RAH-66 Comanche

"The Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche was an advanced U.S. Army military helicopter intended for the armed reconnaissance role, incorporating stealth techniques. Had it entered service, it would have been the first U.S. helicopter specifically designed for the all-weather armed scout mission and the first 'stealth' helicopter, but it was cancelled in February 2004." en.wikipedia.org...




Hi. I've been looking for any information on why the Commanche got cancelled or if this is a mistake on the authors part? An' if it is cancelled, why?

What will replace it within the American Air Force? Do they have a newer Helicopter in development? If so, what is it.

Links, etc, would be nice.

And if America has stopped this, will this leave a gap in their Helicopter force with Russia's New 'Night Hunter', already gone through testing and now in development?



Thank you.

[edit on 5-3-2005 by Odium]

They scrapped it because there is no point in a stealth helicopter now adays.
I mean who are we fighting?
Terrorists, do terrorists have air superiority fighters?
No, they have RPG'S, AK'S, RPK'S and a few T-72's.
The US army is looking for a cheap mass production helicopter.

I really do hope that’s not the real reason.

If the Bush administration is foolish enough to stop making the RAH-66 Comanche because they don’t need a stealth helicopter to fight terrorists/terrorism, they’re worse then I expected. What about Nations who supposedly harbour terrorists/ If Russia has their way, those Nations will all have the S-400 Anti-Aircraft and Missile defence system, which the Comanche would be a good asset against.

Oh well, looks like another mistake on the Bush administrations policies again.

Also - does anyone know if this is now on the 'Free Market' for some other Nation to buy the design or get Boeing-Sikorsky to make them for their Country instead?

[edit on 5-3-2005 by Odium]

I whole heartly agree,

This in my mind is being short sighed, unlike the F/A-22, there is a clear role for a stealth helcopter, either in the role of anti personnel or anti tank or for that matter tactical transport, some thing along the lines of the stealth NH-90 and the releatively 'stealthy' EH101.

Such a shame, the good programs are dropped and the less capable ones end up taking the biscuit.

- Philip

Its a small helicopter that is stealthy, besides when was the last time the USAF or USA or USMC sent a helicopter to attack a SAM site?
Never, besides I think a S-400 operator is going to notice a large bird going at 54 knots.
There just isnt any real threat to it, they pentagon needs a cheap helicopter and the comanche wasnt it.
Besides anti air defenses are taken out by the F-22's,A-10s and JSF's.
Takeing on a sam site in a comanche isnt a wise thing to do.
Last time I heard they couldnt get it to fire missiles with out crashing.

Originally posted by Odium
I really do hope that’s not the real reason.

It isnt, really. The Comanche was destined to be a cold war relic - a lightweight, fast and mobile forward recon and fire directer helicopter, it wasnt going to be the mainstay battle helicopter, the AH-64 was to be kept in that role indefinately due to the proven airframe.

99% of the role of the Comanche has been covered by ground troops and upgrades to the existing Longbow AH-64s, so there was really no reason to continue to spend out on the Commanche.

You’d not send it up against SAM’s but, more so into battle to cover troops like they do with the Apache. Now, with the NORINCO WZ 551 and other anti-aircraft defence systems that can go into use with tanks to give them cover, would it not be better to get a helicopter that would be harder to target, instead of one that can easily be targeted?

That’s just my thought on it. The Comanche would have been a good addition to the American Army, it would of given them better ability to defend their tanks and soldiers (grunts), from the enemy than the Apache would - given the fact countries like China, Russia, Iran, et al, will all develop systems that can defend against it.

Isn’t it wise to move on and make a newer one that could expose flaws in their systems, instead of sticking with the same - somewhat redundant technology that the world is aware of?

Yeah, richard is right. But that was one of the reasons though I mean the apahce can hold much more ammo than the comnache at half the price.
And as richard said , its pretty much lost its role apart from reacon.
And any how, who's going to win in a helicopter VS tank fight?
The helicopter...

Unless the tanks are covered by WZ 551's, which have a longer range on their missile and longer targetting range then an Apache.

It's about time America fidn an upgraded Apache, because soon they'll find how dated it is - once they stop going to war with smaller, third world nations (Iraq, etc).

Originally posted by Odium
Unless the tanks are covered by WZ 551's, which have a longer range on their missile and longer targetting range then an Apache.

Yeah, but before any attack happens, there is usually a strike by an A-10.

It's about time America fidn an upgraded Apache, because soon they'll find how dated it is - once they stop going to war with smaller, third world nations (Iraq, etc).

There is no one else to fight.
We must fight the smaller ones to keep them inline or so we say.

How about little remote control helicopters with mini rockets and itsy bitsy gatling guns? There we are......sorted. Cheap and efficient. (And im being serious)

Originally posted by Zanzibar
How about little remote control helicopters with mini rockets and itsy bitsy gatling guns? There we are......sorted. Cheap and efficient. (And im being serious)

Thats what UCAV's are all about....ask intergul....local expert.....

I have to agree with devilwasp on this one, the Commanche was just going to be a waste of money for the U.S. It wouldn't be able to take on modern Russian and South African counterparts, didn't have the weapons capacity to make as big of a hit as the Apache and didn't have the armour to withstand battlefield enviroment in any role other then scout. Thorough stealth that close the the ground is a waste of time and money as they will often be subjected to line-of-sight targeted weapons.

some thing along the lines of the stealth NH-90 and the releatively 'stealthy' EH101.

Since when is the NH-90 stealth? I never realized it is, cool chopper though.

The RAH-66 is nice to take out old Zsu-23-4's out with or even SA-6 Gainfuls...

the Mi-28N is one of my favorite attack choppers lately, I like it alot.

And infact, SAM sites are usually taken out by fighters equipted with HARM missiles

The NH90 has a distinctive side profile with a sharp crease running along the side about about halfway up, this is the visual clue that it was designed with stealth in mind, though obviously it is stealthy in the way that the Typhoon is rather than the way in which the major US types are, ie low key, low cost low observables rather than full stealth.



[edit on 7-3-2005 by waynos]

O.K. so it is cancelled, done, dusted, etc.

But, due to the fact it has been cancelled would this make the plane available to the ‘Open Market’, to buy?

Originally posted by Odium
O.K. so it is cancelled, done, dusted, etc.

But, due to the fact it has been cancelled would this make the plane available to the ‘Open Market’, to buy?

Usually aircraft that have been developed for the US Government and then cancelled have never done very well on the export market. Why? Two reasons, firstly the aircraft tends to be very specifically designed with the US military in mind, if the aircarft isnt designed with foreign sales in mind from the start then theres more cost there to convert it from a niche role. Secondly, who else in the world has the budget of the US government?

These aircraft are priced at a point where no other sane government would buy them, simply because they could buy 2 or 3 other aircraft of a similiar capability for the same money. The US government buys them because they want 'the best at any price' and also because it puts money into the US economy and gives Boeing etc more experience at such projects (there was a quote from some guy at the Pentagon I heard once, saying basically that they go through the procurement process for new aircraft every 10 to 15 years regardless of whether ones needed because it helps to pass on the experience within the companies that bid for it)

Both the Boeing X-32 (hmmm thats off the top of my head) and the YF-23 programs were kept alive after they lost the contracts simply because of the foreign sales possibilities. And neither managed to secure any sales at all. Thats the case with most cancelled projects.

I think there is also an element of "If your own air force doesn't want it why should we, we want what your own forces choose to operate"

Now, the reason I was asking this was because;
I thought what if someone like Russia, China, etc, could get a hold of leading American technology. As far as my understanding goes the RAH-66, is better then the Apache? (Correct me if I’m wrong) so, if you could get one of these and then test it against your radar system, missile defence systems, etc. It would be worthwhile to make sure it works and if not advance them/correct any problems you find?

After all, it’s the only way you can really build something to stop something else - isn’t it?

Typically, foreign companies won't buy an American aircraft unless it's in use by the US military; othewise, they run the risk of having the manufacturer cancel logistics support -- which is very important.

We didn't sell the AH-64 until it had been in service with the US Army (not Air Force, by the way; attack helicopters are either Army or Marines) for about five or six years.

Years ago, NG built -- on its own dime -- one of the greatest low-cost fighters in the world -- the F-20 Tigershark. A completely re-designed version of the F-5, it would do stuff that the other low cost fighter, the GD F-16 Lawn Dart, couldn't do, and do it cheaper. It would be the export fighter to end all export fighters.

They didn't sell a single one.

No foreign country wanted to buy an airplane which the USG didn't field and (equally importantly) share in the non-recurring (development, IOT&E) costs.

On a personal point, I consider the adventures of the Comanche to be ironic to the point of hilarity: In 1991 I was on the proposal team fow what was then called the LHX, and our team (McDonnell Douglas / Bell) lost to Boeing / Sikorsky based primarily on sustainability. That was a very bad time; we'd put a year of 60-hour weeks in on that puppy and it went away.

Five years later, we all went over to the Dark Side when Boeing and MD merged. so now the RAH-66 was "our" airplane, and then it went away -- again!