Talk:Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche/Archive 1

Uh . ..
someone knowledgeable on this topic needs to incorporate this news item into this article. Kingturtle 02:49, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Uh...it already is (see last paragraph). :) RadicalBender 03:57, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Snaprolling
i cannot help but notice the lack of references to snaprolling,the ability to turn on its side. surely this is relevent,as i am under the impression that the RAH-66 is capable of that? Pikajedi3

Rah Comanche
I saw the Comanche on a episode of Law and Order. Was that a computer graphic or the real thing?

Sweedish R/AH-66s?
I heard that the Sweedish Army may have plans to buy 5 or more Comanches, Has anyone heard anything about this?

No. Comanche project was cancelled.

Another TV Appearance
the comanche was also on "orange county choppers". it was a real one too. and is this confirmed? the us has really cancelled this? --Elysianfields 03:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's called American Choppers 205.174.22.28 06:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Game appearances
I'm not certain in either case but I think the Commanche appeared in one of the sequals to Desert Strike and was one of the available aircraft in Gunship 2000


 * Yes, it was called Jungle Strike and featured a Comanche in place of the Apache of the original game.

For Comanche games, check Comanche series. Also google out "Enemy Engaged: RAH-66 Comanche Versus Ka-52 Hokum"

Trivia/Popular culture
I deleted a variety of fancruft as per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft. It's not policy, it's a centralized discussion so we don't have to debate it on every aircraft page. People mostly disagreeing? I have one disagreement and 4 in agreement, and we've hammered out an outline of guidelines to pop-culture references.

To summarize my arguments: wikipedia is not a trivia clearinghouse. It adds NOTHING to an article about an aircraft to know it made a 30-second appearance in a movie. How about listing all the movies where the HUMMER made an appearance?

Regarding video games, the vast majority of arcade games bear no resemblence to the actual plane outside of cosmetic looks. It's equivalent to a fictional representation, and unless you want to include every "well, if you removed an engine and painted it green instead of purple it's would look sort of like an F-15" reference, the speculation and the cosmetic appearances are out.

The intent of Popular culture is not to document the airframe's cameo roles in movies, but to document works of popular culture that have defined or changed the public's perception of it. Prime example: "Top Gun" defined the F-14 as "naval fighter" in the public's mind. Not quite so similarly; "Firebirds" popularized the Apache. For a piece of pop culture to have impact, it needs a)to be popular - anime and games....not so much. Hate to break it to the fans, but that the F-18 made an appearance in your favorite anime......doesn't do very much for the F-18. Secondly, it has to be featured in the movie. War of the Worlds (spielberg remake) was a grossly popular film. I don't think anyone's perception of the commanche, LAV, M1, F-15, or Bradley IFV was remarkably changed by the 30-60 second clips in the movie.

Insofar as games go; accurate or semi-accurate simulations contribute to the knowledge about the aircraft itself, so those go here as well.

for the specific appearances here: Scifi-novel: depicted as "in use".
 * Hulk: 60-second fight scene with a big green mutant.
 * CC Generals, Act of War: RTS games with a helicopter unit that looks like the Commanche. This is relevant .... how?
 * Battlefield, Ace Combat, Jungle Strike: arcade sims with a commanche skin.
 * Najica Blitz Tactics: cameo appearance in anime

Look, if there's a commanche version of Top Gun or even the abysmally bad Firebirds where it's featured, I'll include it. I'll even look up the few commanche sims. But cameo appearances and arcade game appearances are not relevant. That stuff is coming back out. --Mmx1 20:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * People that actually worked on the Comanche watched the Hulk movie only because the vehicle was in the show - it was a big deal to them and it may be relevant if someone asks "what was that in the movie". You need to work on the wiki policy and get consensus instead deleting stuff because you don't like it.  Anyway there are very few occurrences of the vehicle which isn't too detrimental in having a few lines about its appearances.  By the way WP:AIR has nothing on Fictional Appearances so quite trying to site policies to support your claim. I see you already deleted it again without trying to resolve it - shhaaammmme... --Supercoop 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It was probably a more faithful adaptation of the Comanche than the comic books. If we give it the alternate title "Wings of the Comanche" I might see the logic in including it. (rip on Wings of the Apache, the alternate title to Fire Birds) --Mmx1 22:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "What was in that movie" questions should be resolved on the movie page. I doubt they would be here if they were wondering what it was called. People come to this page to learn about the aircraft. Its appearance in the Hulk isn't very incisive.
 * I'm not citing policy and never claimed to be, I'm referring to a central discussion. Nothing on WP:AIR is policy; it's all guidelines; it's a project to achieve some consistency across aircraft pages. I don't feel like repeating this discussion 50 times everytime someone wants to fight me on this. After three affirmative answers that were more than just a thumbs up but also articulated how they viewed the policy should be, I felt that was sufficient consensus given the slow pace of these articles. Lets continue the discussion over there. -Mmx1 22:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft.
 * Mmx1 - you may have continued discussing this at that page but no one else did, in fact, there isn’t even a discussion on the page any more as it has been archived to the past. And as you can see, Wikipedia way has a will.  Nearly everything you deleted is has now returned (and I can assure you I didn't hide behind the scenes and re-insert it).  Since your exclusionist ways have wore down a bit (based on I haven’t seen you been deleting so much), maybe you'll see that the info isn’t so bad.  It doesn’t hurt anything, the server didn’t explode, the page didn’t have evil bits go into the dirty bit bucket, it is still intact and isn’t crammed with junk; it just has a few appearances.  Maybe I will go read about the appearances of the Comanche in list. --Supercoop 15:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well thanks for bringing it to my attention. It was archived to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft_Archive_9 because a rough consensus was reached. In fact, it made its way into the guidelines for article content WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content. Conspiracy theorists insist on putting "Bush did it" in the 9/11 page but persistence doesn't mean it should be there. Deleting the Hulk ref (one scene in a cartoon movie) and the RTS appearances. --Mmx1 19:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I call BS. The only thing done on that page was you copied the text above and that was it.  No one agreed with you.  Do we need to have a RfC on this matter? --Supercoop 20:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the points had already been discussed in general - at exactly the link given- nobody cared to repeat the argument again for one specific instance. RfC? Sure.

--Mmx1 20:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The points have been discussed by your group; however, you are ignoring the comment below. You’re trying to apply consensus when the vote is two to one in at least the Hulk scene.  Your acts are against consensus and may considered vandalism.  I was hoping you would try mediation first but if RfC is better then we'll try it .  The process states we must outline the problem and if a consensus isn't drawn then we'll go there. This entry is the first step to going the RfC and I must outline the problems.

--Supercoop 13:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think their appearance in Hulk should be noted. Their scene lasted longer than the Abrams and Raptors.--KrossTalk 23:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. What was the significance of the RAH-66 in that scene? None! Top Gun mention belongs on the F-14 page because it was a film about F-14s. The same goes for A-6 and Flight of the Intruder. The Hulk was not about Commanche. They simply needed something for the Hulk to swat at. - Emt147 Burninate!  15:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to jump in here and have my 2c MMX1 you're simply trying to claim some sort of inalieable right as judge of what parts of culture influence people and what parts don't. Those are ENTIRELY matters of opinion. I may have been more heavily influenced by the appearance of the Comanche in The Hulk then the F-14 in TopGun. That said, if there are citeable sources to state that these appearances did occur then perhaps that would be of interest to the article. But to simply say "I saw this in a movie so I'm going to edit the wikipedia article and insert it" isn't right.
 * Also, I think it rather pertinent to point out that your understanding of culture is rather limited. Large amounts of 'weapons' have been made famous / infamous through computer games or anime for example. Quite often these things appear first in one of these mediums of entertainment and then are introduced into some random hollywood blockbuster a year later after the previous title has won a bunch of awards and gotten attention from the right people. So ignoring say the Chinese J-10's appearance in the game Battlefield 2 simply because it made its hundreds of millions without selling a single movie ticket is completely irrelevant. People know now precisely what a Chinese J-10 looks like should they have played that game for a while and they also know what role it takes in the PLAAF even if the game is quite arcade-ish. This case that I'm pointing out is a very significant one as well because as per usual this aircraft has been largely ignored in Hollywood. In fact some of the most significant pieces of military equipment have been ignored entirely by Hollywood or replicated in almost comical, unrealistic ways (see the movie Firefox or indeed your beloved Top Gun's portrayal of the fictional Mig-28). While computer games quite often give semi-realistic portrayals of these pieces of equipment or the first time in their history.
 * Additionally a Hollywood centric view on references is just utter crap. For starters Hollywood is not the biggest film industry in the world so holds no right even in its own NICHE of the entertainment world to claim worthiness over others as a reference point. Secondly, the income of Hollywood is in decline when compared to other forms of entertainment because to be blatantly honest, all they are doing is making remakes and sequels. Sure, so is the game development industry, it doesn't help that the Western world is stifling its own creativity. But people are responding poorly to Hollywood doing this and positively to the game development industry doing this. Movies are great ... don't get me wrong ... and American movies are fantastic. I watched 2 last night. But I don't get my understanding of the world or culture from that and I also don't get the bulk of my entertainment from that and I'm not alone in the English speaking world. In fact I wouldn't mind making the bet that I'm in the majority.
 * To back up the validity of what I was saying I thought I might point out that while the highest grossing film of all time was Titanic at around $1.8 billion it only made around 8.5 million on its premiere. Meanwhile a game recently made $310 million in ONE DAY. --Senor Freebie (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Feet Wet
I was surprised to hear that the Comanche programme has been cancelled. With it's large range (and corresponding high endurance), i'm also surprised that no effort has been made to consider the Comanche for naval use. According to Jane's Aircraft Recognition Guide, the payload of a Comanche is ~1185kg, whilst the payload for the torpedo-carrying Westland Lynx is ~907kg and the Sikorsky Seahawk (Blackhawk) is ~3551kg. Thus, it wouldnt be inconcieveable that Comanches would be able to carry torpedoes, provided they could be carried (torpedoes might be too large to fit in the internal weapons bay, but surely something could be worked out). I would also imagine that a Navalised Comanche would be able to be quickly converted for land-attack roles, and assist a Marine landing - something that a remote drone and the Seahawk are unable to do (afaik). Thus; is there any consideration at all to use the Comanche in a navalised role? 58.7.213.225 06:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Cobra and Apache are both in naval use (the latter with the Royal Navy) and are both far more capable attack helicopters. The recon is a niche role that isn't applicable to the navy - not enough for a dedicated platform. --Mmx1 19:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

RFC

 * Mmx1 is acting out of consensus by deleting the appearances of the Comanche (notably in the movie the Hulk).
 * Mmx1 deleted the material that was already present and reverted the information while being discussed.
 * Mmx1 is applying general rules, the he and a few others discussed, that may or may not apply to individual articles. See: WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content.
 * The classic incl and eclu argument. I beleve the entire article is so short that a list of a couple of appreances dosn't hurt the Wikipeida.


 * Mmx1 believe the information about appearances of the Comanche is not notable and should be deleted.


 * If I am missing anything then add it to the list. I beleive these to be fair and accurate discripitons of the problem.  And remember I may not disagree with some of your reverts but the point is your acting out of consensus on this article.  Lets try to agree on "this" article the content we'll all be happy with having.  RfC isn't always the best course of resolution. --Supercoop 13:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's get something straight. Are you bringing an RfC against me or the article? Because they're very different things. I put in a RfC on the article content Requests_for_comment/Maths%2C_science%2C_and_technology. Requests for comment are nonantagonistic and intended to bring more eyeballs to a problem. You seem to be taking this personally, though. --Mmx1 23:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for exclusion
The arguments are well explained at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft_Archive_9, and the flood of replies to my post was a clear sign of consensus, with only one dissenting voice.

An encyclopedia should have consistency - that's among the goals of the wikiproject - to establish consistency between the aircraft articles. The arguments were discussed in general for aircraft. Can exceptions exist? Sure. But Supercoop has given no reason why the general guidelines don't apply here. --Mmx1 00:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Per Mmx1, this was a strong consensus decision. If you want to go against a WikiProject's consensus, be prepared to get reverted. I had the misfortune of seeing the Hulk and as far as I remember the helicopter was not even identified as the RAH-66 in the film. Therefore, what you are doing is speculation -- unacceptable for an encyclopedia. - Emt147 Burninate!  00:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would hardly call 4 pros and 1 con on the page you linked overwhelming support. Add me, the person you reverted yesterday User:Orca1 9904, and the person that left keep on this talk page User:Kross, plus all the links to users reverted above, and you don’t have consensus in your favor.  The problem is your applying your charter basically to all of Wikipedia by saying the popular culture doesn’t belong on the page.  Google disagrees that the Comanche in the Hulk movie in unreferenced.  Here is a way to resolve the matter: You have your charter in the Air category and you won’t add any pop culture stuff; however, anyone on the current list will not revert pop culture stuff.  I will agree to not add any pop culture stuff on this page (which I if you look at my edit history, I only reverted Mmx1 and I haven’t actually added any).  Fair enough?  You can let Wikipedia live and breath; the users will take care of the actual content through eventualism or darwinism.  That is all I am asking for is to let the community decide.  If the pop culture links get beyond say 5 lines then thin it down; but less than 5 will not cause in implosion of Wikipedia, the server will survive and new Wikipeidans have an easy place to start editing. --Supercoop 13:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Only you and Kross have been participating in the discussion, and Kross frankly doesn't make a very good argument. It's not about size or length, it's about quality and consistency, and you've given no argument why this is an exception. "People insisting on adding stuff in" is not a good reason to keep things. In fact it's a very poor reason. Ace Combat fans insist on adding their game to every aircraft article too, when in fact the game is little more relevant to the actual aircraft than their physical likeness. --Mmx1 16:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * POV warning! Your entire argument is on the "merit" of the disagreement not on that there is a disagreement - you have to do better than that. Look, you came up with an idea and you want to look good to the Wikipedia community so you can say hey I started that now make me an Admin.  Stop reverting changes.  I haven’t reverted you (only during the initial disagreement yet we were discussing it, I initially reverted it to the existing structure which is inline with the rules, and you went ahead and reverted it without consensus), you stop reverting others, I don't add the cruft (as you call it) and everyone is happy.  You stick to your Wiki Air charter and try to persuade people to cease adding stuff you don't like instead of forcing the community to adopt what you see as a wikietopia.  Stiff arming new users will turn off contributors, relax let the users edit 5 lines to an article on 2 paragraphs long is all I am asking for.  Remember, all of you against me we can disagree; but, I am only disagreeing that you guys are reverting changes and shouldn't be I am not the one adding this information nor in an edit war with REMEBER THAT before you say Wiki isn't a place for me to edit. --Supercoop 17:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Supercoop, do I really need to explain why Google is not an acceptable reference for your claim? You are making an unreferenced and speculative addition to the page -- the movie never identifies the aircraft as the RAH-66, and your edits can be reverted on that basis alone (the burden of proof lies with the submitting editor and you cannot provide any). If you don't like your edits disputed and reverted, maybe Wikipedia is not the right place for you. - Emt147 Burninate!  17:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Google not good enough? IMDB should be Sean Mahon as the Comanche Pilot  --Supercoop 17:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. We have a 2-page discussion on a 30-second scene with bad computer graphics in a shitty movie. Basically it comes down to this: two editors think the appearance is notable. Two editors think the scene is not notable and have WikiProject consensus to back them up. If you don't like WikiProject guidelines you can: a) Ignore them, and get reverted/edited. b) Work to reach a new consensus within the WikiProject. c) Go elsewhere and not edit the pages within the WikiProject. You are choosing a), you know the consequences. - Emt147 Burninate!  17:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Easy greasy, you don’t have to resort to threats when I point out the facts. We all now there are no consequences in a discussion (read above I am not the one vanalizding pages), we should try to achieve results. I argue that there are more than two that disagree with you. I argue that there are 4 saying to keep due to their actions. Only the Air member are reverting the changes, and that the Air members are stiff arming new Wiki contributors and not assuming good faith. Plus I have a list of other articles that you need to go attack and see if you can hold a consensus on those articles too. One of these lists has a over 20 entires making it a good target! Go Get'em Boys! --Supercoop 18:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * B-1_Lancer
 * B-2_Spirit
 * F-117_Nighthawk
 * F-16_Fighting_Falcon
 * F-16_Fighting_Falcon
 * F/A-18_Hornet
 * B-52_Stratofortress
 * AH-1_Cobra
 * AH-1_Cobra
 * CH-53E_Super_Stallion
 * CH-47_Chinook
 * F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet
 * F-22_Raptor
 * Lockheed_U-2
 * Air_Force_One
 * F-15_Eagle
 * Harrier_II
 * Harrier_II
 * A-10_Thunderbolt_II
 * Boeing_E-4B
 * C-5_Galaxy


 * RAH-66 appearance in the Hulk is not significant. It could've been a Mi-24, an Apache, or one of those early Sikorsky doodles without altering the movie one bit. A group of Wikipedians reached consensus on the issue of trivia. You decided to force the issue without even bothering to seek consensus. Who is strongarming whom? Assuming good faith and reverting edits are not mutually exclusive either.
 * Finally, and I quote:
 * If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. - Emt147 Burninate!  00:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, why do discussions blow up when I'm at the pub rather than when I'm at work?
 * Admin tendencies. Hah! I assure you I have no aspirations of being admin, and I can refer you to other editors that would shoot down any RfA I felt inclined to put forth. Besides, I'm too ornery to pass RfA(as you can no doubt tell), and I'm not going to shut up just for the benefit of being a sysop.
 * Now, regarding the disagreement: the existence of a disagreement does not require us to accomodate all points of view equally, or for compromise between parties just because a disagreement is voiced. The merits of the disagreement should be hashed out. Trust me, I'm very experienced with wiki policy on these matters from arguing DAILY with 9/11 conspiracy theorists on those pages. Their persistence in inserting their POV does not mean we accomodate them in the interests of "not biting newcomers". Content is and always should come first, before the community. The community means crap if our articles are crap. This is an encyclopedia, not a sandbox.
 * Thanks for the links - MOST of them are already on my watchlist but I don't exactly examine them on a daily basis. I can tell you that DAILY, editors like Dennisss, Emt147, and myself revert Ace Combat additions to one aircraft article or another. Persistence is not an appropriate determinant of article content.
 * Now, my nice, constructive, aspiring adminish comment: For an example of what Emt147 is saying about seeking consensus: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft. The matter of aircraft infoboxes was previously vetoed by the wikiproject. After some heated debate, the issue was revived, and despite early and strong distaste, consensus was reached. As far as I can tell, you engaged none of the existing discussion about popular culture on the project talk page. You are certainly welcome to. --Mmx1 06:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see, I need corrections, it was Emt147 was wanting to be and admin or not. I see Mmx1 has been warned and blocked a few times. So corrections are in order there.
 * Anyway, remember way back when I said I didn't necessarily disagree with your deletions? Now I see it a noble cause; however, your reverting sourced information, popular culture is consistent with Wikipedia and bighting newbies is frowned upon.  Your group has formed an inflexible dictatorship which is why I will not participate or be associated in that discussion.  All I have asked for is to keep what you have defined as cruft to a minimum.  Making changes like keeping the pop cult to a maximum of 5 per article doesn’t seem too ridicules to me – it would be a compromise that should have worked for everyone for the time being while everyone started a transition phase of removing the Pop cult all together.  This is a band aid approach of ripping it off.  Good, bad or ugly - I don’t know.
 * Now, let’s put this to rest. Thus far, I have been the only one to speak up against this situation; I may be in the minority.  Therefore, I must relent. --Supercoop 14:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cruft should be judged on its merits, not on its quantity. The items of popular culture are notable there because most of them are satire and are reflections "about" wikipedia - it would not have been funny or notable had the references been to Britannica. Moreover, the joke about editing wiki entries is notable because
 * a)it's specific to wiki and not any generic encyclopedia
 * b)the entries (foxtrot and Daily show) are MUCH more generally common and indicative of "popular" culture than a mostly panned action movie. --Mmx1 14:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, for those reasons, I'm tempted to remove the "Masters of Doom" entry.
 * However, the appearances here are generic - was there any reason the Comanche was chosen for Hulk or if anyone would have cared if it was an Apache instead?
 * As far as "inflexible dictatorship", you might want to ask Azertoth, who prevailed against strong sentiment against the use of infoboxes. Just read the link Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft--Mmx1 14:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically what Mmx1 said. If you care about this issue so much, go and seek consent on the WikiProject. Otherwise, please refrain from personal attacks on editors (we are not tyrants simply because we do something you disagree with and attempt to enforce a higher level of quality in the articles based on community consensus-approved guidelines). - Emt147 Burninate!  15:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Emt147, Nothing I have said was a personal attack. Dictatorship, in contemporary usage, refers to absolute rule by a leadership. This is consitent with what apperas to be inflexiablity. If you believe that word is a Personal Attack then I shall remove it from the discussion, and appolgies, as that wasn't the intenet of it.  Also, read carefully, if I wanted to persue the matter further I would have.  I said you guys win what more do you want? --Supercoop 15:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Survivors
-Does anybody know for sure if the two prototypes had individual names? I heard the first RAH-66 was unofficially called "Connie". Was it painted so? - Are the eight semi-completed pre-production airframes preserved?

LHX
There is very little about the LHX program and the competition between the Boeing-Sikorsky and MD-Bell teams leading up to the award of the contract to Boeing-Sikorsky. --Born2flie 17:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It lacks details all around. -Fnlayson 17:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cancellation
One thing I don't understand which the article doesn't really explain: Why was the Comanche program cancelled despite the helicopter's development apparently being so near to completion. I mean if they had prototypes with guns etc. which could fly around and shoot stuff and displaying many tactical advantages over the current helicopters, surely it wouldn't cost that much more to ship a few out to the battlefield. Particularly considering the U.S. Army's stated current and prospective missions will involve insurgent type wars rather than the mass-troop and tank style warfare which other helicopters like the Apache are more suited to. In battlefields like Afghanistan and particularly Iraq, surely the reduced noise and increased manoeuvrability would make even the current versions far less susceptible to attack - and just generally more desirable - than the Apache. Canderra 18:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Two prototype Comanches are gonna make the difference? There are plenty of senior military commanders commenting on why the program was canceled. Google is an awesome thing. --Born2flie 18:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those articles, the 2nd one was quite informative. The gist of what they said seems to be a "we feel funding could be better spent modernising / upgrading existing helicopters" line, which I guess makes sense if that's what their studies concluded (although I can't help but wonder if really, they had realised the Iraq war was going to drain all the army budget for many years and the project simply fell victim to the resultant massive R&D cuts). If the Comanche was infact a victim to the budgetary effects of the Iraq war, then this should surely be mentioned. Although currently I can only find forum postings and other sources which do not cite references stating such.


 * My point about the 2 prototypes was really that if they had the facilities to make two prototypes, then full-scale production of another 50 or so surely couldn't cost that much more (although I guess this does depend on a great number of factors which I know nothing about).Canderra 00:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * RAH-66 ditching was the greates ever stupidity in US military history. Look at the current ARH-70 project, which is in total chaos, as the airframe and the electronics package simply won't match, no matter what. ARH-70 is an engineerlingly stalled project and may never enter service, yet they already spent so much money that could complete the on-track RAH-66 project and bring at least 24 such choppers to mid-east battlefields. ARH-70 doesn't have any stealth, it is just a souped-up civilian helo and not willing to bear the military sensor package. Uncle Sam is getting and unwilling mule instead of a thoroughbred for its air cavalry. Russia and China are rolling on the floor laughing, Osama ditto. 82.131.210.162 11:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Much more tooling is required for full production. The actual manufacturing cost is a minority of the total cost anyway.  Design and engineering costs are often a lot of it, especially for new and innovative aircraft.  The Army has not decently managed development of a weapon system in many years.  I guess it is a lack of patience and/or asking for too many design changes after a project starts.  -Fnlayson 03:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the main reason for the cancellation of this helicopter was the lack of an enemie. You will use this helicopetr against who? Atomic Iran won't have nothing better than the Apache helicopter to fight USA.Agre22 (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)agre22


 * Incorrect. The main reason is that the RAH is suppose to be a scout/recon chopper, but with things being developed like the Fire Scout or the Predator UAVs that are unmanned, why not make hundreds of cheap, easy to use, UNMANNED (did I mention that part), recon choppers instead of a dozen or so RAH-66s?  Also, later on, I'm sure they can stealth up the unmanned vehicles as well.  Point is the RAH, which a nice helicopter, isn't needed and is basically a waste of money.  IMO, if I was a soldier, I much rather have 10 or so Fire Scouts flying around above me than 1 or 2 Comanches.  Two reason; one, because if a UAV goes down, we're not going to be diverted to rescue some pilots, and two, because it's much more eyes and fire power in the sky. 70.121.221.47 (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture
Should we add that the helicopters featured in the El Mañana video? Micoolio101 (talk)


 * No. Since the fact that it looks like the RAH-66 has no influence on the video (e.g. an Apache would carry the same meaning, they just needed a military helicopter), it is not notable and therefore has no place on Wikipedia. - Emt147 Burninate!  02:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In the game Command and Conquer Generals there is a commanche helicopter.--Taida 03:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The RAH-66 was HEAVILY featured in the novel Debt of Honor by Tom Clancy. It was an instrumental part of the main plot, used to destroy several targets.  Just thought I'd mention it.  Minizilla (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Command and Conquer game is not about the Comanche, and you don't learn anything about the aircraft, it is simply the helicopter option. It could've been any armed helicopter and accomplished the same part in the game. It doesn't demonstrate the aircraft performance or attempt to faithfully model the helicopter.


 * In Debt of Honor, the RAH-66 features in one attack during the reprisal portion of the novel. It has nothing to do with the plot, it is simply a tool of the plot. --Born2flie (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Commanche was featured in more then just a single attack in Debt of Honor. It was featured in strikes against the government, military strikes against an airfield, and used in a sea battle in support of an Ohio class submarine.  Not to mention the helicopter had earlier mentions in the first few chapters of the book. Alyeska (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

stealth... good or bad?!?
One thing about the Commanche is it's stealth configuration. It has the abillity to be not found on radar, but for a price. in order to keep it hidden from radar, it utilizes folding bay doors to conceal it's weapons, but the bay doors can only hold so much, 4 AGM-114K hellfire anti tank missles, and up to 2 FIM-92 Stingers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.175.108 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember that it isn't a dedicated attack helicopter like say, the Apache or Cobra. It's more of an advanced recon helicopter, thus yes, being stealthy takes priority over being heavily armed; although armament is/was still one of its secondary benifits, as it is/was certainly more capable in the armament department when it comes to recon helicopters than anything currently in or projected to be in service.75.149.203.222 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The RAH-66 had stub wings that could be added to carry more armament for attack missions. These increase its radar signature though and would not be used for recon missions. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

CRS on RAH-66

 * You must not have checked article. That report is already used (see Ref. 10). -Fnlayson (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad. I was lead to believe this report was hard to find, I should have checked more closely.-- SPhilbrick  T  21:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No big deal here. Some CRS reports may be harder to find.  The CRS site only has a report summary and links to other sites (Wikileaks, fas.org, U of North Texas, etc) for the full report file. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comanche cancellation
Is there anyone who knows why the Comanche was cancelled?

The need for a stealth recce helicopter is no more, thanks to the riskless use of UAVs. Yeah, I know, really stinks doesn't it? Unfortunatly, the Comanche was a very potent attack helicopter (hence the designation RAH, not RH) as well as a great recon bird. (USMA2010 05:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

I thought it was because of the high cost (I thought I read $1,000,000,000) and that because the cost was so high, it was cheaper to use other helicopters like the Apache. The only source I can think of where I got this was from Commanche Gold, but now I don't think that's true.70.69.206.62 06:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Proper

Crying shame as it was gorgeous and I'd been waiting to see them in action since playing Gunship 2000 10 years ago! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.33.122 (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it was a cost vs. usefulness argument not just a cost argument. There were a few flaws in the programs goals & capabilities which people pointed out in reviews of it. Basically this might've gone something like this; "Stealth is best optimised on an aircraft in the forward hemisphere on an aircraft. The RAH-66 is intended as a recon helicopter so attempting to plan missions where it faces its opponents is not possible and therefore the Stealth components will not be cost effective or as capable (or both). Therefore the use of expendable assets like UAV's to fill the attack and recon roles of the RAH-66 may be more advantageous.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The real reason was that the end of the Warzaw pact did it for the Commanche. It was built for fighting in WWIII, but after the invasion of Iraq there was little need for an expensive stealth helicopter in an urban environment with no air defence systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinegern (talk • contribs) 14:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Weapons?
The weapons section states that the commanche can carry 4 stingers and 4 hellfires, which seems reasonable. It then states that it can carry 14 hellfires, almost as much as an apache, 28 stingers, much more than an apache, or 50 hydra 70s, which seems a little excessive for a recon helicopter, but somewhat reasonable. What does/can it really carry, since these numbers contradict themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.4.226 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The quantities in the Specs section have to be wrong. There's no place for it to carry that many.  Hellfires come in 4 pack launchers, and Hydras generally 19 in a pod.  -Fnlayson (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. This page shows the armament configurations.  With stub wings it could carry fair amount. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How come the specs say it has a 3-barrel gun, but every picture I've seen of it, INCLUDING the cutaways, features a TWO barrel gun? Either that, or some weird orange thing.

But I do believe the 14 Hellfire payload (1 quad mount per stub wing + 2 triple rack internally.)

Seems it can carry 6 twin Stingers internally. No idea what the stub wing configuration would be. But Stingers are weak anyways. A more likely fit would be a twin Sidewinder launcher on each wing. They have more range & a heavier warhead. There isn't much chance of a Commanche having to deal with a satuartion aerial threat.

For the FFARs, 2x 19 on the wings (1each)=38 +6x2 internally (is there a 2 tube FFAR launcher?) equals 50. PLEASE NOTE: The Stinger has a diameter EQUAL to a Hydra-70, so IN THEORY, a FFAR COULD FIT in a Stinger Launcher, but it would be impractica. Modifying a 7/19 tube Hydra pod to fire Stinger on the other hand, WOULD be a good idea!l96.238.134.116 (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Attack Helo
This article says it was suppose to be a replacement for the OH-58 Kiowa. This helo seems to have more in common with the Apache. Any possibility in restarting the program as a future replacement for the Apache? Jigen III (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The design is for a Recon/Attack helicopter more like the OH-58D. The Comanche has a smaller main gun and the same or less amount of rockets/missiles as the Apache. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The gun is more accurate than the Apache's, though, and its ballistics and scatter pattern are more suited to use in an urban zone or on soft targets. Apples and oranges. 66.178.144.36 (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Used for Osama Bin Laden raid?
According to a broadcast by Al Jazeera on 05 May 2011, the helicopter that was used to deploy personnel to conduct the raid against Osama Bin Laden's secret hideout in Abbottobad, Pakistan was most likely an H-60 type of Stealth Helicopter. The Al Jazeera reporter interviewed Robert Densmore, an expert working with Defence IQ. The helicopter had made a hard landing that made it inoperable at the start of the raid, which resulted in the team's decision to blow it up before abandoning it upon their evacuation from the compound site. There was some remains left behind of the demolished helicopter, including a tail section, which gave Densmore the identification he needed to hazard a guess as to what kind of chopper had been used in the operation. I don't want to include this information in the article yet, because I can't find any verifiable source to prove beyond question specifically which kind of chopper was used. --Saukkomies talk 13:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's an article that shows the helicopter used in the Bin Laden raid was a Stealth UH-60 Blackhawk: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/05/05/136017082/reports-secret-stealth-black-hawk-helicopters-used-in-bin-laden-raid --Saukkomies talk 13:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * AvWeb says it was most likely a special version of the MH-60 Stealth Blackhawk Used In Bin Laden Raid? and quotes the Army Times who said they "were a radar-evading variant of the special operations MH-60 Blackhawk." Sounds fairly likely. In looking at the tail pictures on AvWeb vs the RAH-66 photos it definitley was NOT an RAH-66, the tail rotors are totally different. - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, yeah, sorry about the mistake. I actually found it mentioned here: Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk, under the section 3.1 Operational history, U.S. Army. --Saukkomies talk 14:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * But didn't Wikinegern end the discussion on the worth of L-O rotorcraft with his completely ironclad and uncontested argument that they're is sooooo WWIII? Psshhh!  It's called myopia.  And I'm getting sick of the amount of "undos" that's happened on not only the article, but this discussion page.  -Reticuli 66.178.144.36 (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What are you even talking about? Nothing has been reverted or deleted on this talk page since this discussion began, and Wikinegern hasn't edited this article or talk page. - BilCat (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the internetz, it's gettin' to'em. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 18:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) No claim was made that Wikinegern made those edits. 2) Deletions were made from the talk.  71.65.115.103 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed
Can someone with references about the Comanches on display please add them to the article? ""Aircraft on display" in unsourced.  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 08:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The Army Aviation Museum apparently had them when I visited 1.5 years ago, but they were not on display. It had Comanche related merchandise on sale for whatever that's worth. The Museum's web site does not list the RAH-66, but the site has not been updated in several years. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft in use today by the Night Stalkers
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Just finished a book written by Richard Bennett which talks about various special forces from around the globe. This is a highly comprehensive almanac. The chapter dealing with the SOAR mentions that the reg. uses the RAH-66 Comanche in their arsenal. This makes sense as its a low-observable aircraft that fits perfectly in their mission plans - night time, low level and low observable aircraft operations. Being part of a black program (obviously) they probably have access to many other "cancelled" technologies. The low-observable stealth helicopter that crashed at the UBL compound obviously wasnt an RAH-66 but goes to show what the reg. is using as aircraft today. Leeveraction (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The Night Stalkers is an Army Special Forces unit, not Air Force. The Elite Forces book is a Fringe theory thing.  There should have more than one source and something newer than 2004 to say the RAH-66 is in current use is in the article.  The Stealth helicopter used in the raid on Bin Laden's compound has been widely reported as a special MH-60 Black Hawk variant.  Some early speculation involved the RAH-66, but nothing else has come out. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The book is a credible source as per WIKI guidelines and not some fringe conspiracy theory website. Again, the RAH-66 was not downed in the UBL raid. I've made other references to classified details in other WIKI articles using the same principles and have had no problems. You do not need multiple sources to make a reference to something on WIKI nor does it have to be from the present day. The wording can be changed in the article to something more ambiguous perhaps like "the SOAR have reportedly used RAH-66 helicopters at one time"  Leeveraction (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with User:Fnlayson on this that this claim is fairly far fetched, that one book that doesn't prove that this is correct and overall is not sufficient to include this as a fact. I could see perhaps adding something to the effect that this one author claims that the aircraft is in service, but offers no proof of that, or similar wording. - Ahunt (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The book is dated 2004; the year when the program was canceled. It can't be used [as] a reference for the current situation in 2011. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Since that was the year the program was cancelled perhaps he was anticipating that it was going to enter service and with the special forces units first? Regardless the information is sufficiently questionable as to its original source as well as being out of date as to omit it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering the first two finalized production airframes for weapons certification and deployment were being built at the time he wrote it, it is more likely he was talking out his rear end. 71.65.115.103 (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

F-22 derived airframe?
I can find references to commonality of avionics (e.g. electronic systems) with the F-22 (1), but I am confused by the notion that the airframe is derived from the Raptor. It seems to me suggesting that a two-seat attack helicopter had its physical configuration based on a single-seat air superiority fighter is a significant claim. I haven't been able to find a copy of the first reference on the sentence, but Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons (Bell, Miller) does not mention the air-frame except to indicate that it's meant to be easy to transport. I'm loathe to remove the reference to the Raptor entirely, but I think that the avionic commonality and the stealthy intent have been conflated.

(1) http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/rah66_comanche.htm

C37H67NO13 (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That text has been in the article a little while. The wording did not make much sense to me. None of my books mention any F-22 connections.  I could not find the relevant text in the Bonds & Miller book through google books also.  For those reasons, I removed the "F-22-dervived airframe" text. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good. It's a bogus claim. 71.65.115.103 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No mention of General Shinseki in the article?
Comanche was canceled as retribution to its (and the Future Combat System's) biggest and most vocal supporter and promoter: General Shinseki, who'd just left as Army Chief of Staff and urged it be continued in his departing statement and letter to the SecDef. I suppose if Boeing and Sikorsky had more ties to Halliburton, like many of the ridiculous, redundant, and far too numerous private intelligence firms the government has financed for billions since 9/11, it might have stood a better chance. But it was retribution against the defiant culture of Shinseki and his prescient doctrines after he stood up against Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz and made fools of them before Congress and the public. 71.65.115.103 (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * He is not closely tied to the program and is not mentioned in any RAH-66 sources I have. Don't turn this page into discussion forum (WP:NOT). -Fnlayson (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)