Obviously there is still use for the general form factor of rotary-wing aircraft for things like logistics, infil/exfil and search and rescue in rugged and remote environments where no airstrip is present. But in terms of actual combat effectiveness in the age of drone warfare it seems more jeopardized than the tank.
>>64410199The next gen fighters will be optionally manned, the next gen attack choppers will be unmanned.
>>64410205I assume these would come with active protection systems to hard counter micro-drones?
It died with the proliferation of MANPADs. Hell the US government is so embarrassed by the number of helos that were shot down by volley firing RPGs alone that officials refuse to disclose the actual number. This is to say nothing of the MANPADs pumped into Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan by Russia and China. By 2005 with the shoot down of Turbine 33 it had become literal fucking suicide to fly anywhere near a target as was proved by the later shoot down of Extortion 17.
>>64410199they're likely to stop being manned, and redesigned to have no considerations for a ground crew. think the MQ-1 but with an autocannon as well. something that armies are much more willing to lose than a crewed vehicle, perhaps with controls available directly to soldiers in the field requesting it's support.
>>64410297So a drone on steroids
>>64410199Well they canceled FARA and there’s been a couple concepts floating around suggesting they intend to just start hucking “launched effects” out the side of an MV-75. It isn’t nearly as cool as attack helicopters were but doesn’t seem to be a capability loss, may well improve payload, and is probably a lot safer.
>>64410241>picGoddamn that kit must be brutal to drag around.
>>64410199I think it's fair to say yes. Of course armies who already possess lots of good helis won't suddenly throw them away, but modern communications and the proliferation of small drones make the role attack helis were originally designed for (stopgapping armor rushes) obsolete, and of course replace them at COIN too. And they're now suicide chariots in a conventional peer war. The unmanned blackhawk at AUSA2025 is the future of helis. They're still useful for medevac and resupply, and maybe ferrying some missiles around, but the frontline era is over.
>>64410199Since the US got rid of their AC-130 gunships, we might see more use of helicopter gunships. I hope we get unmanned ones.
I'm no zigger, but attack helicopters did a lot of damage to the Ukrainian counter-offensive. Mostly as platforms for long range atgm in a defensive role.
>>64410530They got rid of the ac-130? Last I heard they were still in use in the sand box.
>>64410199The real irony is that dronefags are half right that they rendered something obsolete, not the tank but one of its old countermeasures instead. Really though attack helos have been in a tenuous role since day one since they're still vulnerable to WWII-era gun AA and just about everything else does its job better>ground poundingFixed wings deliver more fucks per minute>tank bustingATGMs already did that and now drones can do the same with the same reaction time>reconDone better by drones since I was in diapers>low level assaultsWas a terrible idea in the 80s and even worse nowDoes make me wonder what's supposed to support transport helos, if they'll be accompanied by fixed wings or if we'll see the return of the apache gunship/ hindification of helicopters
>>64410199>Is the attack helicopter dead?who keeps making these threads?its just empirically false since almost every country has large stocks of attack helos>Obviously there is still use for the general form factor of rotary-wing aircraft for things like logistics, infil/exfil and search and rescue in rugged and remote environments where no airstrip is presentand obviously, you want helicopters with guns to protect them and provide top cover while they unload>But in terms of actual combat effectiveness in the age of drone warfare it seems more jeopardized than the tank.thats just false, the US is making an upgraded apache with drone integration and its expected to serve into 2050
>>64410241can MANPADs provide close support to infantry?
>>64410809>Fixed wings deliver more fucks per minutefixed wings cant hover and they cant operate as close to the front>ATGMs already did that and now drones can do the same with the same reaction timeattack helos do it better than ATGMs since they can flydrones are one-and-done weapons whereas helos are better able to react to changing battlefield conditions since its a carrier for munitions and not one itself>Done better by drones since I was in diapersbut as general purpose air cav, the attack helop is still better>Does make me wonder what's supposed to support transport helosattack helosd
>>64410199Russia's Ka-50s worked well enough in a QRF role that the US gave them Ukraine go ahead to burn through their ATACMS targeting them on the runway. I don't see any future where a giant platform loitering near the front with a few tons of precision armaments under its wings isn't going to be relevant and modern militaries seem to agree with how they continue to purchase and upgrade them.
>>64410241literal rounding error
I'm not explaining this yet again, go read why you're a retard here https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/64368132/#64368671
>>64410586I'd be pleasantly surprised if that was the case. I know they retired the AC-130H in 2015 and the AC-130U in 2020. If there's any model that's still in service, then I hope it also eventually gets an unmanned variant.
>>64411090The AC-130J is now in service, based off the super herc.
>>64410199there is no age of drone warfareAH-64E with most modern self defense suite defeats all MANPAD and drone threatsobserve how competent militaries do not follow the turdie trend of replacing everything with a FPV copter
>>64410199Helos become helo sized drones
>>64411113I am pleasantly surprised. AC-130 in Mars, while each pilot gets a 1911.
>>64410199Yes, it's over.The FARA is kill and Army Aviation is on the chopping block
>>64410222Dual feed for the autocannon so it can throw 3P ammunition would work as APS so long as your detection is good enough.
Related>Army begins ‘talent panels’ to cut 6,500 manned aviation jobshttps://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2025/10/15/army-begins-talent-panels-to-cut-6500-manned-aviation-jobs/
>>64410534>I'm not a Zigger>THE Ukrainian counteroffensive>Circa 2023
ATGM slingers with unparalled operational mobility are still useful
>>64411575It’s over
>>64411651But we know that zigger helicopters were a significant problem for that offensive, because Biden was a pussy who wouldn't send ATACMS so those helos could operate in close proximity
>>64410241>insurgents shot down a billion helicopters with RPGs but the US Army is hiding all the evidenceYou just can't aim for shit.>Two helicopters lost.>Six years apart.>Literal fucking suicideyeah
I have opined in the last thread, and standy my point, that considering what we know about possibly technologies, given a sufficiently advanced enemy, and sufficiently advanced own systems, attack helicopters have so marginal utility that they are not worth the cost any more. Obviously we're not there yet and russia possibly never will be.
>>64411575>Cuts manned helicopters before an unmanned replacement's even on the horizon.Hegseth's intellect knows no bounds.
>>64410322Don't worry though, by adding the word 'drone' the price of an attack helicopter drops from $52 million to $200.
>>64413211>he doesn't knowTroons outing themselves again. It's all so tiresome.
>>64410199If missiles didn't kill the attack helicopter then why would a slower, shorter ranged missile kill the attack helicopter?
>>64410199No. The attack helicopter is the only asset division and corps commanders have that can maneuver in the enemy's deep area. Instead of operations over the front line, you'll see doctrine shift towards using them flying deep raids in the enemy's rear.>but manpadsVast majority are clustered on the front line. Once you're behind that, the threat decreases rapidly>but bigger ADA missilesNot set up to defeat very low, close targets.
>>64413283Why send a maintenance-intense, manned, short-ranged, short-endurance, highly vulnerable, highly visible platform which costs a lot when you could launch some drones to do it?
>>64413283>have that can maneuver in the enemy's deep area. IThey cant.They can shoot missiles over frontline, staying over friendly territory. Its their only real value now.And even doing that the clock is ticking. As inventors woudl start make helicopters interceptors from jet powered RC planes, this would be completely over for helicopters, they wouldn't be able even approach to front lines.
>>64413314>they wouldn't be able even approach to front lines
>>64410199Helicopters are obsolete for CAS because of the proliferation of MANPADs on the front lines. But they can rapidly move past the front lines, minimizing their time in the zone with heavy air defenses to harass the enemy's back lines. A savvy enemy will anticipate this and layer their air defenses hundreds of miles deep instead of tens of miles, but this greatly increases the effectiveness of missiles and artillery at the front.So helicopters are still relevant, since even if it's unlikely that they'll have the opportunity to accomplish a huge amount in a real war, their presence still affects the way an enemy has to respond. There's also a chance that an enemy will disregard the helicopters entirely, thinking they're outdated and useless, in which case they will have an opportunity for a decisive strike.
>>64413283>can maneuver in the enemy's deep areaKarbala Raid in 2003, nigger, read about it. Even 22 years ago attack helis were pretty much useless
>>64413314>Helicopters can only operate where enemy air defenses are heaviestBrainlet take.
>>64413314Imagine a helicopter pilot thinking they've slipped past the manpads and HMGs only to watch one of these flying up their butt at 375mph with a warhead 10x bigger than a Stinger.
>>64413430>The Hellhound S3 combines speed, flexibility, and affordability in a compact form. It has a documented top speed of 384 miles per hour, enabling interception and destruction of Group 2 and Group 3 unmanned aircraft systems at ranges beyond 30km. Its modular design allows for rapid payload swaps – such as warheads, electronic warfare modules, or ISR packages – in under two minutes without tools. Leveraging 3D printing and Department of War-approved commercial components, the system is both cost-effective and logistics-friendly. The complete system, including the vehicle, launch canister, and ground control unit, weighs less than 25 pounds, allowing single-soldier deployment.The real take: Stingers and Strelas/Verbas are obsolete.
>>64413428See Russia-Ukraine war.KA-52 stooped crossing front-lines because MANPADS.But epyн can hover 6-8km behind front line and MANAPDS dont have range to reach them.Neither do long range SAMs liek Patriot, those are deployed far away for their safety and radio horizon prevent them from hitting helicopters. But this is temporary, swan song of the helicopters, because see above, jet powered drone interceptors woudl soon end this safety, drones would consume everything.
>>64410199They can stick with their original Cold War job, as operationally defensive tank hunters that can redeploy quickly and lurk behind terrain while (now) launching NLOS munitions. Using helicopters offensively was always just a way to justify their existence in a post-Cold War permissive environment against third world countries barely able to defend their air space.
>>64413413>Helicopters are can't maneuver behind enemy lines because they failed in an unsupported frontal assault against the best equipped unit in the Iraqi armyI don't get it, you'll have to explain this one for me.>>64413506Stop looking at Ukraine as an example of how modern warfare works, both sides are desperately poor, illiterate thirdies. Neither side has any meaningful capacity for SEAD so they're forced to use their helicopters in a CAS role where they've been obsolete for decades. The fact that they're still used at all is proof that attack helicopters are still very potent systems.Honestly, you might as well claim that Ukraine proves that air power in general is obsolete, it's not just helicopters that are being used in a very limited capacity.
>>64413568>best equippedLiterally S-60 and ZU-23. If modern helis are useless against early Cold War AA guns, then they have no place on any battlefield.
>>64413568>Honestly, you might as well claim that Ukraine proves that air power in general is obso... ACK!
>>64413598>1.5 years ago Nice air superiority you got there, mein zigger
>>64413568The lines got deeper. Nobody maneuvers with helicopters by going through the enemy zone; that's a tank officer on youtube playing the telephone game with doctrine.
>>64413453https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4W9IJjWpWE
>>64413603See air power can be very useful even without air superiority if you drop GWOT delusions and adapt to modern battlefieldThis thesis >>64413568 completely flopped.
>>64413661Extend range to 100 km and add Baba Yaga relay.
>>64413615>Army doctrine isn't what the Army says it is, it's what I guess it is based on how a completely different army uses their assets based on a completely different set of constraintsThe lines in Ukraine are not deep enough to protect against a helicopter raid supported by F-35 SEAD. If it was the US fighting that war, the Russians would have to move many of their SAMs even farther back in order to counter a potential helicopter raid. When they do that, it's a win for the American forces even if the helicopters never leave base. Spreading the Russian air defenses thinner increases the probability of success for ATACMS, TLAM, and JDAM strikes. The thing that you have to remember about countering enemy systems is that you still have to invest resources into countering those systems. You can't just assume they stop existing just because your counter exists. But if your enemy retires those systems because they're "obsolete," you're now freed from your obligation to counter them and can redirect your resources elsewhere.
>>64413283LMAO
>>64413598If indiscriminately dumping glide bombs into cities was the extent of the usefulness of air power, countries would not waste nearly as much money on it as they have been. I can also link you articles about the usefulness of helicopters as CAS, but that's not where their true value lies, either. The lack of SEAD on both sides has greatly hampered the effective employment of air assets all around. A war between modern militaries would not look anything like what's happening in Ukraine.
>>64413856SEAD wouldn't suppress MANPADS.
>>64413916Most glide bombs are drooped on Ukrainian front line fortifications.
>>64414153Could you imagine how terrifying it'd be to try and hit a jet with a stinger only to watch a HARM come barreling towards you
>>64414153MANPADs are more dangerous the longer you spend in their range. If instead of hanging out in the middle of battlefield providing CAS, you fly directly across their lines at maximum speed dumping flares and chaff while the enemy is being engaged by ground forces, your exposure to MANPADs is greatly limited. And remember that your goal here isn't even to use the helicopters at all, it's to force the enemy to redirect his assets to counter them just because they're there. And if he doesn't, then you punish him for it, and if 10% of your helicopters are shot down while crossing the front lines, well, some losses are expected in war, and they can inflict many times greater losses to the enemy's critical infrastructure.>>64414157Ukrainian fortifications like the city of Avdiivka.
>>64410199Every week you retarded brown window lickers ask the same question and every time you get the same replies which you refuse to acknowledge and interiorize, both out of bad will and lack of intellectual acumen.Now read slowly and carefully: HELICOPTERS ARE NOT USED FOR WHAT YOU THINK THEY ARE USED. You cannot use drones for everything, it actually takes a shitload of preparation for a drone strike that isn't necessarily going to work. Everyone always brings up Ukraine but refuses to actually research the kind of things both sides need to do in order to make drone warfare work and why they've settled into it like they have. Ukraine studies targets for months before launching attacks as deep as they go into refineries and shit, and they require very good hits to do the kind of damage to make it worth it. Russia spams shasneeds as fast as they can get them out of the production line just to keep up the pressure and test the Ukrainian defenses and infrastructure. A helicopter force can be a lot more flexible, it can bring more ordnance and deliver it better and shift to a more conventional CAS role.And it's not like attack helicopters aren't being used RIGHT NOW by both Ukraine and Russia to do impromptu indirect fire support from places and against targets against which counter battery fire is too punishing, to raid random locations or just scout where drone teams are short. Russia used them successfully to interdict attacks. Ukraine used them successfully for deep strike missions. Ukraine(And Israel) have used them very successfully for drone interception. Helicopters are very useful, having platforms you can strap almost every kind of munition and sensor to and fly them out of wherever are always useful.
>>64413413>SEAD done on schedule despite knowing the helicopters were running 3 hours late>gives Iraqis a 3 hour warning and time to recover>helicopters slowly orbiting low over urban terrain>helicopters had no idea where the target was and scattered into a disorganized search>target in fact never existed and was a prepared ambush>helicopters stay and fuck around for 30 minutes instead of leaving Like saying infantry is irrelevant because the Russians/Syrians got wrecked at Khasham.>>64413506As demonstrated by both sides only conducting attritional grinding attacks, neither the Russians or Ukrainians have the ability to create even a local SEAD breach. Ukraine doesn't illustrate anything for this topic.>>64414153SEAD against MANPADS is done the same way you'd suppress infantry in anyother situation.>>64413314>they can'tThey very much can. They don't just lazy fly towards the enemy FLOT. There's a SEAD breach opened to get the raid past the front where MANPADS density is the highest and into the rear area where MANPADS are very rare and spread out.
>>64410199maybe they can do the same do over as the U-Haul black hawk
>>64414217yet, SK cancelled it's Apache contract and the US Army is decimating it's manned aviationJapan also wants to replace it with drones
>>64414199How would a HARM detect a MANPADS, anon? It's a passive IR camera.>>64413856Compare the benefit helis provide for the benefit an equal amount of resources in literally anything else provide.>>64414217You're comparing peak Western tech to slavshit in order to make helis look good. Compare like to like.
>>64414389Both those countries don't plan to ever conduct warfare where they're going to be moving and advancing over large fronts, no fucking shit they're restructuring their armed forces>>64414391>You're comparing peak Western tech to slavshit in order to make helis look good. Compare like to like.no, i'm talking about slavshit. Ukraine and Russia use Hinds to intercept drones and attack. If they can do it, an Apache sure as fuck can do better.
>>64414395SK is definitely planning to fight, and on paper they would have a huge benefits from Apaches due to the peninsula's terrain. Yet they don't want it
>>64414411SK isn't planning on moving deep into NK, all their objectives are a stone throw away from the DMZ
>>64410199>Is the attack helicopter dead?yes and no
>>64414414>there is no point in a mobile ATGM against norks hordes two variants:1. worst Koreans are dumb 2. attack helicopters are useless in every application
>>64414420>mobile ATGM>on a strip smaller than some US countiesThere's literally nowhere else the tanks they need the bust could be, the pre-sighted artillery can do that job which is what Ukrainians do.But the actual real reason they're retiring them is because they need the money for other things even more.
>>64414391>Compare like to like.there is no peer adversary anywhere>Chinese attack helicopters are a credible threatno>We'll be going to war against people with eurocoptersno
>>64414427>zigger mindsetNo wonder you're fixated on helis. It's like a Russian general endlessly upgrading T72s for the drone age while your apparatchiks seal clap every time one survives a few drone hits saying it 'proves' drones don't matter.For the price of one helicopter's ammo you could buy a pack of OWAs with double the range and mesh radios to go deep, radio back anything neat, and kamikaze anything else. It's not even the unmanned or sensor aspects. Fixed wing drones beat helis on aerodynamics alone. That's why manned VTOLs are going tiltrotor while unmanned are going tailsitter.
>>64414444who are you talking to
Let's keep going: A common AH64D loadout has a combat radius of 300km on two short tons of fuel. It takes two crew about 10 minutes to load and fuel at a standard FARP, which has 4 pads and 25 mechanics serving 4 helis at a time. This is an utter artillery magnet of course. Say you're launching 4 helis. Let's contrast with Red Dragon, an American anti-vehicle OWA with a Hellfire warhead weighing 45lb and launched from a power-assisted rail. For the weight of one Apache's fuel, excluding ammo, crew, and the other helis, four men could launch 80 Red Dragons from 4 launch rails in less time than refueling one heli, and they'd go 100km farther scouting with 80 sensor viewpoints instead of 4, radioing everything their AI sees back into orbit and the local tac mesh relays. They even have more 20% more Hellfire warheads than the heli force.The scouting and logistics advantages of OWAs over helicopters are unbeatably good in peer warfare compared to helicopters.
>>64414511Now compare the same number of men. Instead of 33 men bunched up around multiple heavy fuel trucks launching 4 targets, you have 8 different sites spread out, each launching an 80-drone wave for 640 drones in the air, and you're still coming out ahead in fuel, ammo, capital costs, and truck footprints.
>>64414391>Compare the benefit helis provide for the benefit an equal amount of resources in literally anything else provide.Attack helicopters provide a huge amount of value just by existing, that's the point I've been making. Either your opponent has two brain cells to rub together and takes the necessary steps to counter them, which is a massive force multiplier for all of your other airborne assets without even needing to use your helicopters, or he's a retard that takes no steps to counter them, in which case they're not obsolete and they're capable of inflicting massive damage at relatively low risk.
>>64410199I don't understand, why are military industrial complex shills advocating for their useless faggy new gimmicks in 4chins ? as if anybody here has money to afford any of those things !
>>64414420Why would worst corea need their ATGMs to be mobile? It's not like they'd need to juggle multiple fronts.
>>64414555There are no special steps needed to counter them. Any force built to counter a modern force counters them by default. Indeed, ancient jank from half a century ago does!
>>64414580>Indeed, ancient jank from half a century ago does!thats just a bold faced lie
>>64414603Battle of Karbala, nigger. Or are you going to try being cute by saying that was ackshully tech from a full century ago because DShKs were invented in 1929?
>>64414580That's not true, because by default you only have heavy MANPAD coverage 10-20 miles deep and heavy SAM coverage 100-200 miles deep. Once the helicopters make it past that, they're free and clear to do whatever they want to you. The counter is to layer your AA deeper, but that makes them more vulnerable as they lose overlapping fields of fire against low-observable aircraft.>>64414616Helicopters circling around a city for half an hour looking for targets that aren't there are going to be vulnerable to a lot of things. That's not the same thing as hosing down some power substations with 30mm, cluster bombing a train station, and shooting enough Hellfires at a refinery to raze it to the ground, none of this "we hit it with a drone and now it's out of commission for a week" bullshit.
>>64414616>Battle of Karbalathats like saying infantry are obsolete because they took heavy casualties at the sommebut flares and mast-sensors give helos a huge advantage over MANPADs
>>64414681>That's not true, because by default you only have heavy MANPAD coverage 10-20 miles deep and heavy SAM coverage 100-200 miles deep. Once the helicopters make it past that, they're free and clear to do whatever they want to you. Fail AA architecture that gets unironically raped by fiber FPVs SEAD and Cessna drone deep strikes. Ziggeraq tier enemies are punching bags and hardly worthy of consideration.A near peer would have 5th and 6th gen ASF with AEW cover. In this era even Yeman have turbojet loitering anti-air munitions (SA-67) and some hobbyist can get you 350kph drones, only retarded forces rely on cold war ground only AA.
>>64415172>A near peer would have 5th and 6th gen ASFThen it's a good thing that the US has no neer peers by your definition and will not for the forseeable future.
>>64414708>flares>against IIR in anno domini 2000+25You get dumber every time I look. Are you a boomer who turned their brain off fifty years ago? Because it's hard to believe that an adult man would be this stupid, and a child would have been born decades after flares ceased to be a relevant item.
>>64415289By the United States military's own definition China is our near peer, and they've been quietly editing the near part out for the part few years.
>>64414708>sensor mastsIt's not the cold war. Nobody is shooting Apaches in the front because today we have depth.
>>64415389>It's not the cold warsensor masts are still exceedingly relevant, because it allows them to pick targets and fire without exposing themselves for more than a few seconds
>>64415386Okay, so anon's definition is bullshit since China has neither fifth nor sixth generation fighters.
>>64415381Igla isn't immune to flares regardless of what the ziggers claim.
>>64415394>he doesn't even understand depth You are exposed from the other 270 degrees when you fly into the enemy zone. A building in front of you doesn't protect from a gun shooting you in the back.>>64415395By the United States military's own official statements, China has hundreds of fifth generation fighters and is building about a hundred more every year. Get the fuck outta here fudd.
>>64415409>A building in front of you doesn't protect from a gun shooting you in the back.so you dont know how the mast sensor is used, that clears up a lot
>>64415409>By the United States military's own official statementsThey're lying to get more funding. Many such cases. They're not wrong to do it though, this is how we get sixth gens before China has proper fifth gens.
>>64415400>assuming rusty russian cold war crap is the standard because you can't cope with anything betterA basic modern thirdie missile like Iran's 358 is completely immune. All imaging-era missiles are, and all missiles built with modern cameras are imaging missiles.
>>64415415You're lying. You're a brown fudd seething online to save face rather than objectively discuss technological facts.
>>64415400>>64415419Flares are becoming obsolete, but that's mostly because laser countermeasures are more efficient now.
>>64415425NTA but stop shrieking like a hysterical woman
>>64416734Then post something better than ouright lies, ad homs, kneejerks and vibes. I gave an example: >>64414511 . Do yours.
>>64415394>allows them to pick targets and fire without exposing themselves for more than a few secondsson, it is fucking 2025. we have real-time datalinks from humint on the other side. I'd place good money that DARPA can hit a tank with a hellfire better than 60% of the time based on nothing more than AI inference, never mind real data. the ukraine war has shown us abundant footage of individual soldiers being individually targeted by HIMARS submunitions. if you really, REALLY want or need a sensor package you can just put it on a P-8 or a bunch of starlink sats.
>>64416937You lied in your example. An Apache has a combat radius of 300 miles, not kilometers.
>>64410860>who keeps making these threads?its just empirically false since almost every country has large stocks of attack helosThis is a mind-bogglingly retarded line of reasoning. The 'empirical' fact that large stocks of X still exist has absolutely nothing to do with its effectiveness or with what militaries are planning to do with it in the future—it is completely irrelevant to the question of whether it's obsolete. I don't even care either way. I barely post on this reddit 2.0 of a hellsite anymore, I simply just wanted to tell you how retarded and disingenuous you are.
>>64417011The trouble with satellite photography is that there's this obscure atmospheric phenomenon known as "clouds". It's pretty rare so I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it, but when it does occur it's a major problem.
>>64417526>tfw your panopticon-esque surveillance state equipment gets cockblocked by your population-control-conspiracy chemtrails.
>>64410534The Russians have been using the very effective LMUR missile over the front line but the drone threat has shown the writing on the wall for everyone to see. Sure, the Apache has better avionics than the Ka-52, but it isn't THAT much better, not enough to evade a swarm of autonomous drones.
>>64413568>both sides are desperately poor, illiterate thirdiesImagine believing this utter nonsense. Both sides have been feverishly innovating new weapons and tactics from day one of the SMO. Both armies have undergone radical doctrinal changes in response to evolving battlefield conditions. This war is the most intensive military testing ground since the Spanish Civil War.
>>64418277Both can be true at the same time. A nigger welding an anti aircraft gun to a pickup truck is innovating new weapons and tactics but that doesn't mean it's the future of warfare.
>>644182911904 Russo-Japanese War vibes all over again
>>64418277Both sides have had to innovate new weapons and tactics because the weapons and tactics they have are cold war era slavshit. They invariably end up using Western weapons and tactics or knockoffs thereof, modified to account for the fact that both sides are desparately poor, illiterate thirdies. I get that you're desperate to find some meaning in your country destroying itself, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Russian Federation has never been relevant in its entire existence, and this war is simply evidence of its continued irrelevancy.
>>64418924>basing your critiques around countries you call irrelevantYou're only dunking on yourself. If you had a strong position you'd be measuring dicks against China or Western MICs.
helicopters will become drone motherships repeaters.simple as.
