Army Decides to End 20-Year-Old Program to Build New-Generation Helicopter

[rodbarnett]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Army has decided to cancel its Comanche helicopter program, a multibillion-dollar project to build a new-generation chopper for armed reconnaissance missions, officials said Monday.
The contractors for Comanche are Boeing Co. and Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.

With about $8 billion already invested in the program, and the production line not yet started, the cancellation is one of the largest in the history of the Army. It follows the Pentagon's decision in 2002 to cancel the Crusader artillery program - against the wishes of Army leaders.

Pentagon officials said a public announcement was planned for Monday afternoon

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA8BM4W0RD.html

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Do I get my money back????

[mobuto]

2. Oops

Oh well. What's $8 billion?

Next question: When does the Air Force cancel the F-22 boondoggle? The F-35 is more than enough.

[imax2268]

3. Yea...

I would like my share of that back also...

heh...8 billion...drop in the bucket huh...

[Paulie]

4. Some more on the Comanche

Glad they are canceling it....

---
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/gao_01-450_comanche.pdf

"Comanche Program Objectives Need to be Revised to More Achievable Levels," latest GAO report (June 2001, 336 KB .pdf) The title pretty much says it all for this program, which began in 1983 and has been restructured five times. In the last 18 months alone, projected costs have increased over 10%.

[papau]

5. Any recent Bush and friends stock sales of Boeing/Sikorsky

If not we know that new budget takes care of them with new contracts.

[catzies]

8. Sikorsky's parent United Technologies -- under Carlyle umbrella?

Carlyle's private so they don't have to disclose anything, but I thought they owned UTX stock.

But even without knowing any/all details, I am sure BFEE will continue to flourish like the evil noxious weed it is.

[Snazzy]

18. Last week or so Carlyle sold a big chunk of United defense.

Now we know why.

[Snazzy]

19. PR for that

February 17, 2004 05:28 PM US Eastern Timezone

United Defense Major Shareholder Sells 7.0 Million Shares

ARLINGTON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 17, 2004--United Defense Industries, Inc. (NYSE:UDI) announced today that certain of its stockholders, affiliates of The Carlyle Group, sold 7.0 million shares of its common stock, or approximately $213 million, in a public offering led by J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. United Defense Industries will not receive any proceeds from the offering.


A shelf registration statement relating to these securities was filed and has been previously declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commissions (the "SEC"). A prospectus supplement relating to the offering will be filed by United Defense Industries Inc with the SEC and will be available on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov. Printed copies of the prospectus supplement relating to the offering may also be obtained, when available, from the Prospectus Department of JP Morgan at 277 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10072, 212-622-5219.

This announcement does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy the securities described herein, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any jurisdictions in which such an offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.

About United Defense

United Defense designs, develops and produces combat vehicles, artillery, naval guns, missile launchers and precision munitions used by the U.S. Department of Defense and allies worldwide and provides non-nuclear ship repair, modernization, overhaul and conversion to the U.S. Navy and other U.S. Government agencies. To learn more about United Defense, visit www.uniteddefense.com.

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20040217006293&newsLang=en

[Cooley Hurd]

20. Help me out here... how is this NOT a case of insider trading?

Carlyle dumps 7 million shares of United Technologies stock a week before the Army cancels the Sikorsky Comanche (a UT subsidiary). Carlyle is headed by the father of the President, and a former Sec. of Defense (and a very close friend of the present Sec. of Defense). This connection alone would have the SEC humming in any other scenario (i.e. IF the parties involved were Dems), but all we hear now is the sound of silence.

How is this NOT insider trading?

Oh, and Free Martha! :)

[Ready4Change]

25. Sounds like insider trading to me.

.

[Bandit]

6. 20 year program? ~ They were talking about the Commanche in Vietnam

In 1968 it was to be released in just a year or two. ??? I don't get it. Is this an entirely different program with the same name?

[GRClarkesq]

22. Different program

Comanche didnt start flying until recently.

[GOPisEvil]

7. Hmm...figures...assembly plant in Connecticut.

If it had been in Florida or California or another swing state, I bet they'd have saved this cancellation until after the election.

[Mandate My Ass]

9. Boeing excels at sucking the government tit

in exchange for faulty products. REad about the V-22 Osprey sometime if you want to see your tax dollars being wasted on an obscenely costly and dangerous boondoggle.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:bDhBw5ugqMQJ:www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb72.pdf+history+v-22+osprey&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[BiggJawn]

11. Oh, yeah, the "Flying Porkbarrel"...

It'd be laughable if that damn thing hadn't already killed more troops/test pilots that it will ever kill the enemy...

[Mandate My Ass]

13. flying pork

I'm sure the V-22 will fly right about the same time that pigs sprout wings and take to the skies.

[Ready4Change]

27. One of the V-22's problems is...

One of the V-22's problems is that it combines the worst features of rotary wing aircraft with none of the advantages of fixed wing aircraft.

Fixed wing aircraft can fly quickly with good range. The V-22's large props are inefficient at moderate speeds and a hindrance at high speeds.

Meanwhile, the major problem with rotary wing craft is maintenance, because they have many parts which, if they fail, result in loss of the aircraft. The V-22's complexity makes it highly maintenance needy.

I'm usually all for new military hardware, but the V-22 hasn't ever made sense to me. (I'll post re: Comanche separately.)

[Florida_Geek]

10. This pisses me off

"The Bush administration has now killed the two biggest Army weapons programs it inherited from the Clinton administration," Thompson said, referring to the Crusader and Comanche."

Sounds like the program started in 83 is STILL all Clinton's fault.

[BiggJawn]

12. and if Clinton had killed these programs he "inheirited" from Poppy....

It would be like his dick. We'd STILL be hearing about it.

[mobuto]

14. Clinton's weak on defense

just another draft-dodging military-hating liberal...

These things write themselves, no?

[JackDragna]

15. The sad thing is..

..our troops probably need a new helicopter. Current models such as the Apache are notorious for how easy they go down, particularly to small arms fire.

[mobuto]

16. The Comanche wouldn't have replaced the Apache anyway

Why do we need helicopter gunships in the first place? Why not slow-flying ground support aircraft. They're much cheaper, much sturdier and (it would seem) more effective.

[Strelnikov_]

26. Like The A-10

Read an article, oh, 21 years ago, about how neither the Army or Air Force wanted the A-10. Air Force likes bombers/fighters, Army believes in helos for close ground support.

Article discussed cost of helos vs A-10 (3x or more), poor survivability of helos, etc.

Last two gulf wars have vindicated the A-10 concept, and demonstrated the vulnerability of helos to ground fire.

[Ready4Change]

29. Did we have any A-10's in use in GW2?

I didn't hear of any. I thought only the National Guard had them in GW1, and none in GW2 due to A-10 production being halted?

[Ready4Change]

28. Why we need helicopter gunships.

The helicopters ability to hover and fly very slowly allows it to make much better use of terrain for coverage (hiding.) That allows them to get much closer, and stay (loiter) much closer to the combat zone. THAT allows them to respond to the needs of ground troops much more quickly. It can also allow them to place their munitions much more accurately. Finally, they are ideal for dropping off and extracting combat teams, or for rescue work.

Helicopters weakness are from their fragility and from that very proximity to the battlefield. Hugging terrain helps, but can't eliminate this problem.

Fixed wing aircraft are cheaper, and can loiter for much longer times. However, they can't hug terrain as well, and they must maintain airspeed by making large circles. If they circle above the combat zone they are vulnerable to any number of weapons, and if they circle farther away their response time is increased.

The ultimate (so far) fixed wing replacement for helicopters is the A-10 (Warthog or THunderbolt, depending in which name you prefer.) Able to carry heavy loads, hit accurately, loiter for a long time, and about as rugged an aircraft you'll ever find. But A-10 production was halted a while ago, and only National Guard units were flying it back in the time of Gulf War I. I didn't hear about ANY in GW2.

[mobuto]

32. I'm not questioning helicopters

I'm questioning gunships. Are Apaches and other gunships more effective than A-10s and AC-130s? They may not be able to hover (which also means they're not so vulnerable) but they can fly slowly and loiter.

If they circle above the combat zone they are vulnerable to any number of weapons, and if they circle farther away their response time is increased.


But never to RPGs and AK-47 fire - which endander our helicopters in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, even when hit, they're less likely to go down.

But A-10 production was halted a while ago, and only National Guard units were flying it back in the time of Gulf War I. I didn't hear about ANY in GW2.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to restart production?

[Ready4Change]

35. gunships

Are Apaches and other gunships more effective than A-10s and AC-130s?

Gunships can only respond faster by a matter of minutes. Then again, how long can those minutes seem when you're in a foxhole waiting for supporting fire?

Those minutes are why copters stay so close to the front lines, even when they are so vulnerable.

And that vulnerability is why a newer, tougher copter would be a good thing.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to restart production? (regarding A-10's)

Yes, I think it would be. We're filling in it's role with F-15's, 16s, and 18's. What those gain in speed they lose in accuracy. Ah well.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Florida_Geek]

17. Why do I believe the Army has a new copter up it

sheave.

[RobertSeattle]

21. Rumsfield better not run for President...

He must be "weak on defense" if he doesn't buy every gold plated thing the defense industry comes up with.

[GRClarkesq]

23. Justification I heard from some guy at Jane's

was that Comanche was intended for deep strike/recon. Recent experience showed helicopeters to be too fragile (Apaches shot up in Iraq ground war phase) over modern battlefield, and that situation will only get worse.

Recon mission can be accomplished by drones, cheaper and no loss of life.

[RobertSeattle]

24. Sounds smart to me

Wonder why it took 8.5 Billion to figure out the nearly obvious.

[saigon68]

30. Wonder why it took 8.5 Billion (NOT REALLY)

It has everything to do with Graft, Corruption and Bribery---and not much to do with Engineering, Invention or Science.

[JCMach1]

31. No, but the Carlyle Group bailed a month before the cancellation

http://www.thesyndrome.com/archives/00000567.htm

[Ready4Change]

34. Why we need a new 'Copter

In short, they fill a needed role. If we are to fight wars at all (different subject) I believe we should fight them as effectively as possible. And that means filling needed roles with equipment and manpower well suited to that role.

Todays copters provide the offensive abilities needed. However, as mentioned, they are comparatively fragile in a combat zone. They are also noisy (unstealthy), which makes them an easier target than I'd prefer for something both fragile AND near the front line.

So, we need a new 'copter that's more reliable and stealthy than what we have today. Or we need to stop fighting wars. Or we need to accept the deaths of our soldiers. Pick one, and all it's repurcussions.