Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is the attack helicopter dead?

hushkit.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#51

Post by torginus »

Retric wrote: post #19
HPsquared wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Efficiency starts to matter in a near-peer conflict.

Near-peer conflicts have more meaningful targets which favors these kinds of expensive weapons platforms. A drone that can do meaningful damage to a factory 500+ miles from a front line is either an easy target or it starts to look a lot like a missile with all the associated costs from that.

I think it's more complex than that. The US made Switchblade drones which cost tens of thousands of dollars were outperformed with lightly modified FPVs with grenades, which came in under a thousand.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#52

Post by Animats »

hollerith wrote: post #3
bhouston wrote: post #2

I think most manned war vehicles are dead now. We are definitely entering into the era of drone-vs-human warfare. Drones are cheap and deadly and can be remotely operated, and soon probably operated by AI.

Yeah, well, the Ukrainian army is on record saying they'd rather have more artillery shells than more drones.

Both work together. The drone finds the target. The artillery then destroys the target.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#54

Post by andrewflnr »

siliconc0w wrote: post #32

Whoever can most cost effectively put explosives on target wins. The future will be annihilation at a distance with cheap standoff weapons followed by swarms of cheap drones loitering over battlefields to clean up.

Standoff weapons stop being cheap when countermeasures come into effect.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#55

Post by verdverm »

the_af wrote: post #36
verdverm wrote: post #4

Better discussion by Perun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnoKpXvj41A (there is a saying or word for titles as questions, and the answer is always no)

That video by Perun is 2 years old, while TFA is from today. Surely there have been additional lessons learned in two years?

Not really, the conclusions are basically the same between both

1. There are no wonder weapons, nor are weapons obsoleted so easily. You cannot look at one in isolation of the larger context. The incidents in one war do not inform the use in all wars or operations.

2. Militaries view these types of things as part of a larger system, the parts of which are combined to create a desired effect. It is situational and Russia C&C is not the same as other countries C&C.

3. War has pro/con evolutions, as the drones progress, so does the anti-drone tech. These same helicopters were allegedly instrumental in preventing Ukraine's counter offensive in Zaporizhzhia, with their standoff anti-tank missiles, popping up above the trees, outside the range of manpads

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#57

Post by bhouston »

thenaturalist wrote: post #25
bhouston wrote: post #2

I think most manned war vehicles are dead now. We are definitely entering into the era of drone-vs-human warfare. Drones are cheap and deadly and can be remotely operated, and soon probably operated by AI.

I highly doubt that such a general presumption holds. As seen in the case of Russia’s super drone being downed by their own this week after presumably loosing control, only relying on unmanned vehicles en mass leads to a single point of failure. Disrupt or corrupt signals, disrupt the entire force. The US is the force it is because it can do combined arms like nobody else. Unique capabilities don’t matter if your opp…

> Look at last weeks Iran ICBM barrage vs. iron dome and David’s sling.

I believe the issue was not overwhelming the defences but rather the defences (Iron Dome and David's sling) were designed for short range and slow rockets from Lebanon or Gaza and not long range fast/high rockets from Iran.

It may be that the cost per Arrow missile (for long range intercepts) is $3M as well, so they didn't fire that many of them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(missile_family)

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#58

Post by daedrdev »

bhouston wrote: post #57
thenaturalist wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly doubt that such a general presumption holds. As seen in the case of Russia’s super drone being downed by their own this week after presumably loosing control, only relying on unmanned vehicles en mass leads to a single point of failure. Disrupt or corrupt signals, disrupt the entire force. The US is the force it is because it can do combined arms like nobody else. Unique capabilities don’t matter if your opp…

> Look at last weeks Iran ICBM barrage vs. iron dome and David’s sling. I believe the issue was not overwhelming the defences but rather the defences (Iron Dome and David's sling) were designed for short range and slow rockets from Lebanon or Gaza and not long range fast/high rockets from Iran. It may be that the cost per Arrow missile (for long range intercepts) is $3M as well, so they didn't fire that many of them?…

Iron dome is only used against small rockets, and was never intended to hit ballistic or cruise missiles. Thus it's not a failure since they aren't used for that kind of defense. There are separate anti ballistic systems that were used and shot down many of the rockets.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#59

Post by decafninja »

paulddraper wrote: post #6

I'm surprise the article didn't mention the US military history. The US Army has not had a evolution of its attack helicopter since the 1970s. I remember because one of my favorite childhood games was Comanche 3. [1] Control a helicopter, not crash, not get shot down, neutralize enemies, and achieve mission objectives -- it was cutting-edge for 1997. The Comanche program was scrapped after more than a decade of devel…

My understanding is that the latest versions of the Apache and Cobra are very different from their original incarnations, despite looking similar, no?

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#60

Post by decafninja »

nordsieck wrote: post #28
bhouston wrote: post #2

I think most manned war vehicles are dead now. We are definitely entering into the era of drone-vs-human warfare. Drones are cheap and deadly and can be remotely operated, and soon probably operated by AI.

> I think most manned war vehicles are dead now. IMO, submarines - especially nuclear subs probably have decades of life left at a minimum. But yeah - everything else is starting to look very vulnerable.

What’s to stop development of unmanned drone SSNs? Including ones that act as motherships for underwater drone swarms to boot.
Post reply on HN