Earlier quoted context omitted.
the united states stopped investing in them because they're more of a near-peer type weapon. They are absolutely devastating to columns of tanks. And they help control the "z-axis" the the united states military is dependent on. Helicopters give you the ability to have air "presence" and keep situations in check with low-peer adversaries. When you start bringing in MANPADS or stingers the game changes. Oddly enough t…
The Russian Ka-52 has a soft-kill system that can blind the IR seekers of Soviet and US MANPADS the Ukrainians use. We've seen videos videos of it working... about 70% of the time, which means you have to shoot it 3 times instead of once, but it goes down just the same, and that's not saying anything about bullets, which you can do nothing about. I think modern military doctrine dictates that you shouldn't even give…
Is the attack helicopter dead?
531–540 of 650 posts
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#532Earlier 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.
[flagged]
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#533Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the case for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat . The one you describe - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_(missile) - is being actively phased out.
Quote from Wikipedia about Sarmat: > Despite the Russian claims that the missile is on 'combat alert', since its 2022 flight test, it has experienced four failed tests, the most recent on 21 September 2024 We have the short opportunity window, when Satana stopped to work and Sarmat is not working yet.
I think it'd be a pretty big mistake to interpret "it needs servicing every ten years" as "it stops working immediately after that", and similarly a mistake to think the Russians can't accomplish at least some of that maintenance themselves. One can run a car without oil changes for quite a while before the problems add up.
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#534Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> For Russia, 100 civilians dying in a mass artillery bombardment is a normal workday. More specifically, it is a success to them. They clearly use civilian casualty and the terror it brings as a tactic to dishearten their victims.
[flagged]
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#535Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quote from Wikipedia about Sarmat: > Despite the Russian claims that the missile is on 'combat alert', since its 2022 flight test, it has experienced four failed tests, the most recent on 21 September 2024 We have the short opportunity window, when Satana stopped to work and Sarmat is not working yet.
I think it'd be a pretty big mistake to interpret "it needs servicing every ten years" as "it stops working immediately after that", and similarly a mistake to think the Russians can't accomplish at least some of that maintenance themselves. One can run a car without oil changes for quite a while before the problems add up.
Even one nuke is a big threat for a non-nuclear country, but Russia is not the only one with nukes, so number of well maintained nukes in service is important, if RF want to win a war with nukes. It will be pretty dumb for RF to strike FIRST with expired nukes.
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#536Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[flagged]
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#537Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering we're looking at an adversarial nation state (famously full of script kiddies) which is absolutely hell-bent and motivated to tackle their drone problem, and not once has that state or its script kiddies commandeered a single drone - nevermind a fleet of them - (nor are the script kiddies even remotely in range?) I don't see this being a problem now or in the near future.
It isn't a problem until it is one, and the it can be a huge problem. I don't know anyone who was ever made to look foolish saying 'it is improbable, but let's prepare for it anyway' whereas plenty of graves are filled with people who said 'that will never happen'.
Sadly generals, or at least the high command, tend to fight the last war, and tend to be fairly conservative.
WW2 was a classic example. Every nation except the US still had bolt-action rifles as the standard infantry weapon, on the belief that giving every infantryman semi-auto was a waste of ammo/too expensive/too heavy on logistics. Also motorization was not appreciated until late in the war, even in the German army - which despite all the attention devoted to the panzer/panzergrenadier divisions, was maybe 20% motorized at its peak. Mostly their soldiers marched from place to place, or used rail.
There is kinda a reason for this, that there are counter examples were new tech wasn't all it was hyped to be. And until something is battle tested, its hard to say how it would perform. Like early in the Vietnam war, US infantrymen may have been better off with the old M1 garand, because early models of the M16 tended to jam in combat conditions.
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#538Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worth noting that Russia has nuclear weapons, yet elects not to use them against their near peer Ukraine.
Ukraine was not considered to be a near peer to Russia before the war. It seems likely that they thought they’d have a quick win. Possibly, whatever it is they are after, it isn’t worth the pariah status using nuclear weapons would produce. (Or maybe they still think they can get it done conventionally).
[flagged]
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#539Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You are the exact kind of person to demonstrate why the US builds the best precision weapons in the world and doesn't kill civilians if at all possible. Wait is that a good thing or a bad thing?
No value judgment, but he's a good demonstration of why the US does the thing he's accusing the US of not doing. The US goes out of its way to minimize collateral damage because it gets accused of causing all collateral damage in the first place.
We took out tons of infrastructure in Iraq during shock and awe. Utilities were on the target list. We were about to occupy it. That was incredibly stupid. The infrastructure itself was not collateral damage, it was targeted. We have no occupation plan, it was that stupid. The destruction resulted in millions of extra deaths due to the impoverishment and destruction of Iraqi society. Yes, we bear responsibility for all those deaths. You break it, you own it. That's war.
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#540Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I did not miss the point of the article, I just don't get his interest in medium helicopters when the missile he wants 8 of on a medium helicopter weighs 100 pounds.