US Army Scraps Comanche Helicopter 727
swordboy writes "The US Army just scrapped the Comanche helicopter program - a joint venture with Boeing and United Technologies. After 20 years and billions of taxpayer dollars, it never produced an operational helicopter. Open-source helicopter, anyone?" The article notes: "The Comanche is designed to receive and process intelligence from drones and surveillance aircraft and pass it to ground units. The Army was directed in 2002 to focus its research on producing a reconnaissance helicopter rather than one that can attack as well as scout. The helicopter was intended to counter Soviet weapons."
yes! (Score:2, Informative)
The Army was directed in 2002 to focus its research on producing a reconnaissance helicopter rather than one that can attack as well as scout. The helicopter was intended to counter Soviet weapons. Less pork barrel spending. In case some of you didn't know there are about 25+ pork barrel pilotless attack vehicles [boeing.com] "RPV's make the difference [af.mil] (from 1974 mind you)" Googled Uncle Sam info on RPV's [google.com]. Now ask yourself this question, what's wrong with U2 bombers, but wait before you shoot back with some cliche "low flying aerodynamic hoodoo" post, then I up you one now and state, then what's wrong with taking (what Uncle Scam themselves call) - the winner of all RPV's - Predator and just adding some stronger firepower on it? They've use it to kill before, so it is proven [defenselink.mil]: Bah... you're right I guess, spend a couple of billion more. I'll read about it later [pogo.org]
The Bradley (Score:5, Informative)
What makes you say that? I'm curious. If you're upset because the Bradley doesn't go up well against MBTs, you're barking up the wrong tree, because the Bradley wasn't designed for that purpose.
If you're saying that the Bradley suffers as a personnel carrier because of its armament, I'd be interested in your sources. I'm not saying this with sarcasm - I've just never heard anyone badmouth the Bradley since the infamous 60 Minutes piece back when the Bradley was still under development.
I have heard mech guys talk about how much they love their Bradley, including one track commander whose Bradley took a T-72 round and kept fighting.
time (Score:2, Informative)
I am glad to hear that this happens (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Stealth Helo? (Score:4, Informative)
The only time movement affects radar is with doppler radar, which can only detect objects moving away or toward it, and an approaching helicopter will be more visible than its blades anyway.
How to make a stealth Helo (Score:5, Informative)
Making one (the issue with the rotors) is not that hard (theory, I realize, actually making one is really hard, but so is making a non-stealth helicopter too).
There are 2 schools of thought in relation to stealth. Absorbtion (very hard, and I can probably overcome it with more transmisison power) and reflection away from you (much easier). There was a test of radar-detectability of cars (car&driver or something) with speed-radars, and the corvette was the lowest (this was some time ago).
Most people thought it was that the car was fiberglass (not true, as the frame underneath had plenty of metal) but rather that the radiator was tilted way back, which reflected the radar away (up) from the receiver. This is also why the F-117 is all angular, it is very hard to get a radar reflection, as no facet is facing towards you (they also use absorbtive/transparent materials).
Take a mirror, and lay it flat in a dark room. Shine a flashlight at an oblique angle, and the mirror is almost invisible (but you see stuff past it with the deflected beam). One thing you may see (it's on the stealth airplanes) is covering the intakes/exhausts with deflecting gratings (helps diffuse thermal stuff as well), which will deflect away from the observer, rather than the verticle wall of spinning turbine blades. The mirror trick is how that F-117 was shot down back in the late 90's in bosnia, which was thought to be one radar (the flashlight) shining across, with a receiver across the valley (like standing by the wall and figuring out the deflection of the beam and back-calculating the location of the deflecting object)
If you look at the apache. you will notice the canopy is angular, which was designed to do the same thing with sunlight (less reflections back to the observer).. The blades can be made of low-radar crossection material (heck fiberglass would be virtually invisible as an example, as would carbon fiber or ceramics), but you also need to make it balistically tolerant (cermaics shatter when shot for instance), and flexible to survive the rigors of hard flying. Making it silent is probably much harder than making it radar low-observable.
With the proliferation of shoulder fired heat-seaking missles, one also must make your copter heat stealthy as well, and often tricks like blowing the exhaust up into the rotor wash spreads the heat signature out to hide it, and make it hard to lock up.
Finally for all those who are talking about survivability, the apache is highly balistically tolerant (military speak for armored), and is also designed to allow for survivability of the pilots in the event of being shot down. There is a test film (or marketing PR film) which showed the apache taking direct fire on a test range from a .50 caliber machine gun with no internal damage, or blade damage (I realize it was staged "just so", but none-the-less impressive...).
Re:That let the Tiger without competition (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The Bradley (Score:5, Informative)
["How much has it cost so far?"]
"14."
"14? Million?"
"...illion."
"What did you say, general?"
"Billion."
"With a 'B'?"
"With a 'B'."
The movie describes a troop carrier that went from carrying 11 men plus a driver (quickly) to the front line
The movie is admittedly an exageration, based on the book written by an officer in charge of checking the Bradley for safety. Grains of salt are appropriate.
Re:I don't care... (Score:5, Informative)
Replacing the A-10 has never made much sense to me. But then, I'm neither a military professional nor a defense contractor.
The A-10 does its job extremely well, so there would seem to be little need to update it. However when one digs deeper there are compelling reasons.
First, newer combat aircraft are all designed with some degree of stealthiness. As man-portable SAMs become more common, the A-10 becomes more vulnerable. Newer designs will reduce both the radar and infra-red signature, ultimately keeping the pilot safer.
Second, there is a strong emphesis on simplifying the maintenence requirements for newer aircraft. As an example, the F-15 IIRC requires a gorund crew of about 15 people. The F-16 in comparison, requires only 3 people. In peace time that means a fifth of the cost in salaries and such to operate a squadron of F-16s. In war that means only a fifth as many people need to leave their homes and go into harm's way. Smaller airfields are easier to secure, less equipment and provisions need to be shipped in, the benefits ripple throughout the military. I don't know what the requirements are to keep an A-10 flying, but I bet that a replacement aircraft would require a lot less manpower.
Re:The Bradley (Score:2, Informative)
Jeez, dude. Do you know anything about APCs?
You recommend the M113: a 40+ year old APC designed shortly after the Korean War. The thing is barely even armed, with a partly machine gun to defend itself with.
You also recommend the M551 Sheridan: a light tank that was designed as a reconnaissance platform and was a dismal failure (it was plagued with problems throughout its development - the antitank missiles launched from the gun tubes didn't work properly). It was quickly replaced by M60s that did a far better job despite not being designed for reconnoitering at all.
But, under your plan, we would keep these very obsolete machines and not use the very sturdy and reliable M2s. I grant you, the Bradley is not a perfect machine; no weapon in the U.S.'s arsenal is. It's still far more valuable than upkeep on 40-year-old weapons.
Re:I don't care... (Score:5, Informative)
When you actually read about the design criteria for the A-10 it is actually pretty surprising. They were originally very cheap to produce and design because they don't have much technology at all. Just basic physics. The wings on the A-10 actually produce twice the lift required to keep it flying. In theory they could have half a wing shot of and still fly home.
In Gulfwar 1 they didn't even have many of the more advanced combat systems that they have now because they were on the verge of being mothballed and they demonstrated to be the most effective air platform in that war. The same thing happen a year ago as well. They're effective both because they can get really close to the action and therefore be accurate but they also have a psycological affect on the enemy. Look for some videos of the A-10 fireing its cannon. Its sounds scary.
One problem with making an aircraft stealthy is that stealthy characteristics are very aerodynamically unstable characteristics and therefore require computers to make them fly and translate what appears to be an easy control job by the pilot into a very complex aerodynamic control job by the computer. This is completely the opposite of what makes the A-10 effective.
Excellent G2mil editorial on Comanche (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I don't care... (Score:3, Informative)
It seems to me that one of the reasons the A-10 has been so successful is that it was designed for the role it fills, and for nothing else. The designers did not have to trade off protection or payload for speed.
In the close air support environment, it seems to me that no amount of stealth or speed is going to let an aircraft get away without taking some serious lumps now and then. I don't see the single-engine JSF (or other potential CAS replacements) being designed to stand up to much punishment.
Stand-off precision-guided weapons make up for a lot, of course. But it seems likely to be an insufficient substitute in the long run. Eventually, some poor bastard is going to have to get in close with a thin-skinned JSF, and I'm afraid that a few weeks later his widow is gonna be wishing he had had an A-10.
Re:I don't care... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I don't care... (Score:5, Informative)
Not really. In day to day operations, the -15 and the -16 require about the same size ground crews. The -15 does need a little more backshop people, but nowhere near 5x.
A standard 'combat quickturn' (think NASCAR pitstop) requires the same number of people for both:
Turn supervisor
Crew Chief
Asst Crew Chief
Weapons #1
Weapons #2
Weapons #3
Roving fuel truck driver
And yes, I was groundcrew on -15's and -16's for a long time.
Re:At last, a crappy project is killed (Score:3, Informative)
Chop the Apache Chopper As Well ? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:At last, a crappy project is killed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I don't care... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.voodoo.cz/falcon/versions.html
"A-16 for the CAS/BAI Missions - In the 1980s, the USAF started setting aside F-16s for the planned A-16 modification, a dedicated close air support version of the F-16. In 1989, the designation Block 60 was reserved for the A-16. The A-16 Block 60 was to be equipped with a 30 mm cannon and provided with a strengthened wing structure for anti-tank weapons such as 7.62 mm min pods. This project failed because the 30 mm gun would heat up and senge the inner components of the left fuselage."
http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.h
"On the same November 26th, 1990, when the USAF was forced to opt for the A-10 in stead of the A-16, the decision was made to retrofit up to 400 existing Block 30 F-16C/Ds with new equipment to perform the CAS (close Air Support) and BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction) missions, effectively killing the A-16 program. Modifications would include a Global Positioning System (GPS), Digital Terrain System (DTS), system hardening, modular mission computer, and an Automatic Target Handoff System (ATHS)."
"In November 1988, the 174th TFW of the New York ANG began transitioning from the A-10A Thunderbolt II to the F-16A/B Block 10, becoming the first unit to operate the F-16 in a close air support role.
"During Desert Storm, their 24 F-16A/B aircraft were equipped to carry the General Electric GPU-5/A Pave Claw pod on the centerline station. The pod houses a 30mm GAU-13/A four-barrel derivative of the seven-barrel GAU-8/A cannon used by the A-10A, and 353 rounds of ammunition. The aircraft received the new designation F/A-16, and were the only F-16s ever to be equipped with this weapon, intended for use against a variety of battlefield targets, including armor."
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau
Re:US Armed Forces Getting Better (Score:2, Informative)
There isn't a government on this earth who can "interdict" an artillery round. Perhaps you are thinking about radar systems that can trace the source of incoming rounds? While the Crusader can drop 8 rounds onto a target at the exact same time (multiple firing solutions) then move to a new location, a hellfire equiped UAV (max 2 currently) has to sit and literally watch his payloads go down range. Hellfires are NOT a fire and forget weapon.
Hellfires are good for destroying slow moving or immobile targets. A scout with a map and bino's can do the exact same thing with artillery.
I know a cadence that goes "Shoot, move, and communicate.. boom boom". I'm sure it's been around for a good long while.. and with reason.
Re: well... (Score:4, Informative)
Intent?
"We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children."
"The more we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed the next war, for the more I see of these Indians the more convinced I am that they allhave to be killed or maintained as a species of paupers. Their attempts at civilization are simply ridiculous."
"The only good Indians I ever saw were dead." -General Willliam T. Sherman
Texas maintained scalp bounties well into the 1870, reducing that state's several million natives to a few thousand by 1880. California after 1849 followed a similar script. Across the west, Indians were forced into concentration camps where their culture was systematically eradicated. Their children were adopted out into white families and shipped off to assimilating boarding schools en masse. As late as the 1970s the BIA was involuntarily sterilizing Indian women. Some researchers belive that by the time that program ended, more than 40% of Indian women of childbearing age had been sterilized.
Re:That plane was flown by a woman pilot (Score:4, Informative)
These are the facts - the media portrayal is different, obviously. *sigh*.
--
NOT FLAMEBAIT. NOT TROLLING. FACTS, IN A PLEASANT LEMON SAUCE, SINCE 1999
Re:Actually, yes, but with a big caveat... (Score:1, Informative)
Apparently the rotor and engine design was also very quiet, so it might of had some advantage in urban and/or guerilla environments over existing choppers, but you still can't sneak up on anyone in a helicopter (Blue Thunder does not exist).
Oh, where I lived in San Diego (La Mesa, near Mt. Helix), the US Customs flew a few MD-500 helicopters with NOTAR. They were probably the closest thing to a quiet helicopter. I did not hear them until they were over the house, unlike any other helicopter, which you can hear for miles. The tail rotors (and supersonic blade tips...) make most of the helicopter's noise. Get rid of the tail rotor...
The Russians already have (Score:3, Informative)