It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rah-66 or Apache

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I've been wondering will the U.S. Army stick with the Apache or Go with the stealth RaH-66 Comanche?

RaH-66 www.fas.org...

Apache= www.fas.org...




posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
The program was cancelled a couple months ago, please research the topic before you post about it.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
The RAH-66 wasn't a replacement for the AH-64. It was an addition to the Army inventory.
Since the War Futures don't indicate a war in Europe anymore, the '66's reason for being went away.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
The Comanche was cancelled because UAV's have made it's intended mission redundant. Too bad, it was quite a slick little machine, but one that took so long to develop that it would have been obsolete before it ever entered service.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   
RAH-66 has nothing on the AH-64, the Apache is not as stealthy as the Comanche, but it sure as hell can pack more of a punch.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I still think the apache looks better than the comanche....but thats just an opinion.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
C'mon DW look at these two pictures, it obvious the Comanche is sleek, sexy looking. The Apaches is a mean machine but not better looking than the Comanche.






posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
C'mon DW look at these two pictures, it obvious the Comanche is sleek, sexy looking. The Apaches is a mean machine but not better looking than the Comanche.


No chance, its too angled and not sleek at all.
Give me a lynx or apache anyday.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Ahh, yet another thing we disagree on. Tell me have we ever agreed on anything?, just for the record.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ahh, yet another thing we disagree on. Tell me have we ever agreed on anything?, just for the record.

Well we agreed that the apache is a badass...oh and that you wanted to be in my story...



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23


Sorry, but when we´re talking about looks, The Apache always reminds me of this:



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24
Sorry, but when we´re talking about looks, The Apache always reminds me of this:

Ah the dreaded hunter killer hamster, most deadly ground warfare weapon created.
Much deadlier than the morocan monkeys but not as advanced as the german sheaperd.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Military planners seldom choose a weapons system based on its looks (although I am convinced one of the reasons Boeing lost the JSF procurement was the hideousness of its entrant versus that of the Lockmart F-35).

But I don't think any of the reasons quoted above were the sole reason the Comanche was cancelled. It was originally designed to supplement the AH-64A Apache, being lighter, cheaper, somewhat more stealthy (you can't do much about the main rotor blade, no matter how much you'd like to), and would have a much more modern and capable C4I2 suite.

Ironically, when I was working at MD back in 1990 I worked on the losing MD-Bell proposal for, as it was called back then, AHX; we offered a NOTAR configuration and were beaten by the Bad Guys at Boeing-Sikorsky. When Boeing and MD merged, it suddenly became "our"airplane.

But by then, the Army had decided to go ahead with converting the AH-64As to the D-model configuration (with or without the Lockmart Longbow fire control radar). This conversion cost more than the original A-model itself, but resulted in an airplane many times more lethal. As a result, one of the big rationales (C4I2 capability) went away, and, since the Comanche was still fighting a weight problem and was behind schedule and over budget, the Army killed it.

Of course, at its death there was the usual blathering about how the Comanche's technology would live again, and some of it has; but the only new Army manned rotary wing procurement, the ARH (which is still in procurement) will probably end up with older and smaller aircraft (MD 530 little birds and Bell JetRangers) with some upgraded avionics and C4I2 packages.

[edit on 13-6-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Yes I too thought that the Boeing X-35 jet lost because of how ugly and horrendous it looks.

Boeing


Lockheed



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Well Boeing hasn't worked on a fighter plane since...since...hell, I don't even remember! too long for me to remember!

So, a pretty good shot non-the-less!

I personally liked the X/F-35's looks, it looks alot like the Raptor, I actually like the F-35's looks quite a bit.

Lonestar, LMAO, funny one, the AH-64 Hamste...err I mean Apache looks quite a bit like our furry friends the Hamster.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Boeings latest Jet and its current fighter jet is the F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet. All build by Boeing, the F/A-18 is ok but Lockheed build better fighters.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
RAH-66 Commanche = Recon Attack Helicopter-66

AH-64 Apache = Attack Helicopter-64

From this you can see, the Comanche is meant mainly for an Recon role, with also some abilitly as an attack helicopter. The Apache on the other hand, is designed just for an attack role. No points for guessing which one is heavier armed and heavier armored (Apache of course), but the Comanche is obiously more stealthy and quiet.

And yes, the Apache does look like a Hamster.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I think the AH-1 Cobra is awesome. It'll take on the Apache anyday.
maybe..I dunno.


And the F/A-18 is good to go....hands down, other than the F-22, it's the best in fighter in the US's arsenal.

[edit on 14/6/2005 by SportyMB]




top topics



 
0

log in

join