Talk:Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleBoeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
October 9, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Attack Helo[edit]

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. (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Used for Osama Bin Laden raid[edit]

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: --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 (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. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 18:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1) No claim was made that Wikinegern made those edits. 2) Deletions were made from the talk. (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

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[edit]

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 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. (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

F-22 derived airframe?[edit]

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.


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. (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No mention of General Shinseki in the article?[edit]

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. (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#FORUM). -Fnlayson (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hulk (2003 film)[edit]

Surprised to see no mention of the fictitious depiction in Hulk, but added a reference with screenshots from the movie in any case. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably because a fictional rendering is not really notable, if it was a real aircraft it might be added to Aircraft in fiction rather than here. I have removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
As per WP:AIRPOP these go in Aircraft in fiction, not in the aircraft type articles. It is already there at Aircraft_in_fiction#RAH-66_Comanche. - Ahunt (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)