Army cancells Comanche

[Kingairrick]

All I saw so far.

LINKYLINK

Too bad, that thing looked cool...

More HERE

 

[getonit]

That is what is wrong with the military. I saw an article that said they started development in 1983 and was expected to be online in 2006. A mere 23 years to develop a new weapons system!!!Ridiculous. Anybody who says the military needs more money is full of scheise.

 

[bart]

Paul Sr is going to give Pauly hell for not finishing that bike on time...

 

[A Squared]

Sounds sort of like MLS, the FAA screwed around so long in the implemenatation that it was obsolete before it ever became fully operational


By contrast, North American signed a contract with britain to designe the p-51 in April 1940 and flew the first prototype in Oct of the same year. The first production aircraft delivered arrived in Britain about a year later.

 

[EagleRJ]

What was that helicopter gunship that was designed in the '70s that was also killed after a lot of money was dumped into it?

It had two tail rotors- one pushing aft so they could unload the main rotor and reach much higher speeds.

Exactly the same story- years of infighting over the final design, interservice rivalry, technical problems, budget overruns, and then the project was finally killed after $Billions had been dumped into it.

 

[bart]

Cheyenne, I believe.

 

[enigma]

I'm not a rotorhead, but I did read an article in a recent Aviation Week about the probable cancellation. They basically blamed the cancellation on helo problems in general. Apparently, the last couple of conflicts have proven to the military that helos are just to darn vulnerable. They must have decided to cut their losses now, instead of pour money into a hole. Also, it would appear that the Army wants to move their fighting rotorwing force over to the unmanned birds. Too darn bad for the taxpayers that it took this long recognize the obvious.

enigma

 

[MarineGrunt]

Heard from a source, not sure if it was reliable, that the army was expecting the AH66 to do things that it just wasn't capable of. Not surprised it got cancelled.

 

[norskman2]

Apparently, the last couple of conflicts have proven to the military that helos are just to darn vulnerable.

enigma

Heck, this problem dates back to the Key West agreement the four branches of the armed services signed right after WWII. Remember the old Army Air Corps? The creation of USAF meant the Army had to agree to basically NEVER fly fixed-wing aircraft again (with a few minor exceptions like the Birddogs in Vietnam).

The result has been a Mega-FUBAR situation ever since. The Army keeps trying to push through Super Copters like Cheyenne and Comanche because they have no other alternative if they want to play in the air superiority game.

That's why the Army can't just go out and get themselves a REAL tank buster and ground attack plane like the A-10 Warthog. The Warthog is exactly the kind of flying machine the Army should have, but can't -- a specifically-designed close support attack plane. It's basically a tank with wings -- in Gulf War I & II they'd come back with half their tail shot off. By contrast, the Apache (or any helicopter for that matter) is lightly armored, because a helicopter can't lift enough armor plating.

Instead, the AF tried to kill the project all along, had it rammed down their throats only because a leading Congressman was from the district where Fairchild built it. When it reached production, the AF brass shunted it off to ANG units -- the ONLY time a new aircraft has ever been gone straight to the Guard.

The AF brass has to be dragged kicking and screaming when it comes to supporting the ground grunts, and would rather spend their billions on fighters and bombers, not attack aircraft and transports.

Hey, God bless our men and women in uniform. But when it comes to the geniuses in the E Ring, they truly prove, as George Carlin used to say, "military intelligence" can often be an oxymoron.

 

[Snakum]

Sorry to hear about the Commanche. Saw one once and it looked deadly as hell.

Didn't I read somewhere that the Army was going to lobby for the A-10s to be turned over to them? I know all about the agreements with the AF, however I thought I read that the top brass were going to bat with Congress or some d@mn body to lobby for their own fixed-wing CAS assets?

Minh

 

[Birdstrike]

Not Ready For Prime Time

I'm not sorry to see it go. It was originally designed for aerial recon but has been eclipsed by UAV technolgy. Probably only a matter of time before either the F-22, JSF, and Osprey gets severely cut or cancelled as well as they continue to bloat also.

With UAV technology growing exponentially compared to manned systems, I wonder how long it will be before we see the first Part 121 UAV? Would you get in it? I would before I'd ever set foot in a V-22.

 

[norskman2]

Re: Not Ready For Prime Time

I would before I'd ever set foot in a V-22.

Yeah, sure looks like they haven't got all the kinks worked out of the good ol' Osprey yet, have they?

 

[USMCAirWinger]

The Osprey is just like any new technology, they have to work out the kinks. I would like to know the accident rate of the ch-46/47 when they first came out back in the day....I'm sure it was pretty high!

 

[46Driver]

That is what is wrong with the military. I saw an article that said they started development in 1983 and was expected to be online in 2006. A mere 23 years to develop a new weapons system!!!Ridiculous. Anybody who says the military needs more money is full of scheise.

This is what happens with multiple administrations and changing priorities. Also, many of the weapons systems are simply jobs programs. Witness the V-22 Osprey (which is piece of junk that also needs to be killed) has parts built in 47 different states. No congressman wants to lose jobs in his district.

However, the miltary does need more money because there was very limited procurement during the Clinton years. If you really want to save money, cut back on the d@mn entitlement programs.

 

[getonit]

46driver,
let me start off by saying I am not a liberal tree hugging pacifist. I am a right leaning fiscal conservative, which is not what we have in the White House right now. I am in the highest tax bracket for single people, for reasons not related to being a pilot, obviously.

I still stand by my statement that the military spends too much money and when it is spent, it is spent on local projects/systems/policies that do nothing for our national security. Have you ever heard a local politician say how critical a military base is when they are trying to close it in his district? V22 are costing 80 mil apiece, F22's are 100 mil apiece, B2's were what $2 billion? We spend more money than the next 25 countries combined to fight what threat? No other country in the world can even think about competing with us, with our existing equipment, ie F-15, apaches, etc. 9/11 probably cost the towelheads a million dollars maybe? I have been to too many base ops, which are brand new and only supporting 2-3 missions a day.

And I agree that entitlements are too much but unfortunately the more goverment spends the more important they think they are. It is a vicious circle and most of those programs can't be cut anyway, and most politicians don't have the balls to really do anything.

 

[norskman2]

Agreed, lads. The brass have done a masterful of spreading out the bases, shipyards, contractors across nearly every Congressional district, and especially those with committee chairmen, a strategy first deployed by either John Warner or John Lehman as Navy Secretary.

Tieing jobs in the district to Defense procurement was the best way to ensure these projects were nearly impossible to kill off. Kudos to Rumsfeld for having the balls to kill off Crusader and Comanche.

Hey, a few years ago, the guys at the Lockheed Skunk Works tested a stealth cruise missile platform for the Navy that could sneak into enemy waters virtually undetected. The only problem was it only needed a crew of twelve. Cruiser and battleship commanders threw a fit and got the project killed. Where's the prestige in commanding a tugboat of twelve???

Geez, why do you need a battleship command of 300 and a whole frickin' battle group just to lob cruise missiles from offshore? How absurd...Meanwhile grunts continue to have to put up with lousy pay, substandard housing and god knows what else.

 

[Snakum]

Meanwhile grunts continue to have to put up with lousy pay, substandard housing and god knows what else.

Hey ... if it weren't so, we grunts would have nothing to complain about, and as you know, Grunts, just like pilots, aren't happy unless we're bitching.



Minh

 

[urflyingme?!]

In theory couldnt you just launch cruise missiles from transport planes? Or a barge anyway? I remember that early cruise missiles were launched from B52's.

 

[EagleRJ]

In theory couldnt you just launch cruise missiles from transport planes?

The military floated an idea to do just that 10-15 years ago. They wanted to develop a 747 cruise missile carrier. It was going to fire the missiles from a side-mounted door, using the rotary launchers from the B-1, and it would be able to carry far more missiles than any bomber. They decided against the project because the plane would have been so vulnerable.

They're talking about taking the off-the-shelf approach for Homeland Security right now. I've heard the DHS wants to field a domestic squadron of Learjets that are equipped with fire control radar and AMRAAM missiles. Cost = peanuts.

 

[norskman2]

Didn't they once drop and air-launch an ICBM out the back of a C-5A or something crazy like that?

 

[urflyingme?!]

air to air learjets...awesome....

You know this reminds me of some "good old fashioned american knowhow." When we went to space, we couldn't write with standard pens. So we spent lots of money on developing a pen that could write in space, we even sold them as "the space pen" or whatever. The Russians had the same problem, they used pencils.... Maybe we could take some notes on cost cutting. The again, look at Russia now.

 

[46Driver]

46driver,
let me start off by saying I am not a liberal tree hugging pacifist. I am a right leaning fiscal conservative, which is not what we have in the White House right now. I am in the highest tax bracket for single people, for reasons not related to being a pilot, obviously.

I still stand by my statement that the military spends too much money and when it is spent, it is spent on local projects/systems/policies that do nothing for our national security. Have you ever heard a local politician say how critical a military base is when they are trying to close it in his district? V22 are costing 80 mil apiece, F22's are 100 mil apiece, B2's were what $2 billion? We spend more money than the next 25 countries combined to fight what threat? No other country in the world can even think about competing with us, with our existing equipment, ie F-15, apaches, etc. 9/11 probably cost the towelheads a million dollars maybe? I have been to too many base ops, which are brand new and only supporting 2-3 missions a day.

And I agree that entitlements are too much but unfortunately the more goverment spends the more important they think they are. It is a vicious circle and most of those programs can't be cut anyway, and most politicians don't have the balls to really do anything.

It is not the military that makes the decision to close bases, that is Congress so you can blame them. The V-22's are over $80M per copy and we should kill that program as well. The F-22 is around $160M per copy and it is debatable.

We spend more money than the next 25 nations combined. First, we pay our people more than anybody else, not just regular pay but also retirement which is why Rumsfeld is keeping the active duty count so low. Second, we are the only nation that has worldwide requirements and force projection capabilities. That, especially the logistics part, requires large expenditures. Third, our weapons are much more high tech and effective than anybody elses - that cost money. One of the big reason we haven't had any major wars is because nobody dares to fight us. If you think a peacetime military is expensive, try funding one at war.....

A more accurate assessment of military spending is in comparison to GDP. Under Kennedy,it was close to 10%, under Reagan it was 6%, under Bush II it is around 3 to 4%.

As for the comment about battleships, they were all retired in the early '90's so we have none around. Ironically, they were retired because they were too manpower intensive, even though their heavy guns would have been much cheaper for surface bombardment than cruise missiles.

 

[norskman2]

As for the comment about battleships, they were all retired in the early '90's so we have none around.

I should have said destroyers. My bad.

 

[A Squared]

Ironically, they were retired because they were too manpower intensive, even though their heavy guns would have been much cheaper for surface bombardment than cruise missiles.

Cheaper in what sense? If you examine $/lb. TNT expended, perhaps, that that would be a pretty poor metric of a weapon system's viability. If you were to look at $/actual tactical effect, the cruise missle might look quite a bit more cost effective. I've known guys who were forward observers in Vietnam and thier personal observation on the effectiveness of naval artilery support form the New Jersey was that it wasn't worth the bother. Yeah it threw really, really big shells an impressively long distance, but it just couldn't put the ordinance on target.

The days of the battleship were over a half a century ago, and the sinking of Bismark was one of the last Naval artillery duels the world will see (even that involved torpedo bombers) If you don't have air superiority over an Naval theater, your surface ships are extrordinarily vulnerable. Modern submarines are much more effective also. Recall how long the General Belgrano (former US cruiser) lasted in the Falklands war. For that matter, even if you do have air superiority, your surface ships are vulnerable to a much smaller, cheaper weapon system. Ref: HMS Sheffield or closer to home, the USS Stark.

The upshot is that surface ships are very vulnerable, so the wise thing to do is to deploy smaller, faster, more manuverable and cheaper platforms for cruise missiles. The fact that the Navy kept battleships active for a half a century after they were obsolete in almost all respects is an indication of how emotion often rules over reason in such issues.

 

[labbats]

I read recently that the military will be shrinking soon to the hardcore elite ranks that make it a lifelong career. Why are we sending tanks full of nascar dads and soccer moms to Baghdad? We need more special ops in there. I hope common sense succeeds.

 

[walleyevision]

Historically,
Belgrano was a former US light cruiser of the Brooklyn class, the USS Phoenix.
After the sinking of the Bismarck was the entire Pacific war which included surface actions off Guadalcanal (Savo, Cape Esperance, 1st and 2nd Naval Battles of Guadalcanal and Tassafaronga) all under contested skies. Komandorskis (off the Aleutians), Kula Gulf, Kolombangara, Vella Gulf, Vella Lavella, Empress Augusta Bay all up and down the Solomons, and Samar and Surgao Strait off of Leyte to name some of the bigger battles.
Optimal ship size for a blue water navy (one that must cross oceans), must take into account sea keeping, sensor and weapon system height above the water line, mission, endurance and ultimately, capabilities desired. Crew size is a hot topic right now. While automation helps civilian crew sizes stay minimal, warships heavy in sensors, weapon systems and comm equipment require much larger manning numbers. Damage control is also an important aspect of manning. As for survivability. Steel ships solve the Shefield/Stark problem (aluminum). Engineering studies and after action reports all indicate that damage sustained by buttoned up warships can be contained. Also, the ability of current weapon systems to inflict "mission kill" or fatal damage upon current US warships requires perfect targeting, perfect system performance in a heavy ECM/ECCM, maneuvering environment.
WEV

 

[A Squared]

After the sinking of the Bismarck was the entire Pacific war

Right, but the Pacific consisted primarily of carrier war, with battleships being relegated largely to the role AAA platforms for the defense of carriers, rather than a primary offensive weapon. Regardless, the days of battlewagons duking it out head to head with big guns was over with the second world war.

 

[weekendwarrior]

I read recently that the military will be shrinking soon to the hardcore elite ranks that make it a lifelong career. Why are we sending tanks full of nascar dads and soccer moms to Baghdad? We need more special ops in there. I hope common sense succeeds.

Flamebait...

That is the most rediculous post I have seen in a long time. Special ops? Do you know what special ops do? Do you know what the special ops need to get the job done and facilitate their missions?

They need Nascar Dads and Soccer Moms. They need regular soldiers without ranger tabs, special forces tabs, airborne/air assault wings on their chest, etc. You can't do this kind of job alone. It takes a combined effort of many men and women of many services, jobs, ranks, etc.

Before you make comments about those of us who are National Guard, Reserves, Soccer Moms and Nascar Dads, think twice. Those could be the very same people that keep us from having another 9/11 that could effect YOU! Show some respect and gratitude to these people. They are doing a fine job over there for the conditions they are in, and will continue to do so, without it being all "Special Ops" forces.

Off the soapbox now

 

[labbats]

This wasn't meant to be disrespectful to anyone. More a commentary on current warfare. Our biggest enemy isn't the immense battlefields of yore. They're urban warfare and all that entails. Sending tanks to Baghdad mystifies me.

 

[46Driver]

Cheaper in what sense? If you examine $/lb. TNT expended, perhaps, that that would be a pretty poor metric of a weapon system's viability. If you were to look at $/actual tactical effect, the cruise missle might look quite a bit more cost effective. I've known guys who were forward observers in Vietnam and thier personal observation on the effectiveness of naval artilery support form the New Jersey was that it wasn't worth the bother. Yeah it threw really, really big shells an impressively long distance, but it just couldn't put the ordinance on target.

The days of the battleship were over a half a century ago, and the sinking of Bismark was one of the last Naval artillery duels the world will see (even that involved torpedo bombers) If you don't have air superiority over an Naval theater, your surface ships are extrordinarily vulnerable. Modern submarines are much more effective also. Recall how long the General Belgrano (former US cruiser) lasted in the Falklands war. For that matter, even if you do have air superiority, your surface ships are vulnerable to a much smaller, cheaper weapon system. Ref: HMS Sheffield or closer to home, the USS Stark.

The upshot is that surface ships are very vulnerable, so the wise thing to do is to deploy smaller, faster, more manuverable and cheaper platforms for cruise missiles. The fact that the Navy kept battleships active for a half a century after they were obsolete in almost all respects is an indication of how emotion often rules over reason in such issues.

First and foremost, the battleships were the most survivable ships afloat. Granted, they could not go out withour air cover, but then again, neither could anything else. However, the Iowa class was much more survivable than an aluminum destroyer.

The battleships were retrofitted to carry huge amounts of cruise missiles. However, a cruise missile is expensive to use against small targets such as machine gun nests and small artillery emplacements. Air Power can only do such - and is limited by weather. Naval artillery is on call 24/7 regardless of weather. And I will dispute the accuracy of the guns, they were quite accurate. Ask the Iraqis who surrendered in Gulf War I when the UAV's started flying over - whenever the UAV's appeared, it meant the entire grid square was about to be annihilated....

Finally, the battleships were retired shortly after the Korean War. One (the USS New Jersey) was brought out of retirement for the Vietnam War and then returned to mothballs. In the '80's, Secretary of the Navy Lehman brought all 4 out of retirement, modernized them, and made them the centerpiece of "Surface Action Groups" to counter the threat of the Russian Kirov class battlecruisers.