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

81–90 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#81

Post by Barrin92 »

sneed_chucker wrote: post #5

Part of a broader pattern in military technology right now. All weapon systems that consist of an expensive vehicle and an expensive-to-train crew are being re-evaluated against drones right now. If you're fighting a highly asymmetric conflict where your enemies can barely touch your expensive toys then it's less of a concern. If you're fighting near-peer it's a different story.

>Part of a broader pattern in military technology right now.

It's not a new discussion, this comes up every decade or so when some new technology takes expensive kit out but just as with the tank nothing is going anywhere.

Paraphrasing I can't remember who, "if you're getting out of the tank, what are you getting into?" Helicopters, tanks, mechanized and combined arms warfare and metal are still pretty much the only way you take territory, there's no alternative, even if drones start taking helicopters or expensive vehicles out it's the only thing that is mobile and packs a punch and protects your infantry.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#82

Post by taneq »

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.

I’d guess they can reuse the drones most of the time?

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#83

Post by morkalork »

Russia's Ka-52 were a significant problem for Ukraine in the summer 2023 offensive. When Ukraine's armour would meet massive mine fields and get stymied, it was Ka-52s arriving, popping up over tree lines and taking pot shots at them with ATGMs from a distance that outranged most of their MANPADs. Only a few were taken out by lucky hits near the front. The only reason they aren't seen as much anymore is because Russia was idiotic and kept them parked at an airfield within ATACMS range.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#84

Post by bhouston »

daedrdev wrote: post #58
bhouston wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Why are you repeating what I said? I am just confused as to why you are "correcting" me in a reply when you are saying the same thing.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#85

Post by kergonath »

AlbertCory wrote: post #66
pavlov wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is also something that must be resisted, because that’s how you get war crimes and genocides.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#86

Post by littlestymaar »

sneed_chucker wrote: post #5

Part of a broader pattern in military technology right now. All weapon systems that consist of an expensive vehicle and an expensive-to-train crew are being re-evaluated against drones right now. If you're fighting a highly asymmetric conflict where your enemies can barely touch your expensive toys then it's less of a concern. If you're fighting near-peer it's a different story.

> All weapon systems that consist of an expensive vehicle and an expensive-to-train crew are being re-evaluated against drones right now.

Manned systems still have advantages though: no matter how much EW there is, you still have a man in the loop.

But I expect the role of the human to be less and less mechanical, and more and more about bearing the responsibility. As such I expect manned systems to evolve into more like on mini command post supported by a squad of automated weapons. (Ideally you'd want the manned version to look exactly the same as the automated ones to prevent enemies from targeting it, like the IDF did with its fake tanks[1] a while ago).

[1]: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-disguises-missile-launc...

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#87

Post by phs318u »

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’s not that collateral damage is irrelevant. It’s that the calculation as to whether collateral damage is “worth it” in the context of the specific goal/target is usually relative and calculated unemotionally. Some may say inhumanly.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#88

Post by Teever »

sneed_chucker wrote: post #5

Part of a broader pattern in military technology right now. All weapon systems that consist of an expensive vehicle and an expensive-to-train crew are being re-evaluated against drones right now. If you're fighting a highly asymmetric conflict where your enemies can barely touch your expensive toys then it's less of a concern. If you're fighting near-peer it's a different story.

When we'll reach this inflection point with jet fighters?

I remain skeptical that the F-35 will prove to be a prudent expenditure of resources both financial and in terms of R&D.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#90

Post by hollerith »

recursive wrote: post #9
hollerith wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Artillery shells are not manned vehicles.

I was responding to, "entering into the era of drone-vs-human warfare," not defending manned vehicles.
Post reply on HN