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

61–70 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#61

Post by paganel »

A BS article if I ever saw one. Take for example this:

> Moreover, the threat is not the organic air defences of battlegroups or a Soviet Motor-Rifle Regiment or Brigade, but dispersed and well-hidden infantry and special forces units equipped with modern MANPADS missile systems. Furthermore, because the enemy forces are operating over the defenders’ own ground, the defence can be cued and alerted to approaching helicopters, given good data connectivity.

which is exactly what did NOT happen when the Ukrainians counter-attacked on their own territory, in Southern-Ukraine, when the Russian Ka-52s had a field day (actual, several field days) against incoming Ukrainian heavy armour. These Anglo guys still live in the 1980s, they should ask the Ukrainians what they feel about the "demise" of the attack helicopter, that way maybe non-sense like this won't get published anymore.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#62

Post by SJC_Hacker »

torginus wrote: post #51
Retric wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We don't know if they underperfomed so much as weren't cost effective. If the switchblade costing $10k results in a kill 80% of the time, while the $1k drone is 30% of the time, you just get 3 times as many $1k drones, average about the same kill rate, and save 70% to boot. Or spend the same amount and get about 3x the kill rate.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#63

Post by pavlov »

titanomachy wrote: post #41
HPsquared wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Efficiency starts to matter in a near-peer conflict.

> near-peer I prefer the Culture term “equiv-tech”

There’s something icky about discussing killing real people like it was fan fiction of a sci-fi franchise.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#64

Post by howard941 »

stonethrowaway wrote: post #15
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…

Between that, F-22, JSF, Hind and A10, we had some great great games that decade. Still miss Fighter Ace on MSN Gaming Zone.

Tornado was another terrific sim. It had the best mission planner and immersion even though its simulation of the ALARM was busted. Digital Integrations? Don't remember if that was the publisher.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#65

Post by SJC_Hacker »

titanomachy wrote: post #41
HPsquared wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Efficiency starts to matter in a near-peer conflict.

> near-peer I prefer the Culture term “equiv-tech”

Its not just tech but capability. You can give some random country F35s, that doesn't mean they are useful.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#66

Post by AlbertCory »

pavlov wrote: post #63
titanomachy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> near-peer I prefer the Culture term “equiv-tech”

There’s something icky about discussing killing real people like it was fan fiction of a sci-fi franchise.

I guess you don't want to read anything by actual military people, then. Dehumanizing the enemy is a requirement for those folks.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#68

Post by SJC_Hacker »

paulddraper wrote: post #39
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.

We've had ICBMs for some time.

ICBMs are not useful in a conventional conflict.

BTW Russia and the US at least, saw this coming decades ago. Which was the reason behind the intermediate range missile treaty, which was sadly ripped up in the early 2000s.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#70

Post by mh- »

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…

Wow, that stirred up some nostalgia. I loved this game. All the Jane's ones too.
Post reply on HN