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

511–520 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#511

Post by hajile »

hollerith wrote: post #349
hajile wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

AWACS can't lock onto a stealth plane from that far away.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#512

Post by onepointsixC »

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.

The closest near peer to the US is China which strategically is significantly inferior to the US and would very much not like to get into a nuclear exchange. But conventionally it has more vessels than the USN, and with nearly all of them near China while the USN is all over the world, they have an advantage early in a Taiwan war. Conventional wars between nuclear powers can be fought and won.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#513

Post by hollerith »

hajile wrote: post #511
hollerith wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

AWACS can't lock onto a stealth plane from that far away.

Agreed.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#514

Post by verdverm »

the_af wrote: post #476
verdverm wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It might help to first understand both pieces said essentially the same thing and came to the same conclusions. They both also look beyond a single war and a single operator

Using italics was unnecessary

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#515

Post by bluGill »

hajile wrote: post #506
bluGill wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia has some evperienced infantry but they have and are using a lot of untrain troops. Even their well train infantry is often still being use wrong for the training. Every military commentator who has credentials to believe they know something [as opposed to say me who doesn't] notes how poorly trained most russians are. This is not soviet war doctine which russia knows and worries nato, it is something new and n…

The only military commentators saying Russian troops are untrained are pretty ignorant and biased. Russia certainly sent untrained troops in the early part of the war, but most of them were by mistake and got recalled quickly. Russia recognized the need to train their troops (they only sent 100k troops and planned on an early peace that Boris Johnson scuttled). To buy training time, they hired Wagner. Wagner needed b…

Russia is still sending about 1000 troops to the front lines every day with a week or two of training. I guess that isn't completely untrained, but it is the next thing to and the death totals show that lack.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#516

Post by bluGill »

ethbr1 wrote: post #256
bluGill wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One reason airplanes are more versatile is because they're modular. You can swap a carrier air wing to 2 years newer planes. You can't swap a battleship to 2 years newer tech.

The versatility is about range. That you can swap them out is a nice bonus, but range compared to the big guns is the real key.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#517

Post by bluGill »

jabl wrote: post #357
bluGill wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> battleships are obsolete not because they are easy to sink but because airplanes are more versitle for most purposes. The main reason really is range. A battleship can obliterate a target within about 25 km (yes, I know the guns can shoot longer than that, but practical accuracy against a moving target such as another ship..) whereas an aircraft carrier can launch strikes from hundreds of km away. Further, the carr…

You are mostly correct, except for one key point: the battleship was armored so that it could get close to the action and have somewhat reasonable chances of surviving. Most ships today could not take near the hits the Yamato did. (the Yamato shows why it is pointless to try)

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#518

Post by the_af »

verdverm wrote: post #514
the_af wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It might help to first understand both pieces said essentially the same thing and came to the same conclusions. They both also look beyond a single war and a single operator Using italics was unnecessary

So it wasn't the delivery after all, but the content? Punished for disagreement, in other words?

It's also hilarious I got downvoted for saying Perun's video was 2 years old and surely there would be new considerations, and sure enough, Perun posted a newer video with new considerations!

> Using italics was unnecessary

So a single word in italics in a different comment triggered downvotes on my first comment that didn't use italics? Seems like retaliatory downvoting of unrelated comments then. In any case, italics is used for emphasis and it's used commonly enough here on HN that its very limited markup supports it.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#519

Post by onepointsixC »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #146
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.

The old ‘Russia will not use nukes because they have not used nukes’ routine so people can feel safer about poking the bear. There is always a first time and I’m very thankful that it hasn’t happed yet. To me a near peer implies that either side has a good chance of losing the war. It’s my opinion that Russia has not yet been at a real risk of losing this war and thus has not yet had a need to use nuclear weapons. I’…

The Russians haven’t used nukes because they’ve been told under no uncertain terms what would happen if they did.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#520

Post by onepointsixC »

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.

Vietnam war was fought on the other side of the planet, an ocean away. Ukrainian war is fought on the border of Russia and has resulted in Russian territory being occupied by a foreign power for the first time since WW2. These are very different things.
Post reply on HN