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

621–630 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#621

Post by theelous3 »

Eisenstein wrote: post #604
theelous3 wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You are telling me that the US has made plans for invading or defending against every scenario imaginable[1], but they wouldn't bother considering the 'our drones are being hijacked and used against us' scenario? Just because you are overly confident doesn't make caution an extreme position. [1] https://williamaarkin.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/arkins-con...

I wasn't telling you that. There is a huge difference in preparing on a meta level for national and international level events, and actually investing in countering specific tactical scenarios. The tactical scenario we are talking about is mid-flight hijack and use of sub $1k drones, by a state, and by civilian script kiddies. It's not a "what if china sits it's navy on a contested Philippine island".

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#622

Post by throwaway2037 »

dgroshev wrote: post #485
torginus wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those FPV drones (either of the bombing or suicide variant) seem to be precise enough - there's plenty of footage of them hitting moving vehicles in weak spots like engines/hatches, individual soldiers etc. As for AI features when the comms are jammed, Russian lancet drones, which have some autonomous capability, seem to be running on Nvidia Jetson boards, and those things cost like $200.

Would you ever see footage of them not hitting weak spots?

It is a fair question, but I have seen plenty of footage where the first drone misses a weak spot. Sure, the explosion is intense, but the tank continues unabated. Then a second or third drone hits the weak spot for disablement.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#623

Post by throwaway2037 »

zmgsabst wrote: post #474
aguaviva wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

    > caused by NATOs defeat
To clarify: Is this a hypothetical statement or is there a specific NATO defeat that you have in mind? As I understand, Russia has not directly attacked any NATO states since the state of the Ukraine war. (Leave aside the sabotage of Nord Stream natural gas pipelines.)

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#624

Post by throwaway2037 »

lazide wrote: post #484
zmgsabst wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Oh talk . [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian-occupied_territories... .] Looks like Russia has lost everything but a tiny portion they gained, at immense cost - including the near total collapse of their economy. And are going to be locked in trench warfare on land they don’t control, with uncertain supply lines, with no air superiority - going into winter. And is losing more and more control of the little they…

    > including the near total collapse of their economy.
I am not here to shill for Russia, but this is certainly not true. The Russian economy has proven much more resilient than anyone expected since the start of coordinated global sanctions by the world's most developed economies. It is currently growing about 4% per year.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#625

Post by throwaway2037 »

closewith wrote: post #250
SJC_Hacker wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know if they underperfomed so much as weren't cost effective. If the switchblade costing $10k results in a kill 80% of the time, while the $1k drone is 30% of the time, you just get 3 times as many $1k drones, average about the same kill rate, and save 70% to boot. Or spend the same amount and get about 3x the kill rate.

The reality is that Ukraine is producing 300,000+ drones per month, so the ratio is closer to 10,000:1 cheap drones to Switchblades. No Western military is prepared for a ground war with hundreds of thousands of drone attacks per day, which is what near peer would mean now.

I think you make some excellent points here. Small nitpick: According to the Ukrainian gov't, they can currently produce half that amount: 150k per month. That is still an incredible number.

Ref: https://kyivindependent.com/deputy-minister-ukraine-can-prod...

I do think this war must be making any sufficiently advanced military rethink their ground game to include a lot of cheap FPV drones with attached explosives.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#626

Post by throwaway2037 »

onepointsixC wrote: post #505
jajko wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switchblade 300 definitely underperformed and disappointed, many many reports from Ukraine frontline, they preferred using normal Mavic 3 drones instead. Switchblade 600 is a bit better but still overpriced what civilian market can deliver at a fraction of a cost, in vast numbers, not blocked by various political negotiations etc.

What civilian market drone has the 8.5kg explosive payload of a Javelin warhead? Because that’s what the Switchblade 600 has.

I just confirmed from the Switchblade 600 website: It can carry 15kg of "munition". Ref: https://avinc.com/lms/switchblade-600

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#627

Post by throwaway2037 »

guappa wrote: post #605
mcphage wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It'd all stop the very second the USA told them to stop. What makes you think that? And which “the USA”, since Netanyahu has been in discussions with both Biden’s administration, and Trump.

The fact that they'd have no weapons if not for USA?

That's not true. They buy weapons from a variety of nations. Also, they have a large domestic military industry to produce them.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#628

Post by uffle »

blueflow wrote: post #494
uffle wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point. A male identifying himself as a woman makes about as much sense as a Polish identifying as a Korean.

Lets not have this degenerate into transphobia. My critique is directed towards gender identity in general and equally applies to cis people.

My critique was too. Makes no sense to identify with a category you don't actually belong to.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#629

Post by throwaway2037 »

torginus wrote: post #385
onepointsixC wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switchblade 600’s have the same warhead as the Javelin. With 8.5kg of explosives, it’s an entirely different category of weapon than the drones you’re thinking of which had closer to 200g of explosives.

There are drones with shaped charges.

Can I ask a stupid question about shaped charges? I assume they only work on a very fast projectile, like a tank shell. Would they work from a (relatively) slow drone?

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#630

Post by throwaway2037 »

energy123 wrote: post #454
hnbad wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that neither side has directly attacked the other yet? Almost all of them. Using nuclear weapons against an opponent who has enough nuclear weapons to retaliate is a "flip over the chess board and stomp on the pieces" move. Presently the US isn't even playing against Russia, at best it's sitting behind Russia's opponent and whispering chess moves into their ear.

There's also gradations of nuclear exchange, including a limited exchange (i.e. not against cities) that doesn't necessarily escalate to a strategic exchange. While obviously extremely dangerous and unpredictable, some think you can skirt that line successfully in a war.

    > gradations of nuclear exchange
This is the first time that I have seen this terminology. I tried to Google for it, but I cannot find any information about this idea. Are there any war college studies (US/Europe) that you can share?

Controversially, I don't think generals from either the US, nor Russia, would be willing to "pull the trigger" and launch a nuclear attack. Yes, I really think there would be a constitutional crisis where senior ministers and military leaders might stage an "instant" coup to prevent a nuclear attack.

Post reply on HN