a course of action from it. In other
words, they're not even close to intuition at all, much less doing so in
realtime with a programmed unit the miniscule size needed for a UAV.
Generating data from an environment requires billions upon billions of bits
of information stored every second - that's just the "input" part alone.
The what do you do with it? You know all about robotics, do you? You tell
me then: how is the information parsed?


>...also you know the OCR software that works in
> your scanner, well cameras are like scanners, and the software can be
> programmed to recognize a wide set of targets.

Heh! Having done the proofreading on documents scanned and
'recognized' by numerous different OCR software packages, I have to tell
you that your analogy leaves more than a little bit to be desired. I've
often wondered if it wasn't faster to just retype the damn things...

And it's orders of magnitude away from what you're describing. We're
not talking "All it takes is a faster processor"; we're talking about the
ability to see a partially or entirely camouflaged item and determine what
the hell it is, and act on it, without input, and in the space of a few
seconds. While operating through a three-dimensional environment
efficiently.

Ah, but since you're so self-assured in how it all works, you must be
able to point to documents or resources telling us where you got all this
wonderful information?


> Sorry, don't cry, the war is not a romantic question, is a survival
> question.

If I stop laughing long enough to cry, I'll let you know. It's gonna
be a while yet.


> I loved the commanche, but more apaches and UAVs/UCAVs are better
> partners on the battlefield.


One "M" in "Comanche" there, OCR...

I have no issue with remote vehicles and recognize their usefulness -
we should have been using them a lot longer ago than this. Unfortunately,
war is indeed about survival as you say, but most of the survival takes
place at the corporate and DOD level - jobs. It's been decades since the
emphasis has been on efficiency and optimal use of technology.

But there's also a real world limit to what can be done, and while
this changes all the time, it's also decades away, at a bare minimum, from
what you're attempting to sell. In fact, many scientists who make their
entire living from the field question whether it's even possible. This
isn't some hoohah article in Popular Science that's 90% speculation. This
is from accounting for what's been accomplished already and comparing it to
what still needs to be done. Nobody that has ever seen the details of
environmental conditioning in an electronic manner believes this is a
viable method of guidance - there are much easier ways, And the primary one
is using the supercomputer that's already been developed over millions of
years...


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to separate G and I in the domain

[DumDum]

Okai, You're really well informed.

When I said "Intuition" and "Curiosity" I speak in figured mode.

Real Intuition and Curiosity are a dream for the AI, as the feelings, but an
UAV/UCAV whats need is a mechanism to catch interest point, not need to be
precise, the precision helps to low the data to be transmitted, a sensor in
an UAV can do thousands of chemical analysis on an area, process the data
with the pre-recognition and establish priorities to transmit, is only one
of many mechanisms, of course the exact process is a secret.

I know the problem with the smoke, the fog and the lasers, as the RF
jamming, but if an UAV/UCAV couldn't communicate on an area, the same
jamming affect to the comanche's crew. What the commanche crew will do?,
well to fly to a zone where the jamming has no effect and to transmit. But a
commanche needs to fly very low, to reach an free jamming area and needs to
fly a long and dangerous path. an UAV can do the same strategy, but an UAV
will only need to fly to a higher altitude, (because are hard to detect can
do it, the comanche can't fly as high as an uav and have a larger section),
then a laser or mw datalink can work w/o jamming.

Need more explications? More data?
- Sorry is classified.

I have no time for PopularScience and other publicationsm I only can say I'm
well informed.

Hurts, but was the right choice.


> DumDum > wrote in news:opr4a55mgc2nlmxq@localhost:
>
>
> > You didn't know the performance of modern anti-jam transmitters,
> > also
> > Laser Beam Transmitter couldn't be jammed,...
>
> Really? Do you have the faintest idea what "smoke" is? And
> unfortunately, open-air laser transmission is a "line-of-sight"
> communication, which not only requires a straight line between the two
> transmitters, but also enough power (before you even start spouting the
> word "satellite") to effectively reach between them. AND THEN you need the
> ability to hold target on your receiver with enough accuracy to maintain
> communication. Wanna tell me about laser-guided bombs and accuracy? Feel
> free - I'll show you the reports of the ones that missed when the
> transmission blipped. And then point out how your 'target' on a satellite
> based communication system is the relative size of a grain of sand in
> comparison, and not only does the UAV have to maintain the target of a
> satellite while jinking around in a combat zone, but the satellite has to
> maintain the UAV as a target. How do you suspect it'll do that?
>
>
> >,,,and you don't know any
> > thing on robotics, is not the same to control a rover on Mars than a
> > plane at few kilometers,...
>
> You're absolutely right - it's several thousand times easier. The
> entire point behind swarm technology control of Mars explorer "bots" is
> that they work totally autonomously, requiring NO guidance communication
> whatsoever with anything but a lander base on Mars (and the use of this is
> debatable), share their information among numerous units all performing
the
> same tasks, and function on only rudimentary programming. That means
small,
> light, inexpensive, power efficient, and dedicated to a task. They also
> have very simple terrain to handle.
>
> "AI" as you so charmingly put it was a staple item among several of
> my friends at the UNC-CH Computer Science Department, and one of them
still
> works in the field. The cold hard facts of the matter is that they are
> light-years away from any kind of system that has the faintest ability to
> function with "intuition" and "curiosity" in any way that you attempt to
> define it, much less in, as you say, "a way no humans could reach". And
> this is being done with a roomful of mainframe computers. At no point has
> anyone come even close to the concept of "creative thinking", which means
> taking input from an environment that does not match into programming or
> "past experience" and determining a course of action from it. In other
> words, they're not even close to intuition at all, much less doing so in
> realtime with a programmed unit the miniscule size needed for a UAV.
> Generating data from an environment requires billions upon billions of
bits
> of information stored every second - that's just the "input" part alone.
> The what do you do with it? You know all about robotics, do you? You tell
> me then: how is the information parsed?
>
>
> >...also you know the OCR software that works in
> > your scanner, well cameras are like scanners, and the software can be
> > programmed to recognize a wide set of targets.
>
> Heh! Having done the proofreading on documents scanned and
> 'recognized' by numerous different OCR software packages, I have to tell
> you that your analogy leaves more than a little bit to be desired. I've
> often wondered if it wasn't faster to just retype the damn things...
>
> And it's orders of magnitude away from what you're describing. We're
> not talking "All it takes is a faster processor"; we're talking about the
> ability to see a partially or entirely camouflaged item and determine what
> the hell it is, and act on it, without input, and in the space of a few
> seconds. While operating through a three-dimensional environment
> efficiently.
>
> Ah, but since you're so self-assured in how it all works, you must be
> able to point to documents or resources telling us where you got all this
> wonderful information?
>
>
> > Sorry, don't cry, the war is not a romantic question, is a survival
> > question.
>
> If I stop laughing long enough to cry, I'll let you know. It's gonna
> be a while yet.
>
>
> > I loved the commanche, but more apaches and UAVs/UCAVs are better
> > partners on the battlefield.
>
>
> One "M" in "Comanche" there, OCR...
>
> I have no issue with remote vehicles and recognize their usefulness -
> we should have been using them a lot longer ago than this. Unfortunately,
> war is indeed about survival as you say, but most of the survival takes
> place at the corporate and DOD level - jobs. It's been decades since the
> emphasis has been on efficiency and optimal use of technology.
>
> But there's also a real world limit to what can be done, and while
> this changes all the time, it's also decades away, at a bare minimum, from
> what you're attempting to sell. In fact, many scientists who make their
> entire living from the field question whether it's even possible. This
> isn't some hoohah article in Popular Science that's 90% speculation. This
> is from accounting for what's been accomplished already and comparing it
to
> what still needs to be done. Nobody that has ever seen the details of
> environmental conditioning in an electronic manner believes this is a
> viable method of guidance - there are much easier ways, And the primary
one
> is using the supercomputer that's already been developed over millions of
> years...
>
>
> - Al.
>
> --
> To reply, insert dash in address to separate G and I in the domain

[Dave Jackson]

>Al Denelsbeckd wrote in message
>You tell me then: how is the information parsed?

The following AI comments may be outdated by about 15 years.

It has been reported that there are a million lines of code in the Comanche.
This implies the use of serial processing and its von Newman bottleneck. AI
will probably take place in the domain of massive parallel processing,
perhaps with Omega net interconnections. The coding in each of the 10 to
the ? power processors will be quite simple, since its function is only to
replicate a few neurons plus their synapses, dendrites and axons etc.

The total neuronal activity of the Aplysia was replicated in silicon a long
time ago. I suspect that higher level cognitive abilities are closer than we
think. It's sort of scary because it implies Determinism. Roll over
Darwin, here comes Skinner and Dawkins.

Dave J

[TruthSeeker]

(Micbloo) wrote in message >...
> >(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.
>
> Saw it fly once on the "Discovery Channel" show "American Choppers" where the
> team was making a motorcycle
> to look like the Comanche.
> Very cool looking ship.
> Damn shame with all those jobs lost also.
> And I thought I'd get a chance to see one or two buzzing around NYC on a test
> flight
> out of Ct.
> I guess after The Hulk did a number on them in the Midwest the writing was on
> the wall. :O)
>
> Gerard

It's a damn shame they set unrealistic cost, schedule and performance
goals for that thing starting from Day #1. Wanna cause endless
problems, be unrealistic in your goals and spend the next 20 years
trying to meet them. There are other things too, but that IHMO was
the root of the problem.

[Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh]

Your humble opinion is only about half right. The original goals were
achievable. I've been lead Test Engineer in the Comanche PMO since 1989.
The original program as contracted in 1991 was achievable in cost, schedule,
and performance. In 1992 our funding was slashed. We then spent 10 years
just keeping things going and kicking the can down the road, fooling
ourselves we were making progress. We restructured the program every two
years from 1992 through 2000. In 2002 our PM went to the Army and said,
"fund us properly or kill us." We finally got the funding we needed to do
it right. There were some problem areas, but I'm convinced the program that
was just cancelled was achievable. Cost and schedule problems had nothing
to do with the cancellation.

You should see how fast the place is emptying out.....

Dan Hollenbaugh


TruthSeeker wrote in message
>...
>It's a damn shame they set unrealistic cost, schedule and performance
>goals for that thing starting from Day #1. Wanna cause endless
>problems, be unrealistic in your goals and spend the next 20 years
>trying to meet them. There are other things too, but that IHMO was
>the root of the problem.

[Micbloo]

>From: "Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh"

>You should see how fast the place is emptying out.....
>

Good luck on your next endeavour.

[Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh]

Looks like I'm out of the vertical lift business for a while. My next job
will be test director for a new unmanned ground vehicle.

Dan H.

Micbloo wrote in message >...
>>From: "Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh"
>
>>You should see how fast the place is emptying out.....
>>
>
>Good luck on your next endeavour.

[Micbloo]

>Looks like I'm out of the vertical lift business for a while. My next job
>will be test director for a new unmanned ground vehicle.

Good that you have work.
Good luck.