3 ms·

>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 expensi

>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 way you take territory, there's no alternative, even if drones start taking helicopters or expensive vehicles out it's the only thing that is mobile and packs a punch and protects your infantry.

matusp 2y ago
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.
- ikrenji 2y ago
  when UAF was ramping up the counter offensive wherever they made any gains into the minefields a couple of ka-52s showed up and shut that down. UAF had no answer to them as their ATGMs simply outrange any SHORAD that UAF has...
  - matusp 2y ago
    True, but I can easily see that the same role - short range airstrikes - could be played by drone teams in the future. They also have the capability to observe and strike targets over the treelines. And in top of that, they are cheaper, easier to scale and maintain, and do not require vulnerable airfields to operate. Of course Russians will use their helis, they already built them, but nobody will probably seriously think about developing and building new helis in the future.
adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
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.
- bnralt 2y ago
  KA-52 helicopters were considered to be a one of the big obstacles that Ukraine faced during their 2023 counteroffensive. "Military briefing: Russian ‘Alligators’ menace Ukraine’s counteroffensive"[1]: > Justin Bronk, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think-tank, said Russian helicopters fitted with anti-tank guided missiles “were always going to be a much greater threat to Ukrainian forces during a counteroffensive than during periods when Ukraine was defending against Russian attacks”. > “They can hover, spot for targets and fire anti-tank guided missiles from beyond the range of shoulder-fired Manpads or anti-aircraft fire,” Bronk said. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/d8fe8941-3703-433d-ac7a-dab9ba500481 https://www.ft.com/content/d8fe8941-3703-433d-ac7a-dab9ba500...
  - pas 2y ago
    without air superiority both sides have extreme artillery dependence
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    Yeah, attack helicopters means you have ATGMs with twice the range and very good optics for battlefield awareness. Sure manpads means it's difficult to use them over contested territory, but they are still very strong if you keep them on your side of the front.

matusp 2y ago

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.

ikrenji 2y ago
when UAF was ramping up the counter offensive wherever they made any gains into the minefields a couple of ka-52s showed up and shut that down. UAF had no answer to them as their ATGMs simply outrange any SHORAD that UAF has...
- matusp 2y ago
  True, but I can easily see that the same role - short range airstrikes - could be played by drone teams in the future. They also have the capability to observe and strike targets over the treelines. And in top of that, they are cheaper, easier to scale and maintain, and do not require vulnerable airfields to operate. Of course Russians will use their helis, they already built them, but nobody will probably seriously think about developing and building new helis in the future.

adgjlsfhk1 2y ago

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.

bnralt 2y ago
KA-52 helicopters were considered to be a one of the big obstacles that Ukraine faced during their 2023 counteroffensive. "Military briefing: Russian ‘Alligators’ menace Ukraine’s counteroffensive"[1]: > Justin Bronk, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think-tank, said Russian helicopters fitted with anti-tank guided missiles “were always going to be a much greater threat to Ukrainian forces during a counteroffensive than during periods when Ukraine was defending against Russian attacks”. > “They can hover, spot for targets and fire anti-tank guided missiles from beyond the range of shoulder-fired Manpads or anti-aircraft fire,” Bronk said. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/d8fe8941-3703-433d-ac7a-dab9ba500481 https://www.ft.com/content/d8fe8941-3703-433d-ac7a-dab9ba500...
- pas 2y ago
  without air superiority both sides have extreme artillery dependence
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  Yeah, attack helicopters means you have ATGMs with twice the range and very good optics for battlefield awareness. Sure manpads means it's difficult to use them over contested territory, but they are still very strong if you keep them on your side of the front.