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

121–130 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#121

Post by the_af »

verdverm wrote: post #96
the_af wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> I think it might Why do you think the days of the heli might be over? I think if you ask the military of US, Israel, Russia, and China, you will find them saying the attack heli has unique and useful capabilities not available on other platforms.

Well, I don't have access to any military, but why would they say that?

To my knowledge the US has abandoned the development of their advanced attack helicopters, and it's not because the current ones are flawless. Their Apaches are very vulnerable in a modern threat environment.

The Russians seem to have lots of inventory, who knows what they are thinking. Even Perun states a lot of Russian tactics and doctrine seem very old fashioned, using helicopters in a way that doesn't seem particularly cost effective (e.g. in roles better served by artillery).

As for China, I haven't the faintest idea. What's their use of attack helicopters?

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#123

Post by energy123 »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #92
HPsquared wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Efficiency starts to matter in a near-peer conflict.

I live in the US. A near-peer conflict involves a nuclear exchange. The world will change in ways forever that none of us can ever foresee at that point.

> A near-peer conflict involves a nuclear exchange.

There are many steps on the escalation ladder before a nuclear exchange.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#124

Post by ponector »

paganel wrote: post #61

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 heli…

That counter attack was more than a year ago. Now Ukrainians have drones capable of intercepting slow air targets like drones or helicopters. And they are ten times cheaper than manpads.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#125

Post by CrimsonCape »

Teever wrote: post #88
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.

In retrospect the money would have been better spent on building a Berry-compliant drone making company that can build consumer and attack drones.

Instead, the retrospective will likely be: "I guess we should now build drones in addition to our jet fighter." Double the effort, half the efficiency, half the result.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#126

Post by szvsw »

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)

Am I the only person who is shocked to realize that this is the same Perun who does strategy gaming YouTube tutorials on a related channel!? I had seen a bunch of his Terra Invicta content… had no idea he also did actual military analysis? Is that what he does professionally in some capacity or is he just an amateur interested in this stuff with a fairly well researched YouTube channel?

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#127

Post by energy123 »

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?…

> 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?

This. Israel knew the 3 targets in advance, according to reporting. Any jets or other valuable equipment from the two airfields would have been removed before the attack. It would have been a waste to use Arrow interceptors to protect empty hangars. Also, according to a satellite image of impact craters, many of the missiles hit dirt around the airbase, so wouldn't have been intercepted even if they needed to protect jets.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#128

Post by spacebanana7 »

Teever wrote: post #88
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.

Without a capable stealth fighter the US & allies could lose air superiority to China very quickly in the Indo Pacific. And operations in the Middle East could become much more high risk from SAMs.

However it’s interesting to compare the F35 program to the alternative of producing several hundred F22s, or some other stealth solution.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#129

Post by ahmeneeroe-v2 »

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.

War never changes.

The future will be boots on the ground, men engaging in hand-to-hand combat, one dies/one lives.

That might occur in the context of standoff weapons or cheap drones or AI or whatever, but all of those things will be to facilitate a scenario where your side brings more men to that fight, that your men have an advantage in that fight, and that the fight actually reduces the other side's ability to do the same to you.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#130

Post by grogenaut »

nl wrote: post #110

People in this discussion are concentrating on the drones (which are a big factor) but the massively effective HIMARS and ATACMS is worth noting too. Precision guided artillery has been a game-changer in Ukraine.

DonnyR must be calling in joy from his grave
Post reply on HN