Subject:
|
Re: Commanche Helicopter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:46:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
298 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steven Lane wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mladen Pejic wrote:
| |
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.
|
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.
|
Again, you’re missing the point. The “Comanche” is meant to fight in an
electronic-warface environment against TANKS! Even before that, it is a
reconnaissance helicopter... Meaning it tries to avoid engagements and simply
watches the enemy.
Being lighter it is probably less armoured too, one can therefore assume it
would be a poor close-air support vehicle. Notice how in history, close-air
support vehicles have THICK armour, i.e. A-10 “Thunderbolt II”, and Su-25
“Frogfoot”. Look at how armoured some attack helicopters are too, such as the
Ah-64 “Apache”.
Now, imagine if you armoured up the “Comanche”, it would decrease its agility
and speed. Therefore, do you see why the “Comanche” is a SPECIALIZED vehicle.
All along it was meant to give the Americans superiority over vast numbers off
Comm-Bloc tanks and AA defences.
I ask you again, does Osama have radar?
And secondly, do you honestly think a helicopter will win the war on terror?
Last I checked, it was the infantry which has done the bulk of the fighting
against terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Why not take your enthusiasm for fancy helicopters and apply it to small-arms
and light armoured vehicles that the infantry in Iraq and Afghanistan actually
need.
| |
| |
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?
|
| |
| |
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.
|
I’ll take that as a yes.
|
Take that however you like. GW I & II were both stacked wars in America’s
favour, and Saddam was as delusional as Hitler.
Face it he was a bully, and when he was confronted, he (and his troops) cowered
and fled. Don’t you recall that some Iraqi soldiers surrendered to news
reporters and crews? That’s laughable.
| |
| |
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.
|
I’m repeating myself here. “I said they we’re cool, not practical”.
Isn’t it better to have stealthy equipment in the arsenal just in case a
conventional situation does kick off? I remember the stealth fighter being
able to go in alone without the raft of EW and other support planes that
would otherwise be needed.
|
And I’ll repeat myself.
Stealth technology should not be applied to every possible vehicle, because it
will only give you an advantage today.
I recall the attitude McNamara, the “Whiz-kids”, and the Airforce had in
Vietnam:
“Let’s rush the futuristic M16 into service, despite testing the ammunition for
fouling or taking consideration killing power.” “Let’s use the gunless, and huge
F4 “Phantom” over Vietnam so that it will be outmaneuvered and shot down by the
Mig-17.”
Even the Army wasted money and time on projects such as the airborne “Sheridan”
tank, that fired missiles from its 152mm cannon! Imagine the recoil that gun of
that size would produce on a “light” tank. I’m not even mentioning the fouling
problems the gun had.
Technology is not everything. The American military has already surpassed others
in electronic warfare. Spending more money on stealth projects, in light of
rising deficits is illogical and downright foolish. The B2 bombers, subs like
the “Seawolf”, and other stealthy weapons already built, are enough. A stealth
helicopter certainly won’t give Americans any advantage in a war against an
enemy that is fighting a low-tech war.
Mladen Pejic
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
