Earlier quoted context omitted.
I spent tons of hours as a kid playing Comanche on our old 486!
Today its graphics look so outdated, but back then it was amazing how you could fly through valleys to get to targets. There were a few games like Comanche, X-Wing, Magic Carpet and Descent that felt like they really pushed the technology while trying to show how we could utilize 3d in a different way from the other titles of the time (which were usually all FPS games).
Is the attack helicopter dead?
561–570 of 650 posts
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#562We’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…
I think the speed will be what protects the helicopters from the drones. The drones can't sustain 200 miles per hour for long while the helicopter can do it for literal hours. The rocket motor is a good idea, probably the most likely to succeed
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#563Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not just production cost, the average latency between target detection and target destruction has a large impact on battlefield dynamics. More precise weapons can destroy most of the capability of less precise weapons before they are ever used. Additionally, precision weapons typically have a much smaller logistical footprint, and logistics can make or break military campaigns. Much of the US focus on precision…
> 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…
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#564Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Russia has 2000. What percentage of them are you willing to gamble are working? Are 10% of them working? That's 200 US cities.
So, no. We are absolutely not going to follow your logic. There is too much chance that they have enough nukes working to make us infinitely regret a nuclear exchange.
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#565The way Russians use them is obsolete… just like Russian tanks. Combined arms maneuvering is what they _should_ be doing. In fact Russia reorganized to theoretically be setup for this sort of maneuvering; they organized into BTGs (battalion tactical groups) which contain basically everything: air defense (area denial and SHORAD), logistics (refuel, resupply, rearm, repair), infantry, armor, air attack, engineering, a…
The BTGs were mostly Infantry and Artillery, supplemented with Tanks and specialty assets. Heavy losses in one of the main three segment made the rest of the BTG mostly or entirely combat-ineffective. And that's basically what happened -- the infantry and tanks died, and artillery was relatively untouched, which led to Russia sending convicts (Storm-Z) to find targets for the (still remaining, quite numerous) artillery.
They did not have real, integrated logistics and heavy engineering units on the BTG level (though they do have combat engineers / sappers). What supply units they do have are limited, and they are dependent on higher level replenishment organizations for operations lasting longer than 6 days. Those replenishment orgs inevitably got bombed by the AFU, so the BTGs rapidly ran out of gas and ammo, even when rocking a full TO&E.
They did have integrated EW and HUMINT capabilities, with the EW being particularly potent; Russian EW is still very good, even on the BTG level. The downside of these, though, is that they are a swiss army knife; small enough to be useful, but not big enough to be ideal (and withstand casualties), and it forces a busy commander to divide their attention in ways that a larger org may not.
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#566Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Russians haven’t used nukes because they’ve been told under no uncertain terms what would happen if they did.
[flagged]
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#567Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worth noting that Ukraine had nuclear weapons and negotiated them away in exchange for a promise that Russia would not use nuclear weapons against them.
The Bucharest memorandum contained the promises that: - None of the countries (US, UK, and Russia) would threaten Ukraine’s territory - If nuclear weapons were used against them, or they were threatened by nuclear weapons, the other signatories would “Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance” Among other promises. So it seems like they’ve already had their promises violated.
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#568Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worth noting that Russia has nuclear weapons, yet elects not to use them against their near peer Ukraine.
The old ‘Russia will not use nukes because they have not used nukes’ routine so people can feel safer about poking the bear. There is always a first time and I’m very thankful that it hasn’t happed yet. To me a near peer implies that either side has a good chance of losing the war. It’s my opinion that Russia has not yet been at a real risk of losing this war and thus has not yet had a need to use nuclear weapons. I’…
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#569Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both the US and the USSR lost major wars during the Cold War without resorting to nuking their opponent when they felt they were "at a real risk of losing a war". In Vietnam and Korea, the Soviet involvement was considerably more than the current Western involvement in countering the Ukraine invasion. Soviet pilots on Soviet planes killed Americans in American planes. Soviet operators of Soviet-made SAM sites shut do…
> The reality is that nuclear weapons are a deterrent against existential threats, and all else is a bluff. So it's not a risk of losing this war that will push Russia to commit such murder-suicide, but an existential threat to its own survival as a nation. Note that there have been numerous documented cases of near nuclear launches, especially in the 60s and 70s, it is by no means a bluff or an idle risk.
The bluff does, however, work very well in slowing down and dissuading Western help to Ukraine by cultivating the "don't do X else nukes tomorrow" memes and propaganda talking points. Very effective foreign policy tool for a nuclear-armed fascist dictatorship, other will certainly take note for future invasions.
Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?
#570Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both the US and the USSR lost major wars during the Cold War without resorting to nuking their opponent when they felt they were "at a real risk of losing a war". In Vietnam and Korea, the Soviet involvement was considerably more than the current Western involvement in countering the Ukraine invasion. Soviet pilots on Soviet planes killed Americans in American planes. Soviet operators of Soviet-made SAM sites shut do…
I mostly agree, but it does assume rational actors in charge. If the goal of conflict is to cement the position of a dictatorial elite, it’s not clear to me that ‘smaller scale’ nuclear exchanges are ruled out, especially if leaders are isolated, paranoid etc.