US Army Cancels Comanche Helo

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti...&_mpc=news%2e6

Too bad, only wish it would have been the V-22 or F-22 programs.

Rob

"robert arndt" wrote in message
m...

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti...&_mpc=news%2e6

Too bad, only wish it would have been the V-22 or F-22 programs.

There is still time.

Rummy is performance oriented and the 2001 procurement production break
changes everything.

"robert arndt" wrote

Too bad, only wish it would have been the V-22 or F-22 programs.

This is the first big lessons learned to come out of Iraq War-2. Between the
Apaches getting put out of action by massed gunfire and the demonstrated
advantages of UAVs, the Army decided that Comanche was last-war's weapon.

Too bad, only wish it would have been the V-22 or F-22 programs.



V-22 can still be axed.
But, isn't the F-22 already 'deployed', at least at Tyndall?
VL

"MLenoch" wrote in message
...
Too bad, only wish it would have been the V-22 or F-22 programs.



V-22 can still be axed.
But, isn't the F-22 already 'deployed', at least at Tyndall?

Cut them up.

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:12:46 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"MLenoch" wrote in message
...
Too bad, only wish it would have been the V-22 or F-22 programs.



V-22 can still be axed.
But, isn't the F-22 already 'deployed', at least at Tyndall?

Cut them up.



Yeah that would be a real smart move.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:12:46 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"MLenoch" wrote in message
...
Too bad, only wish it would have been the V-22 or F-22 programs.



V-22 can still be axed.
But, isn't the F-22 already 'deployed', at least at Tyndall?

Cut them up.

Yeah that would be a real smart move.

Not as smart as shutting down the F-22 in '98.

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
. ..

"robert arndt" wrote

Too bad, only wish it would have been the V-22 or F-22 programs.

This is the first big lessons learned to come out of Iraq War-2. Between
the
Apaches getting put out of action by massed gunfire and the demonstrated
advantages of UAVs, the Army decided that Comanche was last-war's weapon.

Eh? I think you are reading a bit more into it than is reasonable. First,
why were those Apaches expereincing such difficulty during that one deep
mission? Bad terrain contributed to the problem (realatively flat and good
visibility), as did the decision *not* to fire the normal SEAD support
effort from the tubes and MLRS/ATACMS due to concern over potential civilian
casualties. Being a bit too aggressive also probably counted against them
that night (anybody who has ever participated in any DIV or Corps level
exercise where Apaches were included in the play knows how strenuously the
aviators tried to keep the Apaches in the deep fight and tried to eschew the
over-the-shoulder missions). Second, we have no UAV as yet, or in the near
term, that can do what an aircraft like the AH-64D can do; none can match
its weapons load, nor its ability to carry a mix of weapons, nor carry
*both* a target acquisition and tracking radar *and* a good FLIR/thermal
sight, and current UAV's can't hit a FARP and be back into the fight in
short order when required.

Will the UAV's eventually be able to match those kind of capabilities? To
some extent (though the weapons load/mix will be tough unless you make one
big honking UAV), especially when the rotary UCAV becomes available...some
day. Look to see the Apache remain a viable part of the force mix for many
more years. The RAH-66 was cut because it had become a "black hole" for RD&A
funding, with continuing problems and an ever changing in-service date; it
was also too darned expensive on a per unit basis and the number last being
bandied about for procurement was too low to fill the original projected
need by far. If the attack helo concept was as dead as you portray it as
being, why is the USMC, which is usuallly the last service to waste precious
resources on outdated concepts, still moving at full speed with the AH-1Z
program?

Brooks

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
. ..

"robert arndt" wrote

Too bad, only wish it would have been the V-22 or F-22 programs.

This is the first big lessons learned to come out of Iraq War-2.
Between the Apaches getting put out of action by massed gunfire and
the demonstrated advantages of UAVs, the Army decided that Comanche
was last-war's weapon.

Eh? I think you are reading a bit more into it than is reasonable.

I'd put a different read on the same events, but with basically the same
conclusion.

What probably did in Comanche (IMO) was not the fact that the Apaches were
getting hit, but the realization that they were getting hit by weapons that
didn't care at all about radar signature (i.e. optically pointed guns and IR
MANPADS). If those non-radar-guided systems are really the major threats
to helos -- as the last couple of years of fighting in various places
certianly suggests they they are -- it makes no sense at all to spend large
sums on a helicopter whose main claim to fame (and major cost driver) is
radar signature reduction.

If this logic is true, Comanche died not because it's a helicopter, but
because it's *the wrong kind* of helicopter.

we have no UAV as yet, or in the
near term, that can do what an aircraft like the AH-64D can do;

Absolutely true. However, we may soon have UAVs that can do what the RAH-66
could do, except for actual weapon delivery, which the Apache can handle
just fine. (Why the Comanche was bombed up to rival the Apache, I'll never
understand.)




--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Not as smart as shutting down the F-22 in '98.

We're certainly past that point. Today, the F-15s are literally falling apart
in the air and something is needed to replaced the old F-15C and soon-to-be
F-15E airframes. (Friends in the squadrons often tell tales of shedding tail
feathers, etc.) New production F-15s? Maybe? Or new production F-22s?
Whatever?
VL