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

71–80 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#71

Post by OrigamiPastrami »

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #62
torginus wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your analysis assumes collateral damage is irrelevant.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#72

Post by immibis »

OrigamiPastrami wrote: post #71
SJC_Hacker wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your analysis assumes collateral damage is irrelevant.

It is, or it's an advantage.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#74

Post by H8crilA »

MANPADS have generally not changed since the Afghanistan war. And here I mean the Soviet-Afghanistan war, not the twice as long but more or less equally ineffective American-Afghanistan war. If the attack helicopter is dead, then it has already been dead for ~40 years.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#75

Post by the_af »

verdverm wrote: post #55
the_af wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Rus…

"Not really" means the war and its tactics haven't changed at all in two years? I find that very hard to believe.

I agree with your three points, but they are very high level, a bit like quoting Sun Tzu. The question is whether the attack heli is becoming rapidly obsolete (or at least, relegated to less relevant roles), and I think it might. Other weapon systems have, after all.

--

Edit: I love that I got downvoted for asking this even though, sure enough, Perun indeed uploaded a recent video reviewing his opinions of the attack helicopter! Oh, well... that's HN for you.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#76

Post by littlestymaar »

OrigamiPastrami wrote: post #71
SJC_Hacker wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your analysis assumes collateral damage is irrelevant.

Collateral damage is much less relevant in symmetric conflicts. Nobody is using either a Switchblade or an FPV in the middle of civilian areas in Ukraine right now.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#79

Post by SJC_Hacker »

ponector wrote: post #49
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.

IFV are not dead, rocket launchers as well. Even tanks are still a key. At the end people are capturing land/city, not drones. But drones are changing warfare. Drone hunting other drones, drone with self guidance - they are being used in battle right now. 500$ or even less is the cost of FPV drone with night camera capable to carry 2kg bomb. Russia is buying soldiers for up to $25000 to be killed by such cheap drone…

Those drones are getting lost / shot down / missing their targets at high rate. But since they are relatively cheap, they almost effectively artillery shells right now. Don't need a high kill rate when you have lots of them.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#80

Post by throwaway48476 »

jltsiren wrote: post #24
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.

Humans have a place in high-end weapon systems until there is a locally running AGI in the system. An actual near-peer war never works the way people expected, and fancy new weapon systems tend to underperform initially. In the absence of an AGI, humans can adapt their behavior in the field faster than tech companies can fix their software and deliver new features.

I've seen people training yolo models on ukraine footage.
Post reply on HN