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

281–290 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#281

Post by mdaniel »

debo_ wrote: post #271
navbaker wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent tons of hours as a kid playing Comanche on our old 486!

Comanche, LHX Attack Chopper, Gunboat and Wolfpack. A handful of military sims meant hundreds of pages of specs to sift through -- best copy protection I ever had to deal with. I probably spent more time reading the manuals than I did playing the games.

Same fond memories about LHX and F117A. While searching, I was shocked how much my recollection of that experience vastly differed from its actual graphics: https://www.myabandonware.com/game/lhx-attack-chopper-xo#scr...

I don't recall having played Comanche in order to compare the two. The other game I spent innumerable hours in was F117A [1] - partially because -- again, my recollection -- one had to damn near real-time fly from the base to the target and then back, all the while in stealth mode, which usually meant going slow and terrain hugging

1: https://www.myabandonware.com/game/f-117a-nighthawk-stealth-...

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#282

Post by nradov »

nostrademons wrote: post #134
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…

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…

The fact that recent engagements have been within easy drone range is an accident of geography. The same situation won't necessarily obtain in the Western Pacific. The quantity of drones you can produce won't matter if the launching platform can't survive long enough to get within range of the target.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#283

Post by debo_ »

mdaniel wrote: post #281
debo_ wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comanche, LHX Attack Chopper, Gunboat and Wolfpack. A handful of military sims meant hundreds of pages of specs to sift through -- best copy protection I ever had to deal with. I probably spent more time reading the manuals than I did playing the games.

Same fond memories about LHX and F117A. While searching, I was shocked how much my recollection of that experience vastly differed from its actual graphics: https://www.myabandonware.com/game/lhx-attack-chopper-xo#scr... I don't recall having played Comanche in order to compare the two. The other game I spent innumerable hours in was F117A [1] - partially because -- again, my recollection -- one had to damn near real…

Yes, I also played a ton of F117A. The terrible graphics were actually what let me run it and LHX, I had an anemic 386. I only got to play Comanche at my uncle's house. LHX actually looks exactly as I remember it. I remember those blocky polygons very fondly.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#284

Post by JohnBooty »

jvanderbot wrote: post #231
drawnwren wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would be surprised if we didn't eventually see something like you describe. I could see it protecting bases, trenches, encampments, etc.

But I think an open question is if it could be made portable enough to tote around on the battlefield.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#286

Post by jandrewrogers »

epolanski wrote: post #194
jandrewrogers wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, the US has been sending obsolete or intentionally degraded systems. There is a re-fit process if it comes from US stocks to remove sensitive tech or capabilities. It would be an error to assume that what happens in Ukraine represents the capabilities of US systems despite having the same name. This isn't unique to Ukraine, most US weapon exports are selectively degraded or have capabilities removed. Despite thi…

> It would be an error to assume that what happens in Ukraine represents the capabilities of US systems despite having the same name. It's speculation, at best, to assume the opposite. Of course we know that there are export versions, but those are given in general different labels, and we don't have any intel on the specific system version used in Ukraine. Assuming that even non-export versions could not be jammed i…

The US encourages the speculation as a matter of doctrine.

That said, anyone familiar with the tech knows that it doesn’t work the way it would have to work for it to be jammable in the way assumed, as a matter of public record. A classic example is the amount of people and media that asserts the US has GPS-guided weapons. The US has never had GPS-guided anything, it was defeatable by design.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#287

Post by lazide »

bluGill wrote: post #206
shiroiushi wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that was an amazing helicopter, and it's really too bad it was cut, but as you say, it just didn't make economic sense any more when UAVs were invented. I guess it's something like the Japanese battleship Yamato, with the largest guns ever installed on a warship. It was amazing, but easily sunk by airplanes flown from aircraft carriers, so it was already obsolete when it was launched.

aircraft carriers are even more vulnerable. battleships are obsolete not because they are easy to sink but because airplanes are more versitle for most purposes. When doing a shore assult a battleship is more useful than airplanes but that is not enough to be worth the cost of running them.

Airplanes can do over the horizon missions.

Battleships aren’t useful for that.

Missile cruisers/destroyers are the battleship replacements.

But airplanes can also carry and launch missiles even better, with some warning and planning.

Battleships are useful for the naval equivalent of a bar brawl or a street gang fight. Aka up close, nasty, ‘punch them in the face until they can’t get up again’. They’re the equivalent of Mike Tyson in his prime for that.

Which even now would have some PR value, and no matter the time period will always be a spectacle.

But tactics have evolved more since then, and we just don’t have those type of fights that much anymore. And when we do, we just bring a ‘gun’ instead of relying on our ‘fists’.

Of course, anything is possible and maybe we’ll turn New Jersey into a spaceship to fight our space naval battles in a hundred years. Odds are low though.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#288

Post by nostrademons »

meiraleal wrote: post #161
Loughla wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Drones can't occupy land (yet).

Are you sure? It seems that the obvious way for drones to "occupy" land is to embed an IFF transponder in every human that is authorized to be in the area, and then program your drone swarm to kill every living thing that is not identified as friendly. The reason this hasn't happened yet is that nobody ruthless enough has yet gained control of a drone swarm. But this is a social, not technical obstacle, and one that is disturbingly likely to fall in the next decade.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#289

Post by nradov »

epolanski wrote: post #172
bee_rider wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

China and France didn't formally sign the Budapest Memorandum. They made separate statements generally in support but aren't obligated to take any real action.

https://warontherocks.com/2015/06/the-budapest-memorandum-an...

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#290

Post by richardw »

nostrademons wrote: post #260
richardw wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's interesting to look at the design of FPV racing drones today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pEqyr_uT-k When they fly, they basically turn horizontal, relying on body lift + vectored thrust. They're small enough, with high enough power/weight ratios, that that's enough. Apparently there's no need for a tilt-rotor, because the whole airplane becomes a tilt-rotor. Similar principal as cruise missiles, which have…

That thing is amazing. I suspect optimised for shorter distance and dynamism, whereas I think the 280 is basically a faster helicopter that can cruise longer distance? Not expert, just wondered about the tradeoffs given the relatively bad safety record of the v22 Osprey it replaces. So this is an Osprey, but better and safer because simpler mechanics.

On new approaches, I saw something about new US missile research where they get rid of the fins and point the nose to turn. My Google-fu is failing me though.

Post reply on HN