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

631–640 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#631

Post by throwaway2037 »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #128
Teever wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we'll reach this inflection point with jet fighters? I remain skeptical that the F-35 will prove to be a prudent expenditure of resources both financial and in terms of R&D.

Without a capable stealth fighter the US & allies could lose air superiority to China very quickly in the Indo Pacific. And operations in the Middle East could become much more high risk from SAMs. However it’s interesting to compare the F35 program to the alternative of producing several hundred F22s, or some other stealth solution.

Why don't you think aircraft carrier deployed F/A-18 Super Hornet would be effective against China to protect Taiwan?

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#632

Post by aguaviva »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #624
lazide wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're not, but given that the IMF is saying 2.6 percent (current), 3.2 percent (projected) -- how does one obtain 4 percent for "current" growth (other than from Russian government figures)?

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#633

Post by ceejayoz »

oneshtein wrote: post #615
ceejayoz wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Ukraine started a nuclear weapons program, they would be in violation of the NPT treaty. Sanctions and loss of Western support would be virtually guaranteed.

Ukraine is not bound by NPT because we are attacked by nuclear country. See text of NPT signed by Ukraine. Moreover, Ukraine is post-nuclear country. We had nuclear weapons and we know how to produce more.

Ukraine is bound by the NPT until they exit it. That hasn’t happened so far.

Exiting it would lead to consequences from their allies, which they can’t afford.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#634

Post by spacebanana7 »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #631
spacebanana7 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without a capable stealth fighter the US & allies could lose air superiority to China very quickly in the Indo Pacific. And operations in the Middle East could become much more high risk from SAMs. However it’s interesting to compare the F35 program to the alternative of producing several hundred F22s, or some other stealth solution.

Why don't you think aircraft carrier deployed F/A-18 Super Hornet would be effective against China to protect Taiwan?

As a measure of deterrence, carries with Hornets can be useful. They do make it more difficult and expensive for the Chinese to take Taiwan.

However, it's unrealistic for them to establish anything like air superiority over the Taiwan Straits. Each carrier has fewer than 100 aircraft, and only a couple can be deployed to the region at a time. The opposing PLAAF has over 2000 combat aircraft including hundreds of stealth planes.

For the US to be competitive such a contest they need planes that are qualitatively better than the Chinese ones by a huge margin. American advantages in stealth, missile range and avionics are essential just to stay in the game.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#635

Post by oneshtein »

ceejayoz wrote: post #633
oneshtein wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine is not bound by NPT because we are attacked by nuclear country. See text of NPT signed by Ukraine. Moreover, Ukraine is post-nuclear country. We had nuclear weapons and we know how to produce more.

Ukraine is bound by the NPT until they exit it. That hasn’t happened so far. Exiting it would lead to consequences from their allies, which they can’t afford.

It's not so simple, because Ukraine will join NPT when we will have security assurances from nuclear countries. It found recently, that security assurances, given to Ukraine, either a) broken, b) fake, so Ukraine may claim that the essential step is not completed yet.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#636

Post by oneshtein »

aguaviva wrote: post #616
oneshtein wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine is not bound by NPT because we are attacked by nuclear country. See text of NPT signed by Ukraine. Moreover, Ukraine is post-nuclear country. We had nuclear weapons and we know how to produce more.

But you understand this part, right? Sanctions and loss of Western support would be virtually guaranteed. Talk about biting the hand that feeds. Seriously, this whole nuclear idea you're onto, while no doubt well-intentioned, is infinitely untenable for a whole bunch of plainly obvious reasons.

Ukraine may claim damages. Nuclear countries promised security assurances, then broke them. We have $1T in damages from war.

> Sanctions and loss of Western support would be virtually guaranteed.

This will be a good case to support the claims. Moreover, this support will be unnecessary for a nuclear country, because war will be ended very fast.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#637

Post by ceejayoz »

oneshtein wrote: post #635
ceejayoz wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine is bound by the NPT until they exit it. That hasn’t happened so far. Exiting it would lead to consequences from their allies, which they can’t afford.

It's not so simple, because Ukraine will join NPT when we will have security assurances from nuclear countries. It found recently, that security assurances, given to Ukraine, either a) broken, b) fake, so Ukraine may claim that the essential step is not completed yet.

Ukraine already joined the NPT, in the 1990s. That's a done deal.

Ukraine does not automatically leave the NPT just because Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum; such a mechanism linking the two does not exist. Ukraine would have to explicitly leave the NPT, which they will not do.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#638

Post by oneshtein »

ceejayoz wrote: post #637
oneshtein wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so simple, because Ukraine will join NPT when we will have security assurances from nuclear countries. It found recently, that security assurances, given to Ukraine, either a) broken, b) fake, so Ukraine may claim that the essential step is not completed yet.

Ukraine already joined the NPT, in the 1990s. That's a done deal. Ukraine does not automatically leave the NPT just because Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum; such a mechanism linking the two does not exist. Ukraine would have to explicitly leave the NPT, which they will not do.

It's not a deal. It's cheat to disarm Ukraine. It's stupid to play fair game with cheaters.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#639

Post by aguaviva »

oneshtein wrote: post #636
aguaviva wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you understand this part, right? Sanctions and loss of Western support would be virtually guaranteed. Talk about biting the hand that feeds. Seriously, this whole nuclear idea you're onto, while no doubt well-intentioned, is infinitely untenable for a whole bunch of plainly obvious reasons.

Ukraine may claim damages. Nuclear countries promised security assurances, then broke them. We have $1T in damages from war. > Sanctions and loss of Western support would be virtually guaranteed. This will be a good case to support the claims. Moreover, this support will be unnecessary for a nuclear country, because war will be ended very fast.

Except it's just not going to happen. I don't believe in the stupid propaganda (that gets repeated here almost every week) that Ukraine was manipulated into this war, by Boris or anyone else. Ukraine is entirely independent and makes its own choices.

But the simple fact is, it doesn't have unlimited control over its destiny in this particular regard, and pretending otherwise won't change that fact. It is entirely dependent on Western help at this point -- its benefactors are 1000 percent against any further nuclear proliferation, and are infinitely more concerned about that issue than they are about the borders of Ukraine, or Ukraine's survival in any other sense. They have no interest in the inevitable and far wider confrontation with Russia that would ensue from such recklessness -- and they just aren't going to allow it.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#640

Post by oneshtein »

aguaviva wrote: post #639
oneshtein wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine may claim damages. Nuclear countries promised security assurances, then broke them. We have $1T in damages from war. > Sanctions and loss of Western support would be virtually guaranteed. This will be a good case to support the claims. Moreover, this support will be unnecessary for a nuclear country, because war will be ended very fast.

Except it's just not going to happen. I don't believe in the stupid propaganda (that gets repeated here almost every week) that Ukraine was manipulated into this war, by Boris or anyone else. Ukraine is entirely independent and makes its own choices. But the simple fact is, it doesn't have unlimited control over its destiny in this particular regard, and pretending otherwise won't change that fact. It is entirely dep…

Yep, high dependency on Western help is a problem, which must be solved first.
Post reply on HN