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

131–140 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#131

Post by Retric »

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.

Lightly modified FPVs with grenades are a major concern for soldiers, but so are mortars and artillery shells etc. There’s a lot of low cost long range weapons vs infantry, but a drone with a grenade isn’t really effective vs tanks etc. A fleet of cheap drones just don’t do anything if bomber aircraft can simply fly higher than they can reach.

Leave the realm of mass production and you can build drones that would be, but they quickly start looking like existing systems because militaries have been working with drones since WWII.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#132

Post by thaumasiotes »

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.

> 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.

Sanity check: 80% success is an 80% success rate; 3 shots at 30% success is a 66% rate, which is much, much worse.

You need 5 cheap 30% drones to beat an 80% success rate, still a major savings at the prices you give, but 70% more than 3 drones.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#133

Post by spacebanana7 »

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.

Isn’t there a great deal of overlap? A guided artillery shell is kind of like a fast moving loitering drone. Sometimes shells can even be given more instruction after being fired.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#134

Post by nostrademons »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #120
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.

It is not just production cost, the average latency between target detection and target destruction has a large impact on battlefield dynamics. More precise weapons can destroy most of the capability of less precise weapons before they are ever used. Additionally, precision weapons typically have a much smaller logistical footprint, and logistics can make or break military campaigns. Much of the US focus on precision…

The reason drones are kicking butt right now is because you get both precision and quantity. Advances in electronics, software, communication links, and sensor technology mean that you can make guidance systems as a hobbyist that would be a million dollar missile from a specialized defense contractor just 15 years ago.

You lose range, but urbanized warfare of the 21st century seems to be a very different battlefield calculus from the strategic bombing campaigns of WW2. The vast majority of engagements these days seem to be within easy drone range, probably because they can be produced in quantities that negate the "just destroy everything within 200 miles" strategy of WW2 carrier battle groups.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#135

Post by Teever »

CrimsonCape wrote: post #125
Teever wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah that's where I'm at with this topic too.

If we use the Ukraine war as a template for the next major war that the US faces (possibly against China) -- does the United States have the industrial capability to produce the tens to hundreds of millions of drones necessary to win?

Like can it produce the propellers, the frames, the motors, the batteries, the ICs to make a FPV drone that blows up in an enemy soldiers face?

Can that supply chain be made in the US and how long can will it take to make?

Is this a priority for the United States? Why or why not?

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#136

Post by marginalia_nu »

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.

Worth noting that Russia has nuclear weapons, yet elects not to use them against their near peer Ukraine.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#137

Post by krapht »

szvsw wrote: post #126
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?

I believe in his earlier videos he mentioned that he isn't able to discuss Australian defense procurement on YouTube due to a conflict of interest with his day job.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#138

Post by murderfs »

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…

Perun put out a video three weeks ago that is much less sanguine about the future of the attack helicopter: https://youtu.be/eWE1h0GA5fk?t=1939

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#139

Post by punkspider »

Dwedit wrote: post #35

I've been so overexposed to the meme about criticizing gender identity that I've forgotten that attack helicopters are actual military vehicles.

Now that you've pointed it out I've also realized there was something off about how I thought about attack helicopters when I first read the title.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#140

Post by SR2Z »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #120
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.

It is not just production cost, the average latency between target detection and target destruction has a large impact on battlefield dynamics. More precise weapons can destroy most of the capability of less precise weapons before they are ever used. Additionally, precision weapons typically have a much smaller logistical footprint, and logistics can make or break military campaigns. Much of the US focus on precision…

> This "precision versus quantity" argument played out to greatly favor precision in Ukraine.

Yes, but the defining attribute of the Ukraine war seems to be CHEAP precision - the ability of drones to respond and attack car-sized targets in real time is what has turned this war into a slog.

The American-made stuff is great, but I've seen multiple examples of Ukrainian missile crews reacting contemptuously to the idea that they could use a Javelin/NLAW to take out an older Soviet piece of equipment; that kind of task seems to be reserved for Soviet-era weapons or (preferably) drones.

Post reply on HN