Whatever happened to the RAH-66 Comanche project?

Brian, I hope you're not referring to being laid off due to the cancellation of the project . Anyway, good luck to you. [/quote Yeah, unfortunately. I work at a small design business that did alot of tooling for the Comanche. It consisted of about half of my work load. I've been designing tools for the RAH-66 since '93. It's a shame that so much work was for nothing. Anyway, our company is struggling to find new customers, so in the mean time we're doing some revisions to blackhawk tools and some S-92 work. ] Fingers crossed! Thanks for wishing luck....I can use it! Brian Reply Edit Awood23 Member since May 2003 From: Belgium Posted by Awood23 on Saturday, September 4, 2004 5:26 PM I think the comanche would have been an awsome helicopter but I support its cancelation. There was little if any need for it. The Apache already fullfills the Armys need for fast attack helicopters and the money saved could be better used for other projects. The research done and learned from the Comanche was extremely usefull and its there to be produced if the need ever arrises but the equipment we have now more than gets the jobv done. Now if only the Airforce would learn from this event. The F-22 is an awsome aircraft and the information learned from its development is incredible but why put it in full production? Use the money for programs already in use and keeping Airmen in uniform. The F-15, F-16 and even the F-4 more than fullfill the Airforces current needs Just my [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v515/Awood23/DarkSideBadge.jpg "your' not trying if your not cheating" "no one ever won a war by dying for his country, he won it by making the other poor bugger die for his" 'never before have so many owed so much to so few" 1/48 Spitfire %80 Reply Trigger Member since February 2004 From: Moooooon River! Posted by Trigger on Sunday, September 5, 2004 9:36 AM One of the biggest problems with retaining "Legacy" fighters such as the -15 and -16 will be parts. Once you lose a supply (or supplier), things can get lean fast. That was one of the issues facing the SR-71 back in 1990. Once a production line shuts down, it gets harder to find spares. The F-14 is a good example if this. Another is simply age. Stress on the airframe over the years will take it's toll. Any machine with moving parts will wear down after time and you don't get the same perfromance as you had originally. Machines break. F-15 airframes are 20+ years old. Would you want to run a Formula 1 race in a car that's been on the circuit for 20 years? Then there's competition. While there is no Cold War level of "keeping up with the Joneses" other nations are fielding new generation fighters (Typhoon, Rafale, China is working on some new programs, SU-35). While there is little chance of a conflict between the U.S. and either England, France, Russia or China, the USAF could find themselves up against a state that flies aircraft supplied by those nations (North Korea for example) Unfortunately, air combat isn't a sport and any pseudo-romantic notions of a "fair fight" belong in the movies. History shows that at the end of the day, you're either a bastard or a sucker. And the F-4 more than fulfills the Air Force's current needs? If that were the case, the F-15 would have never been created. Besides, the Phantoms are all long gone. How many nations are still flying them? Japan? Greece? Iran? Just because the current generation of technology is good (be it aircraft, automotive, maritime, or computer), that's no reason to stop innovating. For the past 20 years we've "settled" for the Space Shuttle and it's proven to be, while remarkable, very complex, expensive and fragile. Now we realize we need a replacement, but it's probably going to be another 10 years. Incidents flare up quickly these days, and spooling up Comanche production "if the need arrises" would take years. Tooling has been and will be lost, modified or destroyed. No, the RAH-66 is as dead as the AH-56 or the YUH-61. You're right that there was some good technology developed for the -66. Design elements will show up on other systems, but that'll be it. The Army still needs a scout/light attack helicoptor, but what shape that will take remains to be seen and should prove to be very interesting. ------------------------------------------------------------------ - Grant "Can't let that nest in there..." Reply Awood23 Member since May 2003 From: Belgium Posted by Awood23 on Monday, September 6, 2004 8:36 PM Trigger, you brought up some intresting points but heres something to think about. I dont have the numbers on the Comanche or the AH-64 Longbow or Id use these for comparison. F-16 C/D Unit Cost $34 Million F-15E Unit Cost $15 Million F-22 Unit Cost $96.3 Million You can have 4 Eagles for the cost of 1 Raptor. While the F-22 is an awsome aircraft the F-15 and F-16 more than Fullfill the USAF's need to maintiain Air Superiority. Ill admit that research needs to be done to produce Aircraft that can compete with foriegn advancements in Aviation but I still see little need to put into full production these Aircraft. We have to ability to completely shut down Foriegn Airforces before they become fully effective. The money saved by buying F-15's instead of F-22's could be better used to keep Airman in uniform (something the Airforce is having a problem doing) than buying expensive toys. As for the Army's need to light recon/ attack aircraft. AH-64 Longbows, Kiowa's and AH-6' already meet those needs at a much smaller price tag. Granted the the Comanche is a far better machine than all the above mentioned aircraft but Id still rather see a larger Military using already existing and capable equipment. FYI The F-4 Phantom still serves with 12 Nations including the US. (In the US almost all have been retired except Air National Gaurd units that fly the RF-4C and F-4G in small numbers with no set date to retire them I only bring this up because the times being what they are, where branches of the military stretched thin and funding kinda tight we need more troops in uniform more than we need to be throwing money away at "new" weapons when we already have functional weapons. If we werent at war. funding wasn't a problem and thes units could be procured with taking spending away from unit strength Id feel entirely different. Unfortunatly if that scenarior existed the people in charge of spending money on Military Hardware wouldnt approve it because "what would be the need?" [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v515/Awood23/DarkSideBadge.jpg "your' not trying if your not cheating" "no one ever won a war by dying for his country, he won it by making the other poor bugger die for his" 'never before have so many owed so much to so few" 1/48 Spitfire %80 Reply Cobrahistorian Member since December 2002 From: Aaaaah.... Alpha Apaches... A beautiful thing! Posted by Cobrahistorian on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 2:40 AM Longbow Apaches run $24 million apiece, while the Comanche was topping out at over $60 million. The RAH-66 was originally supposed to cost $3 million per aircraft. The out of control ballooning of the per-unit cost for the Comanche is what killed the program. "1-6 is in hot" Reply Screaminhelo Member since April 2004 From: Georgia Posted by Screaminhelo on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 2:41 AM Brian, I am glad to hear that you are doing work on the 60 and 92 programs. I have to admit though that I am glad to see the Comanche canceled. The per unit cost of the Comanche was outrageously high. Just the development program for this aircraft was consuming 40% of the annual budget for Army Aviation. The money that would have been spent on the RAH-66 will be used for much more than the Apache. It will be used to add countermeasures to Army helicopters in combat that previously had not had a full countermeasures suite. My pucker factor will drop a good bit when this happens. The Army will now be able to pursue the Light Utility Helicopter and realize a signifigant reduction in operating costs for certian missions while making more aircraft available for troop support. The Comanche was a truly amazing airframe, but the cost to readiness just was not worth it. There are many airframes out there that are very capable of performing the armed reconnisance mission that are not 20 years old. They can be procured nearly off the shelf and replace the OH-58 at the same time. The Army needs to continue to fund development of new combat aircraft, but the Comanche was too much in one airframe. Much like the Cheyenne, it was a case of trying to field technology that was just not ready to be put into real world use. Well, that is my solution to saving Army Aviation. Hey Brian, in your spare time, can you design a tool to easily pull the input module oil seal on the Blackhawk? The guys that wrote the book are crazy. -Mac Mac I Didn't do it!!! Reply Anonymous Member since November 2005 Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 2:19 PM Mac, How's things going for you over there recently? Stay safe. Stay sharp. Semper Fi! Carl Reply Edit SNOOPY Member since December 2002 Posted by SNOOPY on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 6:10 PM I have read some of the pros and cons and they are good ones. I am sorry to see the Commanche go for a couple of reason which are: one, my uncle works there is his job is directly related to the Commanche and two, it was a stealth helicopter. Other countries are trying to make a stealth helicopter and other aircraft. We have stealth and other countries want it. Other than that, the money will go to upgrades on other Army aircraft in which they have an over abundance of. I think Sikorsky should start looking at designing helicopter will alternate fuel source like Hydrogen fission. Oil won't last forever. Reply Rob Gronovius Member since December 2002 From: Fort Knox Posted by Rob Gronovius on Thursday, September 9, 2004 12:04 PM This week's Army Times has an article about the replacement for the Comanche. It looks like MD's AH-6 Little Bird is the front runner to replace the AH-58s. Reply Cobrahistorian Member since December 2002 From: Aaaaah.... Alpha Apaches... A beautiful thing! Posted by Cobrahistorian on Thursday, September 9, 2004 6:00 PM WOOO HOOOO!!!!! "1-6 is in hot" Reply Chief Snake Member since August 2004 From: Maryland Posted by Chief Snake on Thursday, September 9, 2004 6:22 PM The POS 58's were a bow to the LBJ family. The OH-6 series was/is the BEST Aeroscout platform to enter Army service. Chief Snake Reply Anonymous Member since November 2005 Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 9, 2004 6:45 PM Interesting how the Scout helo has "come full circle". During Vietnam, the OH-6s were the backbone of the Aero Scout Platoons. Towards the end of the conflict, a version of the Jet Ranger (developed into the OH-58) was tested and used. Now the front runner is back to the lastest cousin of the OH-6. Sometimes, not all the times, if it ain't broke, don't fix it....Make it better. Of course keeping in mind the limits of airframe, upgrades etc. Reply Edit JOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login Register SEARCH FORUMS FREE NEWSLETTER SIGN UP By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy. FORUMS PRODUCT REVIEWS READER GALLERY HOW TO VIDEOS SHOP ABOUT US FREE MONTHLY NEWSLETTER SIGN UP By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy. More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy