The Comanche's career cut short

Rumors are on another forum that the US Armed Forces ditched the RAH-66 Comanche. Is this true and if it is, why did the US Armed Forces do that?

 

I have heard the same thing. I think the reasoning is that they figured they could get many more years out of the Apache by upgrading it much the way the USMC is still using the Cobra. I think I also remember something about reliability troubles.

 

The Commanche was designed in the 80's to be a stealth helicopter, and as such it's primary role was to be to go into enemy territory undetected and provide intelligence and spot targets for artillery and missiles... A job which has recently been filled by the UAV...

Now that the USA has invented the UAV, theres no need for a stealth helicopter... The UAV can gather intelligence and spot targets at a fraction of the operational cost of the Commanche, and without risking a pilots' life... It does what the Commanche was designed to do, and it does it better and for a cheaper price...

The Apache will continue to be the primary attack chopper, because it is better than the Commanche in the combat role... The Commanche sacrificed combat capability for stealth, and I doubt that the US would ever have altogether replaced the Apache; it is simply a better combat-chopper...

The Commanche was designed for reconissance, and is now superflous because the UAV has become the be-all-and-end-all of reconissance

 

Isn't this old news? I thought the RAH-66 was cancelled years ago.

 

Commanche program was indeed scraped.
Mostly for the reason put forth by Smeg. Another reasons could be linked to Iraq debacle as US military is currently pretty short on finances. Why would they continue developing rather expensive program if their Apaches are doing a good work and don't need to be replaced yet or in forseeble future.

 

Because it was originally designed as a Scout/ Attack machine for the Cold War, the military threat has changed.

 

the us army was forced to use helos because of politics ...in 1947 the brand new us air force gained control of any flying thing that fired guns or dropped bombs , the army lost control of its own ground support to guys dressed in bus driver blue who were in love with jets ...we fly real fast and real high , in the wild blue yonder ...in korea such silly notions were suddenly brought to harsh light . lucky for us we still had lots of mustangs and corsairs which had not yet been scrapped ..in fact were it not for the prop planes the nk army would have destroyed completely the us/un ground forces in 1950 ...the us army was allowed by a loophole to still control one type of ground attack aircraft which it was allowed to paint o.d. green ...the helicopter , it was and still is very ,very expensive to buy and maintain and very vulnerable to ground fire and would be overmatched in air to air combat by a spad or sopwith snipe ...lucky for us the nva had no i15 biplanes or ratas in stock which could be fielded buy the regiment for the cost of a few cobras ...the us army flys helos because it MUST ...the us air force demands it !! the us marines still controll their own air cover ..the us army has to ask a separate ( and hostile ) agency for theirs ..the us army suffers to this day because of a congressional edict penned in 1947 and they had to fight the airforce tooth and nail even to get controll of the few flimsy gold plated rotor wings they fly today...remember the bagdad apache attack of a few years ago that was completely shut down by a bunch of rooftop iraqis with ak 47s ...uh oh ..i think a deer rifle bullet may have nicked my million dollar rotor blade , return to base at once ...ABORT! ABORT!!! ...dang we shouldnt have sold all our ww2 p47s to brazil ...mabey they will sell them back to us ...

 

I agree with woody here.
Basicly army managed to get helos in trough the back door. They were primeraly used as flexible transport resource that needed to be under army control becouse of nature of missions. From there it was small step to gunships like cobra.

Regarding Bagdad raid (they lost more than one and at least 5 were write off). Those apaches were lost becouse of stupid tactics. You don't go flying at zero alt into the with light flak ( ZU-23-2 mostly, RPG and small arms fire) heavily defended populated areas and not get bruised. At the same time Marine losses were practicaly zero in same type of missions.

 

Woody and TISO:
Not ENTIRELY true lads.
The US Army controlled and flew the Grumman OV-1A/b and JOV-1A (armed-version) "Mohawks" during the Vietnam-era. It was a rugged airframe nicknamed "Whispering Death" by the Viet Cong.
Initial orders were placed in 1959 I believe. It was the first twin-engine turbo-prop aircraft to enter US Army service.

Tim

 

The incident that Woody is referring to happened to 11th attack helicopter regiment in Iraq 23th March 2003. Out of the 31 attacking Apaches, 29 were damaged and 1 was shot down.

 

Any ideas when the program was scrapped?

Apparently the first public appearence was in 'Hulk' (Love at first sight I must admit.....another on my list of vehicles I have no chance of owning)

 

Rooftop Iraqis with rifles downing choppers. That's kind of funny. And also kind of sad.

 

Sad? On the surface, yes, but when you consider a good shot into the turbines or the rotor blades and she's royally screwed (ie, big explosion on the ground).

Although, I hardly consider .50 machineguns as small arms. Apparently Apaches have a real weakness against those, lol.

Ain't urban warfare great?

 

i think it is a choise between flying at high altitude and being in range of RPGs, SAMs or whatever or flying close to the ground and be vunerable to ground fire. Rockets or Bullets?

 

mabey we could by some old sturmovics from the russians and we will just tell the airforce they are actually helicopters....

 

I've read that heavy machine guns are easily able to penetrate ~20mm of steel... More if the tank is made of Chinese steel...

And you'd be pressed to get that much armor on a chopper...

 

Now I wonder about the A10, though. It's not a chopper, but how thick is the titanium bathtub anyway?

 

I dare anyone to hit one with small arms.

And wish them good luck when it's doing 300 mph 40ft off the deck.

 

And especially if it's coming in Avenger cannon blazing.

 

all very entertining..

But the USAF tried to hand off the A-10 Warthog to the Army but they would not take them

I know..It is Wiki..blah blah

Attempts to transfer the A-10 to the Army and the Marines were at first prevented by the 1948 Key West Agreement, and then by the A-10's impressive combat record during the Gulf War in 1991. Shortly after the war, the Air Force gave up on the idea of replacing the A-10 with a ground attack version of the F-16.[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II