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

231–240 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#231

Post by jvanderbot »

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…

I hear you, and a prox shell would be ideal, but I have a hard time seeing the comparisons. The scale of attack drones is so small and fast and close, and the drones are very fragile. Perhaps the hand grenade "bomber" types can be far enough up, but the FPV impactor types are right up in your face and have to fly at you to be effective.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#232

Post by nine_k »

SR2Z wrote: post #140
jandrewrogers wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

OTOH the highly precise HIMARS played a crucial role many times. Regular artillery has to shoot dozens of shells before it hits the exact high-value target. This betrays the position of the cannon; if it's close enough it will be fired at. HIMARS is precise so it can pack up and leave before the projectiles even reach the target.

FPV drones are precise because they're remotely piloted by experienced pilots. This allows them to inflict large damage with small payloads applied at a critical point, Luke Skywalker-style.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#233

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

Loughla wrote: post #157
ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What? In what world is hand to have combat the nature of war anymore? I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Also, I would argue that winning battles is about numbers and advantage. Winning wars is about effectively reducing supplies and support.

Somehow, it hasn't gone away. There's a disputed border region between China and India where at least 24 soldiers were killed in Jume 2020 in hand-to-hand fighting between the Indian and Chinese militaries.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#234

Post by Sephr »

MarkMarine wrote: post #218

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 t…

I imagine that moderately sized autonomous VTOL jets will eventually become cheap enough to completely displace attack helicopters for most use cases.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#235

Post by JohnBooty »

epolanski wrote: post #177
Spooky23 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, but when is the last time they detonated one? What is the current status of their stockpile and the infrastructure required to launch it and strike a target thousands of miles away?

Nuclear missiles have a lot of stuff that degrades over time. The plutonium. The conventional chemical explosives. The electronics. Were their nukes even designed to be serviced 25, 50 years in the future?

Russia went through quite a bit of economic difficulty in the waning years of communism and in the years after communism. The state of their other big expensive military toys (their navy, etc) and even their ability to equip their infantry on a personal level seems to be pretty far from ideal.

I'm not telling you that Russia doesn't have functional nukes, and it's certainly not a bluff that other nations can afford to call, but I think it's a very legitimate question.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#236

Post by indymike »

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…

> These Anglo guys still live in the 1980s,

What even is an "Anglo" guy? I don't think there's a culture left on the planet that identifies as that.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#237

Post by lumost »

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.

This assumes that any party to a conflict chooses to use their nuclear arsenal. In WW2, both sides had chemical weapons but chose not to use them due to concerns of reciprocal strikes coupled with a perceived limited utility.

We could be entering a world where there is always a military alternative to nuclear weapons, leaving nukes in a state where their only utility is as a deterrent against another nuclear power using them.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#238

Post by HeWhoLurksLate »

Teever wrote: post #213
CuriousCosmic wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

TSMC is building significant, cutting-edge fab capacity in the US at present

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#239

Post by bnralt »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #97
Barrin92 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

the biggest tick against helicopters is that they are much more expensive, and poorly armored than a tank, and their speed advantage for delivery matters a lot for special ops type jobs, but is pretty irrelevant for army type jobs.

KA-52 helicopters were considered to be a one of the big obstacles that Ukraine faced during their 2023 counteroffensive. "Military briefing: Russian ‘Alligators’ menace Ukraine’s counteroffensive"[1]:

> Justin Bronk, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think-tank, said Russian helicopters fitted with anti-tank guided missiles “were always going to be a much greater threat to Ukrainian forces during a counteroffensive than during periods when Ukraine was defending against Russian attacks”.

> “They can hover, spot for targets and fire anti-tank guided missiles from beyond the range of shoulder-fired Manpads or anti-aircraft fire,” Bronk said.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/d8fe8941-3703-433d-ac7a-dab9ba500...

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#240

Post by HKH2 »

bee_rider wrote: post #151
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.

Ukraine was not considered to be a near peer to Russia before the war. It seems likely that they thought they’d have a quick win. Possibly, whatever it is they are after, it isn’t worth the pariah status using nuclear weapons would produce. (Or maybe they still think they can get it done conventionally).

America lost the Vietnam war. Do you think Vietnam is America's near peer?

Also, if you're not sure what they're after: Russia has been systematically driving Ukraine forces out of the Donbas because the Donbas has been shelled indiscriminately by Ukrainian forces since 2014. You can argue there's more to it than that, but that's their perspective.

Post reply on HN