system was so heavy that it was barely transportable.
larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Braver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 1:00 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Comanche Cancelled :(
>
>
> Yeah, the project probably kept alive all this time due to
> politics, even though it was NRFPT (not ready for prime
> time). Wasn't there a mobile artillery piece the Army didn't
> want, but the politicians kept alive almost forever?
>
> -Ben
>
>
> >well, that and it didnt work very well. Mechanically or radar wise.
> >
> >DRE
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 7:52 PM
> >To: CF-Community
> >Subject: Comanche Cancelled :(
> >
> >
> >Welp.
> >
> >
> >The Comanche helicopter programe was cancelled.
> >For those that don't know, the Comanche was a stealthy
> attack helicopter
> >that was supposed to replace the Apache 64s...which may now have to
> >somehow fly until 2030 or beyond?
> >
> >
> >So about twenty years and 6.9Billion dollars later...the
> project gets
> >cancelled.
> >
> >
> >The line is that after seeing what happened in Iraq, stealth isn't
> >worth diddly squat because any guy with an eyeball can nail
> a helo with
> >a cheap RPG. Will the F22 be next?
> >
> >
> >They also say that America and her allies no longer have to defend
> >against a threat as during the cold war, and UAVs can do the
> same job
> >as helicopters like the Comanche at a fraction of the cost.
> >
> >
> >"Excerpt from Jane`s Defence Weekly:
> >
> >"...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. "
> >
> >"...the system was too vulnerable to anti-aircraft threats
> and did not
> >fit with future army plans."
> >
> >"...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."
> >
> >
> >So they cancel a project that already took 6.9Billion
> dollars and two
> >decades, it was close to completion....in order to start on
> yet ANOTHER
> >project for reconaissance...??
> >
> >
> >And the prototype "Stealth" system was too vulnerable to
> anti aircraft
> >threats....which is why they are upgrading the completely
> non-stealthy
> >Apache?
> >
> >
> >I'm certainly not privy to any 'inside' information, but the reasons
> >given and the alternatives just don't seem to add up. What's
> going to
> >happen if America DOES have to fight a conventional war against a
> >fairly modern opponent? How could stealth not be necessary simply
> >because it wasn't very useful in Iraq?
> >
> >
> >Somehow I am starting to think the whole Defence Industry in the US
> >right now is about making money, rather than on defence.
> Because that
> >6.9 Billion certainly went into a lot of pockets, and what's
> there to
> >show for it?
> >
> >
> >But, they are getting *more* funding for yet another Reconnaissance
> >helo design? Let's see...the Comanche was nearing completion, so the
> >development budget was nearing the end. So...let's cancel
> the Comanche,
> >and get a new development budget?
> >
> >
> >"The Comanche was being designed and built as a joint
> project by Boeing
> >Co. and Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, employing about 1,300 people.
> >The companies issued a joint statement saying they were
> "surprised and
> >disappointed" by the Army's decision.
> >
> >"Five of these advanced technology aircraft are on the
> production line
> >today, and we are on plan for the program," the statement
> said. "While
> >we regret the Army's announcement, we are committed to
> working closely
> >with our customer and will engage in further discussions to
> ensure we
> >have a complete understanding of the next steps for Comanche."
> >
> >Again we see this whole "war on terror" rear its ugly head,
> as an army
> >spokesman stated that America's focus now is its war on
> terror, which
> >calls for different requirements for which the Comanche
> wasn't suited.
> >
> >Is there anything that the 'War On Terror' Cannot be used to
> justify??
> >
> >HYPERLINK
> >"http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/23/helicopter.cancel/index.htm
l"http://w
>w
>w.cnn.com/2004/US/02/23/helicopter.cancel/index.html
>
>
>-Gel
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/20/2004
> _____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
