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."
NOOOOO!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:NOOOOO!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:NOOOOO!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:NOOOOO!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:NOOOOO!!! (Score:5, Funny)
A single helicopter taking out hundreds of armed military personnel, dozens of tanks, handfulls of other helicopters, jets, submarines, battleships, chemical weapons plants, anti-aircraft vehicles and artillery, missile launchers, and terrorists on snowmobiles on a single tank of gas isn't realistic because some vaporware military project got scrapped? I've only got one thing to say to you...
pass THAT shit...
Re:NOOOOO!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:NOOOOO!!! (Score:4, Funny)
For those with no idea of what I'm talking about see here [discovery.com] and scroll about halfway down the page for one of the sweetest theme based motorcycles ever.
Re:NOOOOO!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Bummer.... (Score:3, Funny)
http://store6.yimg.com/I/hobby-warehouse_1772_8
ok.... (Score:5, Funny)
If it was open source (Score:4, Funny)
Re:If it was open source (Score:5, Funny)
Sheesh!
Re:If it was open source (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If it was open source (Score:5, Funny)
I don't care... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I don't care... (Score:5, Interesting)
Loved watching them do thier thing on the Fort Drum gunnery range. Had the fortune of having an Apache do a pop-up over a hill while I was driving by one afternoon. Scared the bejesus out of me.
Re:I don't care... (Score:5, Interesting)
I love the A-10, too, but it is planned to be replaced by the F-35 eventually. Not sure that will happen, though; I recall reading back around 1990 that the A-10 was to be replaced by the F-16. However, it proved its worth in the Gulf War, and remained in front-line duty.
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: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.
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
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.
It's been many years... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ultra-high bypass engines--- Really almost jet powered ducted fans---exhaust over the tail.
The same cowling shields against IR from the side. The engine core is in 3/4" thick armor.
You have to be almost directly behind AND above an A10 to get a good IR sig... Not likely if you are on the ground.
It is also one of the few conceivable designs that can probably _take_ a direct hit BY such a weapon, and still get home. It was designed to take direct hits from 23mm Soviet AA guns... Not recommended in an F/A16, or much else for that matter, short of an M1.
The A10 is also an absolute maintenance dream, with minor exceptions, and likely takes less manpower/hr than anything in the USAF inventory.
Unless the A35 works a WHOLE LOT like an A10 in real use, it is destined to go the way of the Comanche.
I suggest doing with the A10s something like what the Germans did with their F4s---remanufacture them to current specs, current avionics... take the 100s of "retired" airframes out in the desert and remanufacture them, better,stronger, faster etc.
23rd CRS/ECM, Go Flying Tigers!
Will still cost money to close the program... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Will still cost money to close the program... (Score:4, Insightful)
Boeing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Boeing (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't say the Apache has had a dismal performance in desert environments. In fact - if you look at all the apaches- not just those flown by the U.S. in the middle east- you could say that their performance has been exceptional.
Re:Boeing (Score:5, Interesting)
Drones made it obselete (Score:5, Insightful)
The lesson here is that design to deployment windows have to become shorter, when platforms take time measured in decades, that's just too long. Smaller, quicker, faster, cheaper.
Re:Drones made it obselete (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Drones made it obselete (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:yet again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:yet again (Score:5, Funny)
Your new to american politics, aren't you?
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Bradley (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bradley was designed to fullfil two dual roles: armored personel carrier and light tank. It does neither well. For 1/10'th the cost of each Bradley, we could use improved M-113's and M-151 Sheradins.
Most people do not realize the magnitude of US military spending. Sure, we should have the most powerful military in the world. Maybe even spend more than the next 3 or 4 adversaries combined. But today, we spend more than the next 25 nations in the world *combined*. At the current rate of increase, the US will soon be spending more on its military than the rest of the world *combined*. That is, IMO, a bit too much.
Cheers,
Rob
Re:The Bradley (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, it's better to spend lots of money on a big army than to have tens-of-thousands die trying to take out the next dictator.
BTW, I think we should choose WHERE to spend the money a little better, but I'm fairly happy with the size of our military.
Re:The Bradley (Score:4, Insightful)
Or even a US giving us a run for our money?
South Africa was sanctioned for doing things the US is getting away with today.
Re:The Bradley (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the silliest thing I've heard in a while. This old saw worked when there was a Soviet Union to at least maintain the pretense of holding up the other end of an arms race. There is really no good reason to run a race when you are the only runner.
When the rest of the world came to its senses and wound down the money they wasted on arms it was insane for the U.S. to accelerate its already massive defense spending. All of our weapons are a decade or more ahead of the rest of the world already. Most of these weapons are borderline useless:
- in a war against guerillas in the mountains of Afghanistan
- They work great against a feeble military like Iraq's except most army's have learned by now the best strategy is to melt away when the American's actually start their war and then pick them off one by one during the occupation when the only weapons the American's have that matter are body armor and M-16's. For all the money the U.S. spend the U.S. Army in Iraq has next to no real superiority over the insurgent army they are fighting
There are only a couple explanations why we keep up this massive spending, neither of them good:
- The U.S. government has adopted a policy of overwhelming military superiority which is designed to make sure no one will dare challenge the U.S. or attempt to start a new arms race because they will be so far behind. It might be OK if the U.S. had this overwhelming superiority if our government could be trusted to use it sparingly and wisely. Recent events suggest they can't be trusted. You may be concerned about the "next dictator" who dares to challenge the U.S. The entire rest of the world is gravely concerned about an out of control, dangerous, American President. In everything coming out of Russia in recent weeks it appears they are going to try to restart the arms race precisely because the U.S. never stopped and is now abusing its power at ever turn.
- Boeing and Lockheed, among others, are very dependent on this spending for their profitability. They require a continuing stream of these exhorbinant defense contracts to remain profitable. The fact is EVERY contract has massive cost overruns and is massively behind schedule because these companies are milking every contract for all they can get out of it. Since half the generals in the Pentagon take lucrative jobs at these contractors when they retire they have zero incentive to keep these contracts under control. These Defense contractors are also huge benefactors of the Republican's in particular and they get paid back a million times over for the campaign contributions. You just have to look at the sordid underbelly of the 767 tanker deal to realize the DOD is there primarily to transfer tax money to big defense contractors.
The big plus about all these defense contracts is they are a stellar jobs program, and defense jobs are among the very few which are somewhat harder to outsource than the average.
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.
Perhaps Iraq had something to do with it (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile, the Warthog [google.com] showed it could go into battle, get banged up and survive. Take a look at the wing photo to see what I mean.
Re:Perhaps Iraq had something to do with it (Score:5, Insightful)
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:yet again (Score:5, Insightful)
So after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we realize that drones are effective, useful and reliable. And cheap. So now that we have proof, we cancel the project. It would be more wasteful to cancel programs willy-nilly without a combat test of the alternatives.
If it's any consolation, most of the technological advances that went into the program (improved usability, reduced radar cross section, engine reliability, data aggregation, etc) are not lost. They'll find their way into other projects soon enough-- including drones.
Look, these systems take decades to finish. The whole time you're guessing about the future and what it will look like. Production is much more expensive than R&D usually (in the quantities the DoD buys in). So you do what you can.
The Paladin artillery system was cancelled for similar reasons. I'd rather have a weapon ready if it's needed then have to wait ten years to invent it. And I'd rather cut my losses if it turns out to be unnecessary than buy it just because I already have money on the table.
No longer needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No longer needed (Score:5, Funny)
missouri (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:missouri (Score:3, Funny)
So out of date! (Score:4, Funny)
RPG's (Score:5, Insightful)
Good move (Score:5, Insightful)
I Know Why They Cancelled It! (Score:5, Funny)
That let the Tiger without competition (Score:5, Interesting)
The Tiger [army-technology.com] attack helicopter.
The Tiger may well be the last manned combat helo, the battlefield of the future belongs to drones it seems...
The Teutels (Score:5, Funny)
Good for them. (Score:5, Interesting)
In that amount of time. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Interesting link here:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040223/D
"The Comanche decision reflects a growing realization in the Pentagon that the military has more big-ticket weapons projects in the works than it can afford, even after seeing the Pentagon budget grow by tens of billions of dollars since 2001. And it the reflects the rising popularity of unmanned aircraft, for surveillance as well as attack missions, in recent years."
"From the first days of the Bush administration there has been talk of canceling a number of major aviation projects, including the Marine Corps' V-22 Osprey hybrid helicopter-airplane and the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor fighter jet, but so far the Comanche has been the only casualty."
Re:Good for them. (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, that's almost like wasting my entire life up until this point. What kind of fool would make a mistake like that?
Anyway, I'm going back to reading Slashdot, watching Star Wars, and eating pringles in my darkened basement bedroom until it's time to play some D&D. Later guys.
--Dan
New Facilities at Ft Rucker (Score:5, Interesting)
The flying tank model is out (Score:5, Interesting)
The Army needs helicopters to move soldiers around the battlefield, but with so many other ways of directing fire (much more accurate indirect fire through Paladin [army.mil] systems, for example), and better coordination with the fast-movers (the Air Force and Army have a ways to go in this regard, but they're getting better [theatlantic.com]), the days of the wannabe Hind are over.
Say what you will about Rumsfeld, but he has at least made the top brass look long and hard at all the systems in the pipeline to be sure they match future needs.
This is a good thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ultimately though - the savings that will come as a result of scrapping the project, even with the billions that were already sunk into it, will still save the economy several billions of dollars.
I'm for it, especially considering that it's replacement are UAVs.
Stealth Helo? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is my problem with it- don't those big blades spinning around on top create a nice big disc that is going to bounce radar right back? Will any rotary wing aircraft ever be very stealthy? I never understood this helicopter.
Re:Stealth Helo? (Score:4, Funny)
It really isn't hard at all. All the pilot does is say "Stealth mode, on!" and the helicopter both becomes completely silent and emits nor reflects any EM radiation. Not only that, the pilot can completely see through all walls via high-power high-resolution IR scopes. The main, although top secret, reason the military builds these helicopters is to spy on sorority houses during rush week.
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.
Actually, yes, but with a big caveat... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trouble is, in today's conflicts, a scout helicopter doing it's job is going to be taking all sorts of fire from guerillas or terrorists jumping out of cars and buildings firing RPGs, MANPADS, and automatic weapons. This was a non-issue in a big conventional war in Europe (or Korea for that matter). There's no way to be stealthy flying over a city. 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).
At $59M a pop, there was no way the Commanche can be bought (if Congress fights this, I'll be spewing email at my Congress-critters to knock it off). You can't pay that much (nearly as much as a JSF is going to cost) for something that as a previous poster pointed out can be shot down by some phanatic with a cheap disposable rocket.
The reason it has taken this long to kill Commanche is that Congress, despite their protestations against a myriad of defense programs over the years, doesn't like to cancel projects because the military procurement budget is the single largest jobs program in the Federal budget. Hell, for two decades they've been trying to kill the B-1 bomber and now they're trying to get the AF to put 21 retired aircraft back in service! It's also a matter of prestige and getting their slice of the procurement pie for the services--what will the Army do to recruit kids without cool weapons to feature in commercials. Plus there's been an unhealthy career track in the military for program managers--instead of fighting for a living, alot of military now do R&D for a living. If your project goes down, there goes you chances for promotion (and perhaps even that lucrative private sector job with a defense contractor).
What the Army needs are some new medium and heavy transport helicopters; something that can get up into the mountains easier in Afghanistan. They can certainly do with some new OH-58s, perhaps with beefier engines and more armor to enable them to take some hits and keep flying. The poor Marine Corps is still flying 40+ year old SH-46 Sea Knights that are only flying because of the herculean effort of Marine mechanics to keep them stuck together. There are a lot of places to spend that $38B that would both increase lethality of our military and better protect our troops.
The trouble is that helicopters, like so many defense systems, have just gotten too expensive due to a combination of gold plating, constantly increasing requirements, and reduced procurement. We used to buy thousands of an aircraft, now we buy hundreds. Stated another way, we used to buy Camrys, now we buy Porsches. The Commanche was the ultimate in gold plating of a project. Ask a pilot over in Iraq or Afghanistan what they'd like and I'm sure they'd tell us something that's rugged, reliable, and easy to fly (oh, and has modern anti-missile systems on board). I'm not saying stop buying Porsches when they're called for, but helos are not the place to be spending that kind of scratch. Take that 38 billion and you can completely upgrade all the current helo inventory with modern anti-missile systems and replace the oldest in inventory with new airframes so our kids aren't flying planes twice as old as they are.
--Len Quam
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:Stealth Helo? (Score:3, Insightful)
Firstly, it's got a much lower radar profile than any other helicopter in use today. Curved surfaces with very few sharp angles keep radar from bouncing off it sharply. Radar absorbing paint, etc etc also help to reduce radar visibility.
Secondly, the comanche pumps its engine heat directly through the body onto the tail rotor, which blows and diffuses hot air away from the chopper quickly. If you view a comanche throu
Maybe.... (Score:3, Funny)
At least he would be interested in buying the prototype.
too many changes? (Score:3, Insightful)
it's similar to software development. the first idea was pretty cool, then investors want their 'good' ideas to be included, then the 'testers' want their 'cool' ideas in that too, and nothing ever happens.
What is the most invulnerable US weapons system? (Score:5, Funny)
That would have to be the one with sub-contractor in every Congressional district.
Good. UAVs are better & cheaper. (Score:3, Interesting)
Friend of mine is an airline pilot, and even he will admit that it's likely his career will be cut short by advancing tech.
(OT: and since tech is advancing exponentially [kurzweilai.net], it'll replace many more jobs than it creates, which is too bad if you live a country where welfare is still a dirty word.)
--
Commanche (Score:4, Funny)
This means that GUI for our-favorite-web-browser-that's-also-named-after a-helicopter won't have to change it's name suddenly and unexpectedly like all those other open source programs that had nothing to do with whatever else it was that had the same name first.
Uh. Yeah. Good news, that.
Moon race revisited. (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, how much of that $20 Billion went into basic research that will still be valid the next time someone wants to build a chopper? Wind tunnel data for example doesn't all of a sudden change without reason.
How much of that work led to new systems/ improvements to existing systems that either has allteady been deployed to other choppers, or can resonably be expected to show up in follow on versions and refits of existing choppers?
How much of that money was spent on basic science and engineering whose results will be applied thousands of times in follow-on development projects?
What about all the various lessons learned during the process of design to prototype, is that knowledge lost because the Commanche never went to production?
Lastly, the program was scrapped because the environment which dictated the original requirements is gone, and the new landscape tends to militate against a need for the platform as designed. Several people allready identified areas which ought to be addressed in follow-on designs. The choice to shut down the project as opposed to trying to re-invent it midstream is a money saver, not a money loser. The decision as easily could have been to impose new requirements on an existing project (cough cough B2 cough cough) extending the project by another $20 Billion, still with no production model at the end...
But... where's my AIRWOLF? (Score:3, Funny)
What a waste (Score:3, Interesting)
And while we're on the subject, we already have more Apaches than we'll ever use they're all around the country at various units not deployed anywhere.
At last, a crappy project is killed (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think the Apache is overpriced ($25 million per unit), too. Remember in the First Gulf War, when they couldn't fly them because the sand damaged their engines? The Cobras flew in that, no problem.
The Comanche was a perfect example of feature creep, a bloated over-thinking of the helicopter's function as a weapon. The cost-per-copy, too, would simply have been too big a burden. Simple, durable, well-designed inexpensive weapons (like the Cobra or A-10 Warthog) are much more effective weapons than machines costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per copy, because if it is damaged--or if you lose one--it is far cheaper to repair or replace.
Re:At last, a crappy project is killed (Score:3, Informative)
The Bradley Fighting Vehicle (Score:4, Insightful)
"Next generation"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Classic government boondoggle (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's an awesome machine, but to spend $8 billion over 20 years and still not be in production is indefensible. It's only a helicopter. You can be sure that if the Army really needed it, it would only have taken a few years to start production.
Back in 1992, I was almost hired by Sikorsky to work as a co-op on this project. They already had an airframe back then. What have they been doing in the 12 years since then? Busy work to keep those multi-million dollar payments coming.
Beyond that, the experiences of the US military in Kosovo and Iraq suggest pretty strongly that the whole attack helicopter concept is flawed. They are too slow, too low, and too vulnerable.
Probably the whole reason the Army ever came up with attack helicopters is that they are forbidden to operate fixed-wing aircraft.
Re:Classic government boondoggle (Score:3, Interesting)
*BZZZRT* Oh I'm sorry. That's incorrect. Here have this loving parting gift of Rice-a-Roni [ricearoni.com] "The San Francisco Treat".
In Kosovo, the army didn't use Apache helicopters. NATO only used fixed wing aircraft. That's it. Just attack jets. No men. No boats. Definatly no helicopters. Gen. Clark (SACEUR at the time)
Soviet Russia invincible! (Score:3, Funny)
The 20 year-old Soviet weapons must be damned good!
Suck-Up Journalisim (Score:3, Insightful)
What was the point of that comment? Can you name me one "open source" helicopter that has ever succeeded in a tactical role, or did you just feel the need to slip that in there in order to feel more trendy here on slashdot? It's hard to suck-up to your audience more blatantly than that... Why didn't you just add "Imagine a beowulf cluster of those!" while your adding popular, yet ultimately pointless slashisms?
As far as the expendature goes, I'd rather them spend the money, even if it did ultimately fail to turn out a uselful end product. It's the cost of doing business when your looking for the ideal tactical advantage. Some will cost money and fail, while others, like the Tomahawk, Predator, F22 Raptor and JSF succeed. Don't get your panties in a bind, it happens. It sucked so they shut it down. And even in failure I'm sure they surmounted a number of engineering difficulties in designing the thing, stuff that can be applied to other projects that will succed because of Comanche's development. trying to stealth a helicopter has got to teach you something useful, which can be applied to existing helicopters.
Off shore it (Score:5, Funny)
Excellent G2mil editorial on Comanche (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Irony.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It was discovered most of the Soviet Weapons were a bluff and it took this long to scrap the program.
No conflict of interests here, move along...
ob: In Soviet Russia, weapons scrap YOU!
First they came (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they came for Crusader, for we knew that the battle field of the future would have no place for artillery.
Then they came for Comanche, for we knew that the future battlefield would be observed by drones.
When they came for Osprey we knew that our Marines could maintain antique helicopters better than anyone in the world.
When they came for Raptor we saw that the Eagle would always triumph over Sukhoi, even as the airframes passed the pilots in age.
And when the military was transformed, into a light nimble counter-terrorism and peacekeeper force the hordes of the Red Army descended on Taiwan and we realized our mistake, but there was none to counter them.
Re:First they came (Score:3, Funny)
US Armed Forces Getting Better (Score:3, Insightful)
The Virginia class submarine is better than the Seawolf and anything the russians have on paper or in the water.
The Crusader is stupid because it fires relatively slow rounds that can be interdicted in flight. Hellfire equipped UAVs on station can provide better artillery support.
Drones will observe the battlefield better than the Comanche, and you can send robots on suicide missions.
It would be really nice if the Osprey would work, but it simply doesn't.
The Raptor is being procured. If it can beat ro
Re:Irony.. (Score:3, Funny)
True. Unfortunately, in the United States, you don't scrap weapons.
Re:Irony.. (Score:4, Interesting)
They do, kind of...It's called "war".
Re:Irony.. (Score:5, Interesting)
There has been a long standing history of the 2 nations responding to weapons (or threat of weapons). The XB-70 scared the Soviets so much that they developed a whole class of fighters (the MiG-25 series) to counter what they saw as a serious threat. America built 2 B-70's and abanoned the project when they realized that high level super-sonic strikes would never succeed.
I think the fact that the Army is looking at unmanned aircraft to handle some of these missions is a good move. It should make for some interesting projects. I think it would be an advantage to be able to send a weapon into a very dangerous situation - one that would be a suicide mission - and not risk the life of our troops. Trained men costs more than machines. Germany and Japan in World War II were still able to produce airplanes even though most of their experienced pilots were killed. Unmanned vehicles would make for a much more efficient and stronger fighting force.
I just hope they don't outsource the software for unmanned vehicles over-seas.
Re:Irony.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Irony.. (Score:3, Funny)
Bad movie reference over... move along.
Re:Stupid pentagon procurement process... (Score:4, Interesting)
I once saw a statistic in the Harper's digest that stated that the Pentagon cannot account for well over a trillion dollars in missing expenses. Now, in the real world, financial mis-management on this scale would be punishable by some serious prison time, but for the Petagon, it's just another "Ooops! Our bad!"
Re:Native American Names (Score:5, Interesting)
Permission is requested from the Tribal Elders and the proposed name is used only if permission is granted. At the roll out ceremony for the aircraft, representatives of the tribe are honored guests and a Native American ceremony to bless the aircraft is performed.
Re:Native American Names (Score:3, Interesting)
It's like Suburbs... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:well... (Score:3, Insightful)
No it would be more like the German Air force having attack aircraft called Stalingrad or Maginot.
I do not profess that the results of manifest destiny on the native American population within the US borders did not result in atrocities. However, when properly armed native Americans were a formidable foe. Most nations respect formidable foes. Naming a powerful class of war machine after a former foe _is_ a way a military shows respect.
Re:well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:well... (Score:3, Funny)
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.