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

551–560 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#551

Post by [deleted] »

verdverm wrote: post #548
the_af wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 did…

> So it wasn't the delivery after all, but the content? you are being argumentative... which earns downvotes. you can word things differently to not be this way. Also, talking about being downvoted is against the posting guidelines, which will earn more downvotes. (See the links at the bottom) > Punished for disagreement see it as a signal from community moderation, this is not a free speech platform, content and con…

[deleted]

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#552

Post by SJC_Hacker »

nine_k wrote: post #232
SR2Z wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This "precision versus quantity" argument played out to greatly favor precision in Ukraine. Yes, but the defining attribute of the Ukraine war seems to be CHEAP precision - the ability of drones to respond and attack car-sized targets in real time is what has turned this war into a slog. The American-made stuff is great, but I've seen multiple examples of Ukrainian missile crews reacting contemptuously to the idea…

OTOH the highly precise HIMARS played a crucial role many times. Regular artillery has to shoot dozens of shells before it hits the exact high-value target. This betrays the position of the cannon; if it's close enough it will be fired at. HIMARS is precise so it can pack up and leave before the projectiles even reach the target. FPV drones are precise because they're remotely piloted by experienced pilots. This allo…

HIMARS is precise, but my understanding maybe 25% are actually getting through to their targets these days. But still until recently Ukraine didn't have anything of comparable capability

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#553

Post by oneshtein »

ceejayoz wrote: post #542
oneshtein wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's no winning a war with nukes. Even if 1% are operational, they could devastate the US.

War with imperial Japan was won with nukes.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#554

Post by sofixa »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #543
sofixa wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And still, it was supposed to not be vulnerable to enemy radar. And a multi decade old anti-air system, with the benefit of good intelligence and incredibly sloppy American operations, managed to shoot it down. Why would anyone think a helicopter that would be flying much lower to the ground, would be invulnerable to e.g. man portable air defence systems?

it wasn't vulnerable to enemy radar, serbian AA realized that it was the exact same pattern day in and day out, did some quick calculations, and fired at the spot it knew it would be at the next day. and that worked.

No, they timed their radar scans so that they caught the F-117 with its bomb bay open.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#555

Post by nostrademons »

dgoldstein0 wrote: post #396
nostrademons wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's quite a dark thought. And I doubt we'll get there - in that case you'd be one failed chip away from death at all times. Nothing like redefining the reign of terror.

Yes, it is a dark thought. There have been many leaders in history where millions of people have been one failed harvest or missing piece of documentation away from death at all times, and the leader didn't care. (And worse, much of the population backing the leader didn't care either, as long as it wasn't them.)

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#556

Post by nostrademons »

swagasaurus-rex wrote: post #326
nostrademons wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The french designed a plane in the late 1950s that would take off vertically, and its wings were a tube. https://interestingengineering.com/videos/this-bizarre-plane... There were a few drawbacks. It required a seat that pivoted 90° forward, so that when pilots could see when taking off and when landing. Unpowered landings would inevitably result in damage to the airframe. Powered landings looked like space-x rockets…

Note that most of the downsides there relate to having a pilot that you want to survive in an emergency. Get rid of the pilot, and you get rid of a lot of constraints on size, weight, G-forces, survivability, emergency response, etc.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#557

Post by warner25 »

rjurney wrote: post #541
warner25 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today's US Army is dwarfed by the size of the Vietnam-era Army. I love putting this into perspective for people who don't know the history. Those 5,500+ losses would be more than the Army's entire helicopter fleet today; active and reserve components combined. 300+ losses would be huge, like half of the current Apache fleet. I'm not sure that we ever had more than 300 helicopters in Iraq or Afghanistan, even at the p…

Thanks, I figured but do you know just how much larger? I am listening to Ken Burns' Vietnam on Audible and I believe we had 200K personnel in Vietnam at the peak... oh shit I just double checked and it was 543K personnel JUST IN VIETNAM. Thanks, mang! Enlightening. That is 25% of our entire military today.

Yeah, at the peak of Vietnam we had more troops on the ground than the Army has on active duty today (about 450k). The Army's size declined by half after Vietnam, and then declined by half again in the 1990s. This is a nice figure illustrating active duty end-strength for all services since 1950: https://www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/media/fad_milper_400.gif

That figure doesn't go back as far as WWII, of course. Even the Korea and Vietnam-era Army would be dwarfed by the WWII Army: 8 million troops in 1945.

Note that we do also have the Army Reserve and Army National Guard, which effectively doubles the total Army end-strength to about 1 million today.

As a career Army officer, I could go on about this, and what it means, and what worries me, all day.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#558

Post by nine_k »

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #552
nine_k wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OTOH the highly precise HIMARS played a crucial role many times. Regular artillery has to shoot dozens of shells before it hits the exact high-value target. This betrays the position of the cannon; if it's close enough it will be fired at. HIMARS is precise so it can pack up and leave before the projectiles even reach the target. FPV drones are precise because they're remotely piloted by experienced pilots. This allo…

HIMARS is precise, but my understanding maybe 25% are actually getting through to their targets these days. But still until recently Ukraine didn't have anything of comparable capability

Much like 30% of Russian drones are not actually shot down but driven off course by EW these days.

Things progress at a ridiculous pace in a high-stakes environment like a war for existence.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#559

Post by red-iron-pine »

ericmay wrote: post #296
anonylizard wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soldiers exist, but expensive western soldiers are basically a different species compared to the cheap militia of the third world. All the strategic decisions of western militaries is based on the sheer expensiveness of their foot soldiers, which means reluctance to fight ground wars, extreme aversion to casualties etc. It also meant advanced militaries generally shrunk massively in terms of soldier count, ending con…

I’d say western militaries will avoid extreme casualties if they can, but read a bit about the Second Battle of Faluja - the U.S. for example has no problem sending troops into hardcore combat. In fact, I would argue that the U.S., U.K., Israel, and now Ukraine and Russia are the only countries today that have demonstrated the capability to engage in extremely fierce fighting. We’ve also become a lot better at keepin…

> I’d say western militaries will avoid extreme casualties if they can, but read a bit about the Second Battle of Faluja - the U.S. for example has no problem sending troops into hardcore combat.

I took part in Op Phantom Fury in a support role -- that was 20 years ago next month. And while that was real, intense combat, and several units got mauled, the total casualties on the US side were ~700. That's big for Iraq, and at the time, staggering. I donated a pint and a half of O-, more than I probably should have, because there were a lot of wounded coming in.

At the time we estimated as high as 5000 enemy combatants, and there were ~3000 killed or captured.

But compared to modern peer-vs-peer fights, that's rookie numbers. The Russians were taking ~1500 casualties a day during hard frights in Bakhmut; the Ukranians less, but probably on par with Fallujah coalition casualties.

> In fact, I would argue that the U.S., U.K., Israel, and now Ukraine and Russia are the only countries today that have demonstrated the capability to engage in extremely fierce fighting.

The US (and to some degree NATO) has the capacity, but 20 years of middle east fighting that produced nothing of value have removed the tolerance for more unneeded military adventures. Plus Iraq/AFG didn't send home 10000+ casualties a month. Serious, hardcore combat with commensurate casualties would not sell with the US public, and a large part of Russian / Iranian / Israeli / Chinese, et al politics are based around that perception.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#560

Post by decafninja »

_3u10 wrote: post #112
decafninja wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the latest versions of the Apache and Cobra are very different from their original incarnations, despite looking similar, no?

Avionics for sure, but there's not really anything like a "5th gen" helicopter. Helicopters are mostly close air support. No one is going to send fleets of helicopters to engage in air to air combat with other fleets of helicopters.

Have we gotten to a point where the CAS role can be fully handled by drones of various types?

I know we have Hellfire toting drones, but their payload seems very limited versus existing attack helicopter platforms or the A-10.

I’m actually surprised we don’t have a drone attack helicopter - basically an unmanned Apache.

Or has that entire concept basically become obsolete in favor of just sending over swarms of loitering suicide drones?

Post reply on HN