Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.



> They are absolutely devastating to columns of tanks

Artillery or missile strikes are too.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: