Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Incredible Lost Stealth Helicopter - Boeing/Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche" video.

@oc3694 "Insurgents don't use helicopters and shit" - Yeah, but you do realize that many times the boots on the ground were essentially stuck waiting for helicopters to deal with the insurgents, right?
24
Except that most aircraft now are multiroles.
7
@mikeks8181 That is a severe misconception. No, it wasn't switched out pretty quick. The Navy never added guns to their Phantoms. The USAF E variant with the internal nose cannon hindered the performance of the aircraft by shifting that much weight to the nose, and required the use of a smaller radar. The majority of USAF Phantom kills were scored by missile. Even the "last gunfighter", the F-8 Crusader, scored most kills with missile. The myth that the air war over Vietnam somehow was decided by guns is not real.
2
Except that the Army allowed the project to continue for years so that Lockheed could fix the issues, and in the end they were still trying to figure out a mechanical solution to the control instability by the time aircraft were now starting to get digital control. It simply missed the boat.
1
@atomicskull6405 The Cheyenne project was cancelled in 1972 and you're telling me a helicopter that first flew in 1967 and was adopted in 1970 managed to get the rigid rotor right. So tell me how the hell the USAF was responsible for the Cheyenne not going into production, and not Lockheed's own failure.
1
Since the rotor was all-composite, they probably used a "radar transparent" external skin and internal geometry that disperses and deflects radar energy. Plus radar absorbent materials and coatings.
1
@atomicskull6405 That's not true at all. First, the chiefs of staff had a meeting and agreed to not step on each others' toes. Second, Congress actually determined that the Cheyenne, A-10 and Harrier (yes, the Harrier was involved in this mess too and you people never mention it) were all different enough that each branch was free to pursue their projects. Just stop spreading this lie. The Cheyenne died due to having a multitude of issues that required years to fix.
1
@katrinapaton5283 "the Grippen is around 60 million US" - Uh, no. That's for the cheap, completely outdated Grippen. A modern Grippen costs way more. Look up the Brazilian deal. It's more than 100 million per aircraft.
1
@atomicskull6405 You'll have to find "The Warthog and the Close Air Support Debate" by Douglas E. Campbell because that's the source for the meeting between chiefs of staff in 1966.
1
@katrinapaton5283 It's a 5.44 billion deal for 36, meaning that I'm already assuming roughly 100 million for the aircraft and 50 million/unit for the rest of the deal.
1
@katrinapaton5283 My assumptions are driven from the cost of similar 4th gen fighters like the Rafale and Block 70/72 F-16s. Your assumption is a very optimistic 40% discount on premium 4.5 gen performance - which is frankly unreasonable - combined with an insane and unheard of 90 million/unit value for the technology transfer. The numbers are beyond clear. The Gripen cannot be that cheap, and a country is not going to increase their purchase order costs by almost 200% just for the tech.
1
@katrinapaton5283 The National Interest is a garbage website. My point with the Rafale and F-16 is looking at contracts and figuring out where I can place the Gripen. When something sounds too good to be true, it isn't. I'm not using the Rafale as a starting point. I'm doing a comparative analysis. If the Gripen was that capable and as cheap as Saab claims, it would be winning contracts left and right. The claim that it's the cheapest to run is also somewhat misleading. Supposedly, the Gripen should be cheaper to build than the F-35. Now we know that it isn't. So how is it more expensive to build the thing as a unit, but when getting spares to maintain it the parts will be cheaper? The Gripen E is simply "too little, too late" materialized.
1
That was the Eurocopter Tiger.
1
@johnfrost1814 Even the F-15C technically has air to ground features and the Israelis have used it on strike missions to drop bombs. The F-16 is a truly "do everything" aircraft. It's not "just" a light plane. The A-10 barely gets missions. It's there because Congress refuses to allow the retirement.
1
@choppergunner8650 Apart from how media reports on it, what exactly makes you feel the F-35 is not a good jet? They didn't do anything that the F-16 and F/A-18 didn't already have. It is very maneuverable, and it is fast. F-35 pilots say that in dry thrust the F-16 has to use afterburner to keep up. If other aircraft have to use afterburner to keep up with a F-35 in dry thrust, that means it's a rocket. Internal cannons? Under which use case do you think the B and C will need them? The B will not waste time trying to use the gun, it will be flying back to get more payload and come back and drop it - because it's going to be delivering the equivalent of artillery for the USMC. The C trying to go for guns is just going to allow the incoming aircraft to get close enough for an anti-ship missile shot. What good is a cannon when the carrier is sinking and now you can't land? Glued to the F-35's butt? And how is that going to happen? That is Hollywood. Air combat isn't what you see in the movies. 80% of air combat is shooting unaware opponents. That's the reality, who sees the enemy first typically gets to shoot first. The F-35 is not only a mini-AWACS but also is one of the hardest aircraft to "see".
1
@johnfrost1814 Okay. My point is that even the "not a pound for air to ground" F-15 ended up having multirole features. And sure, there's a dedicated multirole variant. But that's only a point in favor for multiroles. Its multipurpose has nothing to do with being light or heavy, it's simply the fighter built in larger numbers so it gets to do the most missions. The Mirage and Eurofighter are "heavier" than the JAS 39 Gripen. They're all multiroles, thought. The A-10 was better suited against insurgents and nearly worthless in a near-peer engagement - Iraq taught the USAF a lesson in 1991 and forced Gen. Chuck Horner to pull the A-10 back.
1
@Rocketsong That's absolutely the wrong move. The B variant is critical because it both gives the USMC 5th gen capabilities from short deck carriers, it also allows other nations to get Harrier replacements and thus fly them off carriers without ramp/catapult.
1