A flying marvel that was perhaps ahead of its time when it was developed but probably right on time today.
Have you ever wondered why the military doesn't dust off the designs that didn't work when they came out but might work today. The Comanche obviously contributed to the design of the stealth helicopter that crashed in Pakistan but instead of using that tech to work up a new helicopter, the Army and Sikorsky appear to have abandoned it for conventional forces.
Too bad. The Comanche is something our forces could use.
rumsfeld considered it a relic of the cold war, didnt fit his model of a rapid force, i liked the Comanche myself, along with the crusader artillery system. The Comanche could be a good recon helo but also could be armed with more weapons in an attack role.
ReplyDeleteComanche, maybe in 10 years.
ReplyDeleteI mean it just was to early for it time, and well with the way the budget is I don't see anything like it for a while. Though....would make you wonder, if we have Blackhawk style helicopters with this tech...what's not to say a few of the Comanches aren't over there at 160 as well? Just because a program is cancelled doesn't mean a few didn't get produced.
DAGR/LOGIR/AKPWS would have increased its effectiveness with its lower LO weaponload.
ReplyDeleteThis program really shouldn't have been cancelled. Imagine how far along it could have been by now.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how much weight and cost could be saved if they built the Commanche from carbon nanotube reinforced polymer (CNRP) since Boeing now has experience with CNRP from the 787 program. To save money, they could license the developments that LM has pioneered in making CNRP cheaper.
ReplyDeleteIts very good, but what is it *needed* for?
ReplyDeleteIt was designed in an era when the likely enemy would have thousands of tanks advancing under hundreds of world beating SHORADS and dozens of mobile strategic air defences (IE S300/400)
Since thats not a likely outcome anymore, what does Comache offer Apache that justifies its cost?
well you can look at US Army operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. the Kiowa was more in demand than the Apache. the future in my way of thinking belongs to the swing role helicopter like the MH-60 the way the colomibians use it or the kiowa the way the us army uses it. pure attack helicopters are going away.
ReplyDeletecheck out what the Marine Corps is doing. it cut down the number of AH-1s and is buying more UH=1s...i consider that a future the comanche would have fit perfectly into.
last but not least the Syrian air force is showing that if the enemy has manpads in even a limited number it can be deadly for aircraft. so your example really isn't relevant. besides we bought more apaches and it was designed to fight in the fulda gap.
s
Sorry you have completely lost me there.
ReplyDeleteWasnt the Comanche just a stealthy version of the Apache?
Thats not to say stealth isnt very important, but the giant threat, S300s that could fire on the move, never really appeared (not sure if they were dumped entirely, or if theres just very few of them).
I just dont see where the Comanche and the UH-1 sit side by side.
The Comanche was a stealth version of the Kiowa, not the Apache. It had a 20mm instead of a 30mm gun in internal space for only 6 Hellfires. External stub wings could get you another 8 Hellfires. In either case, it did not have the armored protection levels of the Apache.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing-Sikorsky_RAH-66_Comanche
Let's also not forget there is more to stealth tech than someone's radar. A lot of features on the original F-117 were also there to reduce the infrared signature as well. The Comanche also had features to reduce it's audible noise as well (eg the 5 bladed rotor).
ReplyDeletePutting all of that together, along with some lighter construction as pointed out by SpudmannWP and I say the Comanche would be a fantastic fit in anyone's air force.
If I were buying it? I'd slap a longbow radar on top of it. Stealth Comanche + Longbow would be nigh unstoppable as long as the pilot doesn't run into power lines or show boat for the troops.
I wonder how well DAGR/LOGIR/AKPWS would handle anti-helo shots?
ReplyDeletebtw, I made a small mistake, Boeing's 787 is using CFNP (Carbon Fiber), not CNRP (Carbon Nanotube). So far LM is the only one to bring it to market in an economic fashion.
Here is a comparison table of steel, aluminum, titanium, CFRP and CNRP.
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/c5a4a454.png
Here's a thought, have LM act as sub-contractor and build all the pieces and let Boeing & Sikorsky handle avionics and assembly. Just make sure you add EODAS to it.
For current wars the Comanche would be a huge overkill...the main AAA systems of the enemy are RPGs and heavy machine gun fire,bouth of wich are directed visualy...the VLO tech. of the RAH-66 would make it a treasured target for the taliban and american top secret tech.would eventualy be at the hands of russians,chinese and iranians...The stealth features wouldnt be an advantage in afg.or iraq...they would be a down side...more expensive helos,less airframes,more maitenance hours,etc...
ReplyDeleteHaving said that,i have to agree with Solomon...small light helos like the AH-6,the OH-58 and bigger multirole helicopters like the UH-1,the diferent H-60 versions are ocupping the function of the pure attack helicopter...I see the Comanche as a AH-6 on steroids that could prove usefful in a battle to regain Taiwan or against irains swarm attacks(like the AH-6/OH-58 combo did in operation Prime Chance).Against a pear state its the best helo...against caveman with rifles,HMGs and RPGs...its just not worth it...
The Chinese and Russians are already knee-deep in American tech. That shouldn't be a reason not to invest in it.
DeleteYou would not be building it for operations like Iraq and Afghanistan, just like the F-22/35 is not for this type of warfare. For systems that take a long time to develop and produce, you have to plan for a worst-case scenario at some-point in the future.
ReplyDeleteRpgs are definitely not the only threat plenty of Sa7s out there....not that they are a huge threat to our helos.
ReplyDeleteAlso the ah-1/uh1 combo is huge in Afghanistan. Offers the.best firepower flexibility.
I wonder how long it will be before helos start carrying APS (Active Protection System) as a standard component?
ReplyDeletebtw, the EODAS should help ID AAA, where it's coming from, where it's going, and how to avoid it.
By the way guys,what should be the US Army new scout helo in your opinion?I always had a crush for the AH-6S...what do you think? A modernized OH-58F,the AH-72 or the AH-6S?I would like to have your opinion on this.We all know money is short,so,probably,the Army will just modernize the OH-58D,but what the best contender?
ReplyDeleteThe Commanche program can probably be forgiven for not foreseeing how far and fast RPV/UAVs would progress, one of the reasons it was cancelled, but the main thing was, just like so many other programs, it was specified to be cool, not to be cost effective.
ReplyDeleteThe Army never explained why something that was going to spend all its time NOE needed stealth in the first place nor why stealth made any sense when anything expected to engage the Commanche would be able to see it. The Army never considered that, by avoiding the cost of the Commanche development and increasing the production volume of UH-60s and AH-64s it could have had a greater volume of more capable helicopters. The Army also never considered the huge program benefits of leveraging the AH-64 software base; the AH-6i gets about 80 percent of its software from the AH-64 Block-3 Apache. The only way a separate scout made any sense if it was substantially cheaper than the AH-64/UH-60 and the 'spare no expense, just make it cooler' mentality behind the Comanche ruled this out from the start.
The main purpose of the Comanche was so that the Army could sit with the cool kids at the stealth table in the cafeteria, not for any sensible operational reason. When you look at every scout helicopter decision since the OH-6, all you see is a trail of stupidity and cancellations.
The same economics and emergence of UAV alternatives that sunk the original Commanche are not only still present, but worse.
BTW: acoustic stealth, which would be useful, was flying on the OH-6 Quiet One in 1971, so no special points for the Commanche for that.
While you're probably 90% right about the wanting to be cool, I don't think that a stealth chopper (of any kind) is worthless. If nothing else, the raid on Osama demonstrated that. At this point it's more of a price issue in my opinion.
DeleteDon't disagree. Spec ops transport, especially on 'deep' missions, has a bunch of considerations that don't apply to scout / attack models.
DeleteThe biggest thing for rw for not being detected on radar is their rotar arc. Watching cobras and hornets dogfight a few weeks ago was very interesting. Each had kills on the other, a stealth helicopter with a more up to date flare system would be.very interesting.
ReplyDelete" the future in my way of thinking belongs to the swing role helicopter like the MH-60 the way the Colombians use it or the kiowa the way the us army uses it. pure attack helicopters are going away."
ReplyDeleteThis is a tad late, but here goes.
To me the Sikorsky S-97 design team is pretty forward thinking if you view it as you've outlined it. When I first saw the concept, I was wondering if it had merit. But with the emphasis on being able to switch between roles e.g. Scout, Attack, Transports or Ambulance, it is more attractive than the OH-6 or OH-58. And fast as hell.