A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Rotorcraft
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Pentagon axes development of Comanche helicopter"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 27th 04, 05:23 AM
Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wanna know why the development period was so long? Lack of funding. I
joined Comanche PMO in 1989. We awarded the first EMD contract in 1991,
then funding was slashed by over 50% in 1992. For TEN YEARS we wandered
along without sufficient funding to achieve the stated program objectives.
We were restructured FIVE TIMES in that period, with the same result each
time - not enough money to really complete the program. It was only with
the last restructure in 2002 that we were given enough funding to do the
program right. That's the cruel reality - we were finally funded and on
track to complete on schedule, and we were cancelled....

Dan Hollenbaugh
Comanche Test Engineer

wrote in message ...
BTW for my Real Job I did a customer visit to Lockheed-Martin in Florida
last year, and one thing that blew me away is that they had been working
on Comanche hardware and software for TEN YEARS. That kind of
development cycle puts some interesting challenges in front of the
companies that provide their hardware/software development tools - i.e.
we would like to obsolete incredibly old versions of our development
tools *eventually*.

In other words, I believe that Windows 3.1 was state-of-the-art ten
years ago. Or was it Windows 2.0? It's been so long...

I just hope that some aspects of the Comanche development effort are
used in some other products/systems, so that those 1o years of many
peoples' work and sweat equity wasn't a complete waste.

May DOS rest in peace,

Dave Blevins

On 24 Feb 2004 23:40:15 GMT,
idday (jimmineecricket)
wrote:

(a) did they have to spend $7B before deciding this?


I find it amazing that they were able to come to the conclusion at all.

The
system so often just keeps on going after the momentum is initiated and we

are
left with weapon systems that either dont work right or are obsolete

before
they are deployed.
Anyone see the report on the Patriot Missile? We have been misled on how

well
it works....or should I say how it doesnt work. Unless you count shooting

down
your own aircraft as working.




Ads
  #12  
Old February 27th 04, 05:28 AM
Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Answers to your questions:

(a) Yes, because fundiing was spooned out in totally inadequate portions.
Had we been allowed to keep the initial funding profile we were given in
1990, we would have fielded the aircraft in 1995 for far less than the $6B
(not 7) spent to date. Instead, the Army just waffled along, wasting money.

(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.

(c) Nope - I'm the civilian test director, and I own the only two
airframes. I'm hoping to send #1 to the Ft Rucker Aviation Museum, and put
#2 on a stick in front of my office at Redstone Arsenal. (But I'm just the
test guy, and probably won't get to decide)

Dan Hollenbaugh
Comanche Test Engineer


wrote in message
...
I sorta kinda agree with the reasoning that was given by the Army (as
detailed in the newspaper today), but

(a) did they have to spend $7B before deciding this?

(b) I was really looking forward to its deployment - selfishly, as a
helicopter pilot/enthusiast I think it's a beautiful aircraft.

(c) may I please have one of the airframes that is currently on the
production line to put in my pasture? I think it would make fine Yard
Art.

Dave Blevins

On 24 Feb 2004 09:08:44 -0800,
(Mike) wrote:

Pentagon axes development of Comanche helicopter
The Pentagon announced yesterday that it is canceling the Army's
program to build a new helicopter after spending about $7 billion in
development costs.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...5809-1679r.htm



  #13  
Old March 1st 04, 06:10 AM
Steve Waltner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article k.net,
Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh wrote:
[snip]
(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.
[snip]

Dan Hollenbaugh
Comanche Test Engineer


I hope you got to see the last flight of the Comanche this week. My
brother said it was a pretty impressive demonstration. Hopefully
someone was running the video camera. ;-) Too bad this impressive
airframe is going away. I would have liked to see one in person, but
some odd thing about national security. Oh well, hopefully one will
show up in a museum somewhere so we can get a close look at it.

Steve
  #14  
Old March 1st 04, 09:14 PM
Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have the PM's permission to bring it to Redstone for one last demo. I
expect to see the final flight.

Dan H.

Steve Waltner wrote in message ...
In article k.net,
Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh wrote:
[snip]
(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.
[snip]

Dan Hollenbaugh
Comanche Test Engineer


I hope you got to see the last flight of the Comanche this week. My
brother said it was a pretty impressive demonstration. Hopefully
someone was running the video camera. ;-) Too bad this impressive
airframe is going away. I would have liked to see one in person, but
some odd thing about national security. Oh well, hopefully one will
show up in a museum somewhere so we can get a close look at it.

Steve



  #15  
Old March 2nd 04, 01:49 AM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 05:28:54 GMT, "Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh"
wrote:

Answers to your questions:

Dan -

Obviously I was joking on question "c" - but it is fun to get an answer
from you on it nonetheless, even if it is "no" 8^) .

BTW my "condolences" on the cancellation of your program. As I said I
kinda sorta see the reasoning behind the cancellation - i.e. that the
Comanche was conceived when the threat was Russian tanks rather than SAM
(SAndal-Mounted) or TOW (Turban Optical Wire) missiles - but now it
seems that we won't have any truly new rotary airframes in the US
military for many years to come. So every helicopter in our arsenal is
like a giant billboard radar-wise - hmmm.

BTW#2 are there any web-accessible diagrams or high-quality photos of
the Comanche cockpits?

cheers,

Dave Blevins

(a) Yes, because fundiing was spooned out in totally inadequate portions.
Had we been allowed to keep the initial funding profile we were given in
1990, we would have fielded the aircraft in 1995 for far less than the $6B
(not 7) spent to date. Instead, the Army just waffled along, wasting money.

(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.

(c) Nope - I'm the civilian test director, and I own the only two
airframes. I'm hoping to send #1 to the Ft Rucker Aviation Museum, and put
#2 on a stick in front of my office at Redstone Arsenal. (But I'm just the
test guy, and probably won't get to decide)

Dan Hollenbaugh
Comanche Test Engineer

  #16  
Old March 2nd 04, 04:18 AM
Micbloo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.

Saw it fly once on the "Discovery Channel" show "American Choppers" where the
team was making a motorcycle
to look like the Comanche.
Very cool looking ship.
Damn shame with all those jobs lost also.
And I thought I'd get a chance to see one or two buzzing around NYC on a test
flight
out of Ct.
I guess after The Hulk did a number on them in the Midwest the writing was on
the wall. :O)

Gerard
  #17  
Old March 2nd 04, 06:19 AM
Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Something to think about when you're trying to understand the cancellation -
if the reason really was the lack of a Soviet tank army-type threat, why
weren't we cancelled ten years ago? Could it be that the stated reason for
cancellation is (gasp) not true? You'd be amazed at what I'm hearing about
signatures - it seems that, since no aircraft in the world can hover 200 ft
above a guy with an SA-7 (or an RPG), the folks in charge of the Army have
decided that low observable helicopters are no longer worth pursuing. Look
for the announcement of a large buy of Little Birds.

Don't know about any online pics of the cockpit. I have a few, and I'm
trying to gather up more for my record, and to build my own model. Drop a
note to my e-mail address, and I'll send what I can find.

Dan H.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 05:28:54 GMT, "Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh"
wrote:

Answers to your questions:

Dan -

Obviously I was joking on question "c" - but it is fun to get an answer
from you on it nonetheless, even if it is "no" 8^) .

BTW my "condolences" on the cancellation of your program. As I said I
kinda sorta see the reasoning behind the cancellation - i.e. that the
Comanche was conceived when the threat was Russian tanks rather than SAM
(SAndal-Mounted) or TOW (Turban Optical Wire) missiles - but now it
seems that we won't have any truly new rotary airframes in the US
military for many years to come. So every helicopter in our arsenal is
like a giant billboard radar-wise - hmmm.

BTW#2 are there any web-accessible diagrams or high-quality photos of
the Comanche cockpits?

cheers,

Dave Blevins

(a) Yes, because fundiing was spooned out in totally inadequate portions.
Had we been allowed to keep the initial funding profile we were given in
1990, we would have fielded the aircraft in 1995 for far less than the $6B
(not 7) spent to date. Instead, the Army just waffled along, wasting

money.

(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.

(c) Nope - I'm the civilian test director, and I own the only two
airframes. I'm hoping to send #1 to the Ft Rucker Aviation Museum, and

put
#2 on a stick in front of my office at Redstone Arsenal. (But I'm just

the
test guy, and probably won't get to decide)

Dan Hollenbaugh
Comanche Test Engineer



  #18  
Old March 2nd 04, 02:25 PM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

....mmmmm... i think they cancelled the program bcs they had *very*
serious handling qualities problems. Who had worked on that machine
knows about them.

My personal idea is that helicopters are not good machines to fight,
and, overall, reality is confirming that.
It's better to have some millions in our pockets, rather than having
it flying.


"Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh" wrote in message thlink.net...
Something to think about when you're trying to understand the cancellation -
if the reason really was the lack of a Soviet tank army-type threat, why
weren't we cancelled ten years ago? Could it be that the stated reason for
cancellation is (gasp) not true? You'd be amazed at what I'm hearing about
signatures - it seems that, since no aircraft in the world can hover 200 ft
above a guy with an SA-7 (or an RPG), the folks in charge of the Army have
decided that low observable helicopters are no longer worth pursuing. Look
for the announcement of a large buy of Little Birds.

Don't know about any online pics of the cockpit. I have a few, and I'm
trying to gather up more for my record, and to build my own model. Drop a
note to my e-mail address, and I'll send what I can find.

Dan H.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 05:28:54 GMT, "Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh"
wrote:

Answers to your questions:

Dan -

Obviously I was joking on question "c" - but it is fun to get an answer
from you on it nonetheless, even if it is "no" 8^) .

BTW my "condolences" on the cancellation of your program. As I said I
kinda sorta see the reasoning behind the cancellation - i.e. that the
Comanche was conceived when the threat was Russian tanks rather than SAM
(SAndal-Mounted) or TOW (Turban Optical Wire) missiles - but now it
seems that we won't have any truly new rotary airframes in the US
military for many years to come. So every helicopter in our arsenal is
like a giant billboard radar-wise - hmmm.

BTW#2 are there any web-accessible diagrams or high-quality photos of
the Comanche cockpits?

cheers,

Dave Blevins

(a) Yes, because fundiing was spooned out in totally inadequate portions.
Had we been allowed to keep the initial funding profile we were given in
1990, we would have fielded the aircraft in 1995 for far less than the $6B
(not 7) spent to date. Instead, the Army just waffled along, wasting

money.

(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.

(c) Nope - I'm the civilian test director, and I own the only two
airframes. I'm hoping to send #1 to the Ft Rucker Aviation Museum, and

put
#2 on a stick in front of my office at Redstone Arsenal. (But I'm just

the
test guy, and probably won't get to decide)

Dan Hollenbaugh
Comanche Test Engineer

  #19  
Old March 2nd 04, 09:15 PM
Shaber CJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

were given enough funding to do the
program right. That's the cruel reality - we were finally funded and on
track to complete on schedule, and we were cancelled....

Dan Hollenbaugh
Comanche Test Engineer


I was sorry to hear that the program was canceled. I certainly do not know
anything of the technical achievements or hurdles yet to overcome, but it
certainly looked like an exciting new airframe. I felt the same way about the
Navy's A-12 and then they ended up with the F/A 18E/F.

Craig
  #20  
Old March 2nd 04, 09:46 PM
Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You're very wrong. There were some early problems with directional
stability and rotor vibrations, but those were solved long ago. Handling
Qualities were not a problem. If you don't think helicopters are good
fighting machines, you're in the wrong newsgroup.

Dan H.

wrote in message
. ..
...mmmmm... i think they cancelled the program bcs they had *very*
serious handling qualities problems. Who had worked on that machine
knows about them.

My personal idea is that helicopters are not good machines to fight,
and, overall, reality is confirming that.
It's better to have some millions in our pockets, rather than having
it flying.


"Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh" wrote in message

thlink.net...
Something to think about when you're trying to understand the

cancellation -
if the reason really was the lack of a Soviet tank army-type threat, why
weren't we cancelled ten years ago? Could it be that the stated reason

for
cancellation is (gasp) not true? You'd be amazed at what I'm hearing

about
signatures - it seems that, since no aircraft in the world can hover 200

ft
above a guy with an SA-7 (or an RPG), the folks in charge of the Army

have
decided that low observable helicopters are no longer worth pursuing.

Look
for the announcement of a large buy of Little Birds.

Don't know about any online pics of the cockpit. I have a few, and I'm
trying to gather up more for my record, and to build my own model. Drop

a
note to my e-mail address, and I'll send what I can find.

Dan H.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 05:28:54 GMT, "Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh"
wrote:

Answers to your questions:
Dan -

Obviously I was joking on question "c" - but it is fun to get an answer
from you on it nonetheless, even if it is "no" 8^) .

BTW my "condolences" on the cancellation of your program. As I said I
kinda sorta see the reasoning behind the cancellation - i.e. that the
Comanche was conceived when the threat was Russian tanks rather than SAM
(SAndal-Mounted) or TOW (Turban Optical Wire) missiles - but now it
seems that we won't have any truly new rotary airframes in the US
military for many years to come. So every helicopter in our arsenal is
like a giant billboard radar-wise - hmmm.

BTW#2 are there any web-accessible diagrams or high-quality photos of
the Comanche cockpits?

cheers,

Dave Blevins

(a) Yes, because fundiing was spooned out in totally inadequate

portions.
Had we been allowed to keep the initial funding profile we were given

in
1990, we would have fielded the aircraft in 1995 for far less than the

$6B
(not 7) spent to date. Instead, the Army just waffled along, wasting

money.

(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.

(c) Nope - I'm the civilian test director, and I own the only two
airframes. I'm hoping to send #1 to the Ft Rucker Aviation Museum, and

put
#2 on a stick in front of my office at Redstone Arsenal. (But I'm just

the
test guy, and probably won't get to decide)

Dan Hollenbaugh
Comanche Test Engineer



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentagon Reviews Health of Helicopter Industrial Base Otis Willie Military Aviation 1 August 22nd 04 07:23 AM
Commanche alternatives? John Cook Military Aviation 99 March 24th 04 03:22 AM
Commanche alternatives? Kevin Brooks Naval Aviation 23 March 24th 04 03:22 AM
Army ends 20-year helicopter program Garrison Hilliard Military Aviation 12 February 27th 04 07:48 PM
RAH-66 Comanche helicopter could face budget cuts in 2005 Larry Dighera Military Aviation 0 November 19th 03 02:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.