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

591–600 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#591

Post by CuriousCosmic »

JohnBooty wrote: post #265
Teever wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't small, cheap drones do to the modern fighters what they're doing to modern tanks?

Are you talking about cheap drones replacing modern fighters, or cheap drones shooting down modern fighters? They will absolutely replace modern fighters to a degree and already have to an extent, like we've seen in Ukraine with drones serving as close infantry support etc. instead of manned aircraft. There are still some things "cheap" drones won't be able to do. Specifically, if you want to carry big bombs and miss…

Alternatively if/when starship is up and running it should be pretty trivial to ferry a lot of JDAM-esque weapons up to an orbital launch platform. From there you could practically throw bombs down in a suborbital path to a target and let the JDAM fins guide it in through the atmosphere.

A starship already costs around 90 million USD at cost (estimated based on parts cost currently) and is intended to cost around 10 million USD per launch commercially if it's able to be reused regularly.

And a single launch could carry a lot of bombs (like 50-400 based on the size). So on the high end after factoring in the cost of the bombs, amortising the cost of the initial orbital platform, and assuming a higher cost of like 120 million USD for a single launch, that would still almost certainly come out cheaper than sacrificing an MQ-9 or a much more expensive missile. And of course if you can get that cost down to 10 million USD per launch then other than artillery, that's going to be the cheapest way to deliver ordinance to any location in the world by far (after factoring in the cost of flight time for jets, etc).

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#592

Post by theelous3 »

guappa wrote: post #353
theelous3 wrote: post #169

Earlier 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.

Yes, not a problem at all. It never has happened before. Oh wait! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...

Did you read that article? That drone was electronically taken out of the sky and rendered useless, it was not commandeered and used against the US.

Where did I claim nobody's ever taken out a drone with ewar? Plus this action presumably took an entire squadron with extremely powerful ewar apparatus - a complete waste of time on an 800e drone that will be replaced before the one you've dropped even hits the ground.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#593

Post by theelous3 »

Eisenstein wrote: post #184
theelous3 wrote: post #169

Earlier 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'.

> It isn't a problem until it is one

> anyone who was ever made to look foolish saying[...]

These are common throwaway sayings people with no concept of resources and an overly active aversion to risk often use.

The reality of the situation is that nobody cares to invest in some insanely expensive and vulnerable platform to hijack drones, because 1. it will probably get taken out by a drone 2. it would cost orders of magnitude more than all of the drones and personnel it would take out.

Furthermore, nobody would care to truly protect against such a counter, because the drones cost absolutely nothing.

Saying "it's improbable but let's prepare anyway" isn't how the real world works. Look around you - the world is absolutely filled to the brim with problems, even ones quite probable, even ones inevitable, that nobody can or is willing to spare the resources to deal with. As a general rule, preparing for the improbable is a poor path to success, and worse still is preparing for the improbable, where the improbable event doesn't even impact you in any serious way.

Also, ofc you don't hear about those people. Nobody is reporting on the non-event or the people who prepared for the non-event. Pure selection bias.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#594

Post by MarkMarine »

nabla9 wrote: post #451
MarkMarine wrote: post #218

In the war I fought in, there was a markedly different approach to combat air ops between even just the different service branches. The Army tended to use the Apache like it was a flying tank, hovering and delivering ordinance; the Marines (which is where I fought) flew as low and as quickly as possible even while sending rounds and hellfire missiles downrange. The marines were not losing aircraft in anywhere close t…

Your experience is against insurgency and irregular force. Near-peer enemy with better weapons is different case. Kosovo war for example. US deployed two battalions of AH-64s in Task Force Hawk into Albania, but never send them over the border. Their task would have been just what they were designed for, but risk reward ratio was just too high. Serbs would have been able to cause them massive casualties. For most cas…

My experience is not just against insurgents. I fought uniformed Iraqi military, and some black pajamas guys later. I was there in 2003.

The conflict in Kosovo was nothing like the ROE in Iraq, and if you’re on the ground calling for fire you damn sure would know the difference between arty and us.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#595

Post by zmgsabst »

aguaviva wrote: post #492
zmgsabst wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Since you not only "know" the outcome, but it apparently it's ancient history for you already - why are you asking?

You disagree — perhaps I’m wrong.

But that you responded with rhetoric rather than pointing out where I’m wrong suggests you don’t have an answer to what would change the outcome.

Not even his allies believe in the “Victory Plan” — and several started talking about calling Putin after reading it.

If you think I’m wrong, stop engaging in empty rhetoric and explain what you think will allow Ukraine to win… because nobody seems to know, not even Zelensky.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#596

Post by Teever »

simiones wrote: post #465
Teever wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think it is plausible that we will see an incredibly cheap anti-aircraft missile that can destroy the latest fighter aircraft just like we've seen incredibly cheap drones that can destroy the latest tanks? Why or why not?

For one, because of physics: it's easy to hit a slow moving tank from a flying vehicle. It's impossible to hit a fast-moving flying vehicle from a slower moving one. And you can't make a cheap light rotor-based drone move as fast a jet-engine-powered plane no matter how hart you try. For another, R&D: we've been working on fast autonomous flying vehicles to take down aircraft for decades: as the poster above keeps ex…

> Do you think it is plausible that we will see an incredibly cheap anti-aircraft missile ...

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#597

Post by _3u10 »

decafninja wrote: post #560
_3u10 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 loite…

I suspect that the US likely has effective means of jamming drone communications. If you have a seeker that doesn't need human intervention, why use electric motors when you can use rocket motors for your drone, aka "missile".

The drones I would see as maybe being effective is some kind of anti radar drone that can loiter in an area without comms and strike when the radar lights up.

That said the CAS role requires radio comms to the helicopter / airplane, so I mean maybe a drone with an LLM that can use human comms to figure out friend from foe.

Obviously the drone has to send back a TV signal to the controller, I think the US would figure out some kind of HARM missile that would just lock onto the drone transmitter. Or a CIWS system with a radar that locks on to the transmitter.

I think solid fuel rocket motors are cheaper than electric motors and batteries.

Maybe drones are the future, but I sort of see it as 2 broke countries duking it out. There's probably a reason why Ukraine wants US weapons like ATACMS and not a container ship full of drones. If you look at the $120 billion in aid to ukraine, that would buy you 100 million drones at $1200 per drone. Or 10 million at $12,000 per.

I guess what I'm saying is if NATO fought Russia it would be over in a few weeks and no one would care about drones. I think drones, except for Ukraine's sea drones, are highly useful in this conflict but probably not many others.

Sea drones could be a game changer, its a super long range torpedo and for anyone fighting the US, its probably safe to assume vessels beyond the vessel that launches them, are those of the US military / the enemy.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#598

Post by _3u10 »

_3u10 wrote: post #597
decafninja wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 loite…

I suspect that the US likely has effective means of jamming drone communications. If you have a seeker that doesn't need human intervention, why use electric motors when you can use rocket motors for your drone, aka "missile". The drones I would see as maybe being effective is some kind of anti radar drone that can loiter in an area without comms and strike when the radar lights up. That said the CAS role requires ra…

You know, there is an argument to be made that if you just abandoned having an army, and bought 1 million drones that would just target anything vehicular or human, you could just let the drones self guide on some kind of, go that way, kill something if you see it, or return for fresh batteries if you don't kind of algorithm.

The problem then is all the OPFOR has to defend against is cheap shitty drones.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#599

Post by LtWorf »

aguaviva wrote: post #585
LtWorf wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The french are actually trying to drag the rest of EU into war because they lost their colonies to russia.

That's a caricature. These countries haven't been colonies for decades, and Russia's efforts to gain influence in these places isn't "colonial" either. It's something else - a new game with different rules. You can decry/condemn it this influence-jockeying all want, but if you can't get past 19th/20th century idioms and imagery about how the world operates, you'll never get anywhere in your analysis.

Ah yes, it's "territories" nowadays. It's completely the same besides the name!

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#600

Post by aguaviva »

zmgsabst wrote: post #595
aguaviva wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you not only "know" the outcome, but it apparently it's ancient history for you already - why are you asking?

You disagree — perhaps I’m wrong. But that you responded with rhetoric rather than pointing out where I’m wrong suggests you don’t have an answer to what would change the outcome. Not even his allies believe in the “Victory Plan” — and several started talking about calling Putin after reading it. If you think I’m wrong, stop engaging in empty rhetoric and explain what you think will allow Ukraine to win… because nobo…

Sorry, but I can't engage you on this. You have to understand that your original statement, in both content and tone, simply precludes any follow-up or debate. And then when this ws pointed out, you doubled down on the same weird, time-traveling, debate-terminating formulation.

So okay, fine: HN is a big place, and there's plenty of other people you can debate on this particular point if you want. I don't think we'll convince each other of anything anyway, which is also perfectly fine.

Post reply on HN