Pentagon to Cancel Comanche Helicopter

[Red aRRow]

Pentagon to Cancel Comanche Helicopter
Mon February 23, 2004 03:17 PM ET

By Will Dunham and Chelsea Emery
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Defense Department is scrapping the $38 billion RAH-66 Comanche helicopter program being developed by Boeing Co. and United Technologies Corp., government sources said on Monday.

The Pentagon plans to announce the decision on the armed reconnaissance and light attack helicopter, which has been in development for about two decades, at a news conference at 4:30 p.m., the sources said.

The Pentagon has already spent about $8 billion on the project and had planned to spend $30 billion more. The cancellation, which could mean jobs cuts at Boeing and United Tech's Sikorsky Aircraft unit, follows the scrapping of another long-range firepower Army weapons system, the Crusader artillery gun, in 2002.

Shares of United Technologies were down 3 percent in afternoon trading, while Boeing shares slipped 1.5 percent.

Rest of the news

 

[mysterious]

I think its the right decision. Given US budget deficit and $400b on defence, it would be better for the US to work on its current problems and not carry out such ambitious adventures which don't hold much promise to pay off.

 

[Roger Smith]

Bad decision by Pentagon and lose of hi-tech helicopter in the making.

You never know, if there is a new administration in the White House, the Comanche Helicopter project may be revived again.

 

[Gremlin29]

I was floored by the news. It has been a very slow development however it promised to introduce alot of new and interesting missions possibilities for the Army. I actually half hoped that it's ease of use would increase procurement numbers to nudge out the AH-64's. Ultimately it's very difficult to swallow the loss of this program particularly with a Republican in the White House. Perahaps it's grandstanding to release funding, a maneuver I've seen and experienced first hand. It may, or may not be revived at a later date, only time will tell.

 

[Red aRRow]

Gremlin I was waiting for your response man. I knew you would be surprised by this news. I really liked the Comanche but guess the Pentagon had its reasons.

 

[Gremlin29]

I've already had 3 cohorts call me tonight. We are all dismayed by the decsission. It's impossible to say with any degree of intelligence wether or not it should have been canceled without knowing all the details. Boeing/Sikorsky was named the winner back in 91 and I am more than upset as a tax payer that 13 years later they are finally figuring out that it's not gonna produce? The real shame is that there's a long chain of individuals that are culpable for wasting all that money, and they'll never be held accountable. The only glimmer of hope I have for the program is that there are plenty of other systems that have been killed and revived...now I have some crying to do.

 

[Red aRRow]

now I have some crying to do.

I hope its not a political stunt by Dubya, in trying to show that he is scuttling presumed "white elephant" projects.

 

[Gremlin29]

It very well could be Shamayel. It could also be a Democratic punch meant to lure out the Republicans to stand up for a very expensive project at a time when the country is looking at a very huge defecit and debt. Unfortunately (and fortunately for good reason) the US armed forces are at the control and whim of the elected officials which in theory means that it is an instrument of the peoples will. The down side is that politicians have and will used the armed forces for social experimentation (not always bad) and as well as a tool for campaign promises and a host of other less admirable motives. Ultimately it's a crime against the American people to either allow a failure program to run so long and spend so much money or to cancel it for the sake of political gain. I doubt Comanche was gonna single handidly revolutionize warfare even if it lived up to all of it's promises (and weapons systems rarely do) however I personally think it would have been a tremendous assett particularly in the LIC's the US Army has been thrown into the last 10 or so years, anybody remember the troubles the AH-64's had when they tried to make them deep penetration raiders?

 

[webmaster]

Wasn't Comanche intended to go behind enemy lines for recon, etc. ? If that is the case, why not send UAVs in instead of sending a helicopter with a pilot and put a human/soldier in harms way?

They lost close to $8 Billion but full project was going to cost around $40 Billion so the $30 or so billions that are saved can be spent on perfecting UAVs that can help and almost do exactly what comanche was intended to do.

(All figures from Janes DW)

 

[Winter]

Wasn't Comanche intended to go behind enemy lines for recon, etc. ? If that is the case, why not send UAVs in instead of sending a helicopter with a pilot and put a human/soldier in harms way?

They lost close to $8 Billion but full project was going to cost around $40 Billion so the $30 or so billions that are saved can be spent on perfecting UAVs that can help and almost do exactly what comanche was intended to do.

(All figures from Janes DW)

When and as the project was conceived, UAVs were a speck on the horizon or at least being toyed with a little in Nevada or somewhere...Plus the added stealth warfighting ability of the Comanche. That was the institutional thinking of the project in the 80s and maybe even now, to be seen as a highly capable replacement of the Kiowa (?). In retrospect, this is all now beginning to look a bit like a Crusader of the sky (I cannot avoid the comparison) but I never would have guessed.

UAVs have a decade to go (perhaps sooner...Depends on variables) or so before we start seeing advanced combat drone variants...Certainly it is inevitable.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This is an internal doc that I got this morning. There was no source link on it. Sorry Folks.

US Army Axes Comanche Programme

By Joshua Kucera JDW Staff Reporter and Andrew Koch Washington Bureau Chief Washington, DC

The US Army has abandoned the multi-billion dollar RAH-66 Comanche reconnaissance helicopter programme, saying that the system was too vulnerable to anti-aircraft threats and did not fit with future army plans. Funding earmarked for it will be better spent on buying existing helicopter models, upgrading old aircraft and starting an entirely new armed reconnaissance helicopter programme, senior army officials said at a Pentagon briefing Monday.

Dropping the Comanche will save $14.6 billion over Fiscal Years 2004-2011, said acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker and Lt Gen Richard Cody, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations.

That money would have bought 121 Comanches and will now be used for 796 new helicopters and upgrading 1,400 more. "This is an army initiative," Schoomaker said. "It's not just about terminating Comanche," but part of a larger restructure.

The officials said the army will now start to plan an entirely new reconnaissance aircraft as a replacement for the OH-58 Kiowa.

The army also plans to buy a new version of the AH-64 Apache, known as Block III. Army officials Monday said this version will have all the advantages of the Comanche except stealthiness. The army will also:

accelerate the fielding of Aircraft Survivability Equipment technology to forces in Iraq and Afghanistan,
buy 303 new light utility helicopters to replace 422 UH-1 Hueys, which will be phased out,
buy 80 additional UH-60L Black Hawk utility helicopters above what had already been planned,
buy 25 new fixed-wing C-XX inter-theatre cargo planes to replace the C-23 Sherpa,
buy 20 CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopters above what had already been planned,
fund a joint heavy-lift helicopter programme to replace all the army's cargo and heavy-lift helicopters by 2020, and
fund new plans for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).


The army has spent $6.9 billion to date on Comanche, and over the life of the programme would have had to spend a total of $39 billion to buy 650, Cody said. The army will have to pay $450-680 million in termination fees to the Comanche's contractors, primarily Boeing and Sikorsky, said Asst. Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Claude Bolton.

The RAH-66's demise has long been predicted. The US, facing a burgeoning budget deficit, is expected to cut some defense programmes and Comanche's large slice of the pie had been thought to be particularly vulnerable.

Schoomaker ordered an aviation task force six months ago to examine all aspects of army aviation, including the Comanche, as part of an effort dramatically transform the army to a lighter, more modular force. The decision to cut the Comanche programme came out of this group, the officials said Monday.

The Comanche was intended to be a light reconnaissance helicopter with stealth capabilities. But advances in UAVs have suggested that they might do that job better, while simple rocket-propelled grenade and missile attacks on US helicopters in Iraq have shown that the Comanche's stealthiness would not be as useful as it was thought at the 1983 inception of the programme, when it was designed to face Soviet air defense systems.

However, army officials were until recently saying publicly that they were committed to the Comanche.

Gen. Richard Cody, deputy chief of staff for the army, took a Comanche for a test drive in December. In January, he called it "the best aircraft we've ever built ... We now have an aircraft with no limitations except the pilot."

Low-rate initial production was to have started in 2006


-- ends --

 

[Winter]

This is an internal doc that I got this morning. There was no source link on it. Sorry Folks.

US Army Axes Comanche Programme

By Joshua Kucera JDW Staff Reporter and Andrew Koch Washington Bureau Chief Washington, DC

The US Army has abandoned the multi-billion dollar RAH-66 Comanche reconnaissance helicopter programme, saying that the system was too vulnerable to anti-aircraft threats and did not fit with future army plans. Funding earmarked for it will be better spent on buying existing helicopter models, upgrading old aircraft and starting an entirely new armed reconnaissance helicopter programme, senior army officials said at a Pentagon briefing Monday.

Dropping the Comanche will save $14.6 billion over Fiscal Years 2004-2011, said acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker and Lt Gen Richard Cody, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations.

That money would have bought 121 Comanches and will now be used for 796 new helicopters and upgrading 1,400 more. "This is an army initiative," Schoomaker said. "It's not just about terminating Comanche," but part of a larger restructure.

The officials said the army will now start to plan an entirely new reconnaissance aircraft as a replacement for the OH-58 Kiowa.

The army also plans to buy a new version of the AH-64 Apache, known as Block III. Army officials Monday said this version will have all the advantages of the Comanche except stealthiness. The army will also:

accelerate the fielding of Aircraft Survivability Equipment technology to forces in Iraq and Afghanistan,
buy 303 new light utility helicopters to replace 422 UH-1 Hueys, which will be phased out,
buy 80 additional UH-60L Black Hawk utility helicopters above what had already been planned,
buy 25 new fixed-wing C-XX inter-theatre cargo planes to replace the C-23 Sherpa,
buy 20 CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopters above what had already been planned,
fund a joint heavy-lift helicopter programme to replace all the army's cargo and heavy-lift helicopters by 2020, and
fund new plans for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).


The army has spent $6.9 billion to date on Comanche, and over the life of the programme would have had to spend a total of $39 billion to buy 650, Cody said. The army will have to pay $450-680 million in termination fees to the Comanche's contractors, primarily Boeing and Sikorsky, said Asst. Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Claude Bolton.

The RAH-66's demise has long been predicted. The US, facing a burgeoning budget deficit, is expected to cut some defense programmes and Comanche's large slice of the pie had been thought to be particularly vulnerable.

Schoomaker ordered an aviation task force six months ago to examine all aspects of army aviation, including the Comanche, as part of an effort dramatically transform the army to a lighter, more modular force. The decision to cut the Comanche programme came out of this group, the officials said Monday.

The Comanche was intended to be a light reconnaissance helicopter with stealth capabilities. But advances in UAVs have suggested that they might do that job better, while simple rocket-propelled grenade and missile attacks on US helicopters in Iraq have shown that the Comanche's stealthiness would not be as useful as it was thought at the 1983 inception of the programme, when it was designed to face Soviet air defense systems.

However, army officials were until recently saying publicly that they were committed to the Comanche.

Gen. Richard Cody, deputy chief of staff for the army, took a Comanche for a test drive in December. In January, he called it "the best aircraft we've ever built ... We now have an aircraft with no limitations except the pilot."

Low-rate initial production was to have started in 2006


-- ends --

Tis' a Janes article:

http://www.janes.com/regional_news/americas/news/jdw/jdw040223_2_n.shtml

:frosty

 

[Aussie Digger]

While the Commanche seemed like a good helicopter, it seemed rather expensive for the capability it would provide. I would think that a modern helicopter of similar (but updated) design to the OH-58 Warrior, would be a good replacement for the Commanche and shouldn't be too expensive. This type of helicopter would provide a light utility capability (which the Commanche didn't) as well as a reconnaissance and light fire support capability. Forget stealth, how stealthy can a helicopter be anyway? The noise will always be a factor, no matter how good the design. Go for a cheaper conventional design and poor the savings into improving your existing fleet, I reckon.

 

[Winter]

While the Commanche seemed like a good helicopter, it seemed rather expensive for the capability it would provide. I would think that a modern helicopter of similar (but updated) design to the OH-58 Warrior, would be a good replacement for the Commanche and shouldn't be too expensive. This type of helicopter would provide a light utility capability (which the Commanche didn't) as well as a reconnaissance and light fire support capability. Forget stealth, how stealthy can a helicopter be anyway? The noise will always be a factor, no matter how good the design. Go for a cheaper conventional design and poor the savings into improving your existing fleet, I reckon.

You have a point, Aussie Digger. It looks that way now anyway after the cancellation.

 

[Awang se]

I don't really say it is totally a waste though. 2 decades of R&D bound to produce something. If not the Chopper itself, there is the technology that can be use on currently existing platforms.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Comanche prog has provided a substantial number of tech benefits, I'd guess that Rumsfeld has gone UAV mad and sees that UAR's will start to fill the roles that the Comanche was tasked to do (big mistake was making the designator (RA)

 

[Awang se]

I know current UAV can run a recon and interdiction mission on planned targets deep behind enemy lines, but how about target of opportunity?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I know current UAV can run a recon and interdiction mission on planned targets deep behind enemy lines, but how about target of opportunity?

The viability of that depends on the security and integrity of the data link, data link redundancy issues and more importantly, decision making speed - the shoot must be approved by someone from the Judge Advocate Generals office first. If there is a JAG on location, then I imagine that the process would be rapid, if there is no JAG Officer or recognised line officer, then it becomes more complicated.

Technically it's embryonic, but not impossible to do. The day that a TUAV shoots the wrong person is the day that people start waving placards in the street and start screaming "Terminator 3". "Asimov" etc in the street.

The Australian processes are slightly different from the US, but the principles are the same

 

[Awang se]

Thanks for the info but that's not what i really meant. I'm just saying, in the event of all out war, by any chance if the field commander decide to sent a TUAV behind enemy lines to bomb some planned targets, and by any chance on it's way back, it stumble upon a column of enemy tanks moving to reinforce the front line, and it still have some missile left, can this TUAV engage this tank column by its own decision without input from human controllers?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thanks for the info but that's not what i really meant. I'm just saying, in the event of all out war, by any chance if the field commander decide to sent a TUAV behind enemy lines to bomb some planned targets, and by any chance on it's way back, it stumble upon a column of enemy tanks moving to reinforce the front line, and it still have some missile left, can this TUAV engage this tank column by its own decision without input from human controllers?

Sorry Awang se!

Technically yes under the following caveats:

That all friendlies have IFF transponders or similar

Without that there is a risk that you would destroy your own forces
The major risk is that the vehicles spotted are civilian - no IFF transponders etc and then they are assumed to be enemy.

If the battle theatre was clear of all civilians you could programme the AI to be aggressive etc...

The DSTO in Australia is working on an autonomous AI package for UAV's but that's a long way away from granting complete operational autonomy.

Personally. I think its a long way away from any force being comfortable with completely autonomous TUAV's. I think the human loop will be there for a long while.