Simviation Forums

Read the article here:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040223/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/helicopter_cancellation_8

Seems to be a huge waste of $8 billion already invested...

and guess whos going to end up paying for it :-/
this is a shame as it looked very promising, and although the apache isnt really that old, it would have made a perfect replacement, by the time of entry to service.

That

i highly doubt that apache was shot down by a farmer, i didnt bother to read up on it after i heard about it, because it came across as blatent iraqi propaganda(information minister anyone:)) so if it really was prooven to be the case then ok.
However they Apache is an amazing piece of equiptment, and built to last, sure ithas mechnical problems, what aircraft doesnt. But its operational ability far outweighs the problems. It can absorb amazing amounts of punishment, and keep flying.

Indeed military aircraft are prone to crashing, but considering how much they, their record is actually very good.

It really is a shame because the Commanche could push the limits of rotary flighht.

I make no secret of the fact that I dislike helicopters. The more complex they are the more to go wrong. No matter how advanced they might be they have always been vulnerable to ground fire. Recent events make me wonder if they're at all suitable for modern warfare.

I agree with you Pete.  I have read that Army brass were completely against scrapping the project, recognizing they need the Comanche.  It was again the politicians that are killing our military.

And Hagar, I think you will find that helicopters are exceptional at transporting troops and equipment on the battlefield, and have shown stellar performance in commbat, able to target and kill huge amounts of enemy personel and armored vehicles.  

This is just silly, not only does it unemploy hundreds of wokrers, but 5 are on the prduction line, so maybe they can be used...

I don't wish to upset you even more Pete but I'm one of the critics of the Typhoon. I know that all aircraft take a while to develop these days but considering it was proposed in 1986 (The Berlin Wall didn't come down until 1989) it seems to me that it will be obsolescent by the time it enters service. Meanwhile the cost has naturally escalated accordingly. They have experienced several teething problems that should have been ironed out years ago. I believe the cannon have been dispensed with on the RAF versions much to the dismay of the future pilots. From what I read it's supposed to replace the Tornado F3 AND the Jaguar GR3A. It's the same old story & they never seem to learn. You cannot reasonably expect one aircraft to fulfil every single combat role.

And Hagar, I think you will find that helicopters are exceptional at transporting troops and equipment on the battlefield, and have shown stellar performance in commbat, able to target and kill huge amounts of enemy personel and armored vehicles.

I wish I had your confidence Jaffa. Wafare has changed over the last few years & the enemy could be hiding anywhere. Hand held weapons capable of bringing a helicopter down are readily available. To quote CraigL from another topic

lets face it. one RPG on the tail rotor ....... and they are going down.

Craig knows far more on the subject than me. I'm not sure I would fancy being one of the troops they're carrying around these days.

Shall i tell you why Hagar? Well the original concept was brought around in 1988 or so was between the Germans, French, British and Italians.
..............
Disagreements appeared

Maybe a case of too many cooks. Anything designed by a committee rarely works. If you can get 4 people from 4 different countries to agree on anything you're a miracle worker. I foresaw this before it happened. If an idiot like me can see it what is the matter with our so-called leaders?

Well they didn't do too badly with Concorde although it went way over budget. Only 2 countries were involved which gives you a much better chance. Airbus seems to be doing OK too. Maybe military stuff is different.