Better discussion by Perun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnoKpXvj41A
(there is a saying or word for titles as questions, and the answer is always no)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnoKpXvj41A
(there is a saying or word for titles as questions, and the answer is always no)
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 Russia C&C is not the same as other countries C&C.
3. War has pro/con evolutions, as the drones progress, so does the anti-drone tech. These same helicopters were allegedly instrumental in preventing Ukraine's counter offensive in Zaporizhzhia, with their standoff anti-tank missiles, popping up above the trees, outside the range of manpads
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 for asking this even though, sure enough, Perun indeed uploaded a recent video reviewing his opinions of the attack helicopter! Oh, well... that's HN for you.
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.
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.
To my knowledge the US has abandoned the development of their advanced attack helicopters, and it's not because the current ones are flawless. Their Apaches are very vulnerable in a modern threat environment.
The Russians seem to have lots of inventory, who knows what they are thinking. Even Perun states a lot of Russian tactics and doctrine seem very old fashioned, using helicopters in a way that doesn't seem particularly cost effective (e.g. in roles better served by artillery).
As for China, I haven't the faintest idea. What's their use of attack helicopters?
My first comment which reached -2 said:
> That video by Perun is 2 years old, while TFA is from today. Surely there have been additional lessons learned in two years?
What was wrong about the delivery, so that I can learn and avoid it in the future?
Using italics was unnecessary
It's also hilarious I got downvoted for saying Perun's video was 2 years old and surely there would be new considerations, and sure enough, Perun posted a newer video with new considerations!
> Using italics was unnecessary
So a single word in italics in a different comment triggered downvotes on my first comment that didn't use italics? Seems like retaliatory downvoting of unrelated comments then. In any case, italics is used for emphasis and it's used commonly enough here on HN that its very limited markup supports it.
you are being argumentative... which earns downvotes. you can word things differently to not be this way. Also, talking about being downvoted is against the posting guidelines, which will earn more downvotes. (See the links at the bottom)
> Punished for disagreement
see it as a signal from community moderation, this is not a free speech platform, content and conversation moderation is necessary online, unpopular opinions are often downvoted to avoid back and forth argumentation, so you may view it beyond moderation as feedback on your views, context dependent
> Sorry, mate, but I really think you missed the point of the attack helicopter concept, at least in the modern Western concept. I can't speak as to either how the Russians think they should be using their helicopters in doctrine, or how they actually are using their helicopters in doctrine, but you seem to have completely ignored where the attack helicopter fits in as far as we in the West are concerned. The days of using attack helicopters in a troop support role to aid ground forces are long gone, except in cases of extreme emergency or very permissive environments. Instead, they are used as the division and corps commander's maneuver asset. MG Isenhower last week publicly described an evolution during an NTC rotation for a corps-level mission, the 1AD CAB sending both battalions from Fort Irwin to a target area over 250km away, (Conducted with incorporation into a Red Flag exercise to replicate the air and SEAD problem) and this sort of operation pretty much matches what I've seen helicopters be used for over the past four years' worth of division and corps level exercises. You can imagine the level of havoc which can be wreaked by one battalion, let alone two in the division and corps deep areas, by a unit capable of identifying and engaging its own targets in real-time from (relatively speaking) close range, whilst itself emitting a rather limited EM signature, and, of course, being entirely unjammable unlike long-range loitering munitions.
like, nearly all commentators, everywhere, are talking about OSINT releases from RUSI or CNA or whoever. and those are based on scraps from official UKR, NATO, RUS, etc. releases.