"Pentagon axes development of Comanche helicopter"

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

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

(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.

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.

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

I saw the briefing on TV and the general said that the block 3 apache will
incorporate much of the comanche technologly with the exception of the stealth
stuff. So it is not going to be a complete waste.

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.

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

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

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

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