expensive. Think a bunch of tanks firiing multiple times. They are all
linked by complex computer transactions. The computer tells the tanks when
to fire at what trajectory. they fire for 20 seconds probably 3 times each.
All of the shells from all of the tanks land on and around the target at
exactly the same time. Can you imagine 40 howitzer shells landing within a
100 sql yard area at the same time?
DRE
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Braver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:00 AM
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.html"http://ww
>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]
