...I support the procurement of the Comanche, but in the competing demand for the federal buck there will always be those who say, "A fighter can do most of what the Comanche can do and not get shot down as easy. Why not spend the money for more fighters?"

Reading combat literature and promotional materials - you get to see a lot of talk about the "mission" and the "role" each craft or weapons system will play.

The decision makers, usually favor their own service and their own experience.

Reading through the BS and trying to assess the comparitive values of different projects is the military analysts stock in trade. Of course their recommendations are easily discarded by an Air Force man who likes planes, A Navy man who like ships and an Army man who likes tanks.

Does the Comanche have a role to play - certainly. Does it stack up well against a fighter? Apples and oranges.

But how about a drone craft? The drone-makers push their ability to go undetected and scout out data and transmit it too.

So someone says, "Well maybe we should reduce our commitment on the Comanche and invest in heavier attack helicopters and a fleet of drones."

Again, I support the procurement of these craft. I just wanted to point out that competing for the defense dollar is a whole bunch of technologies and their respective companies.

I, personally, think the craft has an even stronger future in combatting urban terrorism and providing an intimidating presence to quell disorder and as a frontline role against less well-equipped combatants.

I can only imagine how much the US Border Patrol, and large cities SWAT teams law would love to have one in their arsenal.

Of course the firepower of such a craft used against one's own populace seems a tad excessive - but a half dozen of these in LA could've scared the heck out of the mindless rioters and looters which took over parts of L.A.

Perhaps the Hydras replaced with tear gas bombs...

Just ramblin...

SDAI-Tech1