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

641–650 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#641

Post by hagbard_c »

foota wrote: post #272
hagbard_c wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what's the advantage? You wouldn't be bound by the number of pilots You gave part of the answer right there. Not only would you not be limited by the number of - hard to replace and time-consuming and expensive to train - pilots but you don't run the risk of losing them either. > but if the drones are too expensive it doesn't matter. The large expense for fighter aircraft tends not to lie in the actual production c…

Hm... I guess the argument here is something like: we don't build 10,000 F-35s because we can't train 10,000 pilots. But with drones, the pilots are no longer a limiting factor so we can plan to scale drone production beyond what we do airplanes?

Yes, plus the fact that the craft does not need to be as complicated as the F-35 because it can omit everything related to keeping the pilot alive and functional.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#642

Post by throwaway2037 »

aguaviva wrote: post #632
throwaway2037 wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)?

This is my source: https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp-growth-annual

Regardless, even if 2, 3, or 4%, none of those is "near total collapse of their economy".

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#643

Post by closewith »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #625
closewith wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While 150,000 per month was true in March, now Ukraine claims 4 MM per year, or ~333,000 per month.

https://thedefensepost.com/2024/10/03/ukraine-produce-millio...

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#644

Post by aguaviva »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #642
aguaviva wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

This is my source: https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp-growth-annual Regardless, even if 2, 3, or 4%, none of those is "near total collapse of their economy".

So Russian government figures, then.

Agreed that comment above yours was out to lunch, of course.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#645

Post by newsclues »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #545
jvanderbot wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may as well use rifle bullets then.

and the rifled bullets will be more aerodynamic and also have rifling for stability. .50 BMG or an autocannon or something. shotgun slugs aren't usable in any serious, consistent way outside of maybe 20 meters (~60 ft). nasty stuff if you're in range, through.

Bullets do not have rifling, that is done by the barrel of the rifle.

Shotgun slugs can be useful well beyond 20 meters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_slug#:~:text=A%20slug%....

As a Canadian, I am normally not the one correcting others on the basics of firearms.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#646

Post by s1artibartfast »

uffle wrote: post #628
blueflow wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This topic makes me think about identity and who gets to change the definition of it and who doesn't.

I think it is fascinating how the battleground has shifted over time from conflict over objective interaction in the real world to etymology and the internal classification systems people use to model the world.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#647

Post by actionfromafar »

actionfromafar wrote: post #481
HenryBemis wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes frequent on 9gag, and someone had posted a video of UKR drones attacking RUS drones/UAVs. I don't remember seeing a speedometer on the feed of the attacking (UKR) drone, but if I can estimate it was at least (RUS UAVs) 80-100km/h (just cruising/spying) while the (UKR) drones were coming in at twice the speed. Considering how UAVs and/or smaller drones have evolved and used in the battlefield the past few…

OTOH drones are used by Russian forces for "human safari" hunting in cities now, so war crimes will always find a way if the will is there.

For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InGah1DF2Cc

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#648

Post by gradschoolfail »

throwup238 wrote: post #254

We’re still in the very early stage of drone development for warfare and Ukraine is using a lot of civilian gear. Now the armed forces of the world are plowing their funding into R&D I expect them to develop quickly. For example, aluminum air batteries are perfect for this use case but havent been developed because until now single use batteries haven’t seen any demand. Those will at least double or triple the range…

Hmm not sure what kind of solar panels you might be thinking about. GaAs from which supplier?

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#649

Post by rjurney »

warner25 wrote: post #557
rjurney wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

My question is... we still spend a ton on defense. How did the budget change?

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#650

Post by warner25 »

rjurney wrote: post #649
warner25 wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

My question is... we still spend a ton on defense. How did the budget change?

At first, there were real budget cuts (the "peace dividend") of about 10%. Over time, total spending grew to be much more in both nominal and real terms, and much more per troop. However, it's also much lower as a percentage of GDP, from a high of 9-10% in 1968 to 3-4% today.
Post reply on HN