XPost: soc.history.ar.misc

Damien Leimbach
Former Avionics Technician at U.S. Air Force (2001–2007)Updated 2y

Why did the US Army abandon the extremely-expensive RAH-66 Comanche
stealth helicopter even though it had nearly finished R&D and produced
two functional units?

The Comanche was envisioned as being a stealth helicopter for
battlefield scouting purposes, and to take shots at targets of
opportunity without them even knowing it was there.

While it had a problematic development cycle, it probably would have
worked just fine.

However while it was being perfected, another product came along and did
the job of the Comanche better, and cheaper.

The Armed Drone.


It goes higher, sees better, loiters FAR longer over the battlefield,
can survey hundreds of times more area in one mission, is harder to spot
in the air and doesn't risk pilots.

The Comanche wasn't as good of an attack helicopter as either the Apache
or Super Cobra, and wasn't as good for low key surveillance as the
predator and other drones like it.

Bottom line, we just didn't need it.

420.9K views9.7K upvotes27 shares209 comments
51K viewsView 964 upvotesView 3 shares
44 comments from
Peter Mancini
and more


Peter Mancini
· Mon
This is a great analysis. Yes, we did spend $7 billion on it, and a lot
of technologies were developed. That will end up in other things, and
many of them already have. Meanwhile, The enemy who is spying on us,
will have spent money trying to counter this before it even comes out.
Then it doesn't come out and now they have wasted money. They may have
new technologies that can be applied to other things. One of the great
benefits the United States has is that it has the budget needed to
pursue multiple avenues, and go with the right tool at the right time.

Andrew Houston Vaughan
· Wed
At the same time, I think it needs to be said that 1) wasting money on a
weapon you never use isn’t as bad as spending money on a weapon that you
have to use extensively and 2) It’s better to cut losses than to fall
prey to the sunk-cost fallacy

David Branney
· Wed
You answer I feel is incorrect. The reason is that something like the
UAV in the image shown, will be vulnerable to air defence systems in a
near peer or peer conflict. Whilst the Comanche would have had the
ability to use topography to hide behind. UAVs are brilliant when the
other side can’t shoot them down. Mind you, Russia is having serious
problems with Ukrainian TB2 drones. Where everyone expected Russia’s air defence systems to rule the skies.

I think the real reason it was cancelled was cost.

Kelly Pedron
· March 19
It was actually meant to replace the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, not the AH-64
or the AH-1Z.

Robert Brack
· March 20
How many Kiowa Warriers were there in total (around 375 are currently in service) and how many thousands of Comanches were initially envisioned?
What was the unit cost of a Kiowa Warrior and what was the projected
unit cost of each Commanche (>10X)? The Commanche was NEVER intended to
just replace the Kiowa Warrior, in my humble opinion, and, if they were,
then Kiowa Warriors have functioned just fine for the 18+ years since
Commanche was finally/mercifully terminated!

Robert Brack
· March 18
We, US tax payers, spent $7B on the Comanche Program. For all those
efforts we got two (not 2,000 but 2) aircraft which: took decades longer
to develop than was originally promised; would need another complete transmission re-design to have become mission viable; and projected cost
per aircraft was going to be north of $55M (when, and if, the aircraft
was fully developed) instead of the $7M per A/C that was a requirement
of the original contract. Yes, the major treat in Europe “went away” for awhile but, as all can plainly see, those tank-killer aircraft could
certainly be of use today, as a viable deterrent to invasion in Europe.

Jeremy Hill
· March 18
Ehh there are better ways to kill tanks in much greater numbers.
Spending more money to buy a redundant platform is just throwing good
money after bad. And it wasn’t even a bad idea, just turned out to be wrong.

You can kill lots of tanks with CBU-105 or the Apache or with SDB-II.



Robert Brack
· March 18
Do you know how much an Apache costs? Do you know how many Apaches you
have to buy to keep one flying? During the war in Kosovo, did you know
that the readiness of the Apache was so poor that they were afraid to
even fly into the Country, so they deployed them but then hid them in neighboring Countries to keep them from looking so bad? If a war ever
breaks out with a Country that has lots of tanks then having a bunch of
tried and true tank killers like the A- 10 Thunderbolt II will be very valuable, and, of course, we have many other viable, cost-effective
options as well.

Jeremy Hill
· March 19
The A-10 is one of the worst options for killing tanks. Particularly if
the other side has any air defense capability at all.

Yeah Apache didn’t do well in Kosovo. It did very well in the Gulf and conflicts since then. That seems to have been very much a command failing.

Anyone who is really assessing the ability of a platform to actually do
the mission would likely rather have Apaches than A-10’s as well.


Michael Birch
· March 19
I can introduce you to some dead tankers in Iraq that would absolutely
disagree with you on the lethality of the A-10.


How two A-10`Warthog' Pilots Destroyed 23 Iraqi Tanks in One Day during Operation Desert Storm - The Aviation Geek Club
How two A-10`Warthog' Pilots Destroyed 23 Iraqi Tanks in One Day during Operation Desert Storm https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-how-a-10warthogs-killed-23-iraqi-tanks-in-one-day-during-operation-desert-storm/amp/


Jeremy Hill
· March 19
I have no doubt it can. But so can any other platform using Maverick
missiles. A better modern tank killer would be anything that can soon
carry SDB-2 or JAGM.


Michael Birch
· March 19
No doubt but by saying it’s “one of the worst options for killing tanks” is a bit of a stretch, it had an illustrious career, and I wish the
Ukrainians had some right now.


Robert Brack
· March 19
If a fraction of the money that we’ve spent upgrading the F-15, F-16 and
F-18 had been spent on the A-10, you would have a modern tank killer
that could cost-effectively exceed any other available alternative but
alas, the possibility of a ground war in Europe was “so remote,” then it happened! Our problem is that ignorant politicians are making major
military equipment purchasing decisions but shouldn’t be, in my humble opinion!


Jeremy Hill
· Sun
The A-10 is dead meat in Europe. Understand that the gun is not a
realistic weapon against a half modern army. Everything else it Carrie’s
can be carried better and faster and more safely by something else.

The A-10 has niche application as a SAR support aircraft and a COIN
aircraft but it isn’t a front line CAS aircraft if the other side has
mobile SAM’s much less any sort of fighter support.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)