Hacker News Reader

Comment by torginus | Hacker News Reader

Honestly I don't want to sound like a smartass and second-guess you, but the main problem with attack helicopters imo is that they are expensive to buy and operate, going comfortably into lower-end jet fighter territory, so to justify their existence, they need to possess some indispensable qualities.

I'm not sure what those are, but I think they probably have to do with the ablity to hover in place/land anywhere, a capability probably much more meaningful in transport helicopters.

And it seems the US has decided to choose the V-280 Valor, which is a tiltrotor rather than a helicopter.

I don't follow the space closely, but it seems to me there's no active program in the US that's developing a combat helicopter that's likely to enter service, so I don't think the US military considers them to be worth investing in that much.

View on HN

An AH-1Z costs about 4,500$ an hour to operate, a F-15E costs about 29,000$ an hour. Helicopters can operate from basically anywhere you can drive a fuel truck to, jets not so much.

You’re talking about a tilt rotor to replace a troop carrying helicopter, it’s a different role with different requirements.

The AH-1Z is more like the A-10 warthog than a traditional jet fighter, and in the wars we’ve been in recently serves a similar role, close air support. To the Marines on the ground, they are indispensable. The airframes were “just” (in the terms that make sense for an airframe that has been in service since the late 60s) upgraded to 4 rotor with a number of other updates.

Being able to literally point at the enemy and have the pilots see you and put ordinance where you are pointing… that is way way different than trying to call in strikes from jets or freaking arty as some people were saying.

the united states stopped investing in them because they're more of a near-peer type weapon.

They are absolutely devastating to columns of tanks. And they help control the "z-axis" the the united states military is dependent on.

Helicopters give you the ability to have air "presence" and keep situations in check with low-peer adversaries. When you start bringing in MANPADS or stingers the game changes.

Oddly enough things like the US Javelin anti tank system and the british NLAW are making tanks relatively obsolete as well.

I suspect attack helicopters with some sort of very small automated phalanx system (directed energy weapon? net launcher?) to destroy drones would be incredibly effective still.

The Apache is still an effective platform for delivering a shit ton of ordnance down range from out of no where and then skidaddling.

The Russian Ka-52 has a soft-kill system that can blind the IR seekers of Soviet and US MANPADS the Ukrainians use. We've seen videos videos of it working... about 70% of the time, which means you have to shoot it 3 times instead of once, but it goes down just the same, and that's not saying anything about bullets, which you can do nothing about.

I think modern military doctrine dictates that you shouldn't even give a chance of an enemy to shoot at you.

I don't think they are a near peer weapon at all. Even small groups can have weapons that can hurt it, in contrast with an F-16, which, unless you have an air force of your own, or anti-aircraft batteries, you can do nothing about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ALQ-144

> They are absolutely devastating to columns of tanks

Artillery or missile strikes are too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com