Why would you try to make it seem like there's no middle ground between the two? I mean this isn't Russia or China, western politicans don't have unlimited power to do whatever.
>Western politicians don't have the power to do whatever >covid lockdowns
It's going to be funny to see what you say in 20 years, especially considering that authoritarian stated and western "democracies" reacted the same way to a flu, made by those governments.
Just because you have a bunch of idiots running the war and a bunch of idiots in the army doesn't mean the equipment is useless. It just means you have too many idiots in the system.
In all fairness, if you're doing procurement for the Russian military you should already know that your equipment is going to be used by idiots and plan accordingly.
I can imagine you watching that scene from Die Hard 3 when Samuel L Jackson tries to kill Jeremy Irons but doesn't know to take the selector witch off of safe, and then saying to yourself >"Wow... why do people use guns? They're useless."
>The equipment itself actually wouldn't be half bad if it had proper maintenance and wasn't operated by drunken morons.
Or if Russia had the money and technology to upgrade them.
>wasn't operated by drunken morons
This is accounted for, to some extent. Note design aspects such as unnecessarily large fins on aircraft (to ensure an inebriated pilot has more time to recognise and unfrick dangerous situation), and the fact that equipment is no longer designed to require ethanol as fuel.
It's not exactly the pinnacle of aeronautical tech, but remember when the soviets had to place all MIG-25 fuel under armed guard because their base personel kept drinking it? Imagine getting carpet bombed in a cold war gone hot scenario because ivan got smashed off of your aviation fuel and now your air to air ohka bomb.
yeah.
requirements:
- the crews/operators are property trained in the use of the system
- the crews/operators are properly trained in the correct tactics to employ the system, including combined arms / co-operative action
- the equipment is properly maintained and supplied
If “russia fails at X, therefore X is obsolete” was true, we’d have to give up on the concept of standing armies, society and probably humanity itself.
Vatniks are a bunch of subhuman troglodytes, Black folk in the snow.
lenin actually tried to get russia off vodka, the bolshiveks were actually anti-alcholol - in old films from his rule you'll see them smashing vodka bottles like chains. it's just that stalin took over and went 'yeah the tsars had the right idea in keeping people compliant on this' and reinstated it.
God I'm so tired of shouting this into the void. Tanks aren't obsolete Russia was literally doing shit that WW1 generals figured out not to do about 5 minutes after they first started using tanks. Helicopters aren't obsolete they perform their function beautifully if the airspace they're in isn't saturated with fricking anti-air defenses. It's annoying how many people think that war has changed when really all we're seeing is what we already knew. Russians are fricking moronic.
>weapon system doesn't have an everything proof shield that btfo's all forms of attack in any and all scenarios. >must be obsolete.
It's all so tiresome.
You need to secure the skies in the initial invasion by knocking out radar and anti-air defenses, which is literally day one shit for every fricking army that can actually rub two braincells together. Yeah helos are vulnerable to systems designed to counter them. Who fricking knew?
>How would an Apache counter MANPADs?
Apache's Hellfire missile can fire from the edge of or outside the range of MANPAD's, besides that they have IR jammers and flairs.
People keep talking about the cost of the missile used to kill an Apache as if it's not true for any weapon, birth a man, feed, raise and school him, train him in the army and equip him with weapons and kit, hundreds of thousands of dollars and a $.50 bullet kills him? Sounds like soldiers are obsolete.
It's not about the cost of the helicopter but the amount of damage it can do to the enemy before it croaks and picrel can do a lot of damage. >I think attack helicopters should be used by the police and not the army.
What do police need with Hellfire missiles?
>How would an Apache counter MANPADs?
Not get shot at by them in the first place, and kill you over the horizon.
Has this been tested out? The "easily" part
As survivability increasingly depends on standoff range, hover and agility is irrelevant and aircraft that large payload at low cost is more effective. I mean you can throw brimstones on any turboprop and have enough money and payload leftover to fill it with anti-missile defensive systems.
Pic: Team Portable turbo jet powered loitering anti-air missile with imaging infrared sensor feeding back to operator. Your helicopter'd better out range the radio on this thing, or you are getting engaged.
>Attack helicopters were proven useless during this one conflict where they were used extremely heavily, also nobody stopped using them, even right now, and they're still useful even though the helicopters are suicidally old and garbage.
You are either not as old as you wanna seem, or you are but it didn't do anything for you.
What's it like being moronic on the internet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala >The casualties sustained by the Apaches induced a change of tactics by placing significant restrictions on their use. Attack helicopters would henceforth be used to reveal the location of enemy troops, allowing them to be destroyed by artillery and air strikes.
>20 more years of Apache guncamera footage after this occurred
Yeah, it's nothing. Technology also moved on and modern helicopters can dump missiles without ever being exposed to ground fire in situations like this.
NEXT.
>Inb4 leddit
Anon they are still using attack helicopters that are completely obsolete by all indications, against near peer foes, right now. >https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/vy9ttw/ukrainian_combat_helicopters_at_work/
And again, modern chopper just dumps Spike NLOS on you from 30+ km away and calls that lunch.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>high angle unguided rocket barrages
I wish I could see footage of the impact site so I could know if that shit's even worth the fuel to get the heli up in the first place.
1 year ago
Anonymous
NATO-alligned choppers just use an APKWS equivalent from 10-15km away
1 year ago
Anonymous
I'm gonna hit you with the hard facts, chief. Ukraine right now in the current timeline is NATO aligned.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Don't play dumb, all their choppers are post-Soviet dogshit.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Even for rich western countries, the munitions stockpiles don't exist to throw super expensive, modern missiles at the other guys for this many months of all out warfare. I remember seeing somewhere that France can't even supply their own expeditionary forces in Africa with ordinary bullets, and so it's down to American factories to fill the gaps.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Rich western countries would have ended this war in a month, nefore ever having to worry about stockpiles of missiles and parts. That shit is for bean counters. That's the summary of the entire thread.
1 year ago
Anonymous
No, they wouldn't. The rule of war for decades has been non-escalation and proportional response. Nobody wants to do anything to provoke nukes and that means protracted """peace keeping""" operations and nothing else.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Muh nooooooooooks
Mostly an empty threat if this conflict is anything to go by, and also there are non-nuclear near peer scenarios.
Either way, it's bean-counter cope for obviously being incorrect about actual weapons and forces.
1 year ago
Anonymous
It's an empty threat all the way up until it isn't.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Get back to me when you can talk about the other 2/3ds of the post that you ignored.
>Against a near peer foe
The United States has no near peer foe.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Technically a near peer could inclue Iraq the first time, which thatgay leftnout of his timescale explicitly because Apaches did ATGM attacks of radar installations during that war which is really inconvenient to his line of bullshit.
But yeah, no actual peers.
Karbala is a horrible examples to try and prove helicopters as useless, because it's a scenario where the US did nearly everything wrong. >SEAD mission uncoordinated with attack >helos orders are "lol go find the bad guys" >Iraqis get advance warning >ambush fully prepared for the helos >fly directly into a killzone of autocannons and RPGs >remain in the area for half an hour hunting for the targets >all but one Apaches make it back to base >crew casualties: 1 wounded, 2 captured
Karbala was a shitshow, but trying to use it to prove that helos are obsolete is just as moronic.
It wouldn't be so tiring if there weren't technical limitations creating situations where Russian helicopters are getting shot down in ways that NATO choppers obviously wouldn't.
>Lack of PGMs >Bad SACLOS PGMs that you can't launch while moving, gotta hold still and guide >Bad navigation, gotta use a TomTom on the dash or follow roads everywhere >shitty airframes that shake like tweakers and get no maintenance, shit breaks faster and lol they never fix it
Helicopters have always been vulnerable but comparing this shit to Longbow radar and Hellfires is obviously not realistic. To say nothing of where things are gong to go from there with longer range NLOS missiles with dual and tri-mode seekeers being standard.
The only real issue is the lack of the more modern F&F missiles.
No the real issue is all of that and more. Russia is incredibly vulnerable to the helicopter game, that super expensive conveyance is one of the only ways to explooit Siberia.
Russian military and their culture is heavily dependent on helicopters and as anon pointed out, they are shaky rattletraps that really have no bsuiness flying, and require massive maintenance and advanced construction philosophies to achieve, and Russia is at least 2 generations behind.
Slapping avionics and missiles on it isn't going to fix the issue.
Landing gear on Russia jets may be awesome because it's overbuilt, but the helicopter is not best served by the industrial age. It's an information age machine and Russian helicopters suck suck suck for that reason.
Big fat bugs for the Wolverines to swat is all they've been for 40 years.
The only thing that might happen is eventually manned helis will be superceeded by drone helis in combat roles.
They are still a versatile and flexible machine, being able to be used in rough terrain, play hide&seek with radars, loitering times far above planes, etc.
1 year ago
Anonymous
If you're talking about essentially a modern helicopter but remote controlled, I don't see it happening. Like the anon you're replying to said, they're struggling to deal with cold war era choppers. They're gonna add another layer of sophistication on top of that to fix the issues they have now? When they can't even figure out GPS for their manned aircraft? And this is the Russia going forward after this war, almost certainly a shadow of even the shit show they were in the 90s and 2000s.
If you're talking about something smaller, more akin to the grenade drones we've seen used in Ukraine, then that's probably what they will be reduced to in the future. But it's hardly a replacement for a fleet of attack choppers.
You're forgetting the biggest one >poor C4I
The entire idea of combined arms warfare is that the different elements work together to cover the weaknesses of the others. Helicopters are tank destroyers/assault guns that travel at 150mph, they are your rapid reaction force to cover your infantry/mechanized units, but that requires them to be in communication with the units on the ground.
> shaky helicopters
probably down to poor or non-existent maintenance -> not balancing the rotor blades
something along the lines of https://helicoptermaintenancemagazine.com/article/good-vibes-rotor-2ys0kblade-track-and-balance
Because the aircraft had flown the same route for weeks. A M8 Greyhound took out a Tiger II during the Battle of the Bulge. You won't expect that to happen multiple times. A British officer took out a German armored car with an umbrella, again, you would not expect that to happen regularly. Shit happens in war. But Russia has lost multiple helicopters to AT weapons.
>Helicopters useless
How do you move troops quickly around a jungle? Or mountains? Or even through a forest? Have them walk? How about how you get injured out quickly? How about moving people to and from a carrier? How about hunting submarines? How about moving equipment like artillery around and other goods quickly? Main issue with Helicopters in the ukraine war is Russia fricking shit up. America has learned its lesson during Vietnam War on how to use helicopters. You can tell Helicopters still have an important role because we are replacing them with newer one in the FVLP. They are also introducing a replacement scout attack helicopter which will most likely be the X2 raider.
What stops a group of civvies driving manpads "behind your lines" ?
>Helicopters useless
How do you move troops quickly around a jungle? Or mountains? Or even through a forest? Have them walk? How about how you get injured out quickly? How about moving people to and from a carrier? How about hunting submarines? How about moving equipment like artillery around and other goods quickly? Main issue with Helicopters in the ukraine war is Russia fricking shit up. America has learned its lesson during Vietnam War on how to use helicopters. You can tell Helicopters still have an important role because we are replacing them with newer one in the FVLP. They are also introducing a replacement scout attack helicopter which will most likely be the X2 raider.
Uh, how do you evac wounded with a chopper if enemies exist... what the frick are you doing in a jungle in the first place?
>group of civvies driving manpads "behind your lines"
Couple issues You have checkpoints etc "behind your lines". It's not actually that easy to transport weapons. Also this is the same for all weapons. Man pads are big and obvious.
It's like saying >what stops civvies from going behind lines and launching rpgs at your fighter jets on runways and hangers or firing manpads at your jets when flying slowish near airfields landing or after take off
This would be way better then civvies shooting some helicopters with manpads
>how do you evac wounded with a chopper if enemies exist
Eliminate enough of the enemy and pull the wounded away far enough so that it's relatively safe for evac. Remember if you are in a forest, helicopter can evac you without even needing to land. This was extremely useful in the Vietnam War when fighting in jungles. They drop rope you hook the guy up and they pull them into the helicopter. >what are you doing in a jungle
Fighting a war.
>super short flight time >can't be mid-air refueled >can't carry all your kit with you
Flying around over some water is neat, but I want to see them take it though a proper bit of rough terrain.
>biggest ground war in Europe since dubya dubya two >le putler lost THREE helicopters in a day!!!
You act like equipment getting destroyed in total war is some unprecedented thing.
Your line of thinking has already been addressed, see
It wouldn't be so tiring if there weren't technical limitations creating situations where Russian helicopters are getting shot down in ways that NATO choppers obviously wouldn't.
When you only have about 100, the amount of losses they are having is a big deal. Losing 10 Konigstigers was a big deal too.
>total war
BASED moron. Also, Russia has lost nearly 200 helicopters and 200+ aircraft to a nation they claimed 'didn't have an airforce after 1hrs 24mins'. They lost a cruiser to a nation without a navy. So yes, losing 3 helicopters in a day to a nation that is smaller and poorer than it is embarrassing.
>total war
BASED moron. Also, Russia has lost nearly 200 helicopters and 200+ aircraft to a nation they claimed 'didn't have an airforce after 1hrs 24mins'. They lost a cruiser to a nation without a navy. So yes, losing 3 helicopters in a day to a nation that is smaller and poorer than it is embarrassing.
Tanks are in a difficult situation.
Its hard to come up with defenses to modern ATGMs that aren't more expensive than the missiles themselves.
Helicopters have a lot more life in them currently because they're still important for transport and transit. Attack helicopters have always been less than ideal.
>Its hard to come up with defenses to modern ATGMs that aren't more expensive than the missiles themselves.
This has never mattered militarily. Victory is worth more than any weapon. Tanks with APS are here to say, it behooves the ones fighting them to build more expensive missiles to counter them.
Attack helicopters are actually pretty good. You just don't yolo them in where their air defenses are. air defenses are pretty easy to tell visually from satellites and they also carry around a huge beacon call radar. Man pads are actually not as good as you would suspect because helicopters actually carry round thermal optics around. They can see you before you see them. You cant fire a manpad off if you are dead.
>Its hard to come up with defenses to modern ATGMs >APS >High resolution, magnified, thermal optics >screening infantry >scouting drones
A functioning country can already solve the ATGM issue.
APS is good for one missile, maybe one from each direction, and are expensive and complex typically. The missiles themselves are cheaper and quicker to make. Or they can be easily neutralized first with simple dumb RPGs that can be made for penance before the ATGM is fired on a target.
Tanks really have to be a lot more mobile these days than they once were required to be.
>APS is good for one missile, maybe one from each direction, and are expensive and complex typically. The missiles themselves are cheaper and quicker to make. Or they can be easily neutralized first with simple dumb RPGs that can be made for penance before the ATGM is fired on a target.
That's still a massive hinderance compared to being able to reliably destroy them from standoff range using man-portable weapons. Tank mobility has increased alongside it's need, and the opportunity to just lob rockets at an APS until it runs out doesn't realistically exist against real tactics.
I mean you can bundle a small RPG warhead into the firing procedure of a ATGM.
The warhead leads by some amount and is just a 'dumb bomb' and then the ATGM comes in afterwards. It'd be a relative increase in weight, but not dramatically more complex on a technical level.
Yeah that's the RPG-30 thing, they've already adapted fire control to ignore the decoy. The Israelis did it with digital recognition, the Germans just said frick it and made theirs engage both contacts simultaneously.
Hard to reasonably build armor thick enough to resist a ATGM everywhere. And they're fast enough and cheap enough to be used with little reservation.
Yeah that's the RPG-30 thing, they've already adapted fire control to ignore the decoy. The Israelis did it with digital recognition, the Germans just said frick it and made theirs engage both contacts simultaneously.
Good to hear.
Wonder if doing tandem RPG warheads could make that an untenable solution.
There are only so many shots you can fit in a APS system. I wonder if its easier to cram more in, or easier to give it too many obscuring targets.
It just proves Russia has forgotten the concept of combined arms. Supported by a competent air force, infantry, and intelligence apparatus, they can be used to devastating effect.
Unfortunately the only thing Russians are good at is levelling things with massed artillery, something they can't do when their terrible logistics system is more than 30 miles away from a railhead, so...
>Tanks are useless >Helicopters are useless >Look at these sand/vodka Black folk using outdated equipment badly in a bad overall doctrine of use
have a nice day tourist
Targeting systems got better as quickly as technology did. The cope coming from morons who don't think this would happen to American helicopters/tanks is honestly comical. It's a slow moving massive object that isn't agile. No shit, they're easy targets. Us Americans can get away with it because we invade literal cave people, like Ukrainians, but the cave people we fought weren't financed/armed by a country with a larger military budget than what it spends on Healthcare.
Even if helicopters as we know them go out of style, some other kind of fast-moving all terrain artillery/anti-tank vehicle will replace them, just like helicopters replaced tank destroyers.
>but attack helicopters could actually be obsolete in a few decades.
You have included "could" and "a few decades" so I don't feel the need to argue with you, that very well may be the case. However, that's quite a bit different then declaring that they are already obsolete.
(Logistics/Utility wise they will stick around longer, just like the horse.)
You could equally argue on the same logic that this war has proven that through Kalshnikov rifle is also useless. But we all know that isn't so. You can have the best equipment in the world, but in the hands of untrained, undisciplined and poorly led morons, it doesn't count for shit.
>attack helicopters are. Their job can be done by drones- recon and strike
Can't operate a drone that carries 16 hellfire missiles from a field, can't have it hug the earth and pop up to fire either.
At least until they make a serious attack helicopter drone.
>Can't operate a drone that carries 16 hellfire missiles
In a near peer conflict you will get shit coming your way after engaging 2 targets max. Might as well rtb after that >cant do popup
I think popup attacks work on a false pretense that helicopter is safe behind a hill and engages a known threat. Ukraine has showed us that even static frontlines are "leaky" and a manpads team can be anywhere to whoop your ass
t. tried this tactic in dcs multiplayer
>In a near peer conflict you will get shit coming your way after engaging 2 targets max. Might as well rtb after that
Hellfire is a fire and forget missile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-78_Longbow >The APG-78 is capable of simultaneously tracking up to 128 targets and engaging up to 16 at once; an attack can be initiated within 30 seconds.
It's meant to pick off as many targets as it can in a very short amount of time. >I think popup attacks work on a false pretense that helicopter is safe behind a hill and engages a known threat. Ukraine has showed us that even static frontlines are "leaky" and a manpads team can be anywhere to whoop your ass
Well, then you maybe lose a helicopter, that is war, shit gets broke.
the problem is not how many targets you can engage simultaneously its how many targets present themselves at one time. These multikill shots like taking out an entire tank platoon with one salvo are plausible but probably rare.
If you have good intelligence and lets say have set up target points beforehand its possible but then it becomes a question of if there are platforms to do the job with less risk
>If you have good intelligence
That's the big difference between NATO and its enemies, so much money has gone into that. Apaches would be half the cost or less without all those sensors and communications gear. >but then it becomes a question of if there are platforms to do the job with less risk
Ones that can immediately take off from a field and stay under the radar? Because a Predator style drone is open to high flying radar guided missile attacks.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Well if its a Pre Planned target, artillery has even better response time with much less risk. Or himars. Or a cruise missile. Or a suicide drone.
If youre talking deep penetration strikes those are just not happening. Way too risky.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why yes, having lots of options is a good idea. None of those will bring the pain of 2 dozen Apache helicopters nor does artillery have the flexibility to be transferred 300km away in an hour. Attack helicopters have incredible mobility and can be where you need them quick.
I don't think there is inherently an engineering problem with those helicopters, they fly and shoot just fine. The fact is simply, they get shot down. I think attack helicopters should be used by the police and not the army.
I said essentially not easily. The apache has hig rez high magnification stabilized thermal optics, using that and good communications with other assets in the area, the apache knows where you are before you do and kills you in a way that does not allow you to kill it back
>How would an Apache counter MANPADs?
Apache's Hellfire missile can fire from the edge of or outside the range of MANPAD's, besides that they have IR jammers and flairs.
People keep talking about the cost of the missile used to kill an Apache as if it's not true for any weapon, birth a man, feed, raise and school him, train him in the army and equip him with weapons and kit, hundreds of thousands of dollars and a $.50 bullet kills him? Sounds like soldiers are obsolete.
It's not about the cost of the helicopter but the amount of damage it can do to the enemy before it croaks and picrel can do a lot of damage. >I think attack helicopters should be used by the police and not the army.
What do police need with Hellfire missiles?
If your tech level isn't to the point of makign specific hardcore maintenance second nature to your lowest citizens who are likely to work on helos, then helos are trash.
Better off with Turcanos or crop dusters tbqh.
Helos have like 15 totally unique and bespoke parts that are ridiculously expensive and that can't be reduced. So if you can't keep them in the latest generation, they're a waste.
Wind turbines can't exist without cheap (ecologically disastrous) rare earth metals. It's not possible to put copper and huge magnets up there to generate power from wind, the mathematics drop off the curve and not worth.
Helos are that way. If you don't ahve necessarily rare, bespoke parts on them, they fricking suck.
IN fact helos probably kept russia in the advanced Industrial Age and they recognize that, and just forging rotor shafts and shit like that keeps Russia from being a Khazaki tipi village.
But anyway if you really can't field a *force* of helos that are really effective, they are not worth it.
Intercontinental bombing before the 707 and jet age is the same way. Completely, utterly expense waste of money, Russia should nto have even tried tbqf.
Russia should give up on helos and focus on QC. They'd be better off with quality roads, railroads, and other basic infrastructure first.
attack helicopters are the technology that’s actually going obsolete/replaced by drones any marginal benefits (if there is any) of helicopters is offset by price. The difference in weapons and survivability is practically zero. Tanks can’t really be replaced doctrine-wise where as drones and attack helicopters can have the same armament.
Not saying that attack helicopters are useless but they are expensive. Also not saying transport helicopters are obsolete.
>what went wrong?
drones are more efficient
only need a spectrum from high cost high altitude recon and detection drones down to cheaper drones of varying range and payload and cost to match particular target and risk
artillery and missiles for targets above/beyond conventional drone payload and range, assisted in targeting by.....more drones
remote pilots are safer w/ higher morale
raytheon and lockheed martin are happy because they have higher granularity of pricing and steady churn of drone replacement
really the only thing drones cant do yet is be a stable low caliber gun platform
you'll have dirt cheap drone racers with 9mm zipping and weaving through cities soon enough, popping homosexuals in the head and zipping away, or just dropping grenades
>you'll have dirt cheap drone racers with 9mm zipping and weaving through cities soon enough, popping homosexuals in the head and zipping away, or just dropping grenades
low latency remote video is too unreliable for fast agile drone piloting
video works for drone missile or payload drop platforms because because they operate above the buildings and trees that obstruct higher frequency band, nor do they need to quickly dart around
>helicopters getting shot down >drones getting shot down >planes getting shot down >tanks getting destroyed >wheeled vehicles getting destroyed >artillery getting destroyed >ships getting sunk >infantry getting killed
The Ukraine war has objectively proven that literally all military technology is obsolete and useless.
t. a couple absolute morons on PrepHole
out of all of these the attack helicopter one has the most merit. just by being outcompeted by drones like bayraktar, just like how scout helicopters got replaced by drones
say it with me anon
"The operational failure of the Russian army is not indicative of a type weapons ineffectiveness."
Repeat after me "I will keep up the procurement of all vehicles in order to ensure politicians get their pay offs"
Why would you try to make it seem like there's no middle ground between the two? I mean this isn't Russia or China, western politicans don't have unlimited power to do whatever.
>Western politicians don't have the power to do whatever
>covid lockdowns
It's going to be funny to see what you say in 20 years, especially considering that authoritarian stated and western "democracies" reacted the same way to a flu, made by those governments.
Terrible example.
Lockdowns had majority public support.
Just because you have a bunch of idiots running the war and a bunch of idiots in the army doesn't mean the equipment is useless. It just means you have too many idiots in the system.
And more importantly, no one competent to replace said idiots, no matter how many of them you decide to defenestrate
In all fairness, if you're doing procurement for the Russian military you should already know that your equipment is going to be used by idiots and plan accordingly.
I can imagine you watching that scene from Die Hard 3 when Samuel L Jackson tries to kill Jeremy Irons but doesn't know to take the selector witch off of safe, and then saying to yourself
>"Wow... why do people use guns? They're useless."
Le heckin reference. I too like black man movies reddit friend.
you're the only Black person here polgay. og die hard movies were kino
>he thinks pentagon wars was real life
This.
The equipment itself actually wouldn't be half bad if it had proper maintenance and wasn't operated by drunken morons.
>The equipment itself actually wouldn't be half bad if it had proper maintenance and wasn't operated by drunken morons.
Or if Russia had the money and technology to upgrade them.
>wasn't operated by drunken morons
This is accounted for, to some extent. Note design aspects such as unnecessarily large fins on aircraft (to ensure an inebriated pilot has more time to recognise and unfrick dangerous situation), and the fact that equipment is no longer designed to require ethanol as fuel.
or all the advanced tech wasn't constantly being looted for drinking money/the officer's new Mercedes
It's not exactly the pinnacle of aeronautical tech, but remember when the soviets had to place all MIG-25 fuel under armed guard because their base personel kept drinking it? Imagine getting carpet bombed in a cold war gone hot scenario because ivan got smashed off of your aviation fuel and now your air to air ohka bomb.
yeah.
*and now your air to air ohka bomb can't take off
I'm very tired.
anon,i think you're confusing that with the Tu-22's cooling system.
It wasn't fuel, FYI. MIG-25 used ethanol as a coolant.
Both MIG-25 and Tu-22 used ethanol coolants.
Everything would be fine if it wasn't so bad
requirements:
- the crews/operators are property trained in the use of the system
- the crews/operators are properly trained in the correct tactics to employ the system, including combined arms / co-operative action
- the equipment is properly maintained and supplied
I'll bet Russia failed to meet some of these
FPBP
If “russia fails at X, therefore X is obsolete” was true, we’d have to give up on the concept of standing armies, society and probably humanity itself.
Vatniks are a bunch of subhuman troglodytes, Black folk in the snow.
>we’d have to give up on the concept of standing armies, society and probably humanity itself.
You forget to include sobriety
Can't fail at what is never attempted.
lenin actually tried to get russia off vodka, the bolshiveks were actually anti-alcholol - in old films from his rule you'll see them smashing vodka bottles like chains. it's just that stalin took over and went 'yeah the tsars had the right idea in keeping people compliant on this' and reinstated it.
This. Also let's not forget that superior Russian tech may only be superior on paper.
God I'm so tired of shouting this into the void. Tanks aren't obsolete Russia was literally doing shit that WW1 generals figured out not to do about 5 minutes after they first started using tanks. Helicopters aren't obsolete they perform their function beautifully if the airspace they're in isn't saturated with fricking anti-air defenses. It's annoying how many people think that war has changed when really all we're seeing is what we already knew. Russians are fricking moronic.
>weapon system doesn't have an everything proof shield that btfo's all forms of attack in any and all scenarios.
>must be obsolete.
It's all so tiresome.
>A drone factory can be disabled by a guy hitting machinery with a rock
grug wins again
>Helicopters work you just need an opponent that has no modern tech
You need to secure the skies in the initial invasion by knocking out radar and anti-air defenses, which is literally day one shit for every fricking army that can actually rub two braincells together. Yeah helos are vulnerable to systems designed to counter them. Who fricking knew?
As survivability increasingly depends on standoff range, hover and agility is irrelevant and aircraft that large payload at low cost is more effective. I mean you can throw brimstones on any turboprop and have enough money and payload leftover to fill it with anti-missile defensive systems.
Pic: Team Portable turbo jet powered loitering anti-air missile with imaging infrared sensor feeding back to operator. Your helicopter'd better out range the radio on this thing, or you are getting engaged.
Russia. That's all.
>the ukraine war proved that tanks and now helicopters are useless in hands of Russians
ftfy
Upvote!
I understand its part of the aesthetic but I'm just gonna say it, Faux-Cyrillic is such an eyesore, even moreso than actual Cyrillic
Not to mention how annoying/confusing it is to read it, if you actually know the real language.
apparently their maintenance crew is comprised of russians
Attack helicopters were proven useless in GW2. But maybe you missed that on account of not being born yet.
>Attack helicopters were proven useless during this one conflict where they were used extremely heavily, also nobody stopped using them, even right now, and they're still useful even though the helicopters are suicidally old and garbage.
You are either not as old as you wanna seem, or you are but it didn't do anything for you.
What's it like being moronic on the internet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala
>The casualties sustained by the Apaches induced a change of tactics by placing significant restrictions on their use. Attack helicopters would henceforth be used to reveal the location of enemy troops, allowing them to be destroyed by artillery and air strikes.
>20 more years of Apache guncamera footage after this occurred
Yeah, it's nothing. Technology also moved on and modern helicopters can dump missiles without ever being exposed to ground fire in situations like this.
NEXT.
Can you provide them? Against a near peer foe not some farmers in a desert?
>Inb4 leddit
Anon they are still using attack helicopters that are completely obsolete by all indications, against near peer foes, right now.
>https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/vy9ttw/ukrainian_combat_helicopters_at_work/
And again, modern chopper just dumps Spike NLOS on you from 30+ km away and calls that lunch.
>high angle unguided rocket barrages
I wish I could see footage of the impact site so I could know if that shit's even worth the fuel to get the heli up in the first place.
NATO-alligned choppers just use an APKWS equivalent from 10-15km away
I'm gonna hit you with the hard facts, chief. Ukraine right now in the current timeline is NATO aligned.
Don't play dumb, all their choppers are post-Soviet dogshit.
Even for rich western countries, the munitions stockpiles don't exist to throw super expensive, modern missiles at the other guys for this many months of all out warfare. I remember seeing somewhere that France can't even supply their own expeditionary forces in Africa with ordinary bullets, and so it's down to American factories to fill the gaps.
Rich western countries would have ended this war in a month, nefore ever having to worry about stockpiles of missiles and parts. That shit is for bean counters. That's the summary of the entire thread.
No, they wouldn't. The rule of war for decades has been non-escalation and proportional response. Nobody wants to do anything to provoke nukes and that means protracted """peace keeping""" operations and nothing else.
>Muh nooooooooooks
Mostly an empty threat if this conflict is anything to go by, and also there are non-nuclear near peer scenarios.
Either way, it's bean-counter cope for obviously being incorrect about actual weapons and forces.
It's an empty threat all the way up until it isn't.
Get back to me when you can talk about the other 2/3ds of the post that you ignored.
>Against a near peer foe
The United States has no near peer foe.
Technically a near peer could inclue Iraq the first time, which thatgay leftnout of his timescale explicitly because Apaches did ATGM attacks of radar installations during that war which is really inconvenient to his line of bullshit.
But yeah, no actual peers.
Karbala is a horrible examples to try and prove helicopters as useless, because it's a scenario where the US did nearly everything wrong.
>SEAD mission uncoordinated with attack
>helos orders are "lol go find the bad guys"
>Iraqis get advance warning
>ambush fully prepared for the helos
>fly directly into a killzone of autocannons and RPGs
>remain in the area for half an hour hunting for the targets
>all but one Apaches make it back to base
>crew casualties: 1 wounded, 2 captured
Karbala was a shitshow, but trying to use it to prove that helos are obsolete is just as moronic.
>weapon is used 24/7 for 8 months
>some get destroyed
Shocking.
It wouldn't be so tiring if there weren't technical limitations creating situations where Russian helicopters are getting shot down in ways that NATO choppers obviously wouldn't.
Such as?
>Lack of PGMs
>Bad SACLOS PGMs that you can't launch while moving, gotta hold still and guide
>Bad navigation, gotta use a TomTom on the dash or follow roads everywhere
>shitty airframes that shake like tweakers and get no maintenance, shit breaks faster and lol they never fix it
Helicopters have always been vulnerable but comparing this shit to Longbow radar and Hellfires is obviously not realistic. To say nothing of where things are gong to go from there with longer range NLOS missiles with dual and tri-mode seekeers being standard.
The only real issue is the lack of the more modern F&F missiles.
No the real issue is all of that and more. Russia is incredibly vulnerable to the helicopter game, that super expensive conveyance is one of the only ways to explooit Siberia.
Russian military and their culture is heavily dependent on helicopters and as anon pointed out, they are shaky rattletraps that really have no bsuiness flying, and require massive maintenance and advanced construction philosophies to achieve, and Russia is at least 2 generations behind.
Slapping avionics and missiles on it isn't going to fix the issue.
Landing gear on Russia jets may be awesome because it's overbuilt, but the helicopter is not best served by the industrial age. It's an information age machine and Russian helicopters suck suck suck for that reason.
Big fat bugs for the Wolverines to swat is all they've been for 40 years.
The only thing that might happen is eventually manned helis will be superceeded by drone helis in combat roles.
They are still a versatile and flexible machine, being able to be used in rough terrain, play hide&seek with radars, loitering times far above planes, etc.
If you're talking about essentially a modern helicopter but remote controlled, I don't see it happening. Like the anon you're replying to said, they're struggling to deal with cold war era choppers. They're gonna add another layer of sophistication on top of that to fix the issues they have now? When they can't even figure out GPS for their manned aircraft? And this is the Russia going forward after this war, almost certainly a shadow of even the shit show they were in the 90s and 2000s.
If you're talking about something smaller, more akin to the grenade drones we've seen used in Ukraine, then that's probably what they will be reduced to in the future. But it's hardly a replacement for a fleet of attack choppers.
You're forgetting the biggest one
>poor C4I
The entire idea of combined arms warfare is that the different elements work together to cover the weaknesses of the others. Helicopters are tank destroyers/assault guns that travel at 150mph, they are your rapid reaction force to cover your infantry/mechanized units, but that requires them to be in communication with the units on the ground.
> shaky helicopters
probably down to poor or non-existent maintenance -> not balancing the rotor blades
something along the lines of https://helicoptermaintenancemagazine.com/article/good-vibes-rotor-2ys0kblade-track-and-balance
Or it's a non-issue to begin with.
Let me know the last time NATO fought people with more than camels and swords...wait a minute...
Did that stop the bombs though?
Your own example makes you look even more moronic, ironically enough.
I accept your concession, mr. mcdonald.
Because the aircraft had flown the same route for weeks. A M8 Greyhound took out a Tiger II during the Battle of the Bulge. You won't expect that to happen multiple times. A British officer took out a German armored car with an umbrella, again, you would not expect that to happen regularly. Shit happens in war. But Russia has lost multiple helicopters to AT weapons.
ah yes the great defeat at the hands of serbia that forced the us out of the balkans and led to the reabsorbtion of the breakaway province by serbia
reminder that this was done by a Hungarian dude, the Serbs can't even claim this as one of their own deeds lmao
>some get destroyed
25% of all Ka-52 that exist have been destroyed by Ukraine 😀
Compare sorties to desert storm, then compare airframes lost.
>Helicopters useless
How do you move troops quickly around a jungle? Or mountains? Or even through a forest? Have them walk? How about how you get injured out quickly? How about moving people to and from a carrier? How about hunting submarines? How about moving equipment like artillery around and other goods quickly? Main issue with Helicopters in the ukraine war is Russia fricking shit up. America has learned its lesson during Vietnam War on how to use helicopters. You can tell Helicopters still have an important role because we are replacing them with newer one in the FVLP. They are also introducing a replacement scout attack helicopter which will most likely be the X2 raider.
>if you have complete air superiority and completely suppressed enemy air defenses, then you can use helicopters
whoa
Or just dont fly them near air defenses. So behind your lines or to areas you know where it is not.
What stops a group of civvies driving manpads "behind your lines" ?
Uh, how do you evac wounded with a chopper if enemies exist... what the frick are you doing in a jungle in the first place?
>group of civvies driving manpads "behind your lines"
Couple issues You have checkpoints etc "behind your lines". It's not actually that easy to transport weapons. Also this is the same for all weapons. Man pads are big and obvious.
It's like saying
>what stops civvies from going behind lines and launching rpgs at your fighter jets on runways and hangers or firing manpads at your jets when flying slowish near airfields landing or after take off
This would be way better then civvies shooting some helicopters with manpads
>how do you evac wounded with a chopper if enemies exist
Eliminate enough of the enemy and pull the wounded away far enough so that it's relatively safe for evac. Remember if you are in a forest, helicopter can evac you without even needing to land. This was extremely useful in the Vietnam War when fighting in jungles. They drop rope you hook the guy up and they pull them into the helicopter.
>what are you doing in a jungle
Fighting a war.
>Doesn't have local air superiority
>Air assets get BTFO
Woah so hard to figure out you fricking stupid krokadil sucking cumsack
Kys
>if you have complete naval superiority and completely suppressed enemy shore defenses, then you can use ships
Wow, crazy
umm sweaty you need to get with the times
>super short flight time
>can't be mid-air refueled
>can't carry all your kit with you
Flying around over some water is neat, but I want to see them take it though a proper bit of rough terrain.
I choose to think of it as the next step toward something more useful. It's neat to see though.
Yeah, it's definitely got the cool factor, but I think we're a long ways off from seeing some meme hoversuit spec ops shit with them.
slap a rifle on the right arm. slap a 40m grenade on the left arm. we starship trooper's marauders now
I mean this is like saying the Wright brother's airplane is proof planes have no future in combat.
>biggest ground war in Europe since dubya dubya two
>le putler lost THREE helicopters in a day!!!
You act like equipment getting destroyed in total war is some unprecedented thing.
Your line of thinking has already been addressed, see
Shill brigade dogpilers
>Multiple responses all within the cooldown.
Maybe you're just moronic. Yeah that's probably what it is.
have a nice day europoor
>Self-loathing on the internet
Post guns.
Now you homosexual
Ok. Where does this leave us?
We are both not shills and simply have differing opinions. Posting guns is certified non homosexual behavior
I accept your surrender
Reddit reply, Reddit site
Frick off then telegram troony
When you only have about 100, the amount of losses they are having is a big deal. Losing 10 Konigstigers was a big deal too.
>total war
BASED moron. Also, Russia has lost nearly 200 helicopters and 200+ aircraft to a nation they claimed 'didn't have an airforce after 1hrs 24mins'. They lost a cruiser to a nation without a navy. So yes, losing 3 helicopters in a day to a nation that is smaller and poorer than it is embarrassing.
>le putler lost THREE helicopters in a day!!!
vaxxed
Tanks are in a difficult situation.
Its hard to come up with defenses to modern ATGMs that aren't more expensive than the missiles themselves.
Helicopters have a lot more life in them currently because they're still important for transport and transit. Attack helicopters have always been less than ideal.
>Its hard to come up with defenses to modern ATGMs that aren't more expensive than the missiles themselves.
This has never mattered militarily. Victory is worth more than any weapon. Tanks with APS are here to say, it behooves the ones fighting them to build more expensive missiles to counter them.
Attack helicopters are actually pretty good. You just don't yolo them in where their air defenses are. air defenses are pretty easy to tell visually from satellites and they also carry around a huge beacon call radar. Man pads are actually not as good as you would suspect because helicopters actually carry round thermal optics around. They can see you before you see them. You cant fire a manpad off if you are dead.
>Its hard to come up with defenses to modern ATGMs
>APS
>High resolution, magnified, thermal optics
>screening infantry
>scouting drones
A functioning country can already solve the ATGM issue.
APS is good for one missile, maybe one from each direction, and are expensive and complex typically. The missiles themselves are cheaper and quicker to make. Or they can be easily neutralized first with simple dumb RPGs that can be made for penance before the ATGM is fired on a target.
Tanks really have to be a lot more mobile these days than they once were required to be.
>APS is good for one missile, maybe one from each direction, and are expensive and complex typically. The missiles themselves are cheaper and quicker to make. Or they can be easily neutralized first with simple dumb RPGs that can be made for penance before the ATGM is fired on a target.
That's still a massive hinderance compared to being able to reliably destroy them from standoff range using man-portable weapons. Tank mobility has increased alongside it's need, and the opportunity to just lob rockets at an APS until it runs out doesn't realistically exist against real tactics.
I mean you can bundle a small RPG warhead into the firing procedure of a ATGM.
The warhead leads by some amount and is just a 'dumb bomb' and then the ATGM comes in afterwards. It'd be a relative increase in weight, but not dramatically more complex on a technical level.
Yeah that's the RPG-30 thing, they've already adapted fire control to ignore the decoy. The Israelis did it with digital recognition, the Germans just said frick it and made theirs engage both contacts simultaneously.
Man, it's almost like that list of systems work together to provide protection, rather than just expecting the APS to make a tank invincible.
Hard to reasonably build armor thick enough to resist a ATGM everywhere. And they're fast enough and cheap enough to be used with little reservation.
Good to hear.
Wonder if doing tandem RPG warheads could make that an untenable solution.
There are only so many shots you can fit in a APS system. I wonder if its easier to cram more in, or easier to give it too many obscuring targets.
>anon is illiterate
Nowhere did I mention armor as a counter to ATGMs.
>what went wrong?
Your brain when you thought "the ukraine war proved that tanks and now helicopters are useless"
It just proves Russia has forgotten the concept of combined arms. Supported by a competent air force, infantry, and intelligence apparatus, they can be used to devastating effect.
Unfortunately the only thing Russians are good at is levelling things with massed artillery, something they can't do when their terrible logistics system is more than 30 miles away from a railhead, so...
So, according to vatnig shills:
>tanks are obsolete
>helicopters are obsolete
>Jets are obsolete
>cruisers are obsolete
>body armor is obsolete
War is obsolete
My finger is hurting from how many upvotes I'm having to give today. Keep it up Ukrainesisters! WE WILL WIN!
>Tanks are useless
>Helicopters are useless
>Look at these sand/vodka Black folk using outdated equipment badly in a bad overall doctrine of use
have a nice day tourist
Will you say the same when an ICBM inevitably explodes in a silo? That's a week away at most
Targeting systems got better as quickly as technology did. The cope coming from morons who don't think this would happen to American helicopters/tanks is honestly comical. It's a slow moving massive object that isn't agile. No shit, they're easy targets. Us Americans can get away with it because we invade literal cave people, like Ukrainians, but the cave people we fought weren't financed/armed by a country with a larger military budget than what it spends on Healthcare.
Russia wasn't smart enough to know how evolving technology was going to alter the battlefield.
>what went wrong?
Russians were operating them.
Tanks might still have some uses and they could adapt, but attack helicopters could actually be obsolete in a few decades.
Even if helicopters as we know them go out of style, some other kind of fast-moving all terrain artillery/anti-tank vehicle will replace them, just like helicopters replaced tank destroyers.
>but attack helicopters could actually be obsolete in a few decades.
You have included "could" and "a few decades" so I don't feel the need to argue with you, that very well may be the case. However, that's quite a bit different then declaring that they are already obsolete.
(Logistics/Utility wise they will stick around longer, just like the horse.)
>The same people who send soldiers into battle with Air-soft armor and cardboard inserts cannot into Helicopters and Tanks
Truly it is a mystery OP.
if tanks are so useless now why are both russians and ukes so desperate to get a hold of as many more as they can?
why did all major powers keep increasing tank production in WW2 even when tens of thousands of them got knocked out?
>tanks and helicopters are now useless
No, tanks and helicopters are now useless against the west
wtf are they smoking
https://tass-ru.translate.goog/politika/16150577?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
I know!
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/55555b30-ed4d-4fe9-af19-7f0a72eaa5b8
You could equally argue on the same logic that this war has proven that through Kalshnikov rifle is also useless. But we all know that isn't so. You can have the best equipment in the world, but in the hands of untrained, undisciplined and poorly led morons, it doesn't count for shit.
>my threads on F35 failures keep getting me banned
>but OP can spam whatever crock of horseshit he wants because its pro-Uko propaganda
Maybe the issue is the lens you are analysizing the threads through?
tanks are not obsolete. At worst a tank is a direct fire support platform. Nothing can replace that.
attack helicopters are. Their job can be done by drones- recon and strike
>attack helicopters are. Their job can be done by drones- recon and strike
Can't operate a drone that carries 16 hellfire missiles from a field, can't have it hug the earth and pop up to fire either.
At least until they make a serious attack helicopter drone.
>Can't operate a drone that carries 16 hellfire missiles
In a near peer conflict you will get shit coming your way after engaging 2 targets max. Might as well rtb after that
>cant do popup
I think popup attacks work on a false pretense that helicopter is safe behind a hill and engages a known threat. Ukraine has showed us that even static frontlines are "leaky" and a manpads team can be anywhere to whoop your ass
t. tried this tactic in dcs multiplayer
>In a near peer conflict you will get shit coming your way after engaging 2 targets max. Might as well rtb after that
Hellfire is a fire and forget missile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-78_Longbow
>The APG-78 is capable of simultaneously tracking up to 128 targets and engaging up to 16 at once; an attack can be initiated within 30 seconds.
It's meant to pick off as many targets as it can in a very short amount of time.
>I think popup attacks work on a false pretense that helicopter is safe behind a hill and engages a known threat. Ukraine has showed us that even static frontlines are "leaky" and a manpads team can be anywhere to whoop your ass
Well, then you maybe lose a helicopter, that is war, shit gets broke.
the problem is not how many targets you can engage simultaneously its how many targets present themselves at one time. These multikill shots like taking out an entire tank platoon with one salvo are plausible but probably rare.
If you have good intelligence and lets say have set up target points beforehand its possible but then it becomes a question of if there are platforms to do the job with less risk
>If you have good intelligence
That's the big difference between NATO and its enemies, so much money has gone into that. Apaches would be half the cost or less without all those sensors and communications gear.
>but then it becomes a question of if there are platforms to do the job with less risk
Ones that can immediately take off from a field and stay under the radar? Because a Predator style drone is open to high flying radar guided missile attacks.
Well if its a Pre Planned target, artillery has even better response time with much less risk. Or himars. Or a cruise missile. Or a suicide drone.
If youre talking deep penetration strikes those are just not happening. Way too risky.
Why yes, having lots of options is a good idea. None of those will bring the pain of 2 dozen Apache helicopters nor does artillery have the flexibility to be transferred 300km away in an hour. Attack helicopters have incredible mobility and can be where you need them quick.
>flies into your window
Nothing personnel
New HIMARS kills just dropped?
webm related: proof hammers and nails are useless.
>hang out on a highway straight
>Ma Dews
I mean they have to fly down those road b/c Russia is in the 1960s, so you could easily smack them down.
>12 O'clock Igor
I don't think there is inherently an engineering problem with those helicopters, they fly and shoot just fine. The fact is simply, they get shot down. I think attack helicopters should be used by the police and not the army.
How would an Apache counter MANPADs?
>How would an Apache counter MANPADs?
See the MANPAD man before he sees you and shoot him essentially
Has this been tested out? The "easily" part
Yes.
I said essentially not easily. The apache has hig rez high magnification stabilized thermal optics, using that and good communications with other assets in the area, the apache knows where you are before you do and kills you in a way that does not allow you to kill it back
>How would an Apache counter MANPADs?
Not get shot at by them in the first place, and kill you over the horizon.
>How would an Apache counter MANPADs?
Apache's Hellfire missile can fire from the edge of or outside the range of MANPAD's, besides that they have IR jammers and flairs.
People keep talking about the cost of the missile used to kill an Apache as if it's not true for any weapon, birth a man, feed, raise and school him, train him in the army and equip him with weapons and kit, hundreds of thousands of dollars and a $.50 bullet kills him? Sounds like soldiers are obsolete.
It's not about the cost of the helicopter but the amount of damage it can do to the enemy before it croaks and picrel can do a lot of damage.
>I think attack helicopters should be used by the police and not the army.
What do police need with Hellfire missiles?
If your tech level isn't to the point of makign specific hardcore maintenance second nature to your lowest citizens who are likely to work on helos, then helos are trash.
Better off with Turcanos or crop dusters tbqh.
Helos have like 15 totally unique and bespoke parts that are ridiculously expensive and that can't be reduced. So if you can't keep them in the latest generation, they're a waste.
Wind turbines can't exist without cheap (ecologically disastrous) rare earth metals. It's not possible to put copper and huge magnets up there to generate power from wind, the mathematics drop off the curve and not worth.
Helos are that way. If you don't ahve necessarily rare, bespoke parts on them, they fricking suck.
IN fact helos probably kept russia in the advanced Industrial Age and they recognize that, and just forging rotor shafts and shit like that keeps Russia from being a Khazaki tipi village.
But anyway if you really can't field a *force* of helos that are really effective, they are not worth it.
Intercontinental bombing before the 707 and jet age is the same way. Completely, utterly expense waste of money, Russia should nto have even tried tbqf.
Russia should give up on helos and focus on QC. They'd be better off with quality roads, railroads, and other basic infrastructure first.
>Soldier dies in 1 bullet
>have to wait 18 years before you can get another soldier
Humans are obsolete
attack helicopters are the technology that’s actually going obsolete/replaced by drones any marginal benefits (if there is any) of helicopters is offset by price. The difference in weapons and survivability is practically zero. Tanks can’t really be replaced doctrine-wise where as drones and attack helicopters can have the same armament.
Not saying that attack helicopters are useless but they are expensive. Also not saying transport helicopters are obsolete.
It's sad to find that the KA52 sucks, I've always thought it was the most aesthetically pleasing attack chopper.
So does that mean paratroopers aren't obsolete after all
If their apparent replacements aren't worth shit
we should just combine them. have B2's drop air deployable attack helis deep behind enemy lines.
>what went wrong?
drones are more efficient
only need a spectrum from high cost high altitude recon and detection drones down to cheaper drones of varying range and payload and cost to match particular target and risk
artillery and missiles for targets above/beyond conventional drone payload and range, assisted in targeting by.....more drones
remote pilots are safer w/ higher morale
raytheon and lockheed martin are happy because they have higher granularity of pricing and steady churn of drone replacement
really the only thing drones cant do yet is be a stable low caliber gun platform
you'll have dirt cheap drone racers with 9mm zipping and weaving through cities soon enough, popping homosexuals in the head and zipping away, or just dropping grenades
>you'll have dirt cheap drone racers with 9mm zipping and weaving through cities soon enough, popping homosexuals in the head and zipping away, or just dropping grenades
low latency remote video is too unreliable for fast agile drone piloting
video works for drone missile or payload drop platforms because because they operate above the buildings and trees that obstruct higher frequency band, nor do they need to quickly dart around
>helicopters getting shot down
>drones getting shot down
>planes getting shot down
>tanks getting destroyed
>wheeled vehicles getting destroyed
>artillery getting destroyed
>ships getting sunk
>infantry getting killed
The Ukraine war has objectively proven that literally all military technology is obsolete and useless.
t. a couple absolute morons on PrepHole
out of all of these the attack helicopter one has the most merit. just by being outcompeted by drones like bayraktar, just like how scout helicopters got replaced by drones
so like...
the army is working on making active protection systems for helicopters right?
if they work on tanks... they might work on aircraft.