Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Well, come on down to Ft. Rucker and speak to some experts. You can stay at my house, I'm only 10 minutes from post.
I'd tried to get my engineer wife to come and type a bit, but as she is baking a cake right now, she says she has no time for my "silly little board".
You say he is flying the what, now? Why would he now throw rocks at something else? You really don't understand the mentality, do you?
You've spoken to how many of these guys? Really, him, huh? I'm sorry, but the gunslingers around here don't really share is lack of lust for the Longbow, and I've really never known anyone to be enthusiastic about the -58. I mean, never.
A couple more things to point out to you, the Longbow, like the Apache, is not a dogfighter aircraft. It is not necessary that they have extreme maneuverability. They destroy mobile and stationary ground targets, usually from a distance. The added avionics does not interfere with its mission. Plain and simple. The Longbow radar enhances its mission capablity, therefore it is not a waste.
The Commanche, on the other hand, has been a challenge for the guys, as the customer kept adding more and more to the package, really pushing both the airframe and the powerplant. It'll be interesting to see what the jocks say; does it flow through the landscape as silently as a Commanche on recon, or does it lumber like the Commanches 8 3/4 month pregnant squaw?
Dude he never said the Kiowa was better. That's another reason why your "my craft is better than yours" arguement is irrelevant. He wasn't comparing it to his current craft. He was just making a judgement based on what he saw first-hand and discovered.
Since you are at Fort Rucker, I'll trust in a lot of what you say (besides the superiority complex). But I disagree with what you say about the Longbow being able to take targets out at long distances. Aren't you forgetting that in combat, almost nothing is done your way? In other words, the Longbow (like all of America's combat aircraft) is good at long distance. But that doesn't mean it'll always fight at long distance. What if it's being chased by a Ka-50 "Hokum?" If manueverability isn't much of an issue, how can it ever survive combat against other helicopters, enemy fixed-wing fighters, or even against small-arms fire or SAMs?
I'm not army aviator, but it's common sense to be prepared for any contingency.
I do agree with the Comanche. The other guy said the exact same thing about how they just kept adding more and more until it got to be too much. But personally, I think the Comanche is a bust for the reasons I posted earlier.
BTW, did you ever know a Captain Knisely, USA? He's the guy I'm talking about.
And are you serious? Can I really go down to Fort Rucker? I've always wanted to visit the base because the concept of the helicopter being used in the army is absolutely awesome.
[Edited on 12-11-2003 by sweatmonicaIdo]
