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

341–350 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#341

Post by nradov »

rjurney wrote: post #314
nradov wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attack helicopters might still have a limited role in some theaters. But the Marine Corps seems to realigning to fight China in the Western Pacific where, regardless of survivability, regular attack helicopters lack the range and speed necessary to be relevant. They might also face a threat from manned fighters which are potentially very dangerous to helicopters, even those flying evasively at low altitude. Thus the…

Well, actually helicopters are already critical in both anti-submarine and anti-ship warfare. They can extend range and distribute shots of anti-ship missiles to make concurrent salvos from multiple directions more deadly.

Well, actually you missed the point of the original article and of my comment. No one is claiming that all military helicopters are dead, just attack helicopters. The helicopters used by naval forces for anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare (along with other missions) generally aren't classified as attack helicopters.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#342

Post by HKH2 »

aguaviva wrote: post #264
HKH2 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's their claimed perspective. Unfortunately Russia's current regime tends to lie a lot, and there's no reason to take anything it says at face value. "Indiscriminate shelling of the Donbas (by Ukrainian forces)" is one of its many talking points that lots of people like to repeat, but which no one seems to be able to substantiate. Meanwhile reports of shelling by Russian forces are quite ample. In any case: No, t…

America is way better at controlling the narrative.

Right now, Kursk is supposedly considered a major success by the Ukrainians. Let's see how that pans out.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#343

Post by hajile »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #23
krunck wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will be when there are AI controlled aircraft/drones that can exceed the G-force limits that humans require and can thus out maneuver any human controlled fighter.

Fifth generation fighter jets aren’t built for dog-fighting. They are stealthy, mesh-networked missile and bomb platforms. Modern fourth generation fighters would be more than sufficient up close. Except that fifth generation fighters hunt in packs and none of them need to be pointed at their target to hit them.

A lot of sci-fi gets tossed around about 5th-gen fighters and stealth vs non-stealth is extrapolated onto everything.

If you're communicating, you are broadcasting your position to the enemy. That means you can be shot down.

If you're in passive stealth mode, you can't detect the enemy and they can't detect you until both sides are extremely close and that means a dogfight.

All of this also ignores the massive advancements in IRST and AI which can likely pick out subtle patterns in radar and other data that normal hard-coded algorithms cannot.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#344

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

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.

I remember Wolfpack! Never figured it out, I was way too young

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#345

Post by hollerith »

hajile wrote: post #343
kayodelycaon wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fifth generation fighter jets aren’t built for dog-fighting. They are stealthy, mesh-networked missile and bomb platforms. Modern fourth generation fighters would be more than sufficient up close. Except that fifth generation fighters hunt in packs and none of them need to be pointed at their target to hit them.

A lot of sci-fi gets tossed around about 5th-gen fighters and stealth vs non-stealth is extrapolated onto everything. If you're communicating, you are broadcasting your position to the enemy. That means you can be shot down. If you're in passive stealth mode, you can't detect the enemy and they can't detect you until both sides are extremely close and that means a dogfight. All of this also ignores the massive advanc…

>If you're in passive stealth mode, you can't detect the enemy and they can't detect you until both sides are extremely close

Your side can have another plane paint the enemy plane, so now you can see him without your emitting anything.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#346

Post by swagasaurus-rex »

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?

I'm imagining a shoulder mounted auto-targeting pistol.

9mm rounds go 1500 ft per second, so probably within 300 meters a drone wouldn't have the reaction time to dodge a bullet with precise aim.

It could also be mounted on a dog, real or robotic.

Actually building this thing though might be a science fiction dream.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#347

Post by hajile »

tomjen3 wrote: post #338
hajile wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you do combined arms into a minefield? It's a WW1-style mess where combined arms simply don't work. Ukraine tried NATO tactics summer of last year and suffered a catastrophic defeat. Going across minefields requires convoys. Russian helicopters outside of MANPADS range (and too low to be visible to SAM site radar) take out the minesweeper and rear vehicles. Now you've got a bunch of sitting ducks. If it looks…

Do what Ukraine did: attack in another place. But it is like asking what is the healthy thing to do when you are 300 pounds and can run because you have heart issues: the answer is to never be in that position in the first place. Anyway I assume the US has some sort of remote detonation mine plan for if shit gets hot with NK.

Russia didn't defend Kursk because they didn't think Ukraine would be stupid enough to make that attack. That was a temporary PR win and a permanent strategic loss.

The results have been the elimination of Ukraine's best troops AND losing the ability to reinforce faltering lines which is why Russian advances have increased.

Maneuver warfare relies on secrecy to a large degree. You can hide strategic troop buildups from the Taliban because they don't have satellites, but not from a near peer. With current spotter drones and IR cameras, you can't really even rely on tactical secrecy.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#348

Post by hajile »

hollerith wrote: post #345
hajile wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of sci-fi gets tossed around about 5th-gen fighters and stealth vs non-stealth is extrapolated onto everything. If you're communicating, you are broadcasting your position to the enemy. That means you can be shot down. If you're in passive stealth mode, you can't detect the enemy and they can't detect you until both sides are extremely close and that means a dogfight. All of this also ignores the massive advanc…

>If you're in passive stealth mode, you can't detect the enemy and they can't detect you until both sides are extremely close Your side can have another plane paint the enemy plane, so now you can see him without your emitting anything.

If the illuminating plane is not a stealth plane, then it'll get shot by the stealth plane long before it can detect the stealth plane.

If the illuminating plane is a stealth plane, then you've just traded on stealth plane for another. Even worse, there's a decent chance that your broadcasting plane gets shot down, the illumination fails, and the enemy stealth plane still gets away leaving you one plane less for no gains at all.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#349

Post by hollerith »

hajile wrote: post #348
hollerith wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you're in passive stealth mode, you can't detect the enemy and they can't detect you until both sides are extremely close Your side can have another plane paint the enemy plane, so now you can see him without your emitting anything.

If the illuminating plane is not a stealth plane, then it'll get shot by the stealth plane long before it can detect the stealth plane. If the illuminating plane is a stealth plane, then you've just traded on stealth plane for another. Even worse, there's a decent chance that your broadcasting plane gets shot down, the illumination fails, and the enemy stealth plane still gets away leaving you one plane less for no g…

The way the USAF has been doing it for a few decades is to make the illuminator very powerful so it can stand back 600 miles. They call it AWACS.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#350

Post by hx8 »

swagasaurus-rex wrote: post #346
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?

I'm imagining a shoulder mounted auto-targeting pistol. 9mm rounds go 1500 ft per second, so probably within 300 meters a drone wouldn't have the reaction time to dodge a bullet with precise aim. It could also be mounted on a dog, real or robotic. Actually building this thing though might be a science fiction dream.

An FPV can clear those 300 meters in 6 seconds. Maybe six seconds is enough for target identification, aiming, and firing, but it is a tight timeline for tracking an ~1kg object ~0.3km away.
Post reply on HN