So, Comanche is no more: the centrepiece of the US Army's plans to create a digital battlefield with this $39 billion 'quarterback' directing operations has evaporated.
The army says it believes the Comanche money will be better spent and will deliver more under its new plans. It also points to a changing battlefield and a world that is very different since the events of 9/11.
But what of industry?
Boeing and Sikorsky have invested more than 10 years of development in Comanche and 1,300 people in the joint programme team relied on the aircraft's survival for their salaries.
Executives still reeling from the news will be scratching their heads this morning and wanting to know why the decision was taken when Comanche had held such a pivotal position in the army's plans for future warfighting.
First, there is the pure business position to unravel. Who picks up the tab? In the press conference to announce the termination, Claude Bolton, assistant secretary of the army for acquisition, logistics and technology, said cancellation penalties might cost the army between $450 millon and $680 million. With Boeing and Sikorsky likely to seek closer to $2 billion, there is a lot of negotiating to do.
Then the there is the biggest question of all: Why?
Perhaps the most revealing statement came from acting secretary of the army Les Brownlee, who said: "Block 3 ApacheÉ will have all of the capabilities that we would have built into the Comanche with the exception of oneÉ and that's the low-observability."His words indicate that the roles of the two aircraft have, over time, become too blurred. Rather than being complementary they are competing. And that is at the heart of the decision to remove Comanche from the equation.
The difficult issue to grapple with for Boeing and Sikorsky is that the world changes quickly. Developing an aircraft as advanced as Comanche takes time. And during that time, successive upgrades to the Apache have added to its mission capability to such an extent that in the end, the business case for Comanche simply doesn't stack up.
Yet there remains a requirement. The army needs a reconnaissance aircraft capable of operating on a battlefield where sharing of information will be paramount. And that is the ray of light for industry.
Army deputy chief of staff Richard Cody confirms there will be a new programme, "a new start" as he describes it.
In the allocation of additional funding for Apache, Black Hawk and Chinook among others, Boeing and Sikorsky may see much of the money originally allocated to Comanche recycled, cushioning the blow in the longer term.
The army has learned some painful lessons from the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and its first goal is to assure the survivability of its helicopter fleet.
That in turn drives a change in focus. Saving the $39 biilion from the planned acquisition of Comanche will allow the army to spend across a wider spectrum of platforms. Crucially it will open up more funding for unmanned air vehicles (UAVs).
The army plans to spend $300 million by 2011 on UAV research and acquisition and says it will weaponise the vehicles. And that is just the start.
Peter Schoomaker told journalists in the clearest terms possible that the decision to cancel Comanche was the right one.
The challenge now for industry and the army is to prove him correct.
PAUL DERBY
Source: Flight Daily News
