The RAH-66 Comanche helicopter - a product of Boeing
Co. - Sikorsky team - is a pure survivor.
Pentagon planners are giving the wasp-like two-seater
program another restructuring, certain that it will become the transformational
solution to the problem of an aging helicopter fleet, now with some 1,500
'legacy' birds from the Vietnam War and later conflicts, all becoming more and
more difficult to fix..
There have been, over the years, questions about the
Comanche program. The General Accounting Office (GAO) issued two reports, in
1999 and in 2002 that suggest a few difficulties - principally the need for
stronger project direction and the best ways to integrate its sophisticated
electronics packages.
Such observations, though, seemed only to galvanize the
Comanche team to get everything right. Army Col. Bob Birmingham, its project
manager, explained what the bird can do and why expert helicopter pilots want
it in the fleet.
"Comanche," Birmingham told MAT, "deserves to be the Army's
future armed reconnaissance aircraft, to complement the Army and the Objective
Force."
Just the facts
In the past, Birmingham acknowledged, GAO was often right.
"Don't get me wrong," he said from the Joint Program Office
at Redstone Arsenal, AL, "I think criticism is a good thing for programs if
based on fact. A lot of the data the GAO reports provided Congress were right
on track."
He acknowledged critics who noted that Comanche was unable
to perform the Apache Longbow strike helicopter's mission, for example. But he
also set the record straight.
"If that's because it can't carry as many Hellfire missiles
as Longbow, I would say it's absolutely correct," Birmingham said. "And if
we're buying this aircraft is to replace the load-carrying capability of the
Apache, then we ought to stop the program right now, because that's not what
we're doing in structuring the Comanche's missions."
A lot more important, the colonel said, is the "next-generation"
chopper's multi-purpose nature. He called it "extremely flexible," and able to
launch Hellfire missiles, air-to-air missiles, precision guided rockets, and
500 rounds of 20 mm ammunition, "or, drop some ammo and put in additional fuel
cells." The helicopter does not, Birmingham stressed, sacrifice weapons systems
for its high speed and unrivaled maneuverability.
In any case, he said, "those are all things that we took
into account when we started going through the restructuring process. We wanted
to make sure whatever program we put in front of the Army and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) as the go-ahead program would answer all those
issues. And I think we have."
The restructuring paradigm
The Comanche program, since 1988, has experienced six
restructurings, with many interlaced systems and the introduction of an amazing
mission equipment package.
Birmingham said he only wished that there would be adequate
time and money to assure everything onboard the helicopter is in place and
buttoned down tight in the concluding stages of development. Earlier, he noted,
that wasn't always the case.
The estimated $43 billion project, first considered in 1983,
actually began in 1991.
"You're going back to when the concepts for a Light Helicopter
Experimental, or LHX, were first being studied. They included anything from a
single seat aircraft to a tandem. They looked at a lot of versions back in
1983."
He added that that was concept exploration, rather than
defining requirements and how they were going to fit onto a platform. "The real
program, in terms of what Comanche is today, goes back to 1991," he said.
"That's when the LHX became the Comanche program."
Birmingham noted there were significant outside reviews of
the program more favorable than GAO's.
The OSD's Tri Service Assessment, which examined systems
engineering, software and assessments by outside industry consultants, had
turned up certain systems engineering and leadership problems, but stressed the
overall project was quite vigorous.
Moreover, it said, the chopper was far from being
outdated - an assessment Birmingham attributed to critics' misunderstanding of
its role.
A look to the future
Although conceptualized during the Cold War, Comanche,
Birmingham said, "is very, very futuristic in terms of how we're going to fight
aircraft with a network-centric, and information-age capability. The Army has
done a pretty good job of keeping the requirement of the Comanche very, very
relevant to the future."
Ditto, Birmingham said, for the helicopter's capacity to
engage enemies in asymmetric warfare. Comanche "absolutely," has contributions
to make in this realm, he said.
As to the Comanche's chief domestic "competition,"
Birmingham was quick to say that many comparisons are deeply flawed.
For example, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have come to
the fore lately in Afghanistan. The fixed-wing ultra lights now go beyond
simple reconnaissance to perform as light weapons platforms.
But any suggestion that Comanche would support much smaller,
far less costly UAVs like Predator is quickly deferred. "It's the other way
around," Birmingham said. "UAVs are supplemental, and provide a tremendous
capability in terms of an additional sensors to the Comanche."
Noting that UAVs perform multiple tasks and have range of
more than 100 miles, Birmingham noted "the problem is that a UAV looks through
a straw; it has a very, very small field-of-view."
Birmingham was, however, intrigued at the question of
interoperable communications among satellites, helicopters, UAVs, fixed-wing
aircraft and ground control stations.
"Here's what we're trying to define right now: What is the
common data link? We're looking at a Tactical Common Data Link that Army and
DoD aircraft are going to use to do that type of control."
Network-centric warfare
All this, according to Birmingham, dovetails smoothly into
the network-centric concept where Army aviation expects the Comanche to take a
leadership role. Essentially, with its welter of sensors systems, ruggedized
communications gear and equipment packages, Comanche should, in the long term,
be able to control UAVs and relay battlefield data across vast distances. This
is essential, inasmuch as the craft's communication/navigation gear is probably
among its main selling points.
According to Birmingham, the Comanche is better configured
than any other helicopter to engage enemies in Afghanistan-type scenarios. "The
beauty of Comanche is the reduced footprint it gives you on the battlefield,
and the significant reduction in operations and support costs," Birmingham
said.
He called the rotorcraft "highly, highly reliable" in
prototype form. Yet despite its overall sophistication, it requires just 50
tools to service virtually the entire craft. The turbine power plant,
remarkably, needs only six.
For much more complex jobs, there are other components of
which no other helicopter can boast: embedded diagnostics.
Birmingham added that most warfighters "won't believe" how
efficient and reliable the bird is. He said equipment-related catastrophes like
the Desert One operation in the 1970s - when sandstorms disabled helicopters sent
to rescue American hostages in the Middle East - were a virtual impossibility.
Birmingham said, as well, that this was the first Army
helicopter to garner the highly coveted, premier AVS-33 agility standard.
While recognizing that Black Hawk troop-delivery choppers
are slated to keep flying until 2025, he said, "the fact that the Army and the
DoD are moving from the Cold War legacy to a network-centric Information Age
warfare system is making legacy aircraft obsolete.
"The Kiowa Warrior is our current armed reconnaissance
aircraft," he noted. "But it doesn't fit in to Objective Force scenarios; it
can't go deep, it doesn't have the legs we need; it doesn't have the
navigation/communications package or the ability to carry munitions. It is
obsolete by default."
What's more, while current choppers still offer utility, the
older aircraft "are very expensive to maintain. The Apache is [more than]
$3,500 [per] flight hour; Comanche is about $1,800," he said.
"But the issue really isn't Comanche replacing platforms,"
Birmingham said. "The platforms are going to become obsolete because of the way
we will be fighting future wars." Compared to the alternative - endlessly
patching and fitfully "modernizing" older, grayer helicopters for use in the
asymmetric environment of the next 15-20 years - Birmingham said the Comanche was
"a bargain for the taxpayer."
The Comanche "is the Army future armed reconnaissance
aircraft, and it complements the Army and the Objective Force. It's out there
to fill a void for Objective Force requirement to fight a network-centric war.
We don't have one now."
Birmingham said the Comanche's Initial Operational
Capability (IOC) should be reached in September 2009.
"I think the Comanche program is going to continue to be
criticized," Birmingham conceded. "And I don't think that's necessarily a bad
thing.
"I'm more concerned about folks who are criticizing the
program for the wrong reasons; because they don't understand how the Army and
Army aviation is going to fight in the Objective Force. Once they understand
network-centric warfare and Information Age warfare, everyone will become a
believer in the Comanche, and why we're putting this capability out there."
At a late April meeting of the joint staff, Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said expenditures for a number of service
programs - including the F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft, the Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF) and the RAH-66 - would be reviewed in light of fiscal year 2003 defense appropriations.