Is the Apache Attack Helicopter Really Obsolete? 

Yes, but they didn't have many MANPADS to shoot down the Apache. Even the best helicopters like the KA-52 and Apache are both easy targets for MANPADS and air defence.

Your mom is also a sitting duck Cappy.... greetings from Ibiza 🎉

Third

Wow, this was a really well done video, Cappy and Team! Keep them coming!! Will you do a similar video for the Cobra? Or drill down into drones vs helicopters on the battlefield?

I have taken a look at both sides of the coin on this subject. And those who say drones will take over the role of the Apache are very sadly mistaken. There will always be a role for an attack helicopter regardless of the know itvalls who say different. Issues like range, weather, proximity to friendly forces, and civilians and payload will always keep the Apache in great need. Regardless of what some armchair general thinks.

Yes but using them as tanks is a recipe for disaster. They are as a threat in the AO something, that keeps the enemy on their toes. But they are 5-10 times as expensive as a tank ( +pilots) and a .50cal can ruin their day pretty quickly. If done right, air cav/assault etc. can be devastating, but if you skrew up , you skrew up big. Speed and distance is in my experience the best armor, and in my opinion armor on flying stuff was never a good solution. Having a heavy gunship helicopter as a stand alone plattform doesnt seem efficient to me and in most cases not even that more efficient. Or is there any scenario a Cobra/Viper is that less effective than an apache?

I think its more a factor of how well equipped the enemy is. In the middle east they are very useful. Against Russia or China, and them against us, they have limited usefulness in regards to cost of both manpower and $.

@@westphalianstallion4293 This doesn’t track. No competent commander will send attack helicopters in without supporting fires. Same goes for tanks. The inherent vulnerabilities of these platforms makes them suited for what they do (i.e. mobile fires). I agree, if you fuck up air operations, it tends to horrifically bad everywhere all at once (Gostomel Airport, anyone?). That being said, such a failure has little to do with the deficiencies of the platform and more to do with the planning and execution of the mission.

They're approaching the cost of 5th gen fighter jets and they offer nothing but defensive use as seen in Ukraine. To which it's very questionable how successfull they've been. It's a waste of money & manpower. These pilots could by flying jets or operating shorad assets instead. They're not prevelant in "potent force-in-being" what do attack helicopters exactly deny to another force that artillery, CAP, infantry, & mechanized & motorized forces can't.

@@georgearrivalsGostomel could have been 100% worse if they had several more manpads or pre-positioned themselves near the aqueduct. Using any helicopters in a contested airspace is a recipe for disaster so advocating that attack helicopters still present some sort of "denial" to the enemy is wrong.

Drones do a better job at everything short of leveling a building, at this point.

Yep, you need to get smart(er) to counter, out maneuver, out match or out flank your enemy. You being weak does not mean you being borderline useless, you just have to figure out and adapt to the new tactics that had been based of new weapon systems. Eventually, someone will discover a serious weakness in manpads and loiter munitions and this discovery will manifest in upgrades for your helicopters and tanks. Other than that these weapons systems will evolve to survive and get the mission their assigned to done. bets off in creating an intensive jamming system to when a smart munitions comes too close the weapon systems like an apache that would border line make it fall from being disabled.

Human soldiers are also pretty darn expensive and in the context of warfare can be killed by everything.

​@@ryanj610drones are only useful in safe airspace, since they need to fly high which makes them very vulnerable. On the other hand helis can literally hide behind trees and hills, so they can be still useful in contested airspace. Example is russian AHs destroying columns of attacking Ukrainian tanks from a safe distance, where no one could touch them.

​@@ryanj610not really.

The only problem i remember the Apache’s having in DS/DS was the gun getting gummed up with that damn sand. That and the HPC blades eroding like mad thanks to an IPF fan that wasn’t designed for talcum powder. Lol

@@chrissmith7669 An insightful observation right there

@@Farweasel both well documented. Especially the IPs blower fan and ducts that were redesigned several times to improve performance.

and they were led to their firing position by an MH-53 :)

Fixed missile platforms using static radar control and command stations are truly obsolete. Mobile launcher and handheld antiair missile platforms are the real danger going forward. Training, detection and counter measures are enough to defeat most Russian, Chinese and French antiair systems that our helicopters will face. This is just as true today as it was 30 years ago.

There is some footage of one being hit in tail and flew back still ( some russian helicopters don't have tail rotor due to duel blades on top )

The attack helicopter is getting squeezed out though. Who is going to invest in extremely expensive helicopters when the battlefield is going to be littered with so many AA systems (many of them getting increasing range, enough that manportable systems can now equal the range of a helicopters anti-tank missiles) and so many sensors (capable of finding threats much smaller and stealthier than a helicopter). Drone threats are omnipresent (everything from scout drones to loitering munitions to "budget cruise missiles"). So weapons capable of taking out targets flying low&slow are going to be as well. Attack helicopters aren't just getting squeezed defensively. Drones are also encroaching on their offensive roles.

@0-B1 yeah that was the Ka-52 its the most survivable attack helicopter imo paired with its ejection seats its an amazing vehicle

@fiendishrabbit8259 let's be real here most countries don't fight people who can pose such threats most western countries like to fight goat farmers who only have ak's and old manpads. But yes the battlefield is evolving it always has and always will its a cat and mouse game AA gets better range and detection attack helicopters get better countermeasures and potentially stealth and further stand off capabilities

​@@Nero-Caesaragreed Mr. Nero

What stage of it's development did you participate in

Do tell

1/227 AVN BN 1 CD in 2003, our entire battalion of Apache Helicopters were deadlined all in one night, one was shot down. They blamed it on the Apache but they worked just fine, it was human error, we walked into an ambush and lied about it. It made the Apache look really bad, it was underserved, and it never sat right with me.

I mean wasn't most stuff after WWII mainly focused against the soviets? They generally were the US's major worry/near peer for the longest time. Only recently has China entered the game and it's still highly questionable how "near" of a peer they are still. From what I've seen/heard they're making progress but far from cohesive and don't exactly have a performance-based hiring/promotions. But I mean outside of certain niche projects, almost everything was directly designed to combat the soviets mainly.

I got to assume that China has at least the level of the Soviet kit and more likely are closing in on any tech that is something that can be copied or reverse engineered. I guess the main question is about the systems in more recent years they have designed themselves

Pantsir can track apache from miles away and has 20km+ missile

that has nothing to do with what he said@@NyzmaKumala

how many Apache did the Pantsir shoot down ? @@NyzmaKumala

Pretty sweet no staring into a screen you can scan with your eyes looking for contact then use the screen to see it magnified with thermals

​@NyzmaKumala who? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asked?

Jeepers. Is that how powerful laser designators are?

@@bluedistortions They can cause permanent blindness up to I believe it was 17 miles away

Lasers in general are no joke. The diode laser in a blu-ray burner can etch wood...or your retinas. It doesn't take a lot of power in terms of wattage for a laser to be dangerous over long distances.@@bluedistortions

If you have the $, you can buy one from FEMA, I have to the price list somewhere.

Aerobatics is done whilst wearing a flight suit, acrobatics is done wearing leotards.

I've seen them a few times near HAFB. F-35's and F-22's are pretty cool to see but i'll pull over to stare at these. Super cool.

yapping@@ricbarker4829

Where I live seems to be near a regular flight path so see them several times a year, almost always they fly in pairs or a 3 ship. In the UK they are flown by Army, rather than RAF crews - Army fliers are distinctly unimpressed they are paid less than their RAF peers..... Which seems a very short sighted strategy for the Army brass to follow. Cynics say they may be doing it to accelerate the staff wastage rate so they can replace top crews with 'Diverse' ones to meet targets 🙄.

I could see it annually as my country uses it during the national day parades

Drone can't hold 4t in ammo nor resist any counter measure or be silent. They're actually used in a low tech war as remote grenade launcher. The other side has apparently no doctrine how to use attack helicopters elswhere than in afghanistan nor Grozny. The picture is not clear enough to simply drop AH technique.

In my view, Japan is on the right path. A small scout drone, with minimal operating noise, equipped with very extensive sensors-fusion, AI and communications suite, 1/100th the size of an AH-64, perhaps 1/50th of its cost, operated by a specialized unit very close to the front line (to minimize latency and electronic jamming), 3-4x faster than an AH-64 and much more agile and semi-autonomous due to AI, working with an arsenal-drone or arsenal-helicopter equipped with long range missile operating in the rear (20 to 40 kms away), will be extremely difficult and challenging for an enemy to defeat. It will likely be more effective and survivable than an AH-64 ever will in such a scenario.

@@LoiolaALG for what I know arsenal some thing can't be good for any logistic. also japan need is a EP-3 or Il-22M like helicopter to do 60km+ Signals intelligence, cyber or more for front line and the firepower not less than AH 64. and can use RBS 23 like anti missiles missiles. but about the drone I don't think will should setting any size or tons for them, when you need them to carry equipment not you carry them.

drones no use in real war how many Russians die per day in Ukraine? US lost only ~150 in gulf war

@@danybackstone thats actually being very short sighted..the new loyal wingman drones are only a meter shorter then the aircraft they protect, and will most liklt carry the same payload ..the new multibillion dollar b21 raider program can fly unmanned and carry close to 30 thousand pounds in ordinance..the tech is still evolving but in the next 20 years drons are going to be the go to weapons platforms.

One benefit of the attack helicopters is that: drones can be downed with EW and Gatling cannons like the mobile German Gephardt radar guided AA guns. As the more time goes by, the better EW will counter drones, and drone makers will also build counters to the EW within its build. However Helicopters like the Apache does not need to worry about as much about being hacked (as far as we know). The Apache can fire and forget an inertial guided ATGM and sit low behind a mountain or forest that counters visual range. They certainly are not invulnerable, but the Apache is a way better platform than the KA 52.

I know very little about the electronic warfare part. I assume most of us do. But if they basically took the exact same helicopter and made it remotely pilot able (basically turned it into a “drone”), do you think it would be vulnerable to either blocking or hijacking style EW attacks? On one hand, the US has tons of drones that have been flying many hours without too many at least reported instances of EW attacks winning. But I do know there is that one situation a few years back with Iran, where they claimed to have taken control of a drone (although it was equally likely they just crashed it and then claimed to have taken control). Heck, not only do I know nothing about the kind of encryption on the signals. But I don’t even know what signal band is used for drones like the global hawk. I have to assume that they are more difficult to jam or hijack than first person quad copters that we see a lot of in Ukraine..

​@extragoogleaccount6061 Yes, years back a very secret CIA stealth drone was hijacked by Iran EW and landed at Iran airfield to be reverse engineered. US Apache are being upgraded and build with DIRCM, which is suppose to counter MANPAD by directing energy on it as compared to passive IRCM.

Predators/Reapers can only carry a max of 4 Hellfires, with no gun element. That severely limits their flexibility in handling direct fire support missions. And they're relatively huge, so smaller drones (like something that could be launched from an Apache) would be further limited. A much better use for them is limited direct strike attacks & offboard target acquisition (such as was done by the Kiowas), to extend the range of the Apaches & further improve the ability to fire from behind cover. That uses the Apache's extended loiter time & massive payload while minimizing risk (which will also minimize collateral incidents under duress).

@@Boomkokogamez here's the thing DIRCM has only a 25% effectiveness against Imaging Infrared (IIR)... and that's previous-gen stuff. In most probable case, it's going to be the missile going 'trolllollol' against such countermeasures due to improvements in the technology and doing what the Stinger did and add a UV terminal seeker which _laughs_ at your stealth attempts (UV emissions are _very_ hard to control outside of a laser setting). The best way we can counter such missiles is... just flying as high as possible.

these "this is obsolete" arguments that keep coming up are the equivalent of: - person plays a round of chess - opponent kills the person's queen with a pawn or a knight - person concludes that the queen is a waste of a chess piece.

@@revolverswitch It bugs me because a good chunk of people have made this argument, did they suddenly forget combined arms warfare or didn't know about it at all?

It will become obsolete, like correcting artillery via airplane...Attack helicopter will just become UCAV platform (or quadro/octocopter). We just need 10-20 years to develop/polish it. Training and putting a pilot inside will become an old tale. I cant say the same for infantry, they will be the last to be replaced by machines

@@BiberandDolik so the attack helicopter is going to be replaced by an unmanned attack helicopter?

@@revolverswitch Yes. Something like MQ-8

Gen 2 FLIR is orders of magnitude better than GEN 1 FLIR, and likewise GEN 3.

@@64ADdude Second Gen FLIRs incorporated staring arrays, which improved performance over 1st Gen using TDI by about 10X at best. Third-gen FLIRs use both MWIR and LWIR, and each has its strengths. MWIR is better for hot targets, LWIR for cooler ones. Clutter can render MWIR sensors useless in the daytime, but they can outrange many LWIR sensors at night. To say a single statement like that is hardly accurate, because there are so many variables. Variables include everything from target temperature, background temperatures, and even path radiance among others. Not to mention that "performance" includes both sensitivity and resolution, and resolution is generally pixel (detector size) limited, not diffraction-limited. Performance can also include factors like sensitivity to sensor motion, which generally favors LWIR typical of 1st and 2nd Gen FLIRs. So your statement is overly simplistic.

Very true. Jam the frequency and no data comes back. Had a guy tell me there are autonomous drones that do not have that issue. Then I showed him drone fights that are going on in Ukraine. Both sides have developed drones that attack other drones. Kind of like WW1.

drones win mostly because they're so cost effective. Air defenses can realistically shoot down every attack helicopter you throw at an enemy, but won't make a dent on the number of drones you can throw at them.

@@SamWatershipDownPeckinpaw drones that ram other drones out of the air can just as easily have a warhead strapped to them to ram your attack helicopter.

Any word of his experience?

Haven't asked him yet, hasn't been a good moment to@@mercenarygundam1487

I did three years, and I was in an Apache unit, trailer was directly next to the airfield... 24 hours a day I'd hear the engines, loud as heck, no peace. When we would get attacked with mortars, missiles, rockets I would just stay in bed when everyone else when to the bunkers. I was so tired of it all I hoped my trailer would get hit... 😊, then I could FINALLY rest, and not have to deal with anything anymore.

I loved the Apache camera footage. Amazing what they could do as overwatch

The AH-6 was awesome

I remember hearing for helicopter pilots will likely be in charge of a group of locally launched drones, possibly in a small swarm. In the near future. If true, being able to command their own battle net of loitering munitions may provide a valuable ability. They can stand off further, launch some loitering munitions which can spy for them, maybe even return to them. If a group of these can be launched, 1 helo can monitor a much wider net, and attack more targets

drones are for the most part still human operated. The role attack helis would have being a drone carrier could just as easily be fulfilled by a bigger drone.

i was in my mates house in east London once and we heard a loud noise outside.. we went out to see an Apache hovering fairly close by basically pointing at us..... We swiftly went back inside..... They are certainly scary.....

Which successful missions? You've lost every war since WWII.

@@snarkylive LOL... Sure thing troll... Whatever you say... Come on.. Do better than that.... You are boring me.

Maybe a non-conventional helicopter, one that travels on water?

Have you ever seen one hover in place upsidedown? When you see it your mind rejects it as real at first, it looks like the helicopter would break, like all the weight of the helicopter is on the where to the blades attach to the body. You reverse the collective, and it will fly just fine upsidedown.

The most aerobic I’ve seen was the Bo105 when they were showing off what a rigid rotor could do compared to a teetering. What the MBB test pilot made that helicopter do was mind blowing.

Oh, when the helicopters are unloaded, they are nimble for many "tricks", but with combat loads, forget the rest or they will rest on the ground! LOL

@@saomychau7010 for combat the have these huge pods on the wings full of fuel or ammo that keep them from doing anything nimble, but they're designed to be dropped instantly if they did need to do something nimble. So you see, no matter if it is fresh out of the box, or fully loaded for combat with a full tank of gas, they will perform flips and barrel rolls the same. Only the extra added weight of the fuel/ammo pods would keep it from doing flips and stuff. They ship the Apaches in this heavy duty bubble wrap, completely covered, no part of it can be exposed to Air.

I think the answer will be a drone mini-swarm w/ the Apache. They can increase its SA & even meet incoming threats like manpads. This allows the Attack helicopter to vector& target the threat that just shot at them.

i dont think biggest american companies will ever provide drone/loitering munition solutions. they cost too little, too little profit margin, have to build a lot, industry chokes. who knows how many drones/loitering munition personal close-air support machines you could get to soldiers, with the price of one 300 million f35 jet. tens of thousands at least. so smaller European companies have to start developing&making their drone/loitering munition things. i saw on a 2023 war show a finnish company drone prototype, product was called insta steel eagle, that drops small metal balls at high speed on a cone shape downward, saturating a large area. it was wild, but also so simple and obvious. and i did think why haven't usa ever thought things like that, usa had had drone tech first and for decades to think things like that. then i had cynical ideas of why.

You say that all there is video proof of a single hypersonic missile blowing up a quarter billion dollars worth of air defense.

The US will make “sophisticated” drones that pop out of cruise missiles and are jamproof, or escort F-35, or are artillery launched and independently AI driven.

Any battery that can intercept a supersonic missile can intercept a hypersonic missile. Right now it’s actually easier to intercept hypersonics because they have more predictable trajectories.

@@jackjmaheriii i presume harder to manuever? including the air resistance from flying at such speed?

To me they need significantly longer attack ranges up 15km minimum

Wait till Japan finds its whole drone system grounded to electronic warfare.

A10 family aircraft cousin?

It also helps that Choppers are far less expensive to purchase (75 million versus 18m) and to operate (42k per hour versus 5k per hour) than say an F35. Also, the Chopper can do more on the battlefield during its time as well.

There have been alternatives to the AH-64 and SH-60 and MD-500 (I don't recall its current U.S. Army identifier, but the LOACH) for decades. The AH-56 was vastly faster and had hugely longer range with the same armament as the AH-64; the V-17 gunship has greater speed and range but even higher maintenance and greater vulnerability, with only about half the maximum armament. The V-22 Osprey is broadly capable of replacing the Blackhawk with far superior capabilities in almost every use case; the Japanese Mitsubishi prototype counterpart gunship is powered by twin turbojet engines replacing each of the V-22 turbine engine pods, removing the vulnerable rotors as well as increasing redundancy in case of losing an engine; it has full armor comparable to an Apache, and carries a pair of centerline 40mm Bofors to strike on approach, supported by four tri-barrel .50's in individual pop-down remote-operated turrets at corners of the fuselage to provide LZ support. It can carry four Hellfire missiles under each wing, like the V-17 gunship, but doesn't have to transition to Vertical Flight Mode to fire them because it doesn't have giant propellers in the way. For that, it sacrifices a lot of fuel endurance because turbines are much, much, more fuel efficient with the right propellers. It has room in the bay for highly capable electronics intelligence and arial surveillance suites, as well as a few passengers. That is/was only a prototype, because it uses so many Bell-patented technologies for flight; but the U.S. government could compel a partnership. Then there's the drawing board "flying L.A.V." which is pretty amazing in theory. It puts a Rolls-Royce Pegasus turbofan jet engine from the Harrier on either side of a squad-size troop bay, and covers the whole thing with thin titanium armor plates on servo mounts controlled by Fly-by-Wire to achieve primary maneuverability in forward flight. It is limited to flying In Ground Effect, but it gives the personnel capacity of an L.A.V. or striker at aircraft speeds, basically immune to conventional landmines and I.E.D.s, and protected against most small arms fire. It is intended to carry a chin turret similar to the Vietnam-era Cobra, with a minigun and a grenade launcher both with copious ammunition to secure its LZ; it can also have a rack of missiles on top for busting tanks, AA emplacements, or bunkers, or to engage aircraft, but only at the cost of reducing lift, as normally the body would shape itself as a wing surface to improve the amount of engine thrust that can be directed to speed instead of lift. It requires the same kind of EW and direct countermeasures as a fighter, to avoid getting hit by air-to-air missiles, though! On the other hand, enemies have much less window to engage it than conventional A.P.C. and I.F.V.

The attack helicopters generally barely lead the armored units on the ground. The jets take out the long range SAMs while the attack helicopters and ground troops take out the medium and short range SAMs. With Electronic warfare gear, drones are vulnerable to the point that they might no be able to fly in contested space.

yeah given how long ranges are getting on MLRS and the rise of kamikazi drones, having dedicated landing pads for choppers anywhere near the front lines makes them super vulnerable now. They can get blown up while refuelling or rearming 200 miles from the front lines without needing expensive standoff missiles or airstrikes.

Lmao what

@@Johnappbeees22 It's true.

That was probly korea

@@gamerrowedy6614 in 1936 they were used for reconnaissance and later they were used in small numbers for rescue missions and logistics, the fist helo rescue was in late 44 or early 45 in the pacific when a helicopter pilot rescued two down crew men from the jungle Edit it was April 1944 in Burma that the Germans conducted the first and only helicopter evacuation of the war And the Germans were also the fist in 1935/36 depending on source to adopt reconnaissance helicopters

Only the closing months

Choices...Choices.....

Stealth helicopters are starting to come out now as well

@@Ukraineaissance2014 no they are not, the Apaches and Blackhawks can have a radar jammer attached above the blades, one jammer will be able to cover all the other helicopters around it. There would be no reason to ever develop a stealth Helicopter, they are already stealth. Stories about developing stealth Helicopter are just lies to steal more $$$. They say seal team 6 used a stealth Blackhawk when the killed Osama bin ladin, but stealth Blackhawks don't exist, so why would they lie about killing him... if they really killed him, why lie about killing him? Fake person and fake family, all the Bin Ladin family died, makes it real hard to prove they were fake.

The Apache's radar jammer would disable any drones that get anywhere near it... I made that up, but why wouldn't it the Apache's jammer not disabled drones?

@@JeffreyAllanBackowskithe radar jammer is meant to defeat the radar systems of weapons like missiles and such, it basically confuses the computer or radar equipment preventing it from gaining a clear target which is why they seem to almost hit but never do they are basically being swatted away by an invisible hand

He's wrong about a lot of stuff.

Sure, he can discuss performing remedial action when the M-16 jammed by doing "S.P.O.R.T.S." actions, and mission planning according to M.E.T.T., and a few more, @@JeffreyAllanBackowski He was only an infantryman, not an officer or higher up to research on "military strategies" or even tactics, but he can try!

@@saomychau7010 it's "S.P.O.R.T.S."..... I'm legit trying to remember it... I can't remember the first S...is it Slap? Okay Squeeze is the second S. Slap, pull, observe, release, tap (the forward assist), squeeze. Do you know what makes the green grass grow? Blood! Blood! Bright red blood!

@@saomychau7010 what the f*ck is M.E.T.T.?

I just stumbled upon it too, at first I liked him, but somebody owns him, he's this empty shell, more machine than man, his 👀 are 🦈 👀. I doubt he was ever in the Army, nobody leaves the Army acting that normal. I real soldier wouldn't get out and push the narrative he is trying to push, like Hamas was created by Israel and they're attacking themselves. A real soldier would already know what is going on, or they would see what is going on, and know they're supposed to be quiet about it. It has been a long time since I have gotten out, pretty sure they tell you don't voice your opinions, go camera, make a spectacle of yourself, you represent the Army. He's definitely no soldier, our health is shot because of over vaccinations. I got like 24 vaccinations in one night, a week later I had to get all 24 again because they couldn't find my shot records. Then when they did the final medical record check before everyone deployed, my shot records still weren't with my records, so had to get them all again. I showed then the huge, nasty, pustule, oozing, pock on my arm from the smallpox vaccine to prove that I did get the Smallpox vaccine, they still gave me more smallpox. No soldier would have the time to make these videos. Researching topics, flawless editing, very well made, high production value. No soldier has the type of funds to produce these videos. In the Army, everyone knows that in the Army, only the most stupid people go into the infantry. No infantrymen would have the skill sets to create a RU-vid channel. He reeks of CIA.

Puff's also got shot down on over two dozen occasions. I didn't even know they had that many. But even so, they still dished out 1,000:1 kill/death ratio.

"Personally, I'd make the USAF super happy by giving A-10s to the army and marines" I've often thought that too. But I recently read that the Air Force has offered to hand over the A-10s to the Army and the Army has declined. The logistical tail and basing requirements would overwhelm the Army. I flew AH-64A Apaches during the 1990s. It's a great aircraft and a great weapons system. It's logistical tail is large, but nothing compared to what the A-10 requires.

sure but you could just use a ground missile launcher for that. or just a drone that carries 1 long range missile, multiple drones. that wasnt a really feat of the helicopter but feat of the long range missile. attack helicopters at the start of the invasion when delivering special forces are at their most useful, for the attacking force.

@Redmanticore you aren't gonna get the los and accompanied range and the size of munitions any other way, especially in those quantities

It does degrade one of the primary roles of a AH. That of close air support. Also lofting unguided missiles and hoping for the best is not that effective.

You are righrt, but at the same time the tank for example might be more obsolete than the attack helicopter. The military technology evolve very quicly ad surprisingly quicly since the beginning of the SMO in Ukraine. And the military industrial comlex have to adapt quicly and the military strategy too. The whole thing is fascinating. As far as i know the russian are going to launch a unmanned attack helicopter.@@119beaker

@@angeurbain6129 I am skeptical about the obsolescence of a tank. Sure, it gets clapped by guided missiles and drones dropping shaped charge munitions on the weaker armour. But the tank is still mobile heavily protected platform , ergo, durable meat shields and can pack heavy firepower to deal with fortified positions. The solution to this is to pack heavier roof armor as well as more APS to intercept threats. But to reduce weight, they might have to make the tank smaller. I'd imagine there might be more rise to hybrid power as they equip to use the compact turbine. Excess power goes to the batteries. When going static, turbine powers down, and the batteries can allow the tank to move for a kilometer or two while the turbines spool to specific rpm where its efficient. Not to mention the batteries can provide power to turbine startup(meaning simpler electric motor instead of usual APU) to start quickly. This way, the power pack takes up less space meaning smaller engine bay, meaning less roof surface. Though, there will still be more roof armour for the crews for obvious reasons. Though, the solution on this uparmouring is to pack heavier ordinance, this just means that the common RPGs or the bomblets used on tanks is not sufficient to destroy them but requires the rarer and more expensive ones.

Depends on What country you're talking about? The UK and Germans had the airforce be their own division

​@@benb6060soviets too I think

Drones that have the same payload will be similar in cost, if not more and still they could be shot down as they would be bigger than today's drones. Drones aren't some magic do it all technology.

​​@@dandylion1987They would be objectively cheaper and smaller for the same payload - what are you talking about? You don't have to have a large volume dedicated to housing pilots, you don't have to have entire life support systems and interfaces for the crew and you can make the geometry as optimal for minimising footprint as much as possible. This means a smaller, potentially lighter vehicle with the same payload capacity and without the same manufacturing expenses. There are very few drawbacks when the technology is sufficient enough to replace the current roles the AH serves.

​@bilbonob548 Honestly the biggest drawback drone have right now is their EW vulnerability.

@@Boomkokogamez This already applies to current helicopters. Complete failure of electronics on board would result in a flying rock. I'd imagine once they have either created a system too hard to hack, or with an advanced enough onboard AI so as to be independent (very distant future I'd imagine), then even that could end up being a non-issue. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if the current role AH and close air support plays is completely superseded by small local drones.

@bilbonob548 No? Current helicopters are controlled by pilots in it, it is immune to EW except in commutation and GPS signals. One of CIA secret drone was attacked by EW and hacked to land in Iran too. I wouldn't trust everything on a drone that just became big due to war in Ukraine. Plus no matter how advance AI's are, they cannot make decision lime humans at a whim.

Yeah its never made sense to me that close air aupport comes from a totally different service arm. Its just an obvious organisational weakness. These sort of aircraft should be organised into army battalions under the same command and planning structure

@@Ukraineaissance2014 well... it will like it's back to the WWII organization structure, ain't it? what's the Air Force suppose to do without the need for CAS when there's no bombing missions??

@@PrograError im not worried about justifying the existence of the air force, im worried about what is most tactically effective. If its more effectice to hand just about everything over to the army, so be it. But theres plenty of strategic bombing roles for the air force to still do anyway

@@Ukraineaissance2014It made sense after WWII back when the AF was established and the idea of "tactical nuclear weapons" was still alive. Combatant Commanders having "air assets" which could be used to strike ground targets outside of ground support it also somewhat makes sense. Those days are over though. With true joint integrated fighting support it does not make sense anymore. Big AF needs to get on the joint bandwagon and let the army develop and field their own close air support and we (the Air Force) need to focus down. We have a fighter mentality that keeps trying to pigeon hole air superiority fighters into ground support and it's making us look bad.

They took tanks away from the Marines too

Did u not watch the video arm chair general.

​@@Johnappbeees22they never do

A soldier engaging using manpads is one less soldier that could be shooting back at infantry or engaging using atgms. Your team of teams just has to be better than their team of teams.

Look at russian usage of the ka-52.

​@@Johnappbeees22did you ? Becaus i dont think you did

I've always heard that helicopters are very difficult to fly. Much harder than a plane.

The old adage: "Plane is a flight trying not to crash Helicopter is a crash trying to fly"

Notice this: The problem with the Russian helicopter pilots are basically they are "chickens of the battle fields", because they did not fly low and fast, and not at the height of about two or three 'story' high on the barren fields. On the contrary, they often flew at a 'kite's range' so the Ukrainians can 'serve as their controllers and reeled them down and landed in a mess!"

What about fire drones?

I think it's already is among some units, the only thing needed the drones being cheaper and more deploy-able, as well as being more domestic manufacture-able. you DO NOT want to rely on that DJI drone when you are fighting the Chinese in the pacific. While on the drones, I think the "New" Key West Agreement should divide drones up into loitering and surveillance types, with key difference being the duration on station ( basically USAF will still get drones like RQ-4 Global Hawk and MQ-9 Reapers, but US army get systems more like the DJI and RQ-20 Puma or RQ-11 Ravens) and engine types

You don’t need lasers modern active protection systems are more than enough for almost anything that’s not heavy artillery.

Dude. The Su57 has its own electronic warfare system. Just like on F22. Only newer. The locator sees 5 times further than a helicopter. And, on the other hand, it will be more difficult for a helicopter to detect the radar-absorbing coating of a Su57 or F22. He will see it from a shorter distance than a regular plane/helicopter. And Su57 will be seen by Apache from 300 km. Moreover, it has the means to kill at such a distance. Missiles are not only short-range like those on a helicopter. The Apache's chances (like the Ka52/Mi28, which are also armed with air-to-air close-in missiles) against a fifth-generation aircraft are approximately zero. 😂

Well, yes. This was a joke match up in a public flight combat simulator. It was a bit of a meme within Growling Sidewinder's community. I'm pretty sure anyone with even the slightest awareness of the two aircraft know that such a dogfight is absurd. That, and only Liquid Snake from Metal Gear Solid can fight jets with an attack chopper and win. @@romankovalev7894

My guy, it's called Map of the earth, not nap of the earth. Take a break from arma 3.

It is definitely, without a doubt, 100% "Nap of the Earth", or NOE, in every NATO country.

2017 they stopped, focus on drones and sensor network capability for information.

That hasn't been the case since the 1970s, I'm afraid. Unless you've got literal mountains/buildings/radar-opaque features between you and the radar set, they'll see you.

Adapting to using the Apache (as mentioned in the vid) as a drone control center is a strategy with great potential! That way, the drones will be the helicopter's eyes and ears and designate targets while the Apache fires its big payload from a safe position behind terrain. It will take a lot of drones to provide such firepower alone!

Exept we dont know becaus it hasnt been tested against a real treatening army yet

​@@11235butthe Taliban weren't goat herders