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.

 

Intelgurl RSVP: Re: Comanche Scrapped?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Considering all the $$$ spent on developing the Comanche, is there any speculation of the project being a cover for another Black Project, or was it really just considered cost prohibitive and unnecessary?

I just hate to see all that money go to waste.

Thanks,
DeltaChaos

PSes: a) Nice new avatar! b) Excellent JSF post c) What about the X-37A? Where's that going lately. Did that get dumped too?


[Edited on 2-3-2004 by DeltaChaos]




posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I think that it was much like the crusader. It was seen as to expensive for what was needed in the time frame. Manned craft do not seem to be the wave of the future, and one that combined the high target profile of the comanche with prohibitive cost simply wasn't feasible.

Rumsfeld's military is about improving what you have...why create new bombs when it would be easier to attach a JDAM targeter on the back of an old one.

At the same time I believe that we have something better, and blacker. Whatever we see is only what they want us to...hell, we've been speculating about Aurora for years and we still don't have much better info than we did before



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
You're right about Rummy's vision for our military. It's a damn good thing he fired Shinseki after he proposed phasing out all tracked vehicles, including the M1A1.

That would be an unrecoverable loss. What a DOLT!

I just loved the Comanche. I'm fascinated with military aircraft, but the Apache Longbow (and helicopters in general) was my favorite.

It's really a life experience that can't be compared to anything having the opportunity to ride in a UH-60 tactical with Army aviators.

Yea for helicopters!

DC



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   
The problem was that this helicopter project was started back int he 80s when the soviets were are threat with their power radars and such. That is the reason fo rhte shape. There is no Soviet Union any more and the lone person on the ground witha machine gun and an RPG is the threat. The RAH-66 is too expensive for that. A new helicopter program will be started but it will be cheap and more simple.



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   
If that's the case, we could stick with the AH-64 for another decade. I don't think any other helicopter in a city would be less vulnerable to RPG attack at range.



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I think it was just the army, that did away with them.



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I think it was just the army, that did away with them.


Yeah, only the Army would have them. Nice bad girl!

DC



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Considering all the $$$ spent on developing the Comanche, is there any speculation of the project being a cover for another Black Project, or was it really just considered cost prohibitive and unnecessary?

Ya know, anything is possible.
I am skeptical of that being the case, but it's an interesting thought...
It certainly could be that Boeing-Sikorsky has been funneling money from the Comanche project to some surreptitious black project, after all that's several billion dollars and some of that could have been diverted without attracting much attention.

My opinion:
The US Army was faced with the fact that the Comanche was designed under a philosophy that is changing and although the Comanche is "cool", to keep it would demonstrate a flawed logic.

Apparently, billions of dollars have been devoted to making a stealth helicopter, however - In order to be stealthy it needs to store its weapons in an internal weapons bay. These bays can only hold so much, and beefing up the compliment of weapons by adding external pylons, strips the comanche of it's stealthiness.
Additionally, tactical philosophy is changing... what good would a stealth helicopter be in a situation like Iraq, where Blackhawks and Apaches are falling out of the sky left and right (15 so far) mostly due to RPGs?

As cool as it is to enthusiasts, the Comanche's job can be done with far less expensive helos and UAV's, and Rumsfeld, faced with a mounting war debt is looking to financially streamline the armed forces as much as possible.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

But if rumors began or there were other indications that Boeing Phantom Works was working on some revolutionary black project I would then become very suspicious of the Comanche program...






[Edited on 2-3-2004 by intelgurl]



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Deltachaos,

You might want to think again about your Shinseki comment regardless of where you stand on the track debate. To summerize him as just a "dolt" is pretty ridiculous.

You don't usually get to that level by being a "dolt."

I know quite a few people who served under and with him. I never heard any one of them ever say anything but respectful and good things about him. Af far as I was told, Rummy's quarrel with him was political. Most of them were shocked and disapointed when he was "forced" to step down.

best,
Face

[Edited on 2-3-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Its easy to see the writing on the wall on this one

The comanche, was a mock up of an existing Aerospatile design.

The Apache fits the same mission profile.

The billions filter through this project and into another. Just like the extra billions that were set aside for additional F-22 units but were diverted to another aircraft program.

Battlefield anti-armor will occur with UAV's in the future.

As well as HASB. High Altitude Satellite Bombing.

No need for two battlefield attack helicopters that can be brought down with a $15.00 RPG round.



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
Deltachaos,

You might want to think again about your Shinseki comment regardless of where you stand on the track debate. To summerize him as just a "dolt" is pretty ridiculous.

best,
Face


He was part of my chain of command at one time as well. I think 'DOLT' was a result of my not having thought in the first place. No one gets four stars without brains and integrity.

My point was only that to suggest getting rid of the Abrams was 'doltish'?

Can Do!
DeltaChaos



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 05:03 AM
link   
I agree that it's hard to justify the Comanche in a post-Cold War era - look how hard they had to fight to keep the F-22 and B-2. Attack choppers in an urban environment are just big, fat sitting ducks - expensive ones, too. UCAVs could do the same jobs almost as well, cheaper and in greater numbers.

I think development for the Army (funnily enough) is going to concentrate on UCAVs, smaller tanks and the "super-soldier," ie mobility, armour, firepower, intelligence.

____________________________________________

If you ask me, they should hire the SAS.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Think of it this way, a fast responding, high altitude Launch platform that can launch AG capable UCAV's into the "threat zone".

All the while using combined satellite co-ordination and recon.

No need to bring the hardware to the battlefield level. Just blow them up from a stand off distance.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix

No need to bring the hardware to the battlefield level. Just blow them up from a stand off distance.

Modern warfare such as Iraq has proven the merits and necessity to have air power take out or soften your ground targets, but if you intend on establishing control of the ground you will need to have ground forces and their hardware in place to do it.

By the way Fenix, nice post on the X-45 thread.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Hey thanks,

Yea I agree any time you want to be an "occupier" then you need to have ground units.

But when we are talking about tatical strikes, no need to fly in a copter. When you can take it out with ease.

They used to say that the attack helicopter was just a flying tank, only needed when you need to put your tank up above the building tops.

IMO I think its a waste of resources if you have the ability to "see down" at any target you wish to observe. Just lock in its GPS Cords and send some autonymous "destroyers" its way.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
The US Air Force already has something of a flying tank/artillery platform. This beast is the AC130 Specter Gunship.

img.photobucket.com...
www.fas.org...



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Dreamstone
Rumsfeld's military is about improving what you have...why create new bombs when it would be easier to attach a JDAM targeter on the back of an old one.

What about the SDB, the future of bombings, they relized in Iraq that always using a 2,000 lb bomb is a bit overkill, so the bomb of the future will be the Small Diameter Bomb, it can have tiny wings on it that siccor out makeing it able to fly 70 miles till it hits the target, in heavy defended areas thats very important. The Raptor will be able to hold 8 of them all internally. with the right config the B-2 could hold 216, now thats impressive, with one load you could do alot of damage and have it be vary widespread.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 12:15 AM
link   
A good friend of mine is a Longbow pilot, he comes from an Army family and is pretty well connected. He waited around for a while to see what was going to become of the commache program to determine where he would go after the Apache. According to him, there were several Army top brass that just didn't want the Commanche, and they were fighting the program all the way. The real purpose of the Commanche was recon, but with all the new Darkstart type aircraft we have now, and development of smaller, quieter unmanned helicopters, the idea of the Commanche just didn't make sense in our modern military. Such a shame for such a cool aircraft.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 01:50 AM
link   
A lot of people seem to think that Commanche was a good example of where a lot of US Aircraft Research has been going ....Started in the 80s and Researched and Priced out of existence.

It seems that the money might be getting siphoned off....more likely someones management bonus. Building planes cost money.you have to employ workers. Better to pour it into R&D prototypes until it gets axed. Money for nothing, plus more to refit old airframes with new tech.

Is that at the back of anyone elses mind?

A-12 Avenger, Commanche gone.
Osprey still trying to transition....from operational concept to operational hardware. When Ospreys start flying combat and taking bullets and keep flying, well then I'd like to see them in RAAF colours.
F-22 gets more and more expensive and fewer and fewer. Bets on $2 billion dollars per plane = 4 ten plane squadrons?
F-35 son of Raptor
AL-1s Airframes aqquired money committed but the laser and targetting systems "having problems"

Australians find it scary. Our Defence budget is AUS$15 Billion p.a. The last three fighter programs we ran: Avon Sabre (Aussie F-86) late 1950s...113 airframes; Mirage III late 1960s...116; F-18A/B Hornet late 1980s.....75

Next F-35 already committed to R&D cost sharing......??airframes in 2015?.

We are worried about getting something we cant afford, without an option to fall back on. Our jets will be too old, and F-15 will be out of production like the rest.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 02:01 AM
link   
UCAVs are the future.

I read we were hearing the same thing about Nukes, ICBMS and SAMS in the late 1950s....unfortunately a lot of politicians and budget people listened.

I beleive they declared the day of manned fighters and bombers was over.

Then they discovered phrases like "recall the bombers" and "low intensity conflicts" and "D.A.S.H. program"

Unfortunately it killed a lot of good manned programs like TRS.2 and CF-100.

I still question their reliability and I beleive there is a danger of turning war into a nintendo game if you remove the human on the scene element.

I beleive UAVs and UCAVs have a role, but in supplementing manned aircraft, not replacing them



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join