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

91–100 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#91

Post by kergonath »

the_af wrote: post #75
verdverm wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, the conclusions are basically the same between both 1. There are no wonder weapons, nor are weapons obsoleted so easily. You cannot look at one in isolation of the larger context. The incidents in one war do not inform the use in all wars or operations. 2. Militaries view these types of things as part of a larger system, the parts of which are combined to create a desired effect. It is situational and Rus…

"Not really" means the war and its tactics haven't changed at all in two years? I find that very hard to believe. I agree with your three points, but they are very high level, a bit like quoting Sun Tzu. The question is whether the attack heli is becoming rapidly obsolete (or at least, relegated to less relevant roles), and I think it might . Other weapon systems have, after all. -- Edit: I love that I got downvoted…

> "Not really" means the war and its tactics haven't changed at all in two years? I find that very hard to believe.

In this specific respect, not really. Neither Ukraine or Russia really gained air superiority and MANPADS are common. In that context, attack helicopters are not a great weapon. It does not mean that it would be the case in all future wars. Some countries are more capable than Russia. Sure, better anti-drone weapons would help, but it’s a bit early to call helicopters obsolete. Pretty much in the same way as it was premature to call the main battle tank dead as a concept last year.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#92

Post by sidewndr46 »

HPsquared wrote: post #10
sneed_chucker wrote: post #5

Part of a broader pattern in military technology right now. All weapon systems that consist of an expensive vehicle and an expensive-to-train crew are being re-evaluated against drones right now. If you're fighting a highly asymmetric conflict where your enemies can barely touch your expensive toys then it's less of a concern. If you're fighting near-peer it's a different story.

Efficiency starts to matter in a near-peer conflict.

I live in the US. A near-peer conflict involves a nuclear exchange. The world will change in ways forever that none of us can ever foresee at that point.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#93

Post by jdietrich »

bhouston wrote: post #57
thenaturalist wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly doubt that such a general presumption holds. As seen in the case of Russia’s super drone being downed by their own this week after presumably loosing control, only relying on unmanned vehicles en mass leads to a single point of failure. Disrupt or corrupt signals, disrupt the entire force. The US is the force it is because it can do combined arms like nobody else. Unique capabilities don’t matter if your opp…

> Look at last weeks Iran ICBM barrage vs. iron dome and David’s sling. I believe the issue was not overwhelming the defences but rather the defences (Iron Dome and David's sling) were designed for short range and slow rockets from Lebanon or Gaza and not long range fast/high rockets from Iran. It may be that the cost per Arrow missile (for long range intercepts) is $3M as well, so they didn't fire that many of them?…

Interception comes with risks - the debris from that missile has to land somewhere. The only person confirmed to have been killed in the recent Iranian attack was a man in the West Bank who was crushed by part of a destroyed missile. It's clear that at least some of the missiles that got through were deliberately ignored because they were on target to hit open ground.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#94

Post by gorgoiler »

siliconc0w wrote: post #32

Whoever can most cost effectively put explosives on target wins. The future will be annihilation at a distance with cheap standoff weapons followed by swarms of cheap drones loitering over battlefields to clean up.

Drones for reconnaissance and kill verification too, in combination with regular artillery.

Archer has a 40km range (SF to San Jose) and can fire off three rounds in 20 seconds before hitting the road at 40mph. “Sniper” artillery apparently:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_artillery_system

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#95

Post by bhouston »

jdietrich wrote: post #93
bhouston wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look at last weeks Iran ICBM barrage vs. iron dome and David’s sling. I believe the issue was not overwhelming the defences but rather the defences (Iron Dome and David's sling) were designed for short range and slow rockets from Lebanon or Gaza and not long range fast/high rockets from Iran. It may be that the cost per Arrow missile (for long range intercepts) is $3M as well, so they didn't fire that many of them?…

Interception comes with risks - the debris from that missile has to land somewhere. The only person confirmed to have been killed in the recent Iranian attack was a man in the West Bank who was crushed by part of a destroyed missile. It's clear that at least some of the missiles that got through were deliberately ignored because they were on target to hit open ground.

The best analysis I've seen is this Washington Post analysis that said that +24 Iranian missiles hit Israeli military/intelligence targets or were close misses:

https://x.com/catebrown12/status/1842167731547721788

If there was 180 missiles were fired and 24 got through to targets, that is a penetration rate of 13%.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#96

Post by verdverm »

the_af wrote: post #75
verdverm wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, the conclusions are basically the same between both 1. There are no wonder weapons, nor are weapons obsoleted so easily. You cannot look at one in isolation of the larger context. The incidents in one war do not inform the use in all wars or operations. 2. Militaries view these types of things as part of a larger system, the parts of which are combined to create a desired effect. It is situational and Rus…

"Not really" means the war and its tactics haven't changed at all in two years? I find that very hard to believe. I agree with your three points, but they are very high level, a bit like quoting Sun Tzu. The question is whether the attack heli is becoming rapidly obsolete (or at least, relegated to less relevant roles), and I think it might . Other weapon systems have, after all. -- Edit: I love that I got downvoted…

> I think it might

Why do you think the days of the heli might be over?

I think if you ask the military of US, Israel, Russia, and China, you will find them saying the attack heli has unique and useful capabilities not available on other platforms.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#97

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #81
sneed_chucker wrote: post #5

Part of a broader pattern in military technology right now. All weapon systems that consist of an expensive vehicle and an expensive-to-train crew are being re-evaluated against drones right now. If you're fighting a highly asymmetric conflict where your enemies can barely touch your expensive toys then it's less of a concern. If you're fighting near-peer it's a different story.

>Part of a broader pattern in military technology right now. It's not a new discussion, this comes up every decade or so when some new technology takes expensive kit out but just as with the tank nothing is going anywhere. Paraphrasing I can't remember who, "if you're getting out of the tank, what are you getting into?" Helicopters, tanks, mechanized and combined arms warfare and metal are still pretty much the only…

the biggest tick against helicopters is that they are much more expensive, and poorly armored than a tank, and their speed advantage for delivery matters a lot for special ops type jobs, but is pretty irrelevant for army type jobs.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#98

Post by the_af »

kergonath wrote: post #91
the_af wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not really" means the war and its tactics haven't changed at all in two years? I find that very hard to believe. I agree with your three points, but they are very high level, a bit like quoting Sun Tzu. The question is whether the attack heli is becoming rapidly obsolete (or at least, relegated to less relevant roles), and I think it might . Other weapon systems have, after all. -- Edit: I love that I got downvoted…

> "Not really" means the war and its tactics haven't changed at all in two years? I find that very hard to believe. In this specific respect, not really. Neither Ukraine or Russia really gained air superiority and MANPADS are common. In that context, attack helicopters are not a great weapon. It does not mean that it would be the case in all future wars. Some countries are more capable than Russia. Sure, better anti-…

Sorry, I should have been clearer: I meant the attack helicopter in a war between near peers. Obviously it is different when the enemy is technologically far behind.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#99

Post by matusp »

Barrin92 wrote: post #81
sneed_chucker wrote: post #5

Part of a broader pattern in military technology right now. All weapon systems that consist of an expensive vehicle and an expensive-to-train crew are being re-evaluated against drones right now. If you're fighting a highly asymmetric conflict where your enemies can barely touch your expensive toys then it's less of a concern. If you're fighting near-peer it's a different story.

>Part of a broader pattern in military technology right now. It's not a new discussion, this comes up every decade or so when some new technology takes expensive kit out but just as with the tank nothing is going anywhere. Paraphrasing I can't remember who, "if you're getting out of the tank, what are you getting into?" Helicopters, tanks, mechanized and combined arms warfare and metal are still pretty much the only…

Attack helis were never that important compared to tanks of mechanized infantry. On top of that, it really seems that a significant part of their role can be fulfilled by drones.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#100

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

verdverm wrote: post #96
the_af wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not really" means the war and its tactics haven't changed at all in two years? I find that very hard to believe. I agree with your three points, but they are very high level, a bit like quoting Sun Tzu. The question is whether the attack heli is becoming rapidly obsolete (or at least, relegated to less relevant roles), and I think it might . Other weapon systems have, after all. -- Edit: I love that I got downvoted…

> I think it might Why do you think the days of the heli might be over? I think if you ask the military of US, Israel, Russia, and China, you will find them saying the attack heli has unique and useful capabilities not available on other platforms.

the only capability they provide the US is that the army is allowed to buy them.
Post reply on HN