Poland has 96 Apaches on order, while some number of them was needed to replace Mi-24s, buying that many is widely considered a retarded political purchase here and a waste of money that would be better spent on combat jets and transport helos. That being said what can be done to mitigate the losses at this point? Both current and previous governments won't renegotiate the contract.
>>65496102>That being said what can be done to mitigate the losses at this point?Basically flying very, very low. They can still be surprisingly useful in this way, it's just that both russia and ukraine are low on choppers at this point so they're used sparingly (something like 2/3 to 3/4 of the KA-52 fleet has visually confirmed shoot-downs, with more presumably cannibalized for parts)The other thing is that they're still extremely useful against general mechanized pushes, which we obviously don't see much of in Ukraine any more, but the use case is still there.
>>65496102>>65496115Use them for the inevitable zerg rush through the Suwalki Gap.
wow its almost like international arms deals are about politics not combat effectiveness
>>65496102>That being said what can be done to mitigate the losses at this point?Incorporate more modern attack helos into your doctrine and planning I guess? Have more air patrol available for if/when russia tries more "deniable" fuck-fuck games? I'm sure a whole-ass armed force can figure out a way to use 100 hovering missile trucks.
>>65496102>That being said what can be done to mitigate the losses at this point?Actually train your pilots and add more modern and effective ew suites to the platform
>>65496102>more transport helos instead of papachesBut they already are.
>>65496102Polish procurement has been "oh shit, buy anything that can be delivered fast" for the last 3 years.I suspect they will onsell a lot of it after the longer lead time items start turning up.
they're really cool though
>>65496102helicopters remain extremely valuable mobile defensive ATGM platforms, obviously the Russians have numerous MRADS so it's a bit different from when Ukraine was going up against them back in '23, but Apaches have way better missiles and datalink up their sleeves, so it kinda balances out, plus NATO / Polish SEAD / DEAD effectiveness would help mitigate the risk to them. I highly doubt any Russian attack on NATO would not be centered around a mechanized push, so having the ability to rapidly plug gaps across a wide front is still useful.
>>65496102>buying that many is widely considered a retarded political purchase here>a waste of money
>>65496102Have then run border patrol duties against flying drones (shaheeds) and ground drones (belarusians)
>>65496102Obviously attack helicopters are diminished in capability now, but it's still important to have some to act as a deterrent. They could still annihilate an actual mobile column and knowing your opponent has helicopters available means you need to bring your anti-aircraft with any advance.
If Apaches were still viable the US would be using them in Hormuz right now
>>65497006Looks like Apaches are still viable then
Even though it doesn't directly concern me, I worry about Poland's annual military spending.
>>65496102do what the greeks didthrow money at israel to get spike nlos replace the retarded eots of apache with something competitiveinstal a bidirectional link 16 instead of a one way bs it has its basicly a new variant by now
>>65497047>to get spike nlos replace the retarded eots of apachewhat's wrong with apache eots?
>>65497077you know when was the last time tads was ever upgraded?you guessed it NEVER
>>65497006congrats, this is the most nigger brained retard logic ive seen in a few weeks
>>65497011kek
>>65497006They are using them in Hormuz extensively
>>65497006Apaches weren't designed for combat in wide open spaces. Their main purpose was for fighting soviet armor pushes via hiding just beneath tree top height with sensor cluster exposed then popping up to throw a hellfire at them then disappear beneath the canopy again. They rely on concealment to be effective.
>>65496115>but the use case is still there.And when you do use em, you will lose them way faster than your max production rate of 50 a year, or whatever
>>65499038>when you do use em, you will lose them way faster than your max production rateThis is the case for all modern weapon systems, what is your point?Beyond a deeply philosophical discussion about war being waste while puffing on a Gaullois and sipping a black coffee?
>Helicopters in 2026grim
