How long does manned rotary mobility have in the face of unmanned drone usage?
>>65549247About tree fiddy.
>>65549247wiped out the russian helicopter fleet so tactics are adjusted.
>>65549247As long as there is a need to insert troops it will be around. Nobody is going to ride on a helo without pilots in the front.
>>65549260As an offensive element, though, would you say that drones have taken over?
>>65549262no. youre just a drone groupie thats not even educated.
>>65549268How about I rape your dad faggot
>>65549247Basically no time whatsoever. They're expensive, fragile, exposed, low payload targets just sitting in the air for any flying toy to gang up on. Maybe they have some minor value in being fast long range missile busses, operating far behind the front, but-high end airplanes (think F35) can do the same at comparable cost but way, way better-low end airplanes (think bayraktar) can do the same at far, far lower cost
>Is [x] obsolete because drooooooones?No.
>>65549307>Is cavalry obsolete because of machiiiiiiine guns? No.
>>65549262Inserting troops IS the offensive element. The attack helicopter is it's support.
>>65549247People seem to have forgotten that Russian helicopters were instrumental in repulsing Ukrainian offensives in summer 2023. Modern guided weapons allow them to reach targets well beyond 10km, and they can do so quicker and more flexible than pretty much any other weapon system. They will probably never again do attack runs with unguided rockets at the line of contact, but a flight of Apaches linked into a theater-wide sensor-shooter network vomiting 30+ Brimstone-like missiles is going to stop any sort of armored assault in a 150km radius.Also attack helos are an underrated tool against Shahed-type OWAs.
>>65549307It's not just drones. It's an entire datalinked ecosystem of smart assets. When the sensor drone relayed your position and speed to the relay drone who relayed it to the AA missile carrier vehicle who launched a lock on after launch AA missile to kill you, all in a manner of seconds, it wasn't the drone that killed you, but you're still dead.
>>65549324>>65549324Ukraine didn't have the kind of AA scheme that a modern industrial nation could come up with, given current levels of tech.>>65549331And if you're thinking of just giving your helicopters longer range missiles, refer to>>65549293
>>65549331This is very brown coded. Might as well have posted a Dahir Insaat video
>>65549388Oh no, my favourite cool toy might become useless! Better defend it on tibetan basket weaving forums by calling people brown!
>>65549324For arguments sake why couldn't a drone with data link do the exact same thing?
>>65549247They'll just make these launch drones instead of missilesEverything that is "replaced" by drones is just gonna become a drone launching platform, only a fucking moron, an actual drooling retard doesn't realize this
>>65549247Transports aren't going anywhere, attack choppers might die off over the next couple of decades or maybe they will become drone launch platforms.
>>65549388You are brown.
>>65549521>For arguments sake why couldn't a drone with data link do the exact same thing?There is no reason why the next generation of attack helos needs to be manned, but for now that's what's available, so you might as well use it. I just think that there exitsts a niche for a highly mobile weapons platform that can carry a lot of ordnance and pop up where the enemy doesn't expect it. Not every future war will be an attritional shitfest like Ukraine, and this sort of thing can dominate more dynamic battlefields.
>>65549293>-high end airplanes (think F35) can do the same at comparable cost but way, way betterStrike fighters are intentionally based further back to force the longest range ballistic missiles (ergo, the fewest or none) to be used against them.>-low end airplanes (think bayraktar) can do the same at far, far lower costAre not STOVL/VTOL and will typically be deployed from more formal bases regardless, meaning runways or field runways which are exposed to short range ballistic missile or even GMLRS class threats.>Smaller drone/airplanesOr crop dusters/WW2 fighter-esque things (Skytractor) and the drone equivalent which can run off even shittier runways since you didn't mention them exist too. Also very high exposure to long range fires if based up front.>Helicopters/VTOLsHave the benefit of being able to chuck fast munitions* (like all of the above) before landing at a FARP or impromptu field rearmament point before fucking off quickly within minutes. Can be based a bit far back because VTOL landing and refueling.Helicopters aren't obsolete they just have another role in the ever evolving battlefield and also gained another set of munitions (micro-cruise missiles/"loitering mumnitions." They also gained a role with the low end and STOL planes category of being loitering munition hunters.*FPV drones are relatively slow. One of the roles they have is akin to a super long range NLOS ATGM with their speed being well below subsonic but it allows for ground forces to have their 10km sniper rifle. ATGMs proper can be fast to 5-10km and deliver a whole lot of kaboom. This is all just a sliding spectrum of engineering compromises given weight, volume and expense.
>>65549247Ye olde Air-Land Battle doctrine regarding the role of attack helicopters never yielded worthwhile results when tested. Making those munitions remotely operated is the first chance anyone has had to make real use of the old "wolfpack" idea.
two more weeks
>>65549317Did you think you had a point here?
>>65549260>Nobody is going to ride on a helo without pilots in the front.I'm sure similar things were said about jumping out of planes a century ago. People will sign up for anything, and failing that, can be ordered in any case
>>65549260>>65549975Pilotless aircraft carrying people is going to happen and it'll happen in the military first because you can order them on.That said I have no idea if it'll be in 10 years or 100.
>>65549247They're already obsolete. Helos will still be around as basically flying APCs but not as frontline combatants.
>>65549678FAPRs are of dubious survivability in a battlespace where you have to assume that there is a drone watching every single patch of dirt within 50km of the frontline. If you need to sit your FARP 80km back to be safe from casual observation, then suddenly your helicopters need to travel 60-70km at minimum to do their job, at which point there isn't much benefit over sending a fast jet from an airfield 200km away that can get close enough to drop glide bombs in about the same timeframe, and if the jet is a 5th gen it is also a hell of a lot less vulnerable to getting spotted by other aircraft and capable of doing a lot more things.
>>65550038The main advantage attack choppers have over fast air is faster target finding , shorter kill chains and rapid engagement.Spending 10 minutes talking a jet onto the building that is shooting at you sucks a lot worse than a chopper low and close enough to see it themselves and just ask the FAC if he's cleared hot.
>>65550054>seeBrother, we're heading towards a world where everything more valuable than a walkie talkie needs its own layered SHORAD net and unmanned aircover in order to not fucking die to a dozen different flavors of guided munitions and drone corrected fires. Your helicopter isn't going to *see* anything. It isn't going to fly over the front lines like it is 1991. Your helicopter is going to get relayed its targeting information from a cheap attritable drone like every other fucking thing has to now, and it is going to lob munitions from over a hill that is at *least* 10km away from the nearest possible enemy position because any closer and it is at risk of getting blapped by some chucklefuck with a manpad tube just like what happened over in Kursk, and even 10km is putting it at risk from long range A2A munitions and interceptor drones.If you just want a tool to bully durkas with nothing more dangerous than a dshka then yeah, attack helis will work alright, but in a serious war they are an unfortunate casualty of the mass proliferation of cheap guided munitions, unmanned systems and the transparent battle space.
>>65549247Just so that your tiny little third rate brain can understand it, it's really fucking hard to hit a helicopter with a fpv drone if it's not sitting on the ground. These aren't going to be stationary, they're fast. You'll need an interceptor drone for a better chance, and it's doable but we have MANPADS for a raisin
>>65550458Look at how many near peer wars have happened in the last 80 years.I'm all for having some stuff for peer conflict but we live in a reality where they are extremely rare and we are much more likely to be dunking on durkas.
>>65550472Judging by recent history, you are more likely to be launching standoff munitions at durkas while never setting foot in their country outside of the occasional search and rescue. Attack helis aren't particularly good in that kind of war either given their underwhelming range and poor max altitude.
>>65549247They are not as doomed as tanks and can be very useful if paired with good EW and surprise assaults into the gray zone. However they are just shot down too easily to be a common vehicle very close to the front line, so their actual usage in the modern era is to harass other air power and ferry troops in difficult terrain.The former role of helicopters has been shifted to octocopters and heavy bomber vampire drones, which unlike helicopters today are more or less produced fast enough to keep up with the how often they get destroyed. Especially with fiber optics drones waiting for an easy kill, you can't risk such a valuable asset anymore or you just lose them all like Russia did with their Ka-52 fleet
>>65550488Honestly, I think they are more doomed than tanks are. Tanks at least have no ready substitute until UGVs get good enough to navigate challenging terrain on their own, which likely won't be for at least a couple of decades. If you want to end a war without both sides spending a decade burning each other's economy down with standoff strikes then you need maneuver warfare to take ground quickly, and tanks + IFVs remain the best option for doing that. Meanwhile, attack helicopters have a bunch of competition that can do basically the same thing as them, so anyone looking to procure hardware for a future force composition is probably going to just use something else even if existing platforms remain useful.
>>65549975>>65549980>order them onmoronicthis is how you waste soldiers on unproven technology, obliterate morale AND erase peoples willingness to sign up for your military in one action.Volunteer force military structures simply cannot rely on "You are ordered to do the retarded thing" because the people involved are able to leave and even if they dont leave immediately they will become minimum effort check collectors and separate later without training their replacements well or at all.People will willingly get on the drone transport AFTER the drone transport has flown supply and recon runs without incident for a decade. But if you ORDER someone to get on the unproven tech they'll balk. Particularly in the modern age where news of mishaps travels fast.This sort of thing can only happen in places where the soldiers are conscript with no recourse. So like, china will do it. Pack thousands of conscripts into drone dropships and fling them at Taiwan knowing full well 2/3 of them will die on the way.But you do something like that in the US, first time something goes wrong you get crucified at court martial, and then, after you spend 5 in leavenworth for gross negligence leading to the death of soldiers, one of the soldiers brothers track you down and shoots you.
>>65549247this thing shoots drones that pick targets based on what infantry is pointing a laser at from three miles awayit's artillery
>>65550499>until UGVs get good enough to navigate challenging terrain on their own, which likely won't be for at least a couple of decades>decadesMore like years. A country like the USA would have already had a massive fleet of them by now if they didn't have their heads in the sand. But Ukraine is very poor, producing weapons inside an active war zone that barely lets them export goods, and is struggling just to keep what they already have funded. So it takes much longer to do so. You can look at the numbers and footage and clearly see UGVs are becoming more prevalent, but it is happening at a much slower pace is all compared to tiny FPV drones which cost almost nothing
>>65549521Same reason that we are still sticking pilots into planes and then giving them drone wingmen. Having a man in the loop for ethical reasons, EW concerns, AI fallibility, human ability to handle unexpected situations, and institutional inertia.There's the unmanned platforms like the Firescout that entered service in 2009, long before dronefags were even aware that drones were a thing, and they'll probably grow to be a larger portion of the arsenal, but I'd half expect fighterjocks to get replaced completely first given human G limits are a much bigger problem for planes then a chopper which just needs to be a bit bigger to have a cockpit for the squishy meatbag.
>>65549678>Strike fighters are intentionally based further back to force the longest range ballistic missiles (ergo, the fewest or none) to be used against them.>you can't strike Helicopter FOB because... because... Just because!>Make Chornobaivka great again!
>>65550513>People will willingly get on the drone transport AFTER the drone transport has flown supply and recon runs without incident for a decade.Your GWOT police operations mindset is showing.Dude, in the real war if you have you leg blown into bloody pulp and medivac drone lands near you will beg to get into it.
>>65550513>this is how you waste soldiers on unproven technologyAnon you use it for logi for years before putting people on it.
>>65550634
>>65550513Kill yourself eglincuck, your life is worth nothing
>>65550658That is RC not autonomous and it also doesn't kill 30 guys if it clips a tree.
>>65550513>But you do something like that in the US, first time something goes wrong you get crucified at court martial, and then, after you spend 5 in leavenworth for gross negligence leading to the death of soldiers, one of the soldiers brothers track you down and shoots you.Buddy... you do what big army tells you, and big army will probably get away with it.
>>65549678Strike fighters should already be in the area and are quick to respond from longer distances anyway.The bayraktar was just meant as an example, not as a procurement suggestion. These things should be able to start and should start from improvised or small airfields for several reasons.>Have the benefit of being able to chuck fast munitions* (like all of the above) before landing at a FARP or impromptu field rearmament point before fucking off quickly within minutes. Can be based a bit far back because VTOL landing and refueling.But tell me, how much better is that compared to a crop duster drone (let's call it that)? Yes the landing point can be smaller, but improvised airfields can be placed everywhere, on roads, on fields, or they already exist for civilian recreational flying. And I repeat, small planes are much, much cheaper than helicopters and can take risks and accept losses that helicopters can't. Like, for example, basing close to the front in the first place.>>65550615>>65550038To be fair, I think he imagines them resupplying, for a short time, close to the front, then basing further back to the front afterwards. Might still take too long of course.
>>65549678>They also gained a role with the low end and STOL planes category of being loitering munition huntersOh, and low end airplanes can do that better as well.
>>65550753Ukraine has stopped using SPGs as mobile artillery because of how vulnerable high value vehicles are. A convoy of soft vehicles loaded with fuel, munitions and trained personnel that roams around the rear before stopping for a few minutes beside a *very* high value target is a very attractive target to bring under observation and either strike on the move with drones or launch a ballistic missile at when it comes to a halt to refuel/rearm a heli.
>>65549293Not even remotely true, in the American context there are missions for the attack helicopter today which are very much important and completely incompatible with jet fighters. There are rotor wing drones which have the mission set of attack helicopters. They are the size and shape of attack helicopters. If you're talking about FPVs and cheap standoff weapons, you're talking about replacing helicopter weaponry, not the helicopter itself. I'll concede that what we're really talking about is a slow VTOL launch platform for whatever is in vogue for your country, but it's going to take some serious generational changes in aerospace before we're talking about fighter jets taking over for attack helicopters, or for light aircraft ala bayraktar to be carrying comparable armament.
>>65550773>before stopping for a few minutes beside a *very* high value target>implying the resupply points aren't dispersed as well
>>65550469Lmao this dipshit thinks OP meant choppers vs drones and not the contrast of their viability on the modern battlebield.
>>65550819Americans are preparing for bullying dirt world goat herders, or maybe fighting russia. Not for fighting an army implementing the tech that is now possible. The kind of missions you imagine would be impossible against such an army.>>65550773Maybe you're right. Which just reinforces my claim that a bayraktar kind of thing can do the same a helicopter can still do, but cheaper. When you need to fly at least a 100km back and forth to resupply, and then still stay at least 20km from the front (probably more IMO) the manoeuvring and VTOL advantages of a helicopter become minor.The funny thing is: Whether we actually need rapid respone missile busses isn't all that clear either. Movement in ukraine is glacial, if that repeats in other wars, it would simply become unnecessary. And there's the question of cost: How many ground vehicles with similar payload, but much greater survivability, can I afford to spread across the front at the cost of one helicopter?
>>65550753>Strike fighters should already be in the areaHigher level aircraft are almost always tasked onto higher value targets instead of providing direct support for frontline forces. WW2 taught basically everyone that interdiction and strikes in-depth are more valuable than making the infantry feel good. The kind of luxury air support that happened during GWOT is not going to happen in a war against China, for example. Only key parts of the front might enjoy CAS during key operations. It's a big reason why the US went back and brought the MLRS back into action with the HIMARS and developed the PRsM. The Army NEEDS organic fire support for itself that isn't dependent on the whims and requirements of the Air Force and higher levels of command.Organic aircraft in the infantry division are right there to provide that support and capability for the infantry division itself. They are helicopters. They will remain in manned use until we can plop a superhuman computer into the pilot seat and take it out of it as easily as a pilot can be.
>>65550929Probably the wrong division to use as an example.
>>65550927Everyone always says america is preparing for the last war right before they get their air force deleted and their wunderwaffe make no difference
>>65550938Sorry, which real army did america destroy last? Iraq 1991? I'm not exactly old enough to know what people said back then.Also if you're willing to have a discussion (I am) then expand on what those roles are and why they are still viable in the face of modern AA networks. "Pentagon says so" doesn't cut it for me I'm afraid.
>>65550929>he US went back and brought the MLRS back into action with the HIMARS and developed the PRsMAnd that's exactly the right decision. They have long range, they can safely stay at distance and still support the front. Helicopters have lower range missiles and are expensive and vulnerable.
>>65550967Sure, but helicopters are the only vehicle that can pick up a significant amount of transportable objects from adverse terrain, transport them over severely adverse terrain for a hundred miles very rapidly, then land them in severely adverse terrain or fire them at the enemy; coming back home for burgers and cola.
>>65549247Manned helis can just be used as drone range extenders. Also they are pretty good at shooting down drones.
>>65550973I guess transport helicopters have some value in adverse, lightly or undefended terrain. That's not where the important battles are going to happen though.
>>65550990Spoiling attacks, surprises, deceptions, slow parts of the front etc. are all equally important even if they're not as grand. Even minor, irrelevant fronts are still important just by the fact that they enable the key battles to happen. Even if the decisive battles happen elsewhere, being able to control ground and pressure the enemy in Bumfuck, Nowhere is still extremely important. It forces the enemy to maintain troops there; to maintain reserves and supply lines. The 2022 Kharkov counteroffensive is a good example of what might happen if the defending party fails to maintain enough forces in the region.Hell, we can just look at the kidnapping of Maduro for an example of what helicopters are good for. Any kind of rapid movement of firepower, troops or supply in adverse terrain is what they excel at. There's just no replacing them until we can plop a superhuman AI-driven bot into the pilot seat; something that can both fly the thing, communicate, make decisions and perform basic maintenance.Even if we consider the drone threat, the US military already employs laser defense systems on helicopters that can disable MANPADS missiles. There's only a slight difference to blinding FPV drones there.
>>65549262Call me when a drone manages to sink a submarine. People who think drones can replace helos are as dumb as the people who thought helos could replace paras.
>>65551036>It forces the enemy to maintain troops thereFar fewer troops at for lower expense than you need to attack it with helicopters.I recall a writer stating that helicopters are mostly useful in that they force the enemy to maintain defences against them, not so much in actually using them. That was before drones blew up, mind you. Maybe a similar logic can still apply at times.>MaduroNot a war, not even remotely a competent foe.The part about laser blinding is interesting, could make guided missiles much less effective. Though I have to wonder whether you couldn't develop a guidance method that goes after the blinder beam.
>>65551069The question was "in the face of unmanned drone usage" not "in the face of submarines". If the enemy submarine operates in an area with drone cover (for whatever ridiculous reason) your helicopter still has a bad time. Otherwise it may do fine, but that was not the question.
>>65551069Last year. But yes, the manned helicopter in naval roles is going to remain useful a lot longer than it is over land.
>>65551072>Far fewer troops at for lower expense than you need to attack it with helicopters.That's just not true. Helicopters could ferry entire drone swarms into the AO, release them onto the enemy and fuck off, at a far lower cost than it would take to stop this attack from happening. Most importantly, they can do this all while flying nap-of-the-earth and so avoiding detection and countermeasures. The ferrying ability of helicopters is what makes them so valuable in the first place. Munitions, troops, supply? You can get them there no matter how adverse the terrain is and you can get them there fast.>I recall a writer stating that helicopters are mostly useful in that they force the enemy to maintain defences against them, not so much in actually using them. They'll still be used whenever the enemy presents a weakness to them and best of all, they can actually create those weaknesses themselves. Desert Storm's breach phase started with AH-64s taking out Iraqi early warning radars, enabling both an air assault by the 101st Airborne deep into the country and further air operations in the area.
>>65550929>It's a big reason why the US went back and brought the MLRS back into action with the HIMARS and developed the PRsM.MLRS never went away. It just got GPS guided missiles just like AF got GPS guided bombs because well we have GPS now
>>65551099>Desert Storm's breach phase started with AH-64s taking out Iraqi early warning radars, Wake up grandpa, days of the old glory are gone. Old achievement are nothing now. Every 3rd wold shitholes can now take out early warning radars with Shaheeds today.
>>65551069>Call me when a drone manages to sink a submarineThe capability exists, Ukraine has these drones from the UK too but I'm not sure they're using them against subs yet.
>>65551112>MLRS never went awayTrue, it never went away, but it lost a shit-ton of relevance and focus in the US military. The basic Army unit of a brigade / division had absolutely no ability to genuinely strike anything in-depth. To be fair, they still don't, since proper rockets are on the corps level, but they've been more thoroughly integrated into the division now.It's only with the HIMARS and the propaganda campaign around it that the US finally pivoted back to the reality that the army needs to have the ability to strike in-depth independently of the Air Force.>>65551118>Wake up grandpa, days of the old glory are gone. Old achievement are nothing now. It's funny how you think the systems that built those superior capabilities back then have somehow just disappeared now.>Every 3rd wold shitholes can now take out early warning radars with Shaheeds today.Yeah, and just like back then, modern militaries are multiple times superior to third world ones.
>>65551138>the systems that built those superior capabilitiesBut perhaps those systems should build drones and missiles now instead of helicopters.
>>65551148Drones and missiles are launched from helicopters just fine. Helicopters serve as the platforms to launch those munitions. Hell, FPV drones themselves are technically helicopters. Same goes for the bigger drones used in the Ukraine conflict. A helicopter is a>type of rotorcraft in which lift and thrust are supplied by horizontally spinning rotors. so even that picture >>65551120 is technically a helicopter. Pic related is a helicopter.The primary difference between these things and something like the Apache is the range and the independence of flight.Helicopter drones need to be enslaved to either a radio or satellite connection, neither which can truly be relied on in a peer war. China has already deployed and tested anti-satellite weapons. The US has done likewise. So for longer range helicopters, you want a man in the system to fly it and guide it according to whatever makes the most sense to a trained professional.
>>65551271>The primary difference between these things and something like the Apache is the range and the independence of flight.>Helicopter drones need to be enslaved to either a radio or satellite connection, neither which can truly be relied on in a peer warI'm the anon that posted the torpedo dropping drone. I think Ukies prefer to use them for CASEVAC and a few other things, the seababy/magura/marichka USVs are probably better anti-sub platforms anyway.I take your point that quads are helos but the real distinction is between crewed and uncrewed air vehicles as well as big/expensive vs small/cheap.The heavy quad T-600 is only $20k or so, nothing compared to a Sea King.And the helo drone could absolutely perform an autonomous torpedo drop in the absence of a reliable radio or sat datalink, that's enthusiast levels of coding in today's world, I could do that myself.
>>65551309>I think Ukies prefer to use them for CASEVACThey really don't. The idea has been floated in the military egregore for some years now and the Ukies have been testing them, but nobody's ever actually gone through with it yet. The Ukrainians use unmanned ground vehicles for evacuation where necessary or possible.>And the helo drone could absolutely perform an autonomous torpedo drop in the absence of a reliable radio or sat datalink, that's enthusiast levels of coding in today's world, I could do that myself.Sure, as long as they get their mission information from a system of sensors and maps that can actually guide it onto location. Without GPS or Starlink? Without reliable radio contact to the ship sending it off? Without accurate pre-flight intelligence? It's not really going to be capable of all that. The point of the manned helicopter is to have this independent capability to begin with. You can give a helicopter wing the order to fly into grid square X and destroy enemy units approaching from direction Y, and the humans on board of those vehicles can pull it off by themselves. A drone really can't do that yet. They still need to be enslaved to direct, explicit orders.
>>65551271FPV fly close to the front where hovering is valuable to have. And are munitions rather than assets for that exact reason. Helicopters are too expensive and vulnerable to fly close to the front, and where they still have value in the future, hovering and VTOL are of minor value compared to the cost it causes.
>>65551353>Helicopters are too expensive and vulnerable to fly close to the frontIf it provides you with a distinct advantage in achieving your objectives, that is simply not the case. Even if you lose all the helicopters, if their efforts allow you to achieve whatever military objective they were going after, it can very well be worth it. The alternative is, after all, getting stuck in a Ukraine-style trench war where the front doesn't move anywhere in 4 years. Achieving your objectives and reaching a decisive victory over your enemy is what every military tries to accomplish. NOBODY wants to get stuck in a static trench war. A war like that is inherently a failure, and only happens when countries start a war they can't actually win. >hovering and VTOL are of minor value compared to the cost it causes.Hardly at all. The ability to transport whatever you want in large quantities across adverse terrain will always have value. What would you replace the ability with?
>>65551365And pray tell, how can helicopters break a ukrainian style stalemate? Your theory all hinges on that ever so slight detail. My position is that they can't, because your few, expensive, precious helicopters get shot down and achieve little. You would be better off putting that money into planes of various kinds, or just ground forces.
>>65551380>And pray tell, how can helicopters break a ukrainian style stalemate?What logic is this?If your weapon system can't break a stalemate, then it's useless? Or what is it you're implying?By this logic, ALL weapon systems and all military systems are useless, because they can't break any stalemate. It's only through the cooperation of all systems and through full-spectrum dominance that victory can be assured. There's no need for a single system to be capable of this for it to be useful. All it needs to do is integrate into the whole and make the whole greater than its parts through its inclusion. Helicopters still do this.Ukraine is a very bad example as well, since its flat open terrain with road networks everywhere is still optimal tank country to begin with. At least outside of rasputitsa.
>>65551390You were the one who opened that dichotomy, not me.>The alternative is, after all, getting stuck in a Ukraine-style trench war where the front doesn't move anywhere in 4 years.Anon, you're giving me a lot of abstract military theory babble and nothing tangible. Tell me, in which tangible way can helicopters still support a future war effort, in the face of modern AA, that has not been debunked in this thread before?>The ability to transport whatever you want in large quantities across adverse terrain will always have value.Once again, we are talking of attack helicopter and someone changes the goalpost to transport helicopters. Who btw. do not do that, they transport rather small amounts of supplies at high costs, compared to land vehicles. I have talked about transport helicopters before>>65550990and have far less strong opinions about them.
>>65551407>You were the one who opened that dichotomy, not me.Where, exactly, did I claim a weapon system has to be capable of breaking a stalemate to be useful?>Tell me, in which tangible way can helicopters still support a future war effort, in the face of modern AA, that has not been debunked in this thread before?Flying things across any kind of terrain very fast for significant distances. This kind of operational mobility and reactivity is not available for any other military system in use. NOTHING at all can transport manpower, firepower or supplies over a 100 miles away as fast as helicopters can. Literally nothing. If you need shit-tons of *something* over there *right now* then helicopters are your best option. The OODA loop is extremely important even in Ukraine style trench warfare, as the current Vivaldi operation has shown. Ukrainians are entirely withing the Russians' OODA loop.Nothing in this thread has "debunked" this in any way or form.>Once again, we are talking of attack helicopter and someone changes the goalpost to transport helicopters.Attack helicopters are helicopters that transport munitions and their launch systems. There is no inherent difference between the two. The difference is primarily doctrinal. A transport helicopter can freely be transformed into an attack helicopter by bolting on some rockets to it and having its primary purpose be attacking targets instead of transport.>Who btw. do not do that, they transport rather small amounts of supplies at high costs, compared to land vehicles. Can land vehicles cross any kind of terrain at high speeds? You know just as well as I can that they can't. A helicopter can go where there are no roads. 99% of military vehicles can't, and if they can't, they'll take days to get there. Jungle-busting through 100 miles of forest is not exactly optimal. Flying a helicopter there within the hour on the other hand is.
>>65551426So concerning attack helicopters, my argument was: If they get to close to the front, or base too close to the front, they get ganked by missiles. >>65549331Hence why I think planes of various kind are the better alternative, or simply spend the money on having more ground assets in the first place. >>65550927That was discussed in this thread before.Concerning transport helicopters, your argument is stronger in adverse terrain - to which I just ask, how likey are you going to fight decisive battles there - battles justifying the expense of helicopters. I don't think it will happen in europe. Probably not in korea either. Maybe in china/taiwan, but that one is its own can of worms entirely. In europe, eastern european terrain, I doubt that the expense to transport the kind of limited payload helicopters can do is worth the expense. Especially not since transport helicopters will have the same problem as attack helicopters - too close to the front, get ganked.Also>OODA loopThat's about the speed of reaction, not the speed of movement. If you intend to overwhelm your enemies decision making capabilities by moving fast, I think that too will become harder in the future. With drones and datalinks, a competent force has an extremely good picture of the battlefield and quicker communications, and can react much faster than previously. Just russia is not exactly competent.
>>65551453>So concerning attack helicopters, my argument was: If they get to close to the front, or base too close to the front, they get ganked by missiles.Then don't get too close to the front. Helicopters get to use modern munitions too.>Hence why I think planes of various kind are the better alternativePlanes are not organic to the ground forces on the other hand. Helicopters are organic assets to ground force units which provide them both with transportation and fire assets.>or simply spend the money on having more ground assets in the first place. Ground assets can't do what helicopters do.>how likey are you going to fight decisive battles there - battles justifying the expense of helicopters.Just as likely as your country is to have that adverse terrain. Basically every relevant country in the world, that is.>That's about the speed of reaction, not the speed of movement.Speed of movement is directly related to the enemy's speed of reaction. The faster you move the faster the enemy has to react to adequately counter your movement. If you move fast enough, the enemy might not even be physically capable of reacting to it adequately. This is the optimal situation for a military commander. You do something so unexpected, so fast, that the enemy simply can't react in time to stop your efforts from happening.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X8tzQnxhLg>If you intend to overwhelm your enemies decision making capabilities by moving fast, I think that too will become harder in the future.Of course it will become harder, but it's still the only way to gain a decisive advantage over an enemy on the tactical or operational level. Getting inside the enemy's OODA loop is how you avoid a war like what's now been going on in Ukraine for over 4 years. Nobody wants to get stuck in that.>and can react much faster than previously.The physical movement of units still takes a certain amount of time, as does digging in to defend against enemy initiative.
>>65551345>You can give a helicopter wing the order to fly into grid square X and destroy enemy units approaching from direction Y,The goal posts here are for a drone to fly to a grid square and drop a torpedo and RTB.That can absolutely be done autonomously. INS is fine for that.And the helo needs navigation and comms just as much as the drone anyway, or they can't RTB and have to ditch in the ocean.
>>65550038>FAPRsThirdieness aside you understand a FARP can mean something like 2-3 trucks, fuel, ammo and the guys running out to meet with the helicopter to immediately rearm and GTFO right?>>65550615>Russian incompetence defines everything, especially Russian incompetence of creating a static BASE up near the frontlines, within GMLRS reach rather than a rearm-and-GTFO FARP more akin to an even faster version of Gripen roadway-as-airstrip.>>65550753>>65550754You deny yourself landing areas with a STOVL plane versus a VTOL for rearm. You can replace "attack helicopter" with "VTOL" (massive quadcopter to a RAH-66v2 or anything) conceptually. STOVL doesn't mean it can land and takeoff anywhere, it needs some degree of sufficiently flat terrain and when you ask for increased capability it will ask for increasingly "better" airstrips. Rocks, mild ruts and anything that isn't the steppes of Eastern Europe will ruin your day and autonomy implementation. Apply any ruggedness of terrain and it becomes VTOL territory if you want anything "close enough" to the frontline to act as organic support to ground forces or a firefighter.
>>65551472>Helicopters get to use modern munitions too.That was the entire premise, that helicopters become long range missile busses. And planes (bayraktar style or similar) can do the same at lower cost.>Planes are not organic to the ground forcesThat's purely an organizational issue. By all means, make some ruggedized bayraktars organic to the ground forces.>Ground assets can't do what helicopters do.Why? Can they not do missile bussing? Having a brimstone boxer already in place or flying a brimstone apache into place has much the same outcome, you get to launch a brimstone from the place. And ground assets are not stationary either.>Just as likely as your country is to have that adverse terrain.Well I made the point - the geography in europe isn't there. Maybe it's different elsewhere, but in general I doubt it. Adverse terrain is hard to attack, so the decisive attack likely won't be made there, and it's usually low in population, so the attractive targets aren't there either.>Getting inside the enemy's OODA loop is how you avoid a war like what's now been going on in Ukraine for over 4 years.It is unclear whether that will even work with future developments, whether it will suffice to actually do that, and whether helicopters are sufficiently valuable in it to justify the expense. I just think in general, all of the current developments diminuish the role of the helicopter in the entire scheme.
>>65551516>And planes (bayraktar style or similar) can do the same at lower cost.They can't fly nap-of-the-earth similarly or land wherever to resupply. They're extremely vulnerable to any kind of counter-efforts, anti-air, other drones, whatever. They're only cheap because they're so simple, but because they're simple, they can't be expected to survive or counter enemy efforts.>That's purely an organizational issue. By all means, make some ruggedized bayraktars organic to the ground forces.Well to be fair it doesn't apply to drones like that. They're already operated by the ground forces wherever. They work in conjunction with helicopters.>Why? Can they not do missile bussing? Having a brimstone boxer already in place or flying a brimstone apache into place has much the same outcome, you get to launch a brimstone from the place. And ground assets are not stationary either.A ground asset, or more accurately, a ground unit, can't be flown 100 km North of your current position in one hour or less. Helicopters can. There's an entirely different degree of reactivity involved.>It is unclear whether that will even work with future developmentsNot at all. It's a basic aspect of warfighting, or any conflict, really. By saying this you simply show you do not understand the concept of the OODA loop and don't know what it actually is.The Observe-orient-decide-act loop is simply a description of the human decision making process. If you get inside the enemy's OODA loop, it simply means you are doing something that stops him from adequately reacting and acting accordingly in response to whatever you are doing. This will ALWAYS be relevant, no matter what. If I magically snap my fingers to wipe out the enemy nation to a man, that's getting inside his OODA loop. If I walk up to someone in the street and shoot him in the head from behind, that's getting inside his OODA loop. It will ALWAYS "work."Off to sleep anyways, so don't expect a response.
>>65551516>Adverse terrain is hard to attack, so the decisive attack likely won't be made there, and it's usually low in population, so the attractive targets aren't there either.Not the guy you're replying to but adverse terrain often has strategic advantages (ex: mountain pass, elevated location for radars, etc) which is why it is taken in the first place rather than being bypassed. Being able to destroy things in said adverse terrain (which often is a contested area) is an important capability.
>>65551539>They can't fly nap-of-the-earth similarlyThey could fly pretty close>or land wherever to resupplyIf that wherever is too close to the front, they get chornobaivkad. We discussed that before.>A ground asset, or more accurately, a ground unit, can't be flown 100 km North of your current position in one hour or less.But a ground asset that costs a fraction could be procured several times, and potentially already be where you want it to be.>you are doing something that stops him from adequately reacting and acting accordingly in response to whatever you are doing.But that depends on your speed of action outpacing his speed of decision making. That's not a given at all. If you just want to outpace his speed of counteraction - yes that is possible and probably always will be. But the last question remains - will transport helicopters remain useful in that role sufficiently so to be worth the expense? That's not a given at all.
>>65550949>Then they say it didn't count.
>>65549247What do you think will be hunting drones? With a modern sensor suite and air burst 30mm it's the low altitude apex predator.
>>65554151>Gets drone swarmedDid you think this through?Maybe it could hunt shasneeds, but a plane can do that better. Hell, there are now shahed variants that outpace an apache.
>>65554179The potential stand-off sensor advantage over any drone is enormous. Swarm communication is vulnerable to heavy duty EW and cheap drone sensors won't be hardened against lasers. Apaches are outdated. They should've moved on to compound helicopters decades ago.
