Death to the comanche

ErichHartmann · **Death to the comanche -** 04-19-2004, 11:36 AM

Well, I was reading my dads airforce mag at school and there was an article about this matter, So all I could find on the internet about it was this its stange how they cancelled it, I thought the poject would be a great job.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a reason why the military is one of the few areas in which the State
operates successfully. It is Darwinian. Bad soldiers die at a faster rate than good soldiers; bad generals lose battles and are replaced; nations with bad armies cease to exist.

So it is with defense programs in war time. No matter how technically sweet a weapon system may be, it must fulfill an actual current battlefield need. It must be able to survive in the battlefield that actually exists and perform the actual missions required in war as it is, rather than as it was imagined.

So it is with heavy heart we say goodbye to a truly magnificent and now still-born aircraft: the Comanche. The US Army announced it will be cancelled. The money will instead be used to buy more Longbows and Blackhawks and to upgrade survivability across the fleet and especially in the National Guard units.

The SAM's of Iraq spoke... and the US Army listened.

Bazooka_Joe · 04-19-2004, 11:45 AM

Yeah, they cancelled it about three weeks ago. A 2.8 Billion dollar, 13-year project, down the toilet. Yay for tax money! hake:

ninty · 04-19-2004, 11:51 AM

The 2.8 Billion dollars is a sunk cost. When your examining a project, you have to ignore that number and just concentrate on whether the project is benificial or not. Would you rather them complete the project and find that they had made the wrong decision. At that point they would have spent more than 2.8 billion.

Sorry, I've taken so many accounting classes.

imported_Fluffy_Bunny · 04-19-2004, 12:07 PM

Technology can cause one to become myopic, Nasa spend billions desinging a pen to be used in space, the Russians used a pencil. The Brit army spent £££ researching for a next generation all terrain vehicle to be used in places like Afghanistan, the SAS used horses.

The Apache was supposed to be the uber helo of the battlefield. A cold war battlefield. Its sneaky & hides behind trees & buildings, then pops up and takes out a whole tank platoon with hellfires. But fails to spot the lil raghead hiding by the building who then manages to shoot down the Apache with nothing more than a AK.

The USS Cole was one of the most modern warships afloat, she could handle multiple inbound missile threats & counter attack with a mass of devastating weaponry. But she was seriously damaged by a bunch of ragheads in a small inflatable dinghy packed with TNT.

What the military fails to see is, the new war we are fighting now is not a modern war. Our enemy do not have the latest weaponry. All they have is AKs & a camel. The Comanche does not need to be stealthy because the enemy does not even have a damn radar. A World War Two fighter would probably be more appropriate because it could fly past at a significant speed & strafe them...
The military should be concentrating on what is more appropriate to kill the enemy, not technology. But they should also try & keep ahead of china/russia etc.

Machette · 04-19-2004, 01:31 PM

comache seemed like it was going to own

intrestedviewer · 04-19-2004, 01:33 PM

Those the stealth helicopters?

Coleman · 04-19-2004, 01:41 PM

[quote="Fluffy_Bunny":91afd]Technology can cause one to become myopic, Nasa spend billions desinging a pen to be used in space, the Russians used a pencil. The Brit army spent £££ researching for a next generation all terrain vehicle to be used in places like Afghanistan, the SAS used horses.

The Apache was supposed to be the uber helo of the battlefield. A cold war battlefield. Its sneaky & hides behind trees & buildings, then pops up and takes out a whole tank platoon with hellfires. But fails to spot the lil raghead hiding by the building who then manages to shoot down the Apache with nothing more than a AK.

The USS Cole was one of the most modern warships afloat, she could handle multiple inbound missile threats & counter attack with a mass of devastating weaponry. But she was seriously damaged by a bunch of ragheads in a small inflatable dinghy packed with TNT.

What the military fails to see is, the new war we are fighting now is not a modern war. Our enemy do not have the latest weaponry. All they have is AKs & a camel. The Comanche does not need to be stealthy because the enemy does not even have a damn radar. A World War Two fighter would probably be more appropriate because it could fly past at a significant speed & strafe them...
The military should be concentrating on what is more appropriate to kill the enemy, not technology. But they should also try & keep ahead of china/russia etc.[/quote:91afd]good point there

Maplegyver · 04-19-2004, 01:52 PM

the guys on american chopper mad a commanche chopper for no dam reason now cry:

Da_Bian · 04-19-2004, 02:27 PM

Thankfully you can still own one at http://www.victorcharlie.net !!
[img]http://www.victorcharlie.net/forum/shop/images/RAH-66%20Comanche.gif[/img]

Miscguy · 04-19-2004, 02:28 PM

I think people fail to see that the money wasnt wasted. It was spent researching new technoligies as well as building prototypes. So while the aircraft itself may no longer be a viable weapon, or have no tactical use. The gearing behind it may be implimented elsewhere and you may see a whole new generation of helo's down the road that encorperate some parts of what the commanche pioneered. Be it stealth, avionics, or parts.

Madmartagen · 04-19-2004, 02:36 PM

WTF they should bury that stupid contraption the Osprey that keeps crashing and killing our marines. We already have the Apache, why not upgrade that?

Bazooka_Joe · 04-19-2004, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miscguy

I think people fail to see that the money wasnt wasted. It was spent researching new technoligies as well as building prototypes. So while the aircraft itself may no longer be a viable weapon, or have no tactical use. The gearing behind it may be implimented elsewhere and you may see a whole new generation of helo's down the road that encorperate some parts of what the commanche pioneered. Be it stealth, avionics, or parts.

Yeah the research money is refunded, but what about all the choppers they made? They can't just sell the useless choppers on the black market or anything.

ErichHartmann · 04-23-2004, 07:49 PM

[quote="Bazooka_Joe":84406]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miscguy

I think people fail to see that the money wasnt wasted. It was spent researching new technoligies as well as building prototypes. So while the aircraft itself may no longer be a viable weapon, or have no tactical use. The gearing behind it may be implimented elsewhere and you may see a whole new generation of helo's down the road that encorperate some parts of what the commanche pioneered. Be it stealth, avionics, or parts.

Yeah the research money is refunded, but what about all the choppers they made? They can't just sell the useless choppers on the black market or anything.[/quote:84406]

They will put it the grave yard of x-aircrafts.

Short Hand · 04-23-2004, 07:56 PM

some shitty nation will buy them. Most likely a middle eastern nation.

04-23-2004, 07:57 PM

[quote="Short Hand":083cf]some shitty nation will buy them. Most likely a middle eastern nation.[/quote:083cf]

don't think so, even cancelled projects remain classified for some time if they were head and shoulders above other countries' technology. Although I am not sure how much better, since we know little about the Eurocopter Tiger and the Kamov Black Shark