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

241–250 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#241

Post by indymike »

morkalork wrote: post #83

Russia's Ka-52 were a significant problem for Ukraine in the summer 2023 offensive. When Ukraine's armour would meet massive mine fields and get stymied, it was Ka-52s arriving, popping up over tree lines and taking pot shots at them with ATGMs from a distance that outranged most of their MANPADs. Only a few were taken out by lucky hits near the front. The only reason they aren't seen as much anymore is because Russi…

> Russia's Ka-52 were a significant problem for Ukraine in the summer 2023 offensive

This is why in 2024 Ukraine is now shooting down helicopters (they have shot down three now) with FPV drones.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#242

Post by bitkrieg »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #173
OrigamiPastrami wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What the US public opinion is and what the US government does are two different things. Americans are hilariously self-delusional in that regard. Just compare the civilian death tolls between the first two years of the invasion of Iraq and the first two years of the invasion of Ukraine.

For the last twenty years in the Middle East alone, the number of civilian deaths in which the US is either directly or indirectly involved is easily in the millions

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#243

Post by alisonatwork »

the_af wrote: post #224
vFunct wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My game of choice was Gunship on the Commodore 64, the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter simulator from Microprose. Spent YEARS playing that. Best part was the instruction manual that came with it that was basically a guide of all the military equipment of the Soviet Union that you could target in the game.

Gunship 2000 here! I loved that it had a dynamic campaign where the frontline moved according to how well you did. Before that, I also enjoyed LHX. > Best part was the instruction manual that came with it that was basically a guide of all the military equipment of the Soviet Union that you could target in the game. Do you remember what the copy protection was for MicroProse's F-19 Stealth Fighter? It was the silhouet…

If you remember LHX fondly, there's a new game out with similar aesthetic: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1906230/Thunder_Helix/

Still EA for now, but it looks promising.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#244

Post by kspacewalk2 »

sgc wrote: post #197
littlestymaar wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collateral damage is much less relevant in symmetric conflicts. Nobody is using either a Switchblade or an FPV in the middle of civilian areas in Ukraine right now.

Russia is using FPVs to kill civilians on their bicycles or buying fruit, and posting the videos on telegram to laugh about it. This happens every day, it is not a few isolated incidents. It is not boredom, but a chosen tactic.

Here's a great piece[0] about these Russian "human safari" tactics in Kherson, written by what seems to be the only Western journalist living in that city.

[0] https://kyivindependent.com/human-safari-kherson-civilians-h...

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#245

Post by richardw »

Sephr wrote: post #234
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.

I’d think a variation (vary size, shape to suit task) of this with weapons would do well, since it’ll already be replacing the black hawk.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_V-280_Valor

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#246

Post by exabrial »

The way Russians use them is obsolete… just like Russian tanks.

Combined arms maneuvering is what they _should_ be doing. In fact Russia reorganized to theoretically be setup for this sort of maneuvering; they organized into BTGs (battalion tactical groups) which contain basically everything: air defense (area denial and SHORAD), logistics (refuel, resupply, rearm, repair), infantry, armor, air attack, engineering, artillery, and I’m probably leaving a few out.

To this end they’ve been completely ineffective.

They started as the second best army in the world, then went to the second best army in Ukraine, and now they are the second best army in Russia.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#247

Post by paulddraper »

decafninja wrote: post #59
paulddraper wrote: post #6

I'm surprise the article didn't mention the US military history. The US Army has not had a evolution of its attack helicopter since the 1970s. I remember because one of my favorite childhood games was Comanche 3. [1] Control a helicopter, not crash, not get shot down, neutralize enemies, and achieve mission objectives -- it was cutting-edge for 1997. The Comanche program was scrapped after more than a decade of devel…

My understanding is that the latest versions of the Apache and Cobra are very different from their original incarnations, despite looking similar, no?

The Cobra hasn't been in use since the late 90s.

The Apache has been incrementally upgrade over the years, so yeah, it is much different.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#248

Post by Atotalnoob »

Teever wrote: post #215
CuriousCosmic wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

F35 platform is built to allow the pilot to control “fleets” of drones.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#249

Post by rgmerk »

Teever wrote: post #215
CuriousCosmic wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because small, cheap drones can’t fly at supersonic speeds at long enough range to matter.

Drones that can do that are called “anti-aircraft missiles”.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#250

Post by closewith »

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.

The reality is that Ukraine is producing 300,000+ drones per month, so the ratio is closer to 10,000:1 cheap drones to Switchblades.

No Western military is prepared for a ground war with hundreds of thousands of drone attacks per day, which is what near peer would mean now.

Post reply on HN