Article

2004-02-23

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dar 2004-02-23 12:17:29 PM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 noooooo,that thing was awesome,lets hope alot of its tech filters down to other systems,real shame that

Posted by Jon Shep U.K 2004-2-23 12:19:56 PM|| 2004-2-23 12:19:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Awesome perhaps, but with $8 Billion spent and no production line running, I would say that the program deserved to be chopped. It is a helicopter for God's sake, not a spaceship. Congrats the Army for making a tough decision.

Posted by remote man 2004-2-23 12:38:11 PM|| 2004-2-23 12:38:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 No shit! It's about bloody time! Too bad they couldn't have canceled the damn thing about 7 billion dollars ago.

That money could have bought a LOT of UAV's, like the Predator and such.

-AR

Posted by Analog Roam 2004-2-23 12:56:07 PM|| 2004-2-23 12:56:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 ...I know Comanche had some problems early on in its program, but I had understood that they had all been ironed out. What was behind this except a desire to save some money?

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-2-23 1:47:52 PM|| 2004-2-23 1:47:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 I've heard the UAV's are more expensive than people think, and I suspect they'll become more so as soon as the bureaucracy starts noticing them and does to them the sort of economy-of-scale problems they did to the Comanche.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-2-23 2:20:09 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-2-23 2:20:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 It was designed to be fast and stealthy and defeat massed armor in a Fulda Gap type scenario. It's great technology. There's just no threat to justify it any longer. It should have been killed eight years ago.

To be honest, these programs have bad habit of becoming corporate welfare. Here's why. The requirement is identified and Congress allots some money to R&D. Part of that requirement is a availability date. Specs are drawn up, design reviews are held, and everyone decides that it feasible and will cost $xx. The military goes back to Congress and asks for more money for a prototype. If Congress funds it, it gets built. Once the protoype demonstrates that it meets or exceeds the initial requirements, the next logical step is to go into production. Here is where the shenanigans start. Either Congress refuses to fund production or the military says it isn't quite ready for it. Meanwhile, more tests get ordered on the prototype. And you don't want to lose the engineers (believe me, no matter how good the design documentation, laying off the technical staff == starting over from the beginning). So you start paying the contractor a "retainer fee" to keep running tests, making improvements, and to hold on to the design staff. This is all done on a "cost plus" basis, i.e. the contractor gets a guaranteed profit all the while. Every year, a little more gets allocated to keep the program limping along. I think the Comanche has been in development since the late 1980's, so I can see how $8B got spent in just such a manner.

There is obviously a lot of politics that goes along with this. I left that out on purpose. The real problem now is what happens to all that design expertise? A lot of the Comanche engineers are probably being laid off as we speak. There probably won't be another attack helicopter spec'ed out for a decade. If we do need one in a hurry ten years from now, the people who can do that sort of work, won't be around any longer; they'll have changed fields, or have forgotten.

Posted by 11A5S 2004-2-23 2:20:35 PM|| 2004-2-23 2:20:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Program has been restructured 5 times since the start, back in 1983. I've heard it kept getting heavier as they added more requirements. Sikorsky will take a hit, but Boeing will make more Apaches, so they'll be OK.

Posted by Steve 2004-2-23 2:30:09 PM|| 2004-2-23 2:30:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 How's that Boeing Osprey coming along ?

Posted by HaliburtonAteMyBaby 2004-2-23 3:39:45 PM|| 2004-2-23 3:39:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 How's that Boeing Osprey coming along?

It's one more accident away from being cancelled. Anytime now....

Posted by Steve 2004-2-23 4:00:30 PM|| 2004-2-23 4:00:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 11A5S has some good points, to add, part of the reason that the costs were high is that the military insisted that the major components be designed and built by "partnership" Boeing and Sikorsky for the airframe and Allison and Garrett (Now Rolls Royce and Honeywell) for the engine. The partnerships do not work well in engineering companies, different corporate cultures and then the worst, when a technical issue comes up, the finger pointing starts and to get something fixed is painful. The last reason the costs were high is that the Army wanted everything, including the kitchen sink in that machine. The contractors made it work but it's expensive. Cancellation of this weapons system is a big mistake, it is the only platform that can get over 12,000 feet and fight or identify bad guys. The Army really could have used it at Tora Bora. And yes I'm one of those engineers that may be laid off because of the cancellation.

Posted by Startford Thug 2004-2-23 4:42:00 PM|| 2004-2-23 4:42:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Startford... how much fallout was there from the failed Apache raid? I sense the Army is reviewing it's helicopter needs and tactics.

I see tiny Kiowas in the future.

Posted by Shipman 2004-2-23 4:48:57 PM|| 2004-2-23 4:48:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 While this sucks from Boeing's and Sikorsky's the program would of been 25 years old by the time production started. If was to be axed it sould of been axed a long time ago. But 11A5S has some very good points. Engineering companies are not like other businesses where you can just hang out a help wanted sign and begin operations in short order. Its just not the engineers, its also the peole who work in the production departments. A good example of this is the Navy's insistence on building new subs even though we could probably do without them. We can't afford as a nation to loose the skills base that thes types of companies rest on. And thats what is really assinine about the tanker deal with Boeing. I suspect some members of Congress would just as soon see Boeing go out of business to teach it a lesson than come to the realization that companies and industries like this once lost are not easily replaced. But then what do you expect from lawyers.

Posted by Cheddarhead 2004-2-23 5:13:04 PM|| 2004-2-23 5:13:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 UAVs are clearly the way of the future. From my perspective the US military has resisted them. The Iraq war let the cat out of the bag, when field commanders saw their capabilities they wanted as many as possible as soon as possible. Recall the news reports of experimental UAVs being rushed into service.

UAVs are inherently MUCH cheaper than manned vehicles cos safety is far less of an issue and there is no pilot to keep alive. If it gets shot down you just send up another one.

With the new micro UAVs under development you will be able to put dozens in the air at one time.

Posted by phil_b 2004-2-23 5:43:29 PM|| 2004-2-23 5:43:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Shipman... All we heard was the airframe guys talk. I work for the engine manufacture in Phoenix. The impression that I got from a recent Army visit is that the service would not be interested in more OH-58's. It a jet ranger painted green

Posted by Startford Thug 2004-2-23 5:52:59 PM|| 2004-2-23 5:52:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Ohmygod - the V22 Osprey isn't dead yet? Now there was a piece of work - imagine the bureaucratic brilliance of the designers and planners who conceived of the plan - and actually pulled it off - to ensure that at least one subsystem was being made in each of the 50 states! Rumor was that they were trying to arrange for at least one part to be manufactured in every congressional district. 'Talk about a "tough to kill" program... heh, heh.....

Posted by Lone Ranger 2004-2-23 6:10:57 PM|| 2004-2-23 6:10:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 I see tiny Kiowas in the future.

About the size of a large dinner plate.

Posted by phil_b 2004-2-23 6:20:02 PM|| 2004-2-23 6:20:02 PM|| Front Page Top

13:36 Anonymous4710
20:24 Annie Onymous
15:35 Daniel King
15:00 CrazyFool
08:36 Howard UK
23:56 PBMcL
23:49 Danny
23:40 Angie Schultz
23:33 GK
23:27 Danny
23:15 Danny
23:12 Pappy
23:11 Barbara Skolaut
23:10 Traveller
23:08 Barbara Skolaut
23:03 Barbara Skolaut
22:58 CrazyFool
22:54 JerseyMike
22:53 tu3031
22:52 CrazyFool
22:50 tu3031
22:50 Barbara Skolaut
22:45 phil_b
22:37 tu3031