Talk:Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche

Comanche Cancellation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion closed as this page is for improving the article, and is not a forum.

---

Is there anyone who knows why the Comanche was cancelled?

The need for a stealth recce helicopter is no more, thanks to the riskless use of UAVs. Yeah, I know, really stinks doesn't it? Unfortunatly, the Comanche was a very potent attack helicopter (hence the designation RAH, not RH) as well as a great recon bird. (USMA2010 05:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

I thought it was because of the high cost (I thought I read $1,000,000,000) and that because the cost was so high, it was cheaper to use other helicopters like the Apache. The only source I can think of where I got this was from Commanche Gold, but now I don't think that's true.70.69.206.62 06:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Proper

Crying shame as it was gorgeous and I'd been waiting to see them in action since playing Gunship 2000 10 years ago! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.33.122 (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was a cost vs. usefulness argument not just a cost argument. There were a few flaws in the programs goals & capabilities which people pointed out in reviews of it. Basically this might've gone something like this; "Stealth is best optimised on an aircraft in the forward hemisphere on an aircraft. The RAH-66 is intended as a recon helicopter so attempting to plan missions where it faces its opponents is not possible and therefore the Stealth components will not be cost effective or as capable (or both). Therefore the use of expendable assets like UAV's to fill the attack and recon roles of the RAH-66 may be more advantageous.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The real reason was that the end of the Warzaw pact did it for the Commanche. It was built for fighting in WWIII, but after the invasion of Iraq there was little need for an expensive stealth helicopter in an urban environment with no air defence systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinegern (talk • contribs) 14:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Weapons?

The weapons section states that the commanche can carry 4 stingers and 4 hellfires, which seems reasonable. It then states that it can carry 14 hellfires, almost as much as an apache, 28 stingers, much more than an apache, or 50 hydra 70s, which seems a little excessive for a recon helicopter, but somewhat reasonable. What does/can it really carry, since these numbers contradict themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.4.226 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• The quantities in the Specs section have to be wrong. There's no place for it to carry that many. Hellfires come in 4 pack launchers, and Hydras generally 19 in a pod. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Fixed. This page shows the armament configurations. With stub wings it could carry fair amount. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How come the specs say it has a 3-barrel gun, but every picture I've seen of it, INCLUDING the cutaways, features a TWO barrel gun? Either that, or some weird orange thing.

But I do believe the 14 Hellfire payload (1 quad mount per stub wing + 2 triple rack internally.)

Seems it can carry 6 twin Stingers internally. No idea what the stub wing configuration would be. But Stingers are weak anyways. A more likely fit would be a twin Sidewinder launcher on each wing. They have more range & a heavier warhead. There isn't much chance of a Commanche having to deal with a satuartion aerial threat.

For the FFARs, 2x 19 on the wings (1each)=38 +6x2 internally (is there a 2 tube FFAR launcher?) equals 50. PLEASE NOTE: The Stinger has a diameter EQUAL to a Hydra-70, so IN THEORY, a FFAR COULD FIT in a Stinger Launcher, but it would be impractica. Modifying a 7/19 tube Hydra pod to fire Stinger on the other hand, WOULD be a good idea!l96.238.134.116 (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Attack Helo

This article says it was suppose to be a replacement for the OH-58 Kiowa. This helo seems to have more in common with the Apache. Any possibility in restarting the program as a future replacement for the Apache? Jigen III (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• The design is for a Recon/Attack helicopter more like the OH-58D. The Comanche has a smaller main gun and the same or less amount of rockets/missiles as the Apache. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The gun is more accurate than the Apache's, though, and its ballistics and scatter pattern are more suited to use in an urban zone or on soft targets. Apples and oranges. 66.178.144.36 (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Used for Osama Bin Laden raid

According to a broadcast by Al Jazeera on 05 May 2011, the helicopter that was used to deploy personnel to conduct the raid against Osama Bin Laden's secret hideout in Abbottobad, Pakistan was most likely an H-60 type of Stealth Helicopter. The Al Jazeera reporter interviewed Robert Densmore, an expert working with Defence IQ. The helicopter had made a hard landing that made it inoperable at the start of the raid, which resulted in the team's decision to blow it up before abandoning it upon their evacuation from the compound site. There was some remains left behind of the demolished helicopter, including a tail section, which gave Densmore the identification he needed to hazard a guess as to what kind of chopper had been used in the operation. I don't want to include this information in the article yet, because I can't find any verifiable source to prove beyond question specifically which kind of chopper was used. --Saukkomies ^talk 13:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article that shows the helicopter used in the Bin Laden raid was a Stealth UH-60 Blackhawk: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/05/05/136017082/reports-secret-stealth-black-hawk-helicopters-used-in-bin-laden-raid --Saukkomies ^talk 13:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

AvWeb says it was most likely a special version of the MH-60 Stealth Blackhawk Used In Bin Laden Raid? and quotes the Army Times who said they "were a radar-evading variant of the special operations MH-60 Blackhawk." Sounds fairly likely. In looking at the tail pictures on AvWeb vs the RAH-66 photos it definitley was NOT an RAH-66, the tail rotors are totally different. - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, sorry about the mistake. I actually found it mentioned here: Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk, under the section 3.1 Operational history, U.S. Army. --Saukkomies ^talk 14:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

But didn't Wikinegern end the discussion on the worth of L-O rotorcraft with his completely ironclad and uncontested argument that they're is sooooo WWIII? Psshhh! It's called myopia. And I'm getting sick of the amount of "undos" that's happened on not only the article, but this discussion page. -Reticuli 66.178.144.36 (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Nothing has been reverted or deleted on this talk page since this discussion began, and Wikinegern hasn't edited this article or talk page. - BilCat (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the internetz, it's gettin' to'em. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

1) No claim was made that Wikinegern made those edits. 2) Deletions were made from the talk. 71.65.115.103 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed

Can someone with references about the Comanches on display please add them to the article? ""Aircraft on display" in unsourced. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Army Aviation Museum apparently had them when I visited 1.5 years ago, but they were not on display. It had Comanche related merchandise on sale for whatever that's worth. The Museum's web site does not list the RAH-66, but the site has not been updated in several years. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft in use today by the Night Stalkers

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Just finished a book written by Richard Bennett which talks about various special forces from around the globe. This is a highly comprehensive almanac. The chapter dealing with the SOAR mentions that the reg. uses the RAH-66 Comanche in their arsenal. This makes sense as its a low-observable aircraft that fits perfectly in their mission plans - night time, low level and low observable aircraft operations. Being part of a black program (obviously) they probably have access to many other "cancelled" technologies. The low-observable stealth helicopter that crashed at the UBL compound obviously wasnt an RAH-66 but goes to show what the reg. is using as aircraft today. Leeveraction (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Night Stalkers is an Army Special Forces unit, not Air Force. The Elite Forces book is a Fringe theory thing. There should have more than one source and something newer than 2004 to say the RAH-66 is in current use is in the article. The Stealth helicopter used in the raid on Bin Laden's compound has been widely reported as a special MH-60 Black Hawk variant. Some early speculation involved the RAH-66, but nothing else has come out. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The book is a credible source as per WIKI guidelines and not some fringe conspiracy theory website. Again, the RAH-66 was not downed in the UBL raid. I've made other references to classified details in other WIKI articles using the same principles and have had no problems. You do not need multiple sources to make a reference to something on WIKI nor does it have to be from the present day. The wording can be changed in the article to something more ambiguous perhaps like "the SOAR have reportedly used RAH-66 helicopters at one time" Leeveraction (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Fnlayson on this that this claim is fairly far fetched, that one book that doesn't prove that this is correct and overall is not sufficient to include this as a fact. I could see perhaps adding something to the effect that this one author claims that the aircraft is in service, but offers no proof of that, or similar wording. - Ahunt (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• The book is dated 2004; the year when the program was canceled. It can't be used a reference for the current situation in 2011. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Since that was the year the program was cancelled perhaps he was anticipating that it was going to enter service and with the special forces units first? Regardless the information is sufficiently questionable as to its original source as well as being out of date as to omit it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering the first two finalized production airframes for weapons certification and deployment were being built at the time he wrote it, it is more likely he was talking out his rear end. 71.65.115.103 (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

F-22 derived airframe?

I can find references to commonality of avionics (e.g. electronic systems) with the F-22 (1), but I am confused by the notion that the airframe is derived from the Raptor. It seems to me suggesting that a two-seat attack helicopter had its physical configuration based on a single-seat air superiority fighter is a significant claim. I haven't been able to find a copy of the first reference on the sentence, but Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons (Bell, Miller) does not mention the air-frame except to indicate that it's meant to be easy to transport. I'm loathe to remove the reference to the Raptor entirely, but I think that the avionic commonality and the stealthy intent have been conflated.

(1) http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/rah66_comanche.htm

C37H67NO13 (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That text has been in the article a little while. The wording did not make much sense to me. None of my books mention any F-22 connections. I could not find the relevant text in the Bonds & Miller book through google books also. For those reasons, I removed the "F-22-dervived airframe" text. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Good. It's a bogus claim. 71.65.115.103 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No Mention of General Shinseki in the Entire Article?

Comanche was canceled as retribution to its (and the Future Combat System's) biggest and most vocal supporter and promoter: General Shinseki, who'd just left as Army Chief of Staff and urged it be continued in his departing statement and letter to the SecDef. I suppose if Boeing and Sikorsky had more ties to Halliburton, like many of the ridiculous, redundant, and far too numerous private intelligence firms the government has financed for billions since 9/11, it might have stood a better chance. But it was retribution against the defiant culture of Shinseki and his prescient doctrines after he stood up against Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz and made fools of them before Congress and the public. 71.65.115.103 (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)