Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
1/8/2007 3:09:39 PM EDT
Did I hear correctly in a thread from last week that the Comanche development was cancelled?  I hope I misinterpreted what I thought I read.  I thought it was supposed to have gone operational in '06 or '07.  The Apache is great, but the design is more than 20 years old, right?  Why cancel the Comanche other than $$$?

Blake
1/8/2007 3:19:50 PM EDT
[#1]
Yeah, it was cancelled in '04.
1/8/2007 3:20:47 PM EDT
[#2]
The Comanche got the axe a long time ago.

And why cancel it after all the $$$ spent in development? I dunno. Go ask the Gov. They seem good at wasting lots of money and ending up with nothing in return. Several of our latest projects have ended up going that route. There was the M8 Buford intended for replacing the old Sheridan in airborne units. Then the Crusader SP artillery system. Then the Comanche. Then the F-22 got the crap cut out of it. The Stryker amanged to make it. I guess we'll have to see what happens with the F-35. But it sure seems the people making these decisions need to learn much earlier in the game what is gonna be feasible and what ins't and cancel before we get asshole deep in development costs before we cut it.

Oh, the Comache wasn't intended to replace the Apache. It was intended more so as a replacement for the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior and the older Cobras that were still being used until recently by some scout units I think.

They ended up going with what is basically a souped up version of the Kiowa. It is the Bell ARH-70, a version of the Bell 407:



1/8/2007 3:24:17 PM EDT
[#3]
Gotcha.  I guess I just wasn't paying attention with the Comanche progress.    Thanks.

Blake
1/8/2007 3:30:02 PM EDT
[#4]
Is was predominantly a question of where to spend the available money to best address how Army Aviation fights.  The following chart summarizes this, and the Army chose the left side of the balance.


1/8/2007 3:33:49 PM EDT
[#5]

Quoted:
Is was predominantly a question of where to spend the available money to best address how Army Aviation fights.  The following chart summarizes this, and the Army chose the left side of the balance.

www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/02/040223-d-6570c-003.jpg


So what are you trying to say?

I think it died when the Army got their Apaches shot up by ground fire. A stealth helo doesn't do much good against the Mk1 eyeball.
1/8/2007 3:55:02 PM EDT
[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Is was predominantly a question of where to spend the available money to best address how Army Aviation fights.  The following chart summarizes this, and the Army chose the left side of the balance.

www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/02/040223-d-6570c-003.jpg


So what are you trying to say?

I think it died when the Army got their Apaches shot up by ground fire. A stealth helo doesn't do much good against the Mk1 eyeball.


I don't know if that one instance played a role, but it's certainly true that stealth isn't too important for what's going on right now in the sandbox.  Your example is a good one.  

Also, Comanche was to be "the quarterback of the digital battlefield."  This attribute of Comanche went away with the realization that block upgrades to Apache would be an easier and cheaper way to put the needed communication/coordination technology on the battlefield.
1/8/2007 4:16:00 PM EDT
[#7]
i wish they would have kept the commanche in the works, really cool, i knew someone working on that project