Comanche Grounded
 |
James Joyner | Monday, February 23, 2004 |
Looks like I’m not the only one in the market for work: The Army is canceling the Comanche helicopter program.
The Comanche decision reflects a growing realization in the Pentagon that the military has more big-ticket weapons projects in the works than it can afford, even after seeing the Pentagon budget grow by tens of billions of dollars since 2001. And it the reflects the rising popularity of unmanned aircraft, for surveillance as well as attack missions, in recent years.The RAH-66 Comanche helicopter project was launched in 1983 and was eventually to cost $38 billion. The Army said it needed a stealthier, more capable armed reconnaissance helicopter to not only collect and distribute battlefield intelligence but also to destroy enemy forces.
I’m afraid the program was the victim of the incredibly long R&D to production cycle. In 1983, I was still in high school, Ronald Reagan was in his first term as president, and nobody had heard of Mikhail Gorbachev. While this will likely cost quite a few folks at Boeing-Sikorsky their jobs, not to mention the taxpayers another $2 billion just to cancel it, it’s likely the right move.
Hat tip: Sean Hackbarth
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Making Jobs More Expensive
- House Trades Freedom for Health Coverage, Senate’s Move
- Hasan a Muslim First, American Second?
- OTB Caption JamTM
- Taking “No” As Iran’s Answer
- Update on the Fort Hood Massacre
- OTB Latenight – Soft Cell
- Caption Contest Winners
- Breaking: Shootings at Fort Hood (Updated)
- Pentagon Expected To Ask For Supplementary War Funding. As Usual.
As a layman who watches military advancements and technology closely, I kinda think that any weapon system that requires a quarter of a century to develop probably has some problems.
A manned helicopter for a country who thinks 600 troops killed while defeating two countries a half-a-world away is a disaster, that country must use unmanned craft or mercenaries.
When RPGs are as available as spitwads and AK-47s in the places we're going to have to fight in, is spending more money on aircraft that can be destroyed by one really a good use of our money?
You can expect a lot of malice to come from the Pentagon leak-work, congressmen with plants in their districts and retired Army colonels, mostly aimed at Donald Rumsfeld, but maybe this is like Nixon going to China. Only someone who isn't worried about appearing weak on defense could cut this boondoggle.
Remember the Crusader (great name for war in the Middle East) artillery system? A lot of the same people are still mad about that cancellation.
IN the great scheme of things, this is really just another manifestation of the defense drawdown of the '90s. Clinton cut funding such that a lot of procurement programs were pushed back until we got a "procurement bow wave" effect where the deployment dates of a huge number of systems kept getting pushed back and piled on each other. There are two ways out - extra-super-horrendous-monumental defense budgets, or axeing programs right left and center.
---
Comments are Closed
