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

211–220 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#211

Post by bluGill »

nine_k wrote: post #199
wongarsu wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The Israel's "Iron Dome" is supposed to include lasers, and they did use lasers to shoot down incoming rockets. In a stationary setting, like a factory or a bridge, lasers can be hard to overload, with their fast targeting, straight-line shooting, and the cost of a shot measured in single dollars. Small / cheap / slow drones with 1-2 kg payload would be an easy target. Tanks / APCs / IMVs / other armored devices that…

Tanks and the other things you list do much better when used by well trained troops in ways that the trainers tell you to. russia isn't doing that so they look bad but that is russia not the concept

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#212

Post by willmadden »

jvanderbot wrote: post #178
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?

Not 12 gauge, but full-auto punt guns with automated targeting and fire controls could be highly effective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punt_gun

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#213

Post by Teever »

CuriousCosmic wrote: post #149
Teever wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

> 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? Yes > Can that supply chain be made in the US and how long can will it take to make? In a limited capacity yes but also in like 5 or so years the answer will be an unequivocal yes.

I'm interested to know more about this. Can you provide more details?

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#214

Post by bluGill »

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…

Ukrain could have replaced those part if they wanted. Not worth the effort IMHO but they could have.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#215

Post by Teever »

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…

Why can't small, cheap drones do to the modern fighters what they're doing to modern tanks?

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#216

Post by ahmeneeroe-v2 »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #40
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.

Yeah. The archetypal “second amendment” weapon… the kind any regular American would need to hold his own was a musket, then a rifle, then lever or auto loader, then an M16. Now it’s a drone. A man or crew out in the country with AR15s are Don Quixote tilting at windmills with the advent of cheap drones.

The places we're seeing drone warfare proliferate still have men with AR15s out in the country. The side that can no longer field those men will have lost the war

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#217

Post by vFunct »

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #68
paulddraper wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've had ICBMs for some time.

ICBMs are not useful in a conventional conflict. BTW Russia and the US at least, saw this coming decades ago. Which was the reason behind the intermediate range missile treaty, which was sadly ripped up in the early 2000s.

They likely are useful now, given their costs are going down and can be used in saturation attacks like Iran just did. A single ICBM with a dozen 500lb bombs can take out an fleet of fighters.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#218

Post by MarkMarine »

In the war I fought in, there was a markedly different approach to combat air ops between even just the different service branches. The Army tended to use the Apache like it was a flying tank, hovering and delivering ordinance; the Marines (which is where I fought) flew as low and as quickly as possible even while sending rounds and hellfire missiles downrange. The marines were not losing aircraft in anywhere close to the numbers of the Army when I was there. You need a skilled operator to hit a helicopter moving at 100 knots when it's 15m over the buildings, and we mostly operated at night. I remember watching a ZPU gunner pointing the cannons directly at us and firing, and laughing as the rounds just flew behind the tail.

It's my understanding (and from watching the videos that I can get as a civilian) that the Russians still aren't operating their helicopters in a manner that I would be comfortable with if I was inside one. I certainly wouldn't be pumped flying in the environment they are in, with so many MANPADS out there, but there is no way a machine I was in would be hit with an anti-tank missile while we hovered (as was in the article.)

Lot of preamble to say: no, I don't think the attack helicopter is dead. Attack helicopters are nimble and can hide in terrain quite well, and even when an attacking force can see them it takes a skilled operator to actually hit them. The single use drones that operate like kamikaze vehicles may throw a winkle into the mix, but a helo flying at 150knots is going to be very challenging to hit for one of those. I expect there will be quite an arms race countering and then counter countering these in the future wars.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#219

Post by JohnBooty »

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.

I would think there are other advantages to large numbers of cheap drones too.

Trying to defend against 3x-10x as many enemies brings its own challenges, even if each one is less lethal.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#220

Post by newsclues »

drawnwren wrote: post #200
jvanderbot wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The problem with shotguns is that you either have a small number of pellets (12ga) or a small amount of mass to do damage (bird shot). So with 12ga specifically, while it's more effective than a rifle round -- the pellets spread quickly enough that it's only a huge advantage when the drone is in the terminal phase. This is why in WW2, they would put timed fuses inside the AA shells so that they didn't have to hit the…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_slug
Post reply on HN