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

471–480 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#471

Post by moffkalast »

siliconc0w wrote: post #351
karaterobot wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Due to the nature of their deployment (ad hoc, improvised, crowd-sourced) swarms of quads in Ukraine didn't have much of a counter. Nobody had thought enough about it yet. All the work had gone into developing really sophisticated, cheap drones for consumer use, and strapping a bomb on them was all it took to weaponize that consumer technology. Nobody had spent a similar amount of time developing an equally sophistic…

Lasers and microwaves can be mitigated, jamming doesn't matter if they're autonomous(and can also be mitigated), bullets have a hard time with fast and stocastic movement. It's gonna be done on drone. And they can lie in wait in low power mode and navigate buildings so, yeah better hope you get all of them.

Well there is one limitation, flight time for drones is still garbage, and with more payload doubly so. You just have to wait 20 minutes and it'll run out of power.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#472

Post by carlosjobim »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #262
Daz1 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not related to the 'meat wave' myth I hope

Myth? It's a well-documented Russian tactic. They basically have a two-tier military at this point: competent professionals, and untrained expendable cannon fodder. Professionals are used to operate weaponry that's more sophisticated than your basic AK, machine gun and 70s-era armour. They are valuable because of their training and (at this point) a lot of experience. The second tier is used to conduct the kind of at…

I think everybody is confusing the means and the ends, when it comes to these wars. They are not sacrificing people as cannon fodder because they are desperate to win the wars, instead the wars are the excuse for the real purpose, which is to have people killed. A sacrifice to demonic entities, whether they are imagined or not. The literal creation of hell on earth – that is not imagined.

The Aztecs and other ancient people like the Vikings didn't make excuses, they made war for it's own sake to please the entities they were worshipping with the blood of men.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#473

Post by zmgsabst »

lazide wrote: post #367
zmgsabst wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Additionally, precision weapons typically have a much smaller logistical footprint, and logistics can make or break military campaigns. Only if you exclude manufacturing. > This "precision versus quantity" argument played out to greatly favor precision in Ukraine. Until the allies of Ukraine fell behind on artillery manufacturing — allowing Russia to gain dominance and grind down the Ukrainian military. That mass p…

Haha, since when is Ukraine even close to defeat? Defeated enemies aren’t making regular incursions into the ‘victors’ land which the ‘victor’ can’t stop, or launching attacks agains the ‘victors’ capital. This just reads like Russian delusion/cope.

What are you talking about?

Kursk was stopped after small gains and prior to any major captures — with Ukraine losing their best units. That loss has led to cities along the line of battle being captured, including the fortress city of Vuhledar.

There’s now increased talk of Ukraine giving up territory — which is their defeat.

Edit due to rate limit:

You’re citing areas Russia withdrew from during the Istanbul talks as “lost” while ignoring that Russia posses 18% of Ukraine and is advancing.

Russia isn’t losing “more and more control” on any front, they’re forcing Ukraine back — including driving Ukraine from places like Vuhledar they’ve held for the entire war until now.

To use your Canadian analogy:

It would be like if the US seized the 20% of Canada closest to the continental US and then proceeded to shell Canadian army to dysfunction from there — which would be seen as a sane and effective strategy.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#474

Post by zmgsabst »

aguaviva wrote: post #320
zmgsabst wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Additionally, precision weapons typically have a much smaller logistical footprint, and logistics can make or break military campaigns. Only if you exclude manufacturing. > This "precision versus quantity" argument played out to greatly favor precision in Ukraine. Until the allies of Ukraine fell behind on artillery manufacturing — allowing Russia to gain dominance and grind down the Ukrainian military. That mass p…

It's one thing to make a speculative assessment, or a prediction. But the use of the implied past tense in reference to a situation that has many variables and which in any case is far from decided is definitely quite pretentious.

I don’t think anybody serious questions the outcome of the Ukraine war — as evidenced by the international realignment caused by NATOs defeat, increases talk about Ukraine relinquishing ground, etc.

What event do you believe could change the outcome at this point?

And since Ukraine was defeated, we can discuss why: their inability to match artillery exchanges for most of the war.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#475

Post by verdverm »

the_af wrote: post #75
verdverm wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, the conclusions are basically the same between both 1. There are no wonder weapons, nor are weapons obsoleted so easily. You cannot look at one in isolation of the larger context. The incidents in one war do not inform the use in all wars or operations. 2. Militaries view these types of things as part of a larger system, the parts of which are combined to create a desired effect. It is situational and Rus…

"Not really" means the war and its tactics haven't changed at all in two years? I find that very hard to believe. I agree with your three points, but they are very high level, a bit like quoting Sun Tzu. The question is whether the attack heli is becoming rapidly obsolete (or at least, relegated to less relevant roles), and I think it might . Other weapon systems have, after all. -- Edit: I love that I got downvoted…

You're being downvoted for the delivery, not the message essence. There are better ways to ask and respond, better words, than you used

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#476

Post by the_af »

verdverm wrote: post #475
the_af wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not really" means the war and its tactics haven't changed at all in two years? I find that very hard to believe. I agree with your three points, but they are very high level, a bit like quoting Sun Tzu. The question is whether the attack heli is becoming rapidly obsolete (or at least, relegated to less relevant roles), and I think it might . Other weapon systems have, after all. -- Edit: I love that I got downvoted…

You're being downvoted for the delivery, not the message essence. There are better ways to ask and respond, better words, than you used

I'm puzzled. Which ways do you feel were bad?

My first comment which reached -2 said:

> That video by Perun is 2 years old, while TFA is from today. Surely there have been additional lessons learned in two years?

What was wrong about the delivery, so that I can learn and avoid it in the future?

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#477

Post by oneshtein »

simiones wrote: post #460
oneshtein wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine is free to develop nukes for self-defence because it's attacked by nuclear country.

No country in the world is free to develop nukes, for any reason. Some still do, of course, but it is expressly forbidden by international laws and agreements.

Except Ukraine, because Ukraine invaded by nuclear country. Read the agreement, please.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#478

Post by meiraleal »

lazide wrote: post #367
zmgsabst wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Additionally, precision weapons typically have a much smaller logistical footprint, and logistics can make or break military campaigns. Only if you exclude manufacturing. > This "precision versus quantity" argument played out to greatly favor precision in Ukraine. Until the allies of Ukraine fell behind on artillery manufacturing — allowing Russia to gain dominance and grind down the Ukrainian military. That mass p…

Haha, since when is Ukraine even close to defeat? Defeated enemies aren’t making regular incursions into the ‘victors’ land which the ‘victor’ can’t stop, or launching attacks agains the ‘victors’ capital. This just reads like Russian delusion/cope.

Zelenski (which presidential term ended) complains every day that they can't properly fight with what they have. This looks like losing for me

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#479

Post by faggotbreath »

sofixa wrote: post #448
ldargin wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked with a former army officer / test pilot who was formerly involved with the Comanche project, when the news came out that it got cancelled. He was quite disappointed with that, and disagreed with what was said about it's survivability. He said if they can't see you, they can't shoot you.

> He said if they can't see you, they can't shoot you. He should tell the F-117 pilot who got shot down with a few decades old anti-air system that, while keeping in mind that the F-117 flew higher and faster and quieter (relatively).

[flagged]

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#480

Post by aguaviva »

HKH2 wrote: post #337
bee_rider wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America lost the Vietnam war. Do you think Vietnam is America's near peer? I was responding to somebody who said Ukraine was Russian’s near-peer. I didn’t say they should be considered peers now, just that they certainly weren’t when the choice was made to go to war. The Vietnam War was like 50 years ago. Who cares, sure, I don’t have any investment in whether or not the US and Vietnam were peers decades before I w…

> I didn’t say they should be considered peers now You implied it. > The Vietnam War was like 50 years ago. Who cares, sure, I don’t have any investment in whether or not the US and Vietnam were peers decades before I was born. Vietnam certainly has an impressive record. America clearly wasn't using anywhere near all of the power it had. Neither is Russia now.

America clearly wasn't using anywhere near all of the power it had

It wasn't sending every last teenager and pensioner to the front, like in the final defense of Berlin. But the simple fact is, it was throwing everything it reasonably could have at its optional colonial project, short of causing major instability for itself on the domestic front, or endangering its real (as opposed to imagined) security needs.

Until it was defeated in the way all the Western colonial powers were -- by simply being outlasted by the people that it had a delusional "need" to perpetually occupy.

Neither is Russia now.

An equally unsupported belief.

Post reply on HN