Subject:
|
Re: Commanche Helicopter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:29:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
340 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steven Lane wrote:
| |
In lugnet.technic, Mladen Pejic wrote:
| |
In lugnet.technic, Steven Lane wrote:
| |
The U.S army has cancelled the Commanche helicopter program.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aTaDFSD81RLI&refer=us
Which is a shame as I only saw one on the TV the other day.
They’ve also cancelled the rather cool crusader self-propelled artillery.
Steve
|
Correction: it’s the actual codename for this project is
RAH-66 “Comanche”.
|
| |
Also check out this great
BBC article. And
yes, I know the BBC is biased, but I think this article is worth a read.
While I have to agree with you (and my brother), that the Comanche was darn
cool, this is not such a surprise for the defence industry.
Look at all the Blackhawks and Apaches that have been lost in Afghanistan
and Iraq. A lot have been damaged by the simplest of weapons, namely the
RPG-7 and assorted Kalashnikov rifles/machineguns.
Now, if the “armoured” Blackhawks and Apaches can be hurt by shaped-charge
warheads, and 7.62mm+ calibre rounds, think what would happen if the thin
skinned Commanche was struck by them?
|
So isn’t now the perfect time for a more stealthy chopper? I think the misson
requirements could be re-orientated toward todays needs but I don’t think the
whole program needs to be scrapped.
|
Dude, do you even know anything about the “Comanche”? It is a scout/attack
helicopter. The “Apache” and “Cobra” can both carry more weapons than it, and
the “Kiowa” is still capable as a scout platform.
Why waste more money on this clearly weak helicopter who’s only advantage is its
lower radar and IR signature?
I mean seriously... Do you honestly think Osama bin Laden, and his terrorist
followers use radar to detect US vehicles?
Please rethink your logic.
| |
| |
I read here that there is high
probability that the Hellfire missiles, even when stowed inside the
helicopter can be hit by rounds and ignited. Imagine that! An anti-tank
missile exploding inside an already frail helicopter!
Let’s face it, the “Comanche” and the “Crusader” are clearly project
holdovers from the Cold War era. I mean seriously, how can an “Advanced
Field Artillery System” (Crusader), that weighs tens of tons, and takes
perhaps days to transport to a battlefield, be justified as a weapon to
combat terrorism?
|
Were’nt large parts of both gulf wars conventional?
|
Ummm... Last I checked, the Iraqi army folded in Gulf War II. Last I checked,
Gulf War I many of them did the same in Gulf War I. Remember the “high-way of
death” in which all of the remaining Iraqi forces tried to flee back to Iraq and
got slaughtered by American helicopters and aircraft?
TRAINING won Gulf War I & II. The Iraqis had decent weaponry, they just didn’t
know how to use it, and furthermore, didn’t have the discipline to stand and
fight.
| |
| |
It is ironic actually. The American military says they need 7000 armoured
HUMVEEs and more M4 carbines! Can you believe that while the Pentagon is
wasting money on the “Comanche” and “Crusader” the US army and marines still
have small-arms inferior to what the Germans, Russians, not to mention the
terrorists are using? The M60 and M16 are fine weapons... But so much has
advanced since their conceptions.
The results:
The M60 (and M60E3) are both replaced by temporary foreign machineguns, the
Belgium M240 and M249. Both are considered temporary. The M16A2 will be
scrapped, and the German G36 inspired
M8
(XM8) assualt rifles. And guess what? They’re using a brand new calibre:
6.8mm Remington. And they’re also developing a 25mm grenade launcher.
So do you see just how skewed the priorities of the US military have been?
While the American soldier is one of the best in the world, why does the
Army’s and Marine’s infantry get such outdated weapons? Why is money wasted
on holdovers from the Cold War? What nation will even attempt to attack the
US with its military?
Sorry for the rant, but maybe you’ll come away from this post a little
wiser.
|
You should be sorry. I find your tone very patronising, I said those two
systems we’re cool, not 100% practical. You have made assumptions about my
knowledge of weaponry or lack of it on a very short post.
|
Believe me, I was not trying to be patronising. I did not aim anything at you. I
even agreed with you, they are “cool”. I just wanted to show you that such
flash-in-the-pan technology should not undercut funding for more practical
programs... Like say giving the hard-fighting American soldier a rifle he/she
doesn’t constantly have to clean and that has more stopping power (M16). Or
perhaps giving him a machinegun whose barrel can be replaced without gloves
(M60).
| |
| |
I say that as the world’s greatest and only superpower,
|
We (the UK) have got nukes as well, thank you very much! Remember the UK?
Little old country, next to europe (yes ok, included in europe),seem to
remember us taking the number two slot in the great coalition.
|
Israel has fine soldiers & nukes too. Germany has the finest tanks & nukes.
France has great aircraft & nukes. Russia has robust small-arms & nukes. China
has numbers & nukes. Shall I go on?
Let’s see, UK has...
- Cut down its fleet, once the world’s greatest, not anymore
- Produced an assault rifle that just doesn’t work (SA80)
- Total armed forces equivalent to the US Marines
I’m not saying that UK isn’t a “power”. It certainly is, and has a powerful
military, but please don’t try to say you have anything that even touches what
America, Russian, and China have.
Europe has been at peace for quite some time, and that’s good. The British won
in the Falklands, and performed admirably in Iraq. But on a global scale, I
don’t think you can match what America has done, nor do I think you have the
desire to.
Be happy that your country can live in peace, and can make reductions in its
forces. I am from the Balkans, and my country had no such luxury.
Mladen Pejic
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Commanche Helicopter
|
| (...) I know enough about the Commanche. It is stealthier, with a much reduced noise signature, it's also smaller. If it's less detectable and harder to hit then it's got to be better. And I did say it should be reworked for today's missons. (...) (...) (21 years ago, 25-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Commanche Helicopter
|
| (...) Israel’s fine soldiers certainly do a good job shooting women & children. Do they get medals for that? (...) I'm not sure about their tanks, but know they lack "nukes". (...) Correct! We have nothing to prove. Scott A (21 years ago, 25-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Commanche Helicopter
|
| (...) So isn't now the perfect time for a more stealthy chopper? I think the misson requirements could be re-orientated toward todays needs but I don't think the whole program needs to be scrapped. (...) Were'nt large parts of both gulf wars (...) (21 years ago, 24-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
