are attack helis still relevant

when used in a tactical/operational environment in a peer war and in asymmetric war, do they perform?
if so, do they perform well enough, and with an attrition rate such that it is desirable to employ them given their cost and the alternatives?
should they be maintained as a capability?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >are attack helis still relevant
    yes

    >when used in a tactical/operational environment in a peer war and in asymmetric war, do they perform?
    yes

    >should they be maintained as a capability?
    the apache is expected to serve until 2050

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >yes
      >yes
      explain why

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        High mobility flying killing machines are pretty useful so long as you isolate and destroy the AA. Had Ukraine or Russia proper force multipliers they could use the attack heli. Neither can truly do the isolation and elimination to use them, and even if they could they haven't the budget, parts or crews to keep them hammering. For the US the ability to began massive air campaigns combined with targeted ground strikes makes their use more possible. Imagine for example if Ukraine did have the ability to do the first and a force that could run them, they could very easily be used to wipe the hidden tanks being used as direct fire and to easily pepper infantry positions

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          but how do you destroy AA in such a thorough way that they dont have manpads not shorad and you can just come there and shoot them.

          Yes to all. For counter insurgency, they are beyond reproach. For peer war, they are still extremely useful; they just aren't as untouchable as they are fighting durkas.
          >and the alternatives
          Such as what? The only true alternative to a gunship is a drone gunship, which in practical terms is a meaningless distinction. You aren't wiping out a whole armored column with an FPV.

          >alternatives
          you shoot missiles from a ground carrier instead of an helicopter, to a know location, and aim them with an operator against the vehicles

          https://i.imgur.com/iJRCesl.jpeg

          >how do you acquire a tank target to shoot with atgms from 8km?
          With pic related. Or you can data link with drones flying above MANPAD range.

          I know that apaches got a radar, but can it detect tanks from like 7km and feed the info to an atgm to properly aim it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I know that apaches got a radar, but can it detect tanks from like 7km and feed the info to an atgm to properly aim it?

            ??

            Yes? That's what its for?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              so all other attack helis are much inferior to the Apache due to not having the longbow radar and thus shorter range for target acquisition?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes generally

                There are similar targetting radars in other helicopters(the Mi-28 has one iirc) but no one else has committed to deploying them as much, or making them as capable as the Longbow.

                The Apache is also unique in that its been overhauled several times to work with thinks like datalink and target sharing, working along with or even piloting UAVs. Its probably the only helicopter right now that can command a fleet of drones to spam fire ATGMs.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah what the other guys said. The Apache is old as frick but it was REALLY well designed and has been updated continuously. The intelligence/targeting data sharing between units is unparalleled and brings a massive battlefield advantage.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                why is the us always the best at war
                it seems like other western countries aren't even really trying, just half assing it, like yeah well get armed forces and not make them utter shit but still whatever we're not pushing to be good just stay afloat

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The best answer is money and having no engineering chill

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Euros stopped trying once the cold war ended. Maintaining a modern military takes a shitload of money, and when the Soviets kicked the bucket, they decided that it was no longer worth the effort.

                America also has way more resources at its disposal, so there's a lot more room for innovation

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                why does the us have more resources?
                anyway if you invest in your military you'll grow local industry and tech and know how so your resources will grow too

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Typically you would use combined arms for suppression. This could be arty strikes, cruise missiles, drone bombs, or even aircraft. The point of attack helis is a lot of dakka quickly in place while using loitering to provide better targeting and suppression. You can also supplement your helis to use AAA to avoid issues. In the modern age this is less common but plenty viable. Standoff munitions can help close the gap and due to the nature if helis you can quickly establish airfields with a minimum footprint. Russians ideally supplement this with troop transport but for NATO you might see a combined transport drop and suppression via attack helis. They also are used to attack armor formations as its hard to hide armor pushes and most armor is incapable of traversing their weapons to angle that allows them to fire on helis. This is all dependent on competent combined arms, communication and coordination

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Only if you’re the US or allied to the Us and have guaranteed control of the skies. They aren’t relevant for anyone else though

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes to all. For counter insurgency, they are beyond reproach. For peer war, they are still extremely useful; they just aren't as untouchable as they are fighting durkas.
    >and the alternatives
    Such as what? The only true alternative to a gunship is a drone gunship, which in practical terms is a meaningless distinction. You aren't wiping out a whole armored column with an FPV.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    when is someone going to make a heavy drone with the same capabilities as an attack helicopter?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >When is someone going to take the most cost effective ATGM slinging platform and slap 150 million dollars worth of cameras and sensor equipment on it?
      Never

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        assuming it cost 150 million to to outfit a drone with sensors, you can write a check for that, you can't just buy new pilots

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Do pilots just magically coalesce out of the ether in your mind? You can buy new pilots very easily by paying them, they're even cheaper and require less maintenance

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You cant buy training hours

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Apache flight school takes 9 weeks, but it takes more than that to build an Apache airframe, a whole lot more than that if you add on Long-Lead time components like the sensors required for the remote operation
              You'll run out of airframes long before you run out of competent pilots

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No, it's like 6 months with like a year of priors.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The problem with this is that even if it took 2 days to train someone, loosing men during war is pretty bad for morale and the more you lose the closer you are to giving up, since the people wont want to support such losses. You are always better off sending some dicardable drone in a dangerous zone than men who can affect war time opinion.
                NTA

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it takes several years to develop a WO, more if you can't recruit good candidates

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Apache gunners can already request to take over a drone and use it to scout + lock targets

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Apache is useful and still has many years of life left in it. However the FARA program was canceled, because the army expects to field probably a combination of cheaper rotor and fixed wing uav's to finally replace it's job without also putting pilots at risk.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I feel they are pretty much on the way out, but more because regular PGMs gave any fast-mover a lot of the pinpoint ability that used to be unique to attack helicopters than due to SHORAD or MANPADs. A F-35 or F-16 is going to be more survivable in the air (although significantly, not so on the ground) than an Apache, and can hit more targets over a wider area faster with more damaging ordnance. Add in how attack helicopters have to deal with more than double the number of systems that can engage them as regular fast movers, and you can see why it doesn't really make sense to use them for much besides overwatch of air assault forces.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They are, did you already forget the Ukrainian counteroffensive last summer?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, the still pack a punch, and would kick armored ass hard....provided that they aren't playing this stupid american game 'winning with 0 casualties.'
    In a peer war, that is an illusion.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *