Comanche Helicopter Canceled!

[XASA]

More billions of dollars flushed down the toliet:

February 23, 2004
Army to End Comanche Helicopter Program
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 12:34 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army has decided to cancel its Comanche helicopter program, a multi-billion project to build a new-generation chopper for armed reconnaissance missions, officials said Monday.

The contractors for Comanche are Boeing Co. and Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.

With about $8 billion already invested in the program, and the production line not yet started, the cancellation is one of the largest in the history of the Army. It follows the Pentagon's decision in 2002 to cancel the Crusader artillery program -- against the wishes of Army leaders.

Pentagon officials said a public announcement was planned for Monday afternoon.

Loren Thompson, who follows aviation and other defense issues for the Lexington Institute think tank, said he believes the Army under new chief of staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker favors ending the Comanche program, even though the service had been counting on it to provide a new reconnaissance capability.

``The Bush administration has now killed the two biggest Army weapons programs it inherited from the Clinton administration,'' Thompson said, referring to the Crusader and Comanche.

Earlier this year the White House budget office asked the Pentagon to provide independent reviews of the Comanche and another expensive aviation program, the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor fighter.

Although killing the Comanche project would save tens of billion in future costs, the cancellation decision is expected to require the Army to pay at least $2 billion in contract termination fees.

The Comanche program was started in 1983 and had survived many reviews. Initial production was scheduled to begin in 2006.

[Trigger]

XASA beat me to it.


Although killing the Comanche project would save tens of billion in future costs

Waste? yes, but better to cut our losses now.

Opinions?

[wholagun]

****e, I kinda liked the chopper. So now what are ya gonna do for attack chopper? or you gonna keep the Longbow which is still good

[Seoulstriker]

damn. i'm pissed.

i bet this is another side-effect of Rumsfeld's modernization program. but isn't the commanche modern? :( :fork:

[Seoulstriker]

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,112225,00.html


Army Kills Comanche Helicopter Program

Monday, February 23, 2004

WASHINGTON — The Army has decided to cancel its Comanche helicopter program, a multi-billion project to build a new-generation chopper for armed reconnaissance missions, officials said Monday.

The contractors for Comanche (search) are Boeing Co. and Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.

With about $8 billion already invested in the program, and the production line not yet started, the cancellation is one of the largest in the history of the Army. It follows the Pentagon's decision in 2002 to cancel the Crusader artillery program (search) — against the wishes of Army leaders.

Pentagon officials said a public announcement was planned for Monday afternoon.

Congressional lawmakers and company executives associated with the program were scrambling Monday to figure out the Pentagon's plans.

Sikorsky spokesman Matthew Broder would only say that "we are on track and fully funded until we hear otherwise."

The Sikorsky plant in Bridgeport, Conn., where the Comanche is being built, opened last year and employs about 400 workers.

Loren Thompson, who follows aviation and other defense issues for the Lexington Institute (search) think tank, said he believes the Army under new chief of staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker favors ending the Comanche program, even though the service had been counting on it to provide a new reconnaissance capability.

"The Bush administration has now killed the two biggest Army weapons programs it inherited from the Clinton administration," Thompson said, referring to the Crusader and Comanche.

Earlier this year the White House budget office asked the Pentagon to provide independent reviews of the Comanche and another expensive aviation program, the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor fighter (search).

Although killing the Comanche project would save tens of billion in future costs, the cancellation decision is expected to require the Army to pay at least $2 billion in contract termination fees.

The Comanche program was started in 1983 and had survived many reviews. Initial production was scheduled to begin in 2006.

[wholagun]

yeah im pissed too seul i was kinda hoping that in 10 years time Poland could buy those choppers. Guess now we will have to settle for either the Euro chopper or the Cobra.

[tony6]

Actually-Eurocopter Tiger is not bad :D

[tony6]

Who's next? Osprey?

[Seoulstriker]

the osprey is way too important to cancel. :|


they got rid of crusader, now commanche, what's next?

[wholagun]

Actually-Eurocopter Tiger is not bad :D

no im not saying there is, I like it as well and I hope we get it, but Comanche was the most advacned and stealthy. On with Euro chopper

[XASA]

I wonder if the fact that the Apache was such a disaster during the Kosovo crisis and not a player in OIF has something to do with canceling the program. Also, the advent of UAVs made the Comanche a dinosaur even before it went into production.

[wholagun]

whats the crusader i never heard of it? does anyone got any pics of it, i wanna see it.

[wholagun]

why/how was Longbow a disater in the Kosavo campaign?

[He219]

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040223/i/r785507605.jpg
RIP


Let it become a stepping stone for 'better things' to come .......

:D

[AOCBravo2004]

It is about time they axed the Comanche, as the saying goes, better late then never. I thought it was just a super expensive replacement for the OH-58D Kiowa, with a SECONDARY role of an attack helicopter.

George

[tony6]

Kosovo campaign ended with two crushes for Apaches...
AFAIK they didn't even went to action-those accidents were during exercises (or am I wrong?)

[tony6]

And Crusader is (soory! WAS) a self-propelled howitzer.

[Seoulstriker]

And Crusader is (soory! WAS) a self-propelled howitzer.

which had the ability to quick fire 4-5 shells on a target at the same time using trajectory changes.

[mustamato]

Kosovo campaign ended with two crushes for Apaches...
AFAIK they didn't even went to action-those accidents were during exercises (or am I wrong?)

Another version (serbian/Veniks aviation site) says that they tried to avoid serbian
MANPADS and collided. Not impossible, it has happened in Iraq as well. But as
I remember they crashed in Albania? So hm. NATO lied as hell, but so did the serbians.

[NcDeuce]

I believe the decision was a good one for the short term. But do we really want to stick with the Kiowa for the next decade? I guess it is too late to reconsider now...

Sucks ass for my friend @ West Point. Ever since he was a freshman in high school, he wanted to fly the Comanche.

That Comanche was so freakin fast in its agility and ability to coast sideways, it is unreal.

:| Hate to see this project go down the drain.

[Argyll]

Stop greetin' laddies,it was an ugly Mo Fo anyway rofl

[Midav]

Kosovo campaign ended with two crushes for Apaches...
AFAIK they didn't even went to action-those accidents were during exercises (or am I wrong?)

Another version (serbian/Veniks aviation site) says that they tried to avoid serbian
MANPADS and collided. Not impossible, it has happened in Iraq as well. But as
I remember they crashed in Albania? So hm. NATO lied as hell, but so did the serbians.

They crashed at different times.

Also, Ven's page claimed a B-2 was shot down as were over 200+ NATO aircraft +hundreds of ground troops.

Not saying NATO PR is 100% reliable, but, 200+ aircraft shot down and hundreds of dead NATO soldiers would be, well, kinda noticeable, as would a downed B-2.

I sent him an e-mail once several years ago about it, but, never got a reply...

[Nondescript]

Damn it, and I who have been practicing so hard with the commanche 4 flight "simulator". rofl

It's probably for the best, especially with the introduction of the UAV. Which by the way is much cheaper and already in use.

[-Max2-]

Bad news. I liked this helicopter... :(

[Kitsune]

Isn't that a mistake?
I mean the US has already spent 8 billion $ for this project, and it would have been a step ahead in helicopters...and helicopters are still needed. UAVs will become more and more important, but will hardly replace manned helicopters soon. Why not see it through?
Are there any other US helicopter programs underway?

[oldsoak]

Commanche is not a total loss - valuable lessons have been learnt regarding materials, processes and sensors. look for something smaller and unmanned in the near future.
rgds

[AFACadet]

I just found out.


Yes I'm sad (the Comache was a pretty cool helicopter), but I'm not surprised it was cancelled.



When you look at helicopters combat history through-out the world, they get shot down regardless of the country flying them or the enemy they are fighting. It does not matter if they are super well armored, stealthy, fast, or quiet, they all have very high loss rates.

The Comanche would probably not have been any safer in its recon role than any other helicopter. Its simply because of how ALL helicopters operate, low, slow, near enemy units. Stealth and countermeasures won't help you against an Ak-47.


I hope something will get in the works to replace the Kiowa though--it IS getting old.

[EYE SPY]

g2mil.com




Helicopter reconnaissance is a dangerous mission. Jet aircraft use high speed or high altitude to avoid ground fire, helicopters use luck. Reconnaissance helicopters often "find" targets by drawing fire, which is why they must be cheap. The US Army's multi-billion dollar RAH-66 Comanche helicopter program seeks to make a helicopter invisible, which it impossible. Stealth technology can reduce its radar image, but only for the front of the aircraft. Since reconnaissance involves looking for the enemy, it's impossible keep a helicopter pointed toward him.



The Comanche has nearly the same side and bottom radar profile as the proven Cobra and Kiowa helicopters. It is also just as easy to see visually, which is the crude method most low-level AAA systems rely upon. Traditional eyeball aiming is how all the Apaches were shot down or damaged in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Comanche will be quieter, but not quiet, and produce less heat, yet still enough for infra-red detection. When Congressmen questioned the need for multi-million dollar helicopters for reconnaissance, the Army added a gun and missiles and argued that the Comanche is a gunship too. However, the Apache is a more effective gunship, it has much more armament and more armor too. This is why former Defense Secretary William Perry cancelled the Comanche back in 1996, but the program hung on as a test platform and quietly slipped back into procurement plans.

It's ludicrous to think that a helicopter is going to sneak up on a camouflaged enemy. If an enemy is not moving and covers his infra-red signature, a Comanche will have to come within 100 meters to find him. A smart enemy will wait until he's that close before letting loose a volley, which is what happened to dozens of Apaches in Afghanistan and Iraq. A serious enemy will dispose of a $60 million-dollar gold-plated Comanche as easily as older Kiowa and Cobra helicopters. Actually, Comanches will prove more vulnerable since they plan to carry Hellfire missiles inside their fuselage to limit radar signature. Bullets have exploded Hellfires mounted on the Apaches stub wings causing damage, but an internal explosion will doom a Comanche. The US Army doesn't have billions of dollars to waste on this target drone, it should just upgrade the Kiowa and Cobras, or modify some Apaches into RAH-64s.

Army tacticians are struggling with the employment of light armored vehicles in the offense. No one has suggested they should have "stealth technology" so the enemy can't see them because the idea is absurd. However, the Comanche will have even less armor protection as it floats into enemy territory, yet the Army accepts the idea that the Comanche will have an "Indian ghost shirt" to protect it from harm. The Comanche is not needed to maintain a helicopter industrial base because the Army needs to upgrade all its UH-60As and CH-47Ds, or buy the new version of the CH-53E heavy lift helicopter (dubbed the CH-53X at right, which can easily lift 28,000 lbs) This proven helicopter is already used by the US Marine Corps to rapidly move equipment and supplies around the battlefield.

America's leading defense expert, George C. Wilson, listed the Comanche as the Pentagon's #1 Turkey in a November 15, 2003 commentary in the National Journal. He noted:

The Pentagon's Selected Acquisition Reports for June 30, 2002, and for June 30, 2003, the latest one available, show that the Comanche's cost jumped from $39 million apiece to $59 million in only one year -- a 51 percent increase that includes research costs. Part of the reason for the giant jump is the Army's decision to buy fewer aircraft in hopes of holding down the total cost of the Comanche program. But cutting quantity cancels out the savings that would come from large-scale production at the factory.

Instead of buying 1,213 Comanches for $48 billion, the plan now is to buy 650 for $38 billion. The "savings" would free up $10 billion for other cash-strapped, high-priority programs such as the Army's light and fast, but expensive, Stryker brigades. Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army's new top soldier who is reviewing his service's budget, is said to be wincing at Comanche's soaring costs. So the order could be cut again during the Pentagon's fiscal 2005 budget scrub now under way. And such cuts would make the cost for one Comanche go up even more. But the larger question confronting Schoomaker, Rumsfeld, and others in the defense establishment, including members of Congress, is whether the guerrilla war in Iraq is demonstrating that no helicopter, regardless of how fancy, can survive on today's battlefields.

With a weapon not much more sophisticated than a hand grenade shot out of a peashooter, guerrillas in Iraq have damaged and downed the Army's most advanced attack helicopter, the Longbow Apache, as well as simpler troop transports such as the Chinooks and Blackhawks. This vulnerability could have been predicted by anyone who bothered to study the fate of U.S. helicopters in the Vietnam War. Back then, Vietcong and North Vietnamese soldiers not only downed helicopters with the rocket-propelled grenades now threatening helicopters in Iraq. The Vietnamese also learned how to shoot the copters down by simply lying on their backs and grouping their rifle bullets in the path of the slow fliers they could hear coming. If such simple ground fire is so lethal, how can the $59 million Comanche or any other helicopter survive the deadlier shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles now being sold all around the world?

For years, weapons experts inside the Pentagon have posed that question, but to no avail. The Army's helicopter fraternity and its defense-industry allies, who give millions of dollars to the political campaigns of senators and representatives, have managed to beat back such challenges during the Comanche's long and difficult birth. But the pictures of crashed helicopters in Iraq and their dead and wounded passengers have made the vulnerability question too big for defense leaders to ignore. Already, critics are making this argument behind closed doors in the Pentagon: If the Army must have more reconnaissance helicopters that can shoot, why not buy more of the $12.5 million Longbow Apaches (left) already flying and scrap the Comanche?

The Army has plenty of firepower, but is lacks the ability to rapidly supply forward combat forces and move them rapidly in-theater. The first step toward a 21st Century Army is the formation of helicopter transport brigades with 54 new CH-53X heavy lift helicopters each. These helicopters could quickly fly combat vehicles planned for the new "medium weight" brigades over mountains and rivers, and support their rapid deployment in theater, like from Germany to Albania. They could also support air landed units by hauling supplies from ships off-shore, and speed supplies to armored units that outrun their supplies lines, as happened during the invasion of Iraq. Buying 400 CH-53E helicopters would require billions of dollars, but the money is available; in the Comanche budget, which now devours a billion dollars a year and produces nothing.

Carlton Meyer editor@G2mil.com

[usa320]

Bad decision IMHO.

They should have cancelled the Osprey. Its far more expensive, difficult to operate and really, what can it do that a MH-60 or CH-53 cant? The blackhawk will still be a good machine in 10 years to deliver troops to the battlefield. The Kiowa however wont be a decent machine in 10 years. Its already rather outdated. I think Osprey should have been canned in favor of the commanche. its far more useful and ahead of its time as far as technology goes.

I do believe the Crusader deserved the axe. Really, i dont see any potential conflicts in the forseeable future where large artillery pieces will be needed. It will all be mobile forces supported by airborne units.

Now that the commanche is done, the only viable option i see is to upgrade the Ah-64D and AH-1W models with better technology. But the OH-58 still definately needs a replacement... Or at least a serious upgrade.

And they sure as hell shouldnt cancel the F/A-22...Especially now that pilots are training to fly it and its operational to some degree. If they are gonna axe any plane id say the JSF deserves it the most... Id be shocked if we see the F-35 enter service. Its an expensive replacement that isnt needed. The F-35 doesnt really have anything that the F-16C or F-15E doesnt...

Its not needed.

[AFACadet]

The F-35 doesnt really have anything that the F-16C or F-15E doesnt...

The F-35 has a VAST amount of avionics that the Viper and Mud Hen don't, nor can ever have (due to the desing of the aircraft).


The F-35 has extremely good chances of being produced because besides the USAF, USN, and USMC buying it, around 9 other foreign countries are also in the program. The UK are designing their new generation of carriers around the F-35.


You don't cancel a project that numerous other countries are paying billions themselves for.


With that said, the USAF needs the Raptor AND the F-35. The USN and USMC needs the F-35.

At the same time, the USMC needs a replacement for their CH-53Es and CH-46s. I just hope either the V-22 works out fine, or they do the same thing as the Comache and at the same time, find somthing else.

[usa320]

The F-35 has a VAST amount of avionics that the Viper and Mud Hen don't, nor can ever have (due to the desing of the aircraft).


Not really- the F-15E and I models have probably the best AG radars and strike systems out there. The only thing the F-35 will have that the other 2 planes stated wont, is perhaps a HMS, which is being equipped already on the F-16I's.

As for the CH-53 needing a replacement- i dont think so. The MH-53 is the most advanced helicopter in the world, second of course to the commanche.

[Chris O`Crooh]

F--k... Commanche would be a great help for C-SAR missions, sneaking`n`killing bad guys...
Well, does it mean that US Army wants to have unmanned scout choppers or the other stuff w/o pilot aboard?

[Seiyuuki]

On a side notes...I heard (Popular Mechanics or something like it) that the U.S. Army is going to replace all the rotor blades on their fleet of Apache to composite blade.

[He219]

Since you mentioned the F-35, from what I read the JSF-35B STOVL is not fairing that well right now .....


Lockheed Martin has confirmed that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter continues to exceed its weight target after a fourth bottom-up review of the structural design. The technical data is still being analysed, but the early ..

23 Dec 2003 (http://www.flightinternational.com/FALANDING_175584.htm)


The proposal comes as the programme faces a weight growth problem that has caused a $5 billion, one-year delay in the development schedule, and has prompted concerns about the variant's chances of survival.
17th - 23rd Feb 2004 (http://www.flightinternational.com/fi_issue/is_display_free.asp?txtId=177630&txtSnip=&Code=102&txtPageNo=2&txtPageSize=10&txtTotalPages=2&txtTotalRecs=16)

Let's hope that they make this one work!
:D

[AFACadet]

Not really- the F-15E and I models have probably the best AG radars and strike systems out there.


You have not had the FOUO and above briefings that I have. No, these aircraft have NOTHING that even compair to the JSF (even the new block 60 F-16). It is so far and above everything else that is out there or in development that its mind boggoling. That's not an overstatement either.



The avionics in both the F/A-22 and the F-35 are a greater advance in aircraft technology than during WWII with the difference between props and jets.




And because of the design of the older aircraft, they can't take advantage of much of these new avionics. You can't upgrade a 486 dx/66 to a Pentium V without getting a whole new computer. That jump is about what we are seeing from the old F-15s and F-16s (even upgraded) to the Raptor and JSF.


Did you think there are expected orders of 4,000 JSF world wide before the final production version has even flown simply because its a new aircraft?


No, its because what you get in the F-35 completely blows out everything else out there (even the Raptor in terms of avionics technology) that is an amazing bargen at 30-40 million a pop (about the same price as the current F-16s or Super Bugs being produced now). All those other counteries see an absolutly amazing deal when they see one--and they are not even getting close to the same level of avionics the US aircraft are (yet even then, it still outclasses everything out there).

He219,

Yes, there are weight problems with the STOVL version. Hopefully those will be fixed. I would like you to fine ONE modern military aircraft that has had zero weight problems over the course of its development.

That's just a fact of life. Modern fighter aircraft are the most complex engineering feat that humans currently undertake on a continual basis. In the case of the Raptor, they fixed the problems a couple years back.

P.S. I don't want to continue to sidetrack the thread with JSF stuff if people don't want to go there. If that's the case any counter-counter-responses would be better by PMs. If no one cares, well then... this thread is as good as any ;)

[SeanAshi]

or you gonna keep the Longbow which is still good
According to the Russians the AH-64D Longbow is a piece of **** and doesn't compare to the Mi 28 thoughts?

[budanski]

Sad to hear, but its makes sense. Just as the F-35 will possibly be the last manned fighter the U.S. will produced, the current trend are UAV, UCAVs, etc. The role of the Commanche was scout and not attack. Why risk human pilots when UAVs can do em cheaper and more? Fire Scout fills in this role nicely…

http://www.capitol.northgrum.com/images/prog/vtuav.jpg


Fire Scout Program Descriptions (http://www.capitol.northgrum.com/programs/vtuav.html)
Key Features
The U.S. Navy's Fire Scout Vertical Takeoff and Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System (TUAV) provide unprecedented situational awareness and precision targeting support for U.S. Armed Forces. The Fire Scout has the ability to autonomously take off and land on any aviation capable warship and at prepared and unprepared landing sites in proximity to the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA). The system is based on a highly reliable civilian Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) helicopter. The system includes advanced ground control facilities that encompass the U.S. Navy's Tactical Control System (TCS) software developed for Navy ships as well as forward deployed Marines. The system also includes tactical data links, communications relay capability and Modular Mission Payloads (MMPs) that allows continued growth for new sensors.

With vehicle endurance greater than eight hours, the Fire Scout is capable of continuous operations, providing coverage 110nm (200km) from the launch site. Using a baseline payload that includes electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors and a laser range finder/designator, the Fire Scout system can find, identify, track and designate targets, provide accurate targeting data to strike platforms, emerge targets, and perform Battle Damage Assessment (BDA).

The Fire Scout system enables U.S. Armed Forces operations to be conducted with seamless control from ships or from land-based control segments. Real-time data can be shared with Navy, Marines and Army Forces and targeting data can be provided to all the Services' potential shooters reducing engagement timelines and minimizing their exposure to enemy threats.
The system is fully autonomous and has the following features:

* No pilot in the loop required to launch or recover
* Autonomous operations from all air capable ships
* 12 hours continuous system on station coverage
* Ceiling of 20,000 feet and airspeed of 125 knots
* EO/IR sensor payload
* Laser Range Finder/Target Designator with Target Location Error (TLE) less than 17 meters
* Light Harpoon shipboard restraint system
* Expanded flight envelop
* Minimal impact on host ship operations
* Minimal support personnel requirements
* Manual override capability
* In flight mission plan update capability

Northrop Grumman's Role
Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems is the prime contractor. The Fire Scout Team includes the following subcontractors:

* Schweizer Aircraft Corporation-Air Vehicle
* Rolls Royce-Engine
* Northrop Grumman Electronics Systems sector-EO/IR sensor payload
* L3 Comm-Tactical Common Data Link
* Lockheed Martin (Owego)-Shipboard Integration
* Sierra Nevada-UAV Common Automatic Landing System
* Raytheon-Tactical Control System

Acquisition Agency
The program is managed by the U.S. Navy's PMA-263 Unmanned Vehicles Program Office (Program Executive Office for Strike Weapons and Unmanned Aviation), at the Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, MD.

User
U.S. Navy and U.S. Army

Status
In February 2000 the U.S. Navy awarded a $93.7 million contract for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the VTUAV program. The contract included options for three low rate initial production (LRIP) systems. The plan was to procure three LRIP systems: one system for Marine Corps testing a shore; one system for Navy shipboard testing; and one system for training. The LRIP 1 system, a Marine Corps configured system, will be used to conduct the operational evaluation (OPEVAL) in the 2007 timeframe. Though production funds beyond LRIP 1 were initially removed from the budget after FY-03, Congress added $32.5 million funding in FY-04 that will fund a LRIP 2 lot of 8 aircraft. Additionally, OPNAV has program funding identified throughout the FYDP.

[Schwabo Elite]

Don't worry. The world still needs human piloted air vehicles. It's BS to remote control everything as an UAV/UCAV. By now the Pentagon is, sadly again, going into the SciFi dream too much. After the next war, at the latest, they will learn that soldiers got to have a fixed place on the battlefield.

Too bad for the Commanche and the guys at Sikorsky. :( They build good stuff.

SE

[Ratamacue]

The Comanche was never really a cost-effective nor necessary project in my mind, especially with the appearance of UAV's. As I remember, the Predator UAV can carry Hellfire missiles as well and has the added advantage of being able to fly high without putting a pilot at risk, and it's also a small enough target to be difficult for AAA to hit.

The F/A-22, F-35, and V-22 are projects that are far more important than the Comanche. The F/A-22 and F-35 both have absolute state-of-the-art avionics (though my uncle, an electrical engineer at Lockheed Martin, says the '22 is behind the curve compared to the '35). The V-22 is light years ahead of the CH-53 and CH-46 in terms of troop transport: it can move like a helo OR an airplane and has much better fuel economy and range than either of the current USMC transports.

And for everybody saying that the F-15 and F-16 can do everything the F/A-22 and F-35 can, think again. Not only are the '22 and '35 both stealth fighters, but, as said before, their avionics are miles ahead of virtually any fighter in existence. The F-35B has the added capability for STOVL to replace fighters like the Harrier, and the F-35C can take off and land from an aircraft carrier (which takes alot more than just adding a tail hook).

And as AFACadet said, the JSF is only about $35 million and really a better fighter than anything else out there. Very cost-effective. The Comanche wasn't.

[tooms]

Even if im not american, im really pissed because this chopper was for me the most beautiful and impressive attack helicopter

[martinexsquaddie]

the sad truth at the momnet is the apache is looking over priced for the fighting thats going to be happening for the next few years.
It was designed to kill soviet tank columns in all weathers
which it can do great.
but theres no vast tank armys left to fight

[Operation Ivy]

Tanks rule the battlefield...i mean darn i like the Commanche :D

[Magua]

Does the Comanche really cost more than the Osprey? Didn't the comanche involve high speed stealth technology?

I think one of the reasons that the Osprey has been kept in service is that it and the new AAAV are integral parts of the USMCs next gen warfighting concepts like ship-to-objective-maneuver, seabasing, expeditionary maneuver warfare and similar buzz terms. Getting rid of the osprey would significantly f*** up the Marine Corps' projected capabilities.

[George W. Bush]

Only an idiot would believe anyone who runs the website http://www.iraqwar.ru[/url]

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Considering that America is fighting a war on two fronts cancellations/terminations of projects like the Commanche unfortuneatly have to be sacrificed.

[usa320]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/avatars/19959837444039d10078e25.jpg

rofl

[Russian Texan]

It was designed to kill soviet tank columns in all weathers

And your statement is based on...?


which it can do great
So how many did it kill exactly?
It wasn't a "tank column attack chopper", not enough payload...
It was suppose to be something inbetween Kiowa and Apache.

[Haiw]

It was designed to kill soviet tank columns in all weathers

And your statement is based on...?


which it can do great
So how many did it kill exactly?
It wasn't a "tank column attack chopper", not enough payload...
It was suppose to be something inbetween Kiowa and Apache.
martin was talking about the Apache. Read what he wrote again.

[mustamato]

It was designed to kill soviet tank columns in all weathers

And your statement is based on...?


which it can do great
So how many did it kill exactly?
It wasn't a "tank column attack chopper", not enough payload...
It was suppose to be something inbetween Kiowa and Apache.

Brainfarting eh RussianT?

[Parzival]

Why Can´t the US build a better vehicles/weapons than the Germans. I hate the germans :fork: They got the best Tank - Leopard 2a6 edition, Attackhelicopter - Eurocopter Tiger and rifles G36. :|

[Russian Texan]

My mistake, did not pay attention.
This entire thread is devoted to Commanche so I focused on the wrong chopper.

[Pille1234]

I hate the germans :fork:

That's not quite the attitude I like to see from someone using the euro flag in the avatar :(

[Fox2]

I liked the Comanche, but I think they made the right decision, perhaps a little late, but the right decision. It filled a niche we didn't need, and in the end was not practical.



Getting rid of the osprey would significantly f*** up the Marine Corps' projected capabilities.

From what I know, keeping the Osprey would result in significant loss of life due to crashes.

They need to wax the V-22, because as much as I would like it to go through, I think to keep it would mean sending young pilots to their deaths.

In VTOL mode, it can't move itself around like a chopper. It can't autorotate or crash land safely in vertical flight mode.

They installed shoddy piping that gets vibrated apart and leaks. And the way they've designed it, they can't make the piping tougher, because then it wouldn't carry as much cargo due to weight limits.

It will most likely end up having no armament due to those same weight limits, and if it does, it'll have a chin turret that will increase the pilot's workload tenfold.

All for what? So it can go 80-100 knots faster than a UH-60? What a great trade-off.

Kill off the V-22 too before it takes more lives. At least the RAH-66 was safe!


Sorry for the rant/hijack. I get angry when the brass back home here get their pockets lined in exchange for the lives of the men that serve them.

[Ratamacue]

The V-22 is not as unsafe as it's touted to be. Virtually every single helicopter in history has had its fair share of accidents during the development phase. In fact at this point the Sea Knight isn't much safer than the Osprey, and the longer they try to keep the Sea Knight trucking on the more dangerous and maintenance-heavy it's going to become. The Marine Corps has had some of the same Sea Knights in service for over 40 god damn years--in fact, at Fleet Week in NYC a year or so back, I saw the same Sea Knight that evacuated the US Ambassador to South Vietnam in 1975, which also served throughout the ground war prior to that.

The problem with the Osprey is that everyone's afraid to commit to it. An accident happens, and rather than putting some funding in to fix it, it gets grounded.

[Salty Dog]

yeah im pissed too seul i was kinda hoping that in 10 years time Poland could buy those choppers. Guess now we will have to settle for either the Euro chopper or the Cobra.

you act as though the cobra isn't an awesome piece of machinery! :(

[Skaman]

$8 billion, holy ****. Even Canada hasn’t wasted that much money on Sea King contracts.


Hmm, 8 billion, that could have went somewhere. Say. education. social programs, local municipalities...foreign aid.

But now, it’s an 8 billion dollar piece of scrap metal. Nice one boys!

[Salty Dog]

The V-22 is not as unsafe as it's touted to be. Virtually every single helicopter in history has had its fair share of accidents during the development phase. In fact at this point the Sea Knight isn't much safer than the Osprey, and the longer they try to keep the Sea Knight trucking on the more dangerous and maintenance-heavy it's going to become. The Marine Corps has had some of the same Sea Knights in service for over 40 god damn years--in fact, at Fleet Week in NYC a year or so back, I saw the same Sea Knight that evacuated the US Ambassador to South Vietnam in 1975, which also served throughout the ground war prior to that.

The problem with the Osprey is that everyone's afraid to commit to it. An accident happens, and rather than putting some funding in to fix it, it gets grounded.

the marines just don't have the budget to afford newer ****, so until they do, they will have to continue using the same old ****, but they do make do with what they have.

[Salty Dog]

$8 billion, holy ****. Even Canada hasn’t wasted that much money on Sea King contracts.


Hmm, 8 billion, that could have went somewhere. Say. education. social programs, local municipalities...foreign aid.

But now, it’s an 8 million dollar piece of scrap metal. Nice one boys!

you're not american what the **** do you care?

[Skaman]

$8 billion, holy ****. Even Canada hasn’t wasted that much money on Sea King contracts.


Hmm, 8 billion, that could have went somewhere. Say. education. social programs, local municipalities...foreign aid.

But now, it’s an 8 million dollar piece of scrap metal. Nice one boys!

you're not american what the f*** do you care?


Just rubbing it in; I like proving my point that the US wastes money in excess on defence projects. p-)

[Ratamacue]

Sounds to me that you LIKE the fact "that the US wastes money in excess on defence projects." Since you're such an idealistic, moral person duc, how is it that you could like the fact "that the US wastes money in excess on defence projects."

Have your social programs and give your foreign aid. Let us decide how to spend our money. So the Comanche program was a flop. Guess what? **** happens, and the US government has the budget to accomodate that.

[Salty Dog]

$8 billion, holy ****. Even Canada hasn’t wasted that much money on Sea King contracts.


Hmm, 8 billion, that could have went somewhere. Say. education. social programs, local municipalities...foreign aid.

But now, it’s an 8 million dollar piece of scrap metal. Nice one boys!

you're not american what the f*** do you care?


Just rubbing it in; I like proving my point that the US wastes money in excess on defence projects. p-)

oh, i should have known that's what you were doing. if only everybody hated america like you do, we'd have a world full of assclowns! ;)

[Skaman]

Sounds to me that you LIKE the fact "that the US wastes money in excess on defence projects." Since you're such an idealistic, moral person duc, how is it that you could like the fact "that the US wastes money in excess on defence projects."

Have your social programs and give your foreign aid. Let us decide how to spend our money. So the Comanche program was a flop. Guess what? **** happens, and the US government has the budget to accomodate that.


That seems to be an all too common American military-political trend. '**** happens'

If I was an American taxpayer I would be outraged.

Frankly, same **** is going on in my nation, but its a 100 million wasted, not 8 billion. Am I pissed? yes But hell, its not 8 BILLION, like holy ****, you guys don’t even sound that pissed!

[Ratamacue]

That seems to be an all too common American military-political trend. '**** happens'

If I was an American taxpayer I would be outraged.

Frankly, same **** is going on in my nation, but its a 100 million wasted, not 8 billion. Am I pissed? yes But hell, its not 8 BILLION, like holy ****, you guys don’t even sound that pissed!

You're not an American taxpayer though. 8 billion dollars is not as much as you might think considering the amount of time it's been spent over and the fact that the United States has a population of 290 million compared to 32 million for Canada.

[Fox2]

The V-22 is not as unsafe as it's touted to be. Virtually every single helicopter in history has had its fair share of accidents during the development phase. In fact at this point the Sea Knight isn't much safer than the Osprey, and the longer they try to keep the Sea Knight trucking on the more dangerous and maintenance-heavy it's going to become.

How do you know it's not unsafe? Can you back that claim up? Furthermore, do you even understand the flight principles involved here?

A Sea Knight is actually significantly safer than an Osprey by design!

A Sea Knight can still maneuver when coming in to land. Hell, a Marine AV-8B is more maneuverable in hover than a V-22!

If a CH-46's engines fail, it can autorotate. A V-22's blades lock into position! At anything more than 10 feet, anyone inside that V-22 is dead, whereas a competent pilot in a CH-46, UH-1, or any other chopper would be able to save the occupants in the same circumstances.

And what happens if only one of the V-22's engines goes out in a hover? It rolls inverted due to the disproportionate lift, and then heads straight for the ground.


The problem with the Osprey is that everyone's afraid to commit to it. An accident happens, and rather than putting some funding in to fix it, it gets grounded.

This is not the case. The V-22 gets TONS of funding, regardless of the crashes. The real problem is the companies that are building this machine aren't on the ball, and aren't fixing what needs to be fixed.

The other real problem is that people want this to be a reality so bad they are willing to look over the number of deaths the V-22 is responsible for. Sure, every development cycle has its crashes or problems. But when was the last time a chopper development program cost 30 human lives?

If you want to know more about the V-22 and why it's one of the worst-run projects going, here (http://www.g2mil.com/V-22struggles.htm) you go.

If you want to continue thinking it's okay for 30 people to die to a faulty bird, then forget I said anything.

[Seiyuuki]

...

[Seiyuuki]

The V-22 is not as unsafe as it's touted to be. Virtually every single helicopter in history has had its fair share of accidents during the development phase. In fact at this point the Sea Knight isn't much safer than the Osprey, and the longer they try to keep the Sea Knight trucking on the more dangerous and maintenance-heavy it's going to become.

How do you know it's not unsafe? Can you back that claim up? Furthermore, do you even understand the flight principles involved here?

A Sea Knight is actually significantly safer than an Osprey by design!

A Sea Knight can still maneuver when coming in to land. Hell, a Marine AV-8B is more maneuverable in hover than a V-22!

If a CH-46's engines fail, it can autorotate. A V-22's blades lock into position! At anything more than 10 feet, anyone inside that V-22 is dead, whereas a competent pilot in a CH-46, UH-1, or any other chopper would be able to save the occupants in the same circumstances.

And what happens if only one of the V-22's engines goes out in a hover? It rolls inverted due to the disproportionate lift, and then heads straight for the ground.


The problem with the Osprey is that everyone's afraid to commit to it. An accident happens, and rather than putting some funding in to fix it, it gets grounded.

This is not the case. The V-22 gets TONS of funding, regardless of the crashes. The real problem is the companies that are building this machine aren't on the ball, and aren't fixing what needs to be fixed.

The other real problem is that people want this to be a reality so bad they are willing to look over the number of deaths the V-22 is responsible for. Sure, every development cycle has its crashes or problems. But when was the last time a chopper development program cost 30 human lives?

If you want to know more about the V-22 and why it's one of the worst-run projects going, here (http://www.g2mil.com/V-22struggles.htm) you go.

If you want to continue thinking it's okay for 30 people to die to a faulty bird, then forget I said anything.

How do you know what you know about the Osprey...are you in the "in" of the project?

[Sayeret]

I thought the RAH-66 was cool also but I guess maybe the military thinks it isn't as necessary as it was when the Soviets were still around. Back then it made for sense because the Soviets had tons of surface-to-air missiles but now most of the enemies of the US are rogue states who have SAMs but not as many. I'm pretty sure the AH-64D Apache can carry more weapons than the Commanche also. Too bad they had to cancel it.

[Fox2]

How do you know what you know about the Osprey...are you in the "in" of the project?

I know enough about aviation principles and have flown enough to know at least the basics of the V-22 design. The rest of my information is taken from sources both in print and people with whom I've spoken. I don't however, claim to be an expert on the V-22 by any means.

My question wasn't really a personal challenge to Ratamacue. I just wanted to see where he got his information from. It wasn't meant as a flame, so please do not take it that way.

Every possible objective source I've read, heard, or talked to, has said the V-22 is having major problems. Infact, I posted one at the end of my post to Ratamacue.

So, let me rephrase my question now: Ratamacue, what have you read or heard to give you the impression that the aircraft is safe?

Again, that was not a flame or insult on Ratamacue's person. Just a discussion, that's all. I backed what I said up with information I had on hand. I simply requested Ratamacue do the same, for my own benefit, because I have not read anything saying the V-22 is safe.

[Ratamacue]

I've spoken with my uncle. He's not an aerospace engineer nor does he work for Boeing, but he's an electrical engineer focused on avionics working for Lockheed Martin, which gives him enough inside information for me to consider him a legitimate source.

You raise some good points, but I'm basically just relaying what I've spoken and discussed with him about it. Essentially his opinion is that the Osprey is not nearly as unsafe as it's made out to be, and many of the crashes have been caused by pilot error. Yes, there are some major faults in the design but most of them can be alleviated.

In no way do I think the aircraft is entirely safe right now. I might have relayed that impression (or said it outright) above, so if I did, I'll take that back. My personal support for the Osprey comes from the fact that it's faster than any helicopter in the world could dream of being and has a longer range as well. It's also an excellent concept for the capabilities the Marine Corps wants and could possibly save a good deal of lives on the battlefield through it's projected capabilities.

And I too have some concepts of aviation principles and the basic foundations of flight. I was a flight student for some time though I haven't picked it back up since I moved in July.

With that said, I really don't know enough to go on, so I'll leave the rest to experts on the subject. ;)

[USMarine3521]

Bad decision IMHO.

They should have cancelled the Osprey. Its far more expensive, difficult to operate and really, what can it do that a MH-60 or CH-53 cant? The blackhawk will still be a good machine in 10 years to deliver troops to the battlefield. The Kiowa however wont be a decent machine in 10 years. Its already rather outdated. I think Osprey should have been canned in favor of the commanche. its far more useful and ahead of its time as far as technology goes.

I do believe the Crusader deserved the axe. Really, i dont see any potential conflicts in the forseeable future where large artillery pieces will be needed. It will all be mobile forces supported by airborne units.

Now that the commanche is done, the only viable option i see is to upgrade the Ah-64D and AH-1W models with better technology. But the OH-58 still definately needs a replacement... Or at least a serious upgrade.

And they sure as hell shouldnt cancel the F/A-22...Especially now that pilots are training to fly it and its operational to some degree. If they are gonna axe any plane id say the JSF deserves it the most... Id be shocked if we see the F-35 enter service. Its an expensive replacement that isnt needed. The F-35 doesnt really have anything that the F-16C or F-15E doesnt...

Its not needed.you crazy?? the USMC needs to replace the Harrier badly and having 2 different planes to maintain rather than 6 is much easier and cheaper and easier to get parts etc etc.

[USMarine3521]

$8 billion, holy ****. Even Canada hasn’t wasted that much money on Sea King contracts.


Hmm, 8 billion, that could have went somewhere. Say. education. social programs, local municipalities...foreign aid.

But now, it’s an 8 billion dollar piece of scrap metal. Nice one boys!not exactly, we learned a lot of new stuff on avionics, airframe design etc. so basically we're light years ahead :)

[Fox2]

Well, I will conclude my end with this;

If the V-22 is safe at the end of the development cycle and meets the requirements to replace the venerable CH-46, CH-53, and CH-47, awesome. At this point it doesn't seem to be the case. It looks as if we're sacrificing cargo space and weight for a measly 80 knots. In the end, I don't think it is as big a leap as we had hoped.

The problem I have is if the Pentagon is funding yet another waste of money, OR sending young men to their deaths in a machine that was made operational simply because some corporation wanted the money promised to them. Furthermore, when they're using my money to do it. No, thanks.

Again, here's that website I linked before: http://www.g2mil.com/V-22struggles.htm

Anyway, sorry I hijacked the thread, everyone.

Hopefully we have more luck in our future development endeavors.

[SOG]

$8 billion, holy ****. Even Canada hasn’t wasted that much money on Sea King contracts.


Hmm, 8 billion, that could have went somewhere. Say. education. social programs, local municipalities...foreign aid.

But now, it’s an 8 billion dollar piece of scrap metal. Nice one boys!not exactly, we learned a lot of new stuff on avionics, airframe design etc. so basically we're light years ahead :)

yup and all of that developed technology will go into the next attack chopper instead of a overpriced recon bird and will be worth every penny. but far be it for ducimus to see an american cup half full instead of always half empty. research is research, throw more weapons on it and we just produced our next attack helo.

my only qualm is the money we wasted in have poor pauly from occ choppers make a motorcycle for the project and having his dad bitch at him all the while making it, now all for naught! that bike probably cost 200,000 bucks!

[Skaman]

$8 billion, holy ****. Even Canada hasn’t wasted that much money on Sea King contracts.


Hmm, 8 billion, that could have went somewhere. Say. education. social programs, local municipalities...foreign aid.

But now, it’s an 8 billion dollar piece of scrap metal. Nice one boys!not exactly, we learned a lot of new stuff on avionics, airframe design etc. so basically we're light years ahead :)

yup and all of that developed technology will go into the next attack chopper instead of a overpriced recon bird and will be worth every penny. but far be it for ducimus to see an american cup half full instead of always half empty. research is research, throw more weapons on it and we just produced our next attack helo.

my only qualm is the money we wasted in have poor pauly from occ choppers make a motorcycle for the project and having his dad bitch at him all the while making it, now all for naught! that bike probably cost 200,000 bucks!


I dont see the rational in developing new helis when America is years ahead of their nearest 'enemy'

[James]

In a gneration we will still be far ahead. That's why. The F-15 and F-16 aircraft are projects that are what, 30+ years old? They still have us ahead of the pack.

[Skaman]

In a gneration we will still be far ahead. That's why. The F-15 and F-16 aircraft are projects that are what, 30+ years old? They still have us ahead of the pack.


Yet new projects are created with the f 22! Does the US need to be another 20 years ahead of the pack? Who is going to challenge the US's air supremacy, Iraq, the Congo, Burma? Who? RUSSIA? I just don’t see the point. The US military is the strongest, most potent and capable fighting force on the face of the planet. How far must it go?

[Truthsayer]

In a gneration we will still be far ahead. That's why. The F-15 and F-16 aircraft are projects that are what, 30+ years old? They still have us ahead of the pack.

Some countries already have generation 4 fighters in service, while the US hasn't. ^_^


Love the RAH-66 btw, and hate to see it go.

Guess someone rather call Bill Gates and tell him the advantages over other operatingsystems in having their own founded AHELI. ^_^

[Rilence]

hey ducimus

[Rilence]

shut up pls :lol: sry had to say it :bash: :hug:

[Skaman]

shut up pls :lol: sry had to say it :bash: :hug:

let me guess, you dont appreciate what I have to say? Its nothing new.

[Merik]

Just stating the facts as quickly as possible because I really dont have the patience to get into a flame war about this.


Army needed the Commanche.

Was killed because of Longbow supporters robbed funding from the program in the early-mid 90's.

Most of you may think that it was a piece of crap but it is far more capable than anything that any other country has including ours.

The original mission was to replace the AH-64 in deep attack interdiction but after Desert Storm it was changed to scout/light attack which cost more and more money.

Because of the fact that there is no four star Army Aviator in the Pentagon important funding could not be properly fought for when it was needed it the most.

Both the AH-66 and the AH-64 Longbow programs went unchecked for several years and resulted in Boeing/Sikorsky allowed to milk more money out of the program for stuff that was not needed, also the Longbow boys were allowed to get whatever that wanted without questions.

If anyone has noticed this closely resembles the ill-fated AH-56 Cheyenne program and the Army's decision to cancel it in favor of the the AH-64. The sad part is that the AH-56 is the best helicopter ever designed, even better than the AH-66.

The V-22 is a virtual deathtrap, its far too large, tilt-rotor technology is very, very dangerous and the Marines have no clue what they are getting into.

The only reason why the V-22 is still around is because they have a four star general that can get the funding.

[SOG]

$8 billion, holy ****. Even Canada hasn’t wasted that much money on Sea King contracts.


Hmm, 8 billion, that could have went somewhere. Say. education. social programs, local municipalities...foreign aid.

But now, it’s an 8 billion dollar piece of scrap metal. Nice one boys!not exactly, we learned a lot of new stuff on avionics, airframe design etc. so basically we're light years ahead :)

yup and all of that developed technology will go into the next attack chopper instead of a overpriced recon bird and will be worth every penny. but far be it for ducimus to see an american cup half full instead of always half empty. research is research, throw more weapons on it and we just produced our next attack helo.

my only qualm is the money we wasted in have poor pauly from occ choppers make a motorcycle for the project and having his dad bitch at him all the while making it, now all for naught! that bike probably cost 200,000 bucks!


I dont see the rational in developing new helis when America is years ahead of their nearest 'enemy'

in helicopters vs helicopters yes, vs a stunning array of much cheaper ground missles rockets and guns, no. how many news bites have we seen about apaches being taken down in iraq by how old soviet rpg's? sure alot of that comes from deployment and ground coverage then again we have bad ass tanks that can also be opened up by much cheaper weapons. it would be nice not to rest on our laurels. i agree with the supposed termination of the project. heavy research with working models that may be easily assimilated used in the future without wasting money on something we wouldnt have extensive use for currently.

there are many projects researched and dismissed but much of that tech is absorbed. this is just not unto the mil sector but in any sector. if you make something that extensive you will find a use for it. if you apply research on that extensive level civilian wise it always gets picked up/used by some company.

also it doesnt matter wether we use the research now or ten years from now. sure we may not have a dying need for a new helicopter now, if thats the case that much more research is already done. not to mention the research is not helo exclusive and can be passed to the new gen of UAV and non attack helos. while UAV has its place and is certainly not a whole replacemnt for real pilots just like sattelites were not for humint, UAV will be going full tilt using very similar technology in scouting and recognization and miniaturized components may help them move better faster.

was it a immediate waste? sure. it could have been put off. but research that heavy and extensive isnt merely a "waste".

[Rakki]

Sometimes you get military programs which are designed to fit certain requirements - which become obsolete before the building even starts.

The Ah-56 Cheyenne for example was a direct competitor to the AH-64, and while the AH-64 was designed to be low flying, tough and do pop up attacks, the AH-56 was sort of a heli dive bomber. Might get away with a diving attack in WW2 when flak was manually aimed, but against radar guided AA it's suicidal.

The Crusader was hellaciously expensive, involved new technology like liquid propellant charges or electromagnetic launch, and was intended to be a technology overmatch for a threat that wasn't going to materialize in the next twenty years... For shorter ranges it was cheaper to do the M190A6 Paladin and for longer ranges they could use the MLRS (with ATACMS).

As for CH-46/CH-47 or the CH-53 being "good enough", they have a combat radius of what, 200km, or even less when fully loaded up with combat-loaded Marines and ammunition. These choppers are also OLD, built with technology from the sixties and seventies.... Compare that to the V-22 Osprey with its 400km combat radius and higher speed, this means that Navy ships can stand off further from shore (outside enemy detection/missile range) and they can deliver Marines to targets quicker OR loiter longer to provide support.

The Comanche I think is just a victim of circumstances and changing requirements. With UAVs now becoming tactical recon assets at brigade level, it's certainly cheaper and safer to send a drone out to be the eyes rather than a two-man helo. When CIA Predators can be fitted with Hellfires, the Comache's light deep scout/strike role was pretty much "excess to requirements" anyway. And when they need a lot of Hellfires on target, a batch of AH-64 Longbows couid do just as well....

[Kilgor]

Yet new projects are created with the f 22! Does the US need to be another 20 years ahead of the pack? Who is going to challenge the US's air supremacy, Iraq, the Congo, Burma? Who? RUSSIA? I just don’t see the point. The US military is the strongest, most potent and capable fighting force on the face of the planet. How far must it go?

Why waste a technological advantage by standing still ?

Some may see its 8 billion down the drain but im sure quite alot has been learned that can be applied to other projects.

[James]

In a gneration we will still be far ahead. That's why. The F-15 and F-16 aircraft are projects that are what, 30+ years old? They still have us ahead of the pack.


Yet new projects are created with the f 22! Does the US need to be another 20 years ahead of the pack? Who is going to challenge the US's air supremacy, Iraq, the Congo, Burma? Who? RUSSIA? I just don’t see the point. The US military is the strongest, most potent and capable fighting force on the face of the planet. How far must it go?

That's exactly the point. No one will challenge us.

[James]

[quote=James]

Some countries already have generation 4 fighters in service, while the US hasn't.

I don't know what the different generations of fighters are. Please advise.

[Seiyuuki]

You think if the U.S. is ahead of the game as much as some like to believe...there wouldn't be all this debates on this forum about...

Su - Whatever vs. Raptor
Apache 64...crap...blah...blah...vs...Mil-This and That
Leo A2-whatever vs. Abram and that...

...and so on...

Yup...the U.S. is the undisputed king indeed.

[Ghostwolf]

They are probably going to replace it with this:

Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft(UCAR)
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/unmanned-combat-03e.html
http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/ucar.html

or may be the Canard Rotor Wing aircraft:
http://www.boeing.com/phantom/crw.html
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/military/unmanned/dvd-128-02.html

[Durandal]

I am glad this program was cancelled. They still did not have the gun wieght (loaded) in at specs (I used to date a girl who's father was one of the engineers on the project at the Conneticut plant facility back in the mid-90s).

Waste of money...and massive amounts of greased palms...

Now if they would just cancel the XM8 fiasco...

[AFACadet]

[quote=James]

Some countries already have generation 4 fighters in service, while the US hasn't.

I don't know what the different generations of fighters are. Please advise.

First gen were the jet fighters during WWII and in the post war years (p-80, Me-262, Metor)

Second gen are the jets upto around the Vietnam era--higher speeds (F-100, MiG 21)

Third Gen are the late/post Vietnam fighters--higher speeds and better avionics (F-15, F-16, MiG 29, Su-27, Tornado, Mirage--pretty much every famous fighter)

Fourth gen are the 90s era fighters--avionics, better performance (Grippen, Su-30 MKI, Su-30 MKK--no US fighters, but some have 4th gen avionics w/o the 4th gen performance eg F-16 block 50)

Some people place a 4.5 in there--crazy avionics with better than 4th gen performace (Typhoon, Rafale)

Fifth gen are fighters--crazy mad avionics and stealth (F/A-22 and F-35)

[Parzival]

I hate the germans :fork:

That's not quite the attitude I like to see from someone using the euro flag in the avatar :(
But they are germans, not europeans! :-*$

[Parzival]

This is a black day for the Attackhelicopter history and for the great Nation USA.

[Luxembourger]

I really would have liked to see the Commanche chasing some Al qaeda guys

[cold0]

Uhn, no a good news. One of best helo ever builded and milions of dollars wasted....

Anyway the cancelation of the Crusader was been even worst... Now the US Army has only the old M109.... And I'n no sure that the Osprey will survive to see the max prodution. :(

[Skaman]

You think if the U.S. is ahead of the game as much as some like to believe...there wouldn't be all this debates on this forum about...

Su - Whatever vs. Raptor
Apache 64...crap...blah...blah...vs...Mil-This and That
Leo A2-whatever vs. Abram and that...

...and so on...

Yup...the U.S. is the undisputed king indeed.

I am sorry, yet I don’t foresee the American military going up against any Leo's or Su-27's on the battlefield. Even if some backwards nation possesses state of the art aircraft, they lack the training to effectively combat NATO pilots. The US has no direct competition in terms of military hardware that they should be concerned of.

[cold0]

Apart the fact that USAF F15s (and other weapon systems) are at the end of their operative lives and they will start to fall from the skies...

It's stupid to base the operative requirement of an weapon system only on the "last war". Today the armed force buy aircrafts, helos, ships ect. that will serve for 30 years in the future.
So if today an armed forced fights against guerrillas or poor equipped enemies I will no so sure that the enemy of tomorrow would not have advanced weapons.

[Durandal]

Uhn, no a good news. One of best helo ever builded and milions of dollars wasted....

Anyway the cancelation of the Crusader was been even worst... Now the US Army has only the old M109.... And I'n no sure that the Osprey will survive to see the max prodution. :(

The Crusader and Comanche programs were money pits...

The United Staes military did not NEED a HEAVY Artillery platform.

And they need to cancel the damn Osprey program as well...

[cold0]

I agree for Comanche but not for the Crasader. It was cancelled becaused its weight wasn't compatible with the new concept of stategy lift that Rummie wants.

So the 2 major programs of US Army are gone and there's nothing at the horizon.... I start to think that the "smart procurament" it's only an excuse to kill new weapon system projects.... :(

[Trigger]

You think if the U.S. is ahead of the game as much as some like to believe...there wouldn't be all this debates on this forum about...

Su - Whatever vs. Raptor
Apache 64...crap...blah...blah...vs...Mil-This and That
Leo A2-whatever vs. Abram and that...

...and so on...

Yup...the U.S. is the undisputed king indeed.

I am sorry, yet I don’t foresee the American military going up against any Leo's or Su-27's on the battlefield. Even if some backwards nation possesses state of the art aircraft, they lack the training to effectively combat NATO pilots. The US has no direct competition in terms of military hardware that they should be concerned of.
Yes you are sorry. 'you don't foresee' blah, blah, blah! Just because some country doesn't have the training hasn't stopped many from putting up a fight has it? Just because they don't have 4th gen fighters equipped with lasers doesn't mean they won't commit to battle.

You just don't have the good sense to shut up and read. You might actually learn something.

You're special ducimus. Special in that 'adult diaper, Downs Syndrome' way
:slap:

[Durandal]

It was cancelled becaused its weight wasn't compatible with the new concept of stategy lift that Rummie wants.

Hate to tell ya, but it ain't just Rumsfield...this has been an issue ever since the first Gulf War.


So the 2 major programs of US Army are gone and there's nothing at the horizon.... I start to think that the "smart procurament" it's only an excuse to kill new weapon system projects.... :(

Ya know, this is not the Cold War anymore. We simply do not have the freedom to dump money into projects where there is NOT a generational leap. As much as the the Comanche project was "cool" and state fo the art, the pwoers that be determined a certain role for the aircraft, one that can be preformed by UAVs...

As far as a super heavy artillery piece is concerned, regardless of the bells and whistles, current modern artillery can do much the same it could. It was not a chemical propellant battery and the airforce and current artillery (MLRS!!!????) can still do the job just fine.

Want I want to see axed is the Osprey. The project is NOT scaleable like similar aircraft VTOL/STOL prototypes and the thing has crap for interior space. Sure you can sling load some decent weight under it, but then you cannot take full capacity of its "fixed-wing" mode...find a better platform...one that isn't part of a plan to dump federal dollars for military procurment then turn around with a complete design and make a civilian aircraft...SUPER TAX DOLLAR waste...for nothing but corporate gain and a bunch of dead marines. :(

[Seiyuuki]

You think if the U.S. is ahead of the game as much as some like to believe...there wouldn't be all this debates on this forum about...

Su - Whatever vs. Raptor
Apache 64...crap...blah...blah...vs...Mil-This and That
Leo A2-whatever vs. Abram and that...

...and so on...

Yup...the U.S. is the undisputed king indeed.

I am sorry, yet I don’t foresee the American military going up against any Leo's or Su-27's on the battlefield. Even if some backwards nation possesses state of the art aircraft, they lack the training to effectively combat NATO pilots. The US has no direct competition in terms of military hardware that they should be concerned of.

Being trained in the military, did they ever teach you the lesson concerning, "Never underestimate your opponent?"

[Rakki]

So, Durandal... is there anything out there actually nearing production which will give the Marines the same capabilities that the Osprey is offering? (Incidentally, the Army and the Air Force are all signed into the program for their own versions of the Osprey. Presumably they see something they like)

Or are you expecting something to magically appear within one or two years time and be fielded before those (pre)Vietnam era Ch-46/47s heads off to the boneyard?

[Seiyuuki]

So, Durandal... is there anything out there actually nearing production which will give the Marines the same capabilities that the Osprey is offering? (Incidentally, the Army and the Air Force are all signed into the program for their own versions of the Osprey. Presumably they see something they like)

Or are you expecting something to magically appear within one or two years time and be fielded before those (pre)Vietnam era Ch-46/47s heads off to the boneyard?

That's an interesting point I haven't realize...the fact that all the services are signed onto the problem, similar to the F-35, I can't say the Osprey will get the axe anytime soon.

[Durandal]

Or are you expecting something to magically appear within one or two years time and be fielded before those (pre)Vietnam era Ch-46/47s heads off to the boneyard?

Sorry, last time I checked other people made heavy lift capable helicopters. Just because it is not state of the art and capable of deploying on its own doesn't mean we cannot use them.


I hate this "sky is falling" crap.

I mean let's look at the reality of things. We are taking off all our AMMs off our Frigates...ALL of them, including their launchers...which also fire Harpoons. Our Frigates will have little anti-ship capacity and almost no air defense capability. Why? Because we cannot afford it...

The United States military (we are talking all branches here) is great, not because of single SUPER hi-tech gadgets, but a weaving of MANY technologies that in many cases are sometiimes 20 years old. Our airforce rocks. Why? You can achieve anything that our planes can platform vs. platform with European Nations and even Russian...in theory. Yet, if it ever came to an airwar we would wipe ass. Because it is not JUST the aircraft. It is not just tanks vs. tanks. It is not just ship vs. ship. It is multitude of things..communications, battlefield intelligence, command and control, AWACs, JSTAR, unit integration, training, etc, etc...

Losing ALL of these programs, with possibly the exception of the F22, is not hurting us, especially when ANY possible enemy is at least 1 if not two generations behind at no where even close to force projection on a global scale. Peopl can argue which aricraft or tank is better than the U.S. and it simply does not matter, because it AIN'T ABOUT THE PLATFORM, when you are ahead in the game.

Osprey should have been cancelled years back, but no, it is a deep dark bolack hole to toss money into. You have to decide what a cost of a weapon system or platform should be there is point where there is siimply no gain.

I mean, let's think about. I own a company. I pay someone to design product X. I tell them, don't worry what it will cost or when you can get it out in service...just bill me. Who in their right mind would tolerate this crap!? Its embarassing and its a pathetic waste of tax payer's monies.

Half these projects have DIVAD written all over them simply because some general, about to retire is promised a job in a defense company. Suddenly that company is good as gold and the can do no wrong.

Well screw that.

My government should be smarter. They should consider compatibility, cross service use, scaleability, research overlap, final dollar prices with penalties for missing deadliine and cost overruns...

Instead we have a bunch of Defense Contractors laughing their asses off because they are getting loot for ****ing arounds.

You need something for the Marines to hop arouund in, then buy an existing transport vehicle.

A little common sense goes a LONG way.

[Durandal]

I can't say the Osprey will get the axe anytime soon.

Wager a beer on that? I give it less than five years or one more accident. Which ever happens first. :|

[Rakki]

By Durandal's logic then the US Army shouldn't even bother about Interceptor body armor since heh, most of the world don't even has PASGT...

Or, in Durandal's opinion, unless something is like two generations ahead then there's no poin spending money on it. Strangely enough, I'm pretty sure that's what they wanted to achieve with the Commanche, the F-22 and the Crusader and all that... and the tricky thing is, the further you look ahead, the GREATER the risk.

When you consider countries like China and Russia are still busily developing weaponxs (so is Europe) AND exporting them all over the world.... tha technology overmatch Durandal you are realizing on is actually pretty fragile. Hell, a 1980's era RPG-7 certainly has no problems blowing Blackhawks out of the sky when used by "untrained" militia.

Yeah, it's pretty embarrassing that billions of dollars have been sunk into programs which were ultimately cancelled, but it won't be just embarrassing in twenty years time when the average rebel has more up to date firepower than the US military, and our soldiers are wondering WHY the HELL they are still flying around in choppers first procured 50 years ago... when everyone else has VSTOL...

[Fox2]

The greater embarrassment would be sinking billions of taxpayer money into a project and ending up with something that is worse than what you had before.

And in the end, guess who pays for it? The men and women of the armed forces will pay in blood. They are going to die because some big shot in Washington decided to turn a blind eye to a defense company's lies.

Perhaps the Marines do need a new aircraft. But are you willing to give them an underperforming, unsafe aircraft? It would be great if the V-22 actually did what it was meant to do. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. Infact, due to the way they designed it, they have to keep throwing weight off or reduce cargo space. At the moment, it supposedly doesn't even carry as much as the CH-46 does, which it is supposed to replace.

I'm glad we have so many in this country who are willing to send our young men and women to their deaths in a machine that isn't even airworthy. All simply so that some General back home will get a nice fat paycheck after retirement from the people building said deathtrap. I'm glad we're willing to potentially sacrifice many people so a handful of people can get their pockets lined.


PS: I mentioned this in another thread, but if you want to know more about the V-22's problems, here's a link: http://www.g2mil.com/V-22struggles.htm

[Durandal]

By Durandal's logic then the US Army shouldn't even bother about Interceptor body armor since heh, most of the world don't even has PASGT...

You missed the point of the post completely. The concellation of FAILED projects is not a bad thing...such as the Commanche..yes it had failed. it did not have the lifting capability for a full load out of missles and gun. The Osprey? Come on man, its a F%CKING joke. The does not work and has been on the drawing boards and protoype for TWENTY YEARS!!!! How much more money are you going to dump into a platform before your nation has the technology to develop something better for a fraction of the cost with ten times the gain!!!???

What massive gain comes with spending BILLIONS of Crusader? Sure it worked, in theory. But, in a time when we need rapidly deployable vehicles? I mean, think about. We have not one, but no less than twelve platforms capable of doing what Crusader did, or rather would have done. Why spend the money? Because the current artilerry units are of an old design, let's ignore the fact that our current 155s are tied into some of the best fire control systems in the world, have been upgraded to current standards, and have GPS rounds.


Or, in Durandal's opinion, unless something is like two generations ahead then there's no poin spending money on it. Strangely enough, I'm pretty sure that's what they wanted to achieve with the Commanche, the F-22 and the Crusader and all that... and the tricky thing is, the further you look ahead, the GREATER the risk.

Yes, it was what they wanted with those programs. The programs changed though. Keep inmind that the F-22 was supposed to be airsup ONLY. Now it is a multirole aircraft. It becomes a more important platform, for it is replacing not, one but no less than three air platforms.


When you consider countries like China and Russia are still busily developing weaponxs (so is Europe) AND exporting them all over the world.... tha technology overmatch Durandal you are realizing on is actually pretty fragile.

My worst fear is China, I have nightmares about China. But dealing with these nations has little to do with single high tech platforms. China is 30 years behind us and is gaining rapidly.


Hell, a 1980's era RPG-7 certainly has no problems blowing Blackhawks out of the sky when used by "untrained" militia.

And they would destroy a Crusader or Osprey...imagine that...your hightech wonder projects not only cost us BILLIONS but they ares susceptible to the same combat casualties.


Yeah, it's pretty embarrassing that billions of dollars have been sunk into programs which were ultimately cancelled, but it won't be just embarrassing in twenty years time when the average rebel has more up to date firepower than the US military, and our soldiers are wondering WHY the HELL they are still flying around in choppers first procured 50 years ago... when everyone else has VSTOL...

Ummm ok...

Ok, cool dude, I am right with ya there. Let's have an entire military airlift capable of VSTOL rather than a single Medium lift vehicle. Use one design that is scaleable. easier to train on, less costs associated both in procurement and logistics....or would that make too much sense?

But you want to dump MORE money into a project that has reurned not a goddamn thing. That makes a lot of sense. :roll:

Again, reread my post. Yes, we should be thinking ahead, but even if it has cost us billions, trying to procure a platform that is either broken (in the case of the Comanche and Osprey) or no longer valid as a platform in relationship to doctrine (in the case of the Crusader), just because it is advanced is not only moronic, it does a disservice to the fighting men and women and the citizens of the nation they are defending.

Greenlighting a project just to save face (because that is EXACTLY what this is) has to be the most stupid thing I have ever heard of. Fortunately, soomeone had the balls to stand up and say, these are not cost effective programs or the generational leaps we hope they would be. Let's go back to the drawing board.

It's sad these projects have been allowed to go as far as they did...

I am not afraid the United States will fall behind their current nearly multi generational tech gap with other nations. I worry that special interest and palm greasing will cost lives of soldiers and prevent tax dollars from going to more important platforms, programs, and training.

[cold0]

Ok, Durandal, in your opinion what are the current programs that the american forces really need and what can replace the cancelled weapon systems?

[Durandal]

Ok, Durandal, in your opinion what are the current programs that the american forces really need and what can replace the cancelled weapon systems?

Right now I do not think there is a need to replace the existing artillery. The U.S. military has been experimenting with single box MLRS lauchers on trucks and and armored platforms. You also have an airforce, which has proven all too valuable as a support platform to replace radical high cost artillery tubes (plus they can go "anywhere")...

The Osprey, should be replaced with a scaleable "canard rotary lift wing" design, like Boeing's X-50 program. The design is much more efficient, it works (as proven by the test runs), it can be used in, as in this case, something as small as a UAV or as large as a hevy lift aircraft...even larger than a C-5 Galaxy.

The XM-8 project is lots of money with no net gain. Wait till the get the OICW up and running. The XM-8 is NOT a generational leap in firearms nor does its few benefits (mainly less cleaning and little bit lighter weight) justify the cost...

The Commanche...has already been replaced, quite well too for the price...the Predator is not only MUCH cheaper, it has had a pretty solid track record. UAVs are just going to get better.

I also thinkthe US Navy needs to up their maintainence and productio schedule for Naval force projection. But that is a pipe dream. Ships costs LOTS of money...money we do not have.

Changes made in unit sizes and what exactly a core unit is...moving from Divisional to Brigade size. Increased UAV, command and control, and light wieght mobile artillery (or increased dedicated air support) for such units makes a lot of sense. I personally have a lot of faith in the Interim Brigade...a perfect example of making do with what you have before jumping into designing something where the needs may change 10 years later.

Just some examples...

[cold0]

Right now I do not think there is a need to replace the existing artillery. The U.S. military has been experimenting with single box MLRS lauchers on trucks and and armored platforms. You also have an airforce, which has proven all too valuable as a support platform to replace radical high cost artillery tubes (plus they can go "anywhere")...


Uhn.... it's too similar to isreal ideas before the Yom Kippur War. What's happen if the air force is pushed back by the enemy SAM? :roll:


The Osprey, should be replaced with a scaleable "canard rotary lift wing" design, like Boeing's X-50 program. The design is much more efficient, it works (as proven by the test runs), it can be used in, as in this case, something as small as a UAV or as large as a hevy lift aircraft...even larger than a C-5 Galaxy.


Interesting idea but when, in the future, the US force would have a this new aircraft (10 years?) and the costs? :|


The XM-8 project is lots of money with no net gain. Wait till the get the OICW up and running. The XM-8 is NOT a generational leap in firearms nor does its few benefits (mainly less cleaning and little bit lighter weight) justify the cost...

I partially agree; i think that new ammo 8mm Remington SPC is far more interesting than the new rifle. It's more cheap to upgrade the M16/M4 family to the new cartridge. ;)


The Commanche...has already been replaced, quite well too for the price...the Predator is not only MUCH cheaper, it has had a pretty solid track record. UAVs are just going to get better.

The entire program was a disaster; it's starterd like a multirole helo to replace the Kiowa,OH-6 and the remain Huey, the it became a recon helo and after some years, the replacement for the AH-64. It's not surprise that the program is collapsed.




Changes made in unit sizes and what exactly a core unit is...moving from Divisional to Brigade size. Increased UAV, command and control, and light wieght mobile artillery (or increased dedicated air support) for such units makes a lot of sense. I personally have a lot of faith in the Interim Brigade...a perfect example of making do with what you have before jumping into designing something where the needs may change 10 years later.


I agree apart for the mobile artillery part. :)

Thanks to have shared your opinions!

[Durandal]

Uhn.... it's too similar to isreal ideas before the Yom Kippur War. What's happen if the air force is pushed back by the enemy SAM? :roll:

Don't give me that eye rolling crap. What SAM force o this earht is going to take on the US Airforce? Seriously, this isn't nationalistic pride but utter truth. Shoulder lauched stuff still has its value, but as soon as you light off an air search device it gets waxed. In order to have a decent SAM system, you absolutely need a top notch intelligence gathering and distribution system and a matching high crade air force to prevent SAM raids. No one has one...at least no one we are going to fight the next twenty years...including China.

Even shoulder launched stuff is no good when you have A-Teams dialing in gridf coordinates are lazing your position for an ordinace packege being dropped from as much as 25 or 30 miles away.


Interesting idea but when, in the future, the US force would have a this new aircraft (10 years?) and the costs? :|

I would wager a beer that you could develop the program (there are no less that 6 areospace companies, large and small, currently working on Canard single rotor/wing UAVs, Commercial Craft, and Military Transports...one of which is being looked at as we speak for U.S.Military Lift capacity). It is not as if the Osprey is going to be ready in 10 years and isn't going to cost much much more. I would wager that the money saved in logistics and scaling would actually pay for part of the loss in the Osprey program.


I partially agree; i think that new ammo 8mm Remington SPC is far more interesting than the new rifle. It's more cheap to upgrade the M16/M4 family to the new cartridge. ;)

Well, this is where we also disagree. There is no need for the 8mm or 6.8mm or X round. The 5.56 works fine. I will also state now that I will not entertain a M16 replacement discussion here...there are several threads already on this forum dealing with it. We can take it there if you like. :)


I agree apart for the mobile artillery part. :)

Thanks to have shared your opinions!

No problem. :)

[Rakki]

http://www.globalsecurity.orhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-vrs.htmg/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-vrs.htm

The V-22 "Vortex Ring State" - Durandal refers a lot to the Osprey's "dangerous" flight characteristics, but after careful reading, I reckon once the problem is understood then pilots can be trained to avoid it.

I personally don't believe that conventional tube artillery will be replaced by rocket systems - it will always have its place on the battlefield, the question will be what kind of munitions it will use. Maybe a next generation Copperhead, or the SADARM. And firing a few shells 30kms away is far far cheaper than calling in an airstrike using 40million dollar jet fighter.

As for 5.56mm vs 6.8mm vs 8mm.... it's up the military to decide what its doctrine is going to be and what combination of weapon system and calibre will fit the doctrine. Currently there's a lot of the new M4 uppers coming on to the market which get rid of AR-15/M-16's "dirty action". It should be no great drama to transition to those - even if we don't go for the XM-8. (The XM-8 might not be a revolutionary system, but usually when a revolutionary weapon gets issued the rest of the grunts have been forced to make do with weapons practically obsolete for years!)

[Durandal]

The V-22 "Vortex Ring State" - Durandal refers a lot to the Osprey's "dangerous" flight characteristics, but after careful reading, I reckon once the problem is understood then pilots can be trained to avoid it.

I am not saying it is dangerous, I am saying it does not work. This is supposed to be a transport. Training me to avoid problems inherent in a vehicle that will contain many other lives is not what I call "smart"...if it has problems in simple basic everyday flight, what if something goes wrong or the pilots are all jumped up in a combat situation...

And people still TRY to tell us doubting toms that it is ok...ppphhht!


I personally don't believe that conventional tube artillery will be replaced by rocket systems - it will always have its place on the battlefield, the question will be what kind of munitions it will use.

Nor did I say MLRS should replace tube. MLRS has a role just as mortars do. The point being though, a new tube system that uses conventional propellants and follws the Cold War big and bulky theory (i.e. not something that is injected chemical propellants and air transport capable) is not as valuable...sure it replaces "older" designs, but who cares. The old design, in this case works just fine AND is fairly state of the art.

The fact the you can now mount (and do) a single box launcher from a MLRS to a truck bed and launch standard round salvos and single TACAMS is a great, cost effective, air transportable alternative.

[cold0]

Don't give me that eye rolling crap. What SAM force o this earht is going to take on the US Airforce? Seriously, this isn't nationalistic pride but utter truth. Shoulder lauched stuff still has its value, but as soon as you light off an air search device it gets waxed. In order to have a decent SAM system, you absolutely need a top notch intelligence gathering and distribution system and a matching high crade air force to prevent SAM raids. No one has one...at least no one we are going to fight the next twenty years...including China.


I have not dout about the USAF/US NAVY capacities in SEAD/SEAD area. Anyway the new "double-digit" russian SAMs are a real treat, even if no coordinate and integrated in an advanced IADS. For example the SA-15 GAUNTLET and the SA-19 GRISOM, defending a enemy OPFOR armoured force (at divion level for the -15), can interdict all CAS missions without stand-off weapon.

But I agree with you that new Targeting and Navigation Pods, like the Sniper XR, integrated with the F-16CJ (using data-link with SIGINT platforms and JDAM/JSOW, can find and kill these systems even when they aren't using the radar to detect targets.

[IDFM203]

I know I am late to this thread and I have to admit that I did not read the whole thread, though I did skim over it.

I think it’s too bad that it was canceled if indeed it was a technological improvement over its predecessors.

I say that for even though the U.S. is military stronger and generation’s ahead of its next enemy on the battlefield, the need for better technology is a never ending need in combat.

I say “never ending” not to merely win a war or to be able to defeat the enemy for the U.S. has enough with what it has now to do that for the foreseeable future, but rather to limit the loss of lives that it has to take in those wars in order to defeat the enemy. While the U.S. is technologically advanced, it does however suffer losses in wars or in battles (for this conversation, helicopters get shot down etc…), as loss of lives are unavoidable in war, and as such having an improved helicopter that will perhaps get shot down less or have better fire power or be more maneuverable or have longer range, all helps in limiting the loss of lives that are in inevitable on a battlefield.

So say for example (the following are made up numbers) with the apache you win the war but you suffer 100 lives lost, but with the Comanche you still win though its with 50 lives lost.

That’s an immeasurable improvement that is hard to quantify though what’s clear is that lives were saved!!

The never ending need for technological improvements is now not strictly about wining or losing or about totally defeating ones enemy, for in most cases, with regards to the U.S. the outcome is not in doubt, however the need arises when we are talking about limiting the amount of lives lost that that particular war or battle takes to win.

The lives saved due to technological improvements cannot nor should it be measured in dollars spent or dollars wasted, for it should always be first priority for a military (if it can, which in the U.S. it most certainly can) to always have the best available and to always improve on that to limit the amount of lives loss.

You can never make it zero lives lost (though with UAV’s its getting there ;) ) but to limit it or to make it less then was before, is indeed not something to give up on and is always worth spending the money on R&D to come up with it even if at the end it doesn’t produce the necessary results.


Anyways I am sure this project produced a lot of quality technological improvements that can be used on existing systems to make them better.

With that, the program can’t be considered a total loss.

Just some thoughts...........

Shalom :D

[rob]

I can't say the Osprey will get the axe anytime soon.

Wager a beer on that? I give it less than five years or one more accident. Which ever happens first. :|


ill wager a beer that the xm8 dies before the osprey.

[GazB]

And what happens if only one of the V-22's engines goes out in a hover? It rolls inverted due to the disproportionate lift, and then heads straight for the ground.

The two engines on the Osprey are connected by a shaft and if one engine fails the other can drive both props... otherwise one engine failure would make the aircraft crash whether it was in vertical or horizonal flight.

The inability to autorotate is a very serious design flaw... the onyl time you'll get me in a V-22 is in Half Life. BTW there was a V-44 design with 4 tilt rotors that looked more balanced. I think it would have been better to go with that beast first.


Compare that to the V-22 Osprey with its 400km combat radius and higher speed, this means that Navy ships can stand off further from shore (outside enemy detection/missile range) and they can deliver Marines to targets quicker OR loiter longer to provide support.


Except that all the support.. ie fire support helos like the cobra etc still have range and speed comparable with the old heavy lift helos. What is the point of getting troops and supplies to a landing zone if the ahve to wait 40 mins for their airsupport helos arrive. Osprey will kill the Cobra and Apache and US forces will have to rely in Harrier and then F-35 support in the future. Not ideal.

Regarding the topic of this thread I think the money saved by just making it relatively low observable rathe than stealthy would have mad eit a much cheaper systems... a helo behind a hilltop is as radar invisible as any stealth design... besides in the US's experience and the experience of most helo operators around the world radar guided weapons are not really the greatest threat to helos... a bit like making all of a sub radar invisible (Making the conning tower and periscopes radar invisible is common however).


Sorry, last time I checked other people made heavy lift capable helicopters. Just because it is not state of the art and capable of deploying on its own doesn't mean we cannot use them.

One (non serious on presumes) option to replace the heavy US helos was the mi-26 Halo. Nothing happened of course.


The U.S. military has been experimenting with single box MLRS lauchers on trucks and and armored platforms.

In other words when they copied it first time they copied it wrong. The 220mm Uragan they copied was truck mounted and designed to be cheap. The MLRS was based on the Bradley IFV chassis that only the US used at the time and was very expensive. Performance was similar to the Uragan and inferior to the 300mm Smerch... both truck mounted and cheap.


The Commanche...has already been replaced, quite well too for the price...the Predator is not only MUCH cheaper, it has had a pretty solid track record. UAVs are just going to get better.

UAVs are fine in a war against very weak opponents. A UAV has no redundant systems and often fails because "a screw wasn't tightened or a hose failed". It has no self defence capability and fitting them with modern RHAWs makes them cost about the same as a medium sized fighter... which could do the same job more reliably. UAVs are not useless, but are not the whole solution yet.


Shoulder lauched stuff still has its value, but as soon as you light off an air search device it gets waxed.

The US and all of NATO couldn't even wipe out a 60-70s vintage Serbian air defence network with how many months to do it? If they had better missiles NATO would have been in the Sh!t. The 200 aircraft they claimed to have shot down were in fact UAVs and cruise missiles.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

http://www.danzigercartoons.com/img/2004/dancart1937.jpg

[cold0]

from the strategypage:


WARPLANES: Replacing Comanche


March 3, 2004: The fallout from the cancellation of the Comanche is becoming interesting. A source reported that the OH-58A/C Kiowa (as opposed to the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior) and AH-1S Cobra retirements scheduled to occur at the end of Fiscal Year 2004 are still on. This is due to the Army’s 2001 decision to speed up the modernization of the aviation units. The cancellation will probably cost close to $680 million.

The Comanche program is not going to be a total loss for the Army. Already, the Army is planning to put the radar from the Block I Comanche into a total of 501 Block III AH-64D Apache helicopters for the Active components as opposed to a mixture of Block I and Block II AH-64Ds. The Block III Apache will have every feature of the Comanche except for the stealthy radar signature, and the loss of stealth is not seen by the Army as a serious problem for the foreseeable future. The Reserves and National Guard will receive 213 of the AH-64A Apaches, which are still among the best attack helicopters in the world.

The other interesting result is the decision to build a new armed reconnaissance helicopter. This is not a surprise. Even though the presence of unmanned aerial vehicles makes reconnaissance less of a risk, there are times when a manned vehicle works better – especially since human curiosity can often find out things that might not be in a UAV’s mission profile. The new reconnaissance helicopter will come down the road, and the Army is going to send out a request for proposals (RFP) for 368 aircraft. Meanwhile, the army is considering buying some MD500s, which have been used with great success as a scout helicopter by many American allies.– Harold C. Hutchison (hchutch@ix.netcom.com)



The end is the beginning is the end.....

[Merik]

from the strategypage:


WARPLANES: Replacing Comanche


March 3, 2004: The fallout from the cancellation of the Comanche is becoming interesting. A source reported that the OH-58A/C Kiowa (as opposed to the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior) and AH-1S Cobra retirements scheduled to occur at the end of Fiscal Year 2004 are still on. This is due to the Army’s 2001 decision to speed up the modernization of the aviation units. The cancellation will probably cost close to $680 million.

The Comanche program is not going to be a total loss for the Army. Already, the Army is planning to put the radar from the Block I Comanche into a total of 501 Block III AH-64D Apache helicopters for the Active components as opposed to a mixture of Block I and Block II AH-64Ds. The Block III Apache will have every feature of the Comanche except for the stealthy radar signature, and the loss of stealth is not seen by the Army as a serious problem for the foreseeable future. The Reserves and National Guard will receive 213 of the AH-64A Apaches, which are still among the best attack helicopters in the world.

The other interesting result is the decision to build a new armed reconnaissance helicopter. This is not a surprise. Even though the presence of unmanned aerial vehicles makes reconnaissance less of a risk, there are times when a manned vehicle works better – especially since human curiosity can often find out things that might not be in a UAV’s mission profile. The new reconnaissance helicopter will come down the road, and the Army is going to send out a request for proposals (RFP) for 368 aircraft. Meanwhile, the army is considering buying some MD500s, which have been used with great success as a scout helicopter by many American allies.– Harold C. Hutchison (hchutch@ix.netcom.com)



The end is the beginning is the end.....


For a new helicopter to succeed it has to be a compound, otherwise it will be another Commanche.

[HELEX]

Now if they would just cancel the XM8 fiasco...

Well it is reliable and finished, has better precision and the costs are not much higher than upgrading the existing Rifles with a working Gas system to the HKM-4 Level.

OICW is canceled:

This is your new Rifle(HK)

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/Pics/xm8b.jpg

This is your new Grenade launcher(HK)

25mm Airburst

http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/xm_25.gif

And M2 replacement(General Dynamics )

25mm Airburst

http://www.gdatp.com/products/lethality/xm307/xm307_gallery/photos/1.jpg

12.7mm (cal. .50)

http://www.gdatp.com/products/lethality/xm312/xm312_gallery/photos/1.jpg


So whats your problem? I think the XM8 is even better than the G36...

[GazB]

That top picture showing the range of guns... is it Assault rifle(w/grenade launcher), SMG, sniper rifle, and finally LMG?

Seeing as how they don't seem to have gone with shortening the weapon with a bullpup design I wonder why the stock isn't folding?

Lets face it, modern forces spend lots of time when a rifle is in the way... ie in an APC, Helo, ship, tank etc

BTW the barrel of that 50 cal looks thin to me...

[Ratamacue]

That top picture showing the range of guns... is it Assault rifle(w/grenade launcher), SMG, sniper rifle, and finally LMG?

Seeing as how they don't seem to have gone with shortening the weapon with a bullpup design I wonder why the stock isn't folding?

Lets face it, modern forces spend lots of time when a rifle is in the way... ie in an APC, Helo, ship, tank etc

BTW the barrel of that 50 cal looks thin to me...

The US Military seems to prefer the sliding stock as it can be manipulated to fit any person, with or without body armor. Granted, there are some stocks that are both folding and sliding, but I guess the Army decided to stick with one of these.

I'm pretty sure they won't adopt the LMG version either. Seems to me that an assault rifle design is too delicate to be used for sustained fire. Wasn't the MG36 pretty much done away with entirely?

[GazB]

Granted, there are some stocks that are both folding and sliding, but I guess the Army decided to stick with one of these.

I really don't understand that... I mean if you want the weapons to fit all your troops then just get a folding stock that is the shortest length to suit your smallest solider. The others can use addon butt pads of the required size to make firing comfortable. That way you get a short rifle when you need it without the problems of a bullpup.

I know the M16 doesn't have a folding stock because the main recoil spring is located in the butt of the rifle, but I have seen versions of it with no stock and one assumes a different recoil spring arrangement. Even the FN FAL, which has a recoil spring located in its butt has a para folding stock model and a 308 would need a longer spring than a 223.