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

171–180 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#171

Post by wongarsu »

Retric wrote: post #19
HPsquared wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Efficiency starts to matter in a near-peer conflict.

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.

Currently most air-defense systems heavily depend on rockets, so you can just send more of those cheap easy targets than the enemy air defense has loaded rockets.

Of course everyone sees this happening in Russia right now and is adapting their next generation, if they weren't already doing so. But that will only shift the sweet-spot for saturation attacks, not eliminating them

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#172

Post by epolanski »

bee_rider wrote: post #153
WillAdams wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth noting that Ukraine had nuclear weapons and negotiated them away in exchange for a promise that Russia would not use nuclear weapons against them.

The Bucharest memorandum contained the promises that: - None of the countries (US, UK, and Russia) would threaten Ukraine’s territory - If nuclear weapons were used against them, or they were threatened by nuclear weapons, the other signatories would “Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance” Among other promises. So it seems like they’ve already had their promises violated.

Didn't china and France sign it too?

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#173

Post by pclmulqdq »

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.

Russian military doctrine favors collateral damage. I think part of the US's love of precision weapons comes from the fact that they media will go nuts if the US kills non-targets.

20 civilians dying in Iraq to a helicopter that thought their camera was a gun was a national embarrassment. For Russia, 100 civilians dying in a mass artillery bombardment is a normal workday.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#174

Post by lamontcg »

nostrademons wrote: post #167
WillAdams wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth noting that Ukraine had nuclear weapons and negotiated them away in exchange for a promise that Russia would not use nuclear weapons against them.

Worth also noting that the nuclear weapons that Ukraine had were useless. All modern (post-1960s) nukes except the UK's are equipped with PALs [1]. Without the launch codes, they are just very expensive hunks of lithium deuteride. The launch codes for Ukraine's nukes remained with the KGB/FSB in Moscow throughout the breakup of the Soviet Union. They had essentially zero negotiating leverage, and as a result got esse…

"This is the lockpicking lawyer, and what we have here today is the PAL from the reentry vehicle of a Russian R-36M ICBM..."

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#175

Post by ceejayoz »

nostrademons wrote: post #167
WillAdams wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth noting that Ukraine had nuclear weapons and negotiated them away in exchange for a promise that Russia would not use nuclear weapons against them.

Worth also noting that the nuclear weapons that Ukraine had were useless. All modern (post-1960s) nukes except the UK's are equipped with PALs [1]. Without the launch codes, they are just very expensive hunks of lithium deuteride. The launch codes for Ukraine's nukes remained with the KGB/FSB in Moscow throughout the breakup of the Soviet Union. They had essentially zero negotiating leverage, and as a result got esse…

Without the launch codes they still had highly enriched weapons grade nuclear material. That’s the tough part. Making it go bang we figured out in the 1940s.

We also saw with DVD encryption that physical access to the device makes it tough to fully protect. Nuclear codes are protected significantly by “no one gets to tinker with the device without rapid lead poisoning”.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#176

Post by ceejayoz »

Spooky23 wrote: post #164
marginalia_nu wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Given the decay of Russia and their forces, it’s questionable whether they would work.

Even if 99% are non-functional it’s a significant threat.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#177

Post by epolanski »

Spooky23 wrote: post #164
marginalia_nu wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Given the decay of Russia and their forces, it’s questionable whether they would work.

No I don't think it is.

They have detonated more than 800 nukes in their history, ballistic ones from subs since 60 years ago, and have almost 2k warheads deployed.

Don't confuse the fact that they tend to start and conduct wars poorly, until cornered, with complete ineptitude.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#178

Post by jvanderbot »

Animats wrote: post #50

The US Army is cutting back in this area. The Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, which was a small attack helicopter, has been cancelled.[1] If it flies low and slow over the enemy, it's going to be shot down. Better to send many drones and lose some of them. The concept of tactical air superiority is now questionable. The USAF used to boast that American troops have not had to fight under a hostile sky since 195…

Dumb question: Why are 12ga shotguns, possibly on small auto-targeting platforms, not a thing yet? Like a CWIS/CRAM but tiny and for close-in engagements?

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#179

Post by Daz1 »

jojobas wrote: post #168
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.

It seems like you also need to re-evaluate against pretty much suicide infantry.

Not related to the 'meat wave' myth I hope

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#180

Post by epolanski »

CuriousCosmic wrote: post #143
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.

Idk how they wouldn't compete in terms of financials. They are in effect the specced-down mass production version of the F-22 and are comparable in terms of cost relative to similar fifth generation fighters (and even comparable to many fourth generation fights) but go toe to toe with or outperform the competition. This stacks the deck such that the F-35 will be a peer to or superior to any "opposition" aircraft or a…

This is all theoretical until properly tested.
Post reply on HN