I'm going to add a post production comment here, rather than in the video because it's mere speculation on my part: I'm still not sold on the pitch up attacks with unguided rockets that the Russians are doing. Namely because yes, with the right systems you can get the rocket dispersion down, but we're seeing videos of Russian helicopters turning during the firing process, or wobbling all over the place, meaning that dispersion is already going to be hundreds of meters minimum. Then there's the problem of how accurate the call for fire and the setting of the release point are - if those are off those rockets are going into empty fields. So personally, I'm still not sold. There is also a strange misalignment between slides and audio towards the end of the presentation - one transition is missed so the slides are behind the audio. Apologies for that! I'll also apologise for slipping on the pronunciation of everyone's favorite Polish MANPADS. I slipped into "Perun" rather than "Piorun." Not my worst pronunciation misstep but thought I'd call it out. Finally, thanks again to the Chieftain for his help in pointing me to sources for this one - there's no evening reading quite like a 400 page manual. Based on patron votes so far it's looking like I may do a defence-economics video on military budgets next week, but we'll see how production and research go.
I think if you're just gonna try to use Helicopters as unguided artillery, it's probably just better to just use a dedicated MLRS platform... Unless you don't have anything else available
Look out mate. The cheiften will get you into the importance of track tensioning next. Good to hear here's helping out though. He's a great and knowledgeable guy who can deliver a fine lecture on the most dull subject and make it interesting. His video on paint drying was especially riveting.
G'day, I tried to edit a spelling error in my comment, 1/4 of an hour ago..., and was told "comment failed to post"... One wonders if YT is glitching, if my phone is glitching, or if you don't recognise a bouquet when proffered ? Therefore, this transmission Test. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao ! Testing testing testing (Edit-1) Okay, that worked. Let's blame YT, or Optus ! So, This is a great video. As a contra deal, backtrack me to my videos to find last fortnight's "National Transportation Museum...; Visiting My First Aeroplane !" to have a giggle at the Lawnmower I used to fly ! Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
Even when they stay on target you can see the dispersion as the rockets come off. They're coming off over 5 degrees or so, thats a big dispersion over 5-8km. Even the few HUD shots showing symbology they're not staying in the circle very well once the rockets start coming off. Then theres the rocket burn which isn't predicatable enough to judge range to any accuracy. It's not the same as lofting bombs. I'm pretty sure it's just something for them to do that doesn't involve them exploding. Rockets are dirt cheap, it makes your soldiers think they're doing something and might scare the enemy a bit if some drop close by.
The real problem with Perun's videos being so good is that I watch them all start to finish, which the TH-cam algorithm interprets as "This guy wants to watch lots more of these kinds of videos", and almost all the ones made by other people are terrible.
Thats why Perun should make an in-depth video on how he researches and produces those videos. Maybe 2-3 creators think about it then. And most common media-outlets too. Imagine that, good journalism again.
@@artificair4813 No one was around to teach Perun how to make these videos. How come he could do it but these other fake-umentary channels need an advanced 2h powerpoint video in order to even get started doing the research? At the end of the day it's more likely that they're just lazy, and know that saying a few vague and sweeping statements are already enough to get the clicks rolling in.
@@dsdy1205 Everybody is lazy, its human nature. The problem is that they might be stupid and never went to an university to learn how to research and present their work afterwards. Because normal education tells you to read a book and believe whatever the book says. My teachers in school never told me to read a second book - or even look up if the author is actually an expert on that matter. And that was before Wikipedia was a thing, which is even worse.
Video was pretty spot on, I agree with pretty much all of it. I believe helicopters are still incredibly important machines of war for so many reasons even with the heavy losses, they've been around for a long time and won't be leaving soon. A not commonly known fact is that the first medevac by helicopter happened in World War 2, we're just two decades off a full century of helicopters being used in combat. There's so many roles for them beyond just lobbing rockets at things. Transport, medevac, escort, VIP, resupply, air assault, moving artillery, so on. I personally think the likely result of the war is a shift towards only using helicopters in heavily planned operations, at least against capable foes. For Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and pretty much any recent war waged by either a Western power or even Russia/Soviet Union itself, helicopters tended to be consistently available. If you needed an extraction, just call a helicopter. Some fire support? Call in the apache. Wounded man? Get the medevac chinook over there. For even small deployments helicopters are relied upon and are available to respond as the mission develops, with enemy AA capabilities generally only able to deny a small area at any one time. The number of helicopters deployed versus guys on the ground for many modern operations is usually pretty staggering. Against a near-peer or peer foe however, with an air defence network with far longer reach, more radars of higher quality and a heavily increased number of MANPADS, I believe that helicopters remain useful but only with heavy prior planning. I think the Mariupol resupply shows this well - despite being essentially suicide missions, so far behind enemy lines that one pilot even reported being fired on by a ship as they flew out of the port, they still flew them and succeeded a reported 5/7 times, losing 2-3 helicopters. These missions were crucial in keeping the defenders fighting, and there's no other system I can think of that could have pulled off the resupply. Risking lone helicopters at the front is probably no longer worth it either, for an insertion of troops into enemy territory to succeed it will likely require an escort just as the Vietnam-era assaults did (we saw this at Hostemal with Ka-52s escorting the VDV, as you noted in the video) and it will also need enough helicopters because even after attempts are made to suppress or avoid enemy air defences it is still likely that some dude down there in the trees has a working MANPAD with your name on it, so you'd need enough helicopters that one lucky MANPAD doesn't completely end the operation. I did want to touch on the rocket slinging, because I think it's a very stupid idea for much the same reason as you. Important to remember that just because both the Ukes and the Russians do it does not make it a good idea, at least in terms of target effect. Equally important is that some people are saying that since the helicopters can't perform normal gun/rocket runs safely anymore, they 'might as well' use them in these toss-bombing missions - but 'might as well' ignores the fact that literally any flight of a helicopter costs money. Fuel, maintenance from wear and tear, transport of logistics for the helicopter, the needs of the crew, the ammo, the risk of having them forward deployed - all of these things are still draining your money/spare parts even if your chopper never gets close to an enemy MANPAD. (For example, the US deployed just 24 Apaches to Kosovo and cost themselves 480 million dollars to do so - the Apaches never fired a shot). Now I said it's not a good idea for target effect - but it's definitely a good idea if your main goal is simply 'don't die'. Were I the grand armchair general I'd still ground the helicopters instead of using them for these missions, but imagine for a moment you're a pilot or a squadron commander for some helicopters and you get the order from on high to go bomb some place - bonus points if it's not really an important target. You know that you've lost a shitton of helicopters in the early stages of the war, and you also know that saying "no command I won't do that" is not going to go over well - doesn't matter if you're Russian, Ukrainian, American - you can't just tell your commander to fuck off. You can either risk a bunch of lives to do a traditional attack run or fly up, do some toss bombing and report to command that you successfully launched a dozen aircraft, completed all of the attacks and returned to base without any losses, what a champion you are. I don't think this entirely explains why these honestly very expensive and pretty ineffective attacks are taking place, but like with most things in reality I believe it is a small part of a larger answer. In the case of the Ukes it is also entirely possible that it was done out of neccesity of simply having no other systems at the ready as a lot of these toss bombing videos from the Uke side surfaced during the artillery duel in the Donbass where Ukraine repeatedly stated it was suffering ammunition and artillery shortages (about 2 months back).
I can also see the ballistic arc tactic being used as stopgap artillery. When you don't have suitable terrain or enough time to position artillery you can use long range helicopter bombardment in the meantime until you can. It also gives you the flexibility to strike from any (safe) direction and you aren't vulnerable to counter battery fire. There is also room for improvement, firing faster or from more stable pylons or something to clamp down on the dispersion.
Oh look, it's the guy from the first days of the conflict :). Your streams helped me a lot with dealing with all the information that was saturating the media. I guess you were right about other (potentially more qualified) people taking the role of covering the war in an unbiased manner as well.
I'm not going to lie, even before seeing your comment, this video reminded me of that time Whiskey Heli-rushed you... So noticing that you had left a comment right after was quite surreal, guess I can never escape the down under gaming.
Thanks for lending a hand Chieftain. It's a good buzz when an experienced TH-cam channel can help out a new channel. Now about that track tension fascination of yours, you seem to have been slipping lately in mentioning it in your videos as well as "Oh bugger my Tank is on Fire!", both segments are well missed because they are a fun "in joke" for regular viewers. Mark from Melbourne Australia
He has been pretty selective about which source material he accepts regarding the politics of the conflict. He clearly has a good understanding of economics, but obviously knew little to nothing about Ukraine & Russia prior to the escalation of this conflict, and got a large amount of his early information about the politics from the thick propaganda that was published in late Feb, early March.
@@jamesrowlands8971 What Information is he not including; or what propaganda is he posting, in his presentations to make you feel this way. Reason I ask is because I've seen quite a few people ever since he started making videos point out this exact criticism however they never tend to elaborate on their exact concerns and problems, or when they do it's usually them denouncing Western propaganda by spouting even more Eastern propaganda so it tends to nor really answer the question in the end. I'm genuinely curious about your opinion here.
Fun fact: in 1989 a Bell UH-1D helicopter from the Spanish army was downed by a sheperd who threw a stone at it as it was scaring his livestock So yes, helicopters are very vulnerable indeed
@@blueshark4926 you may find it in El País, in Spanish. "La Guardia Civil detiene al presunto autor del derribo de un helicóptero del Ejército de Tierra"
The primary limitations leading to early Russian and Ukrainian losses of attack helicopters was training/experience. Their attack helicopters have more range than most SHORAD threats in the area as well as ALL MANPAD threats. The Russians cowboyed into knife-fighting ranges using guns and rockets Vietnam style and got their jimmies smacked for it. They completely disrespected the Ukrainians and vastly underestimated their capabilities and paid for it. As you said, the U.S. wasn't losing helicopters from enemy action. The ones they lost were because there were too few Apaches in theater with way too many fire missions and the aging platforms were putting more flight hours than they should have on reduced maintenance schedules. That's why the long mission series were sharply reduced. They couldn't afford to send a critical resource and tie it up for days on a single mission when they could have done hundreds of responses to call for fires in the same amount of time while keeping them close enough to their original unit or supporting FOBs to still see their regular maintenance. Attack helicopters can still do troop transport escort if they do it smart. Sets of attack helicopters/bombers should have preceded the landing troops to sanitize the area first before committing troops. You shouldn't be flying in a bunch of helicopters and infantry behind enemy lines blind as you're just asking to get your jimmy smacked into the dirt and you will lose assets. If the Russians just stick to using primarily Vikhr missiles and being cautious and methodical about it, they won't lose any more helicopters to MANPADs while still being effective. The probable concern is that at what level has the Russian corruption hit them in advanced missile procurement to where they don't really have enough Vikhr missiles to go around? The irony is, trying to "mortar" dumb fire rockets puts them at far more danger than just fielding older, shorter range ATGMs. A helicopter will almost always have a range advantage over their ground-based adversary for similar sized missiles. The helicopter missiles have the benefit of potential energy stored as launch altitude that the ground-based systems don't have. Given similar missile size/specs, the helicopter missile will always outrange it's ground-launched counterparts. The Apache will outrange it's LAV counterpart with the exact same missile as long as it has some altitude. This is why if you look at Tor and Buk, those missiles are MUCH larger than any missiles being used by an attack helicopter or even many fixed wing aircraft. Attack helicopters primarily survive as you said, by not getting shot at. Modern attack helicopters do this by outranging nearly all SHORAD threats and those they don't outrange, they use terrain masking and radar spoofing techniques to keep themselves alive. Again, coming from a previous life as a helicopter crewman, the issues the Russians and Ukrainians have faced in their rotary wing service has been mostly a training/doctrinal issue. Their pilots lack combat experience and their commanders lack common-sense on where/how they should deploy helicopters. Any asset that overreaches and pushes well behind enemy lines is likely to be destroyed. U.S. helicopter operations behind enemy lines are known as clandestine operations. It's a secret. It's not much of a secret if you're constantly trying to do it. It puts the enemy on high, constant alert and your helicopter forces lose the element of surprise. That's why the airport raid worked in the beginning for a bit. It was clandestine. The Ukrainians were caught with their pants down and the assault was initially successful. The losses shortly afterwards were because those VDV troops never linked up with the regular forces pushing south because the regular army failed and were repulsed. The Russians got greedy and took losses because of it. The helicopters were lost because they stuck around after the element of surprise was lost and got clapped. It's the primary reason for nearly all of Russia's losses to date in this conflict. The Russians lack real modern experience and are still using Soviet doctrine for everything. They're misusing all of their equipment against an adversary that's long since been trained to counter said doctrine.
@@worldoftancraft Then again, both "Yekaterinburg" and "Ekaterinburg" are considered correct spellings. So, I think it's not wrong to write it as "Vikhr". And on the topic on "kh" even Sukhoi writes their name with a "kh", even though a simple "h" would be correct.
@@Slavic_Goblin is it my decision to write the words of Russian/Ukraînian/Bêlorussian/Bulgarian like it's a retarded dialect of English, thus don't have an orthography the tradition of English loaning would respect? No, it wasn't mine. By whom it's considered? By people who simply never cared. Who's language identity exists only in political statements - not in the practice. In this megasmart language even "KrasnoJarsk" exist as a name of one fallen stellar body. Just because it firstly was named by a germanophone then got into the magnificent all inclusive language.
@@worldoftancraft With transliterations you kind of need to strike a balance between accuracy and practicality. Otherwise, you might as well use the following "spelling": vʲixrʲ... it's the most accurate way.
Hey, even if you eventually start to fall off of the strict Ukraine thing, I utterly adore this type of content, especially when you mix history with the modern context of nations. This stuff will always have a place in my heart, even long after the Ukraine war ends. It’s so lovely to hear and so informative with the PERFECT mix of occasional humor.
With all the negatives of the modern world, this type of content is awesome. During the Vietnam war, all we had was This Week with David Brinkley. Someone like this would not have had a platform other than the local pub or mess hall.
The fact most channels doing this type of content largely ignore the history is why this channel is so good. The history of the Baltic region and Russia has always been a very volatile one for hundreds of years. So people not knowing the nuances of the various Russo nations or even the history of the Rus(the start of Russia) its hard to seriously grasp the political side of things.
@@_gungrave_6802 The whole Europe has always been volatile just as Middle-East and Asia. There is no political side of things. Russia simply doesn't respect the setup in Europe now. England fought France for hundreds of years. France fought the Austro Hungarian Empire etc and then Germany. I could go on about thousands of conflicts in the last 1000 years. What Russia does is take some date and says: " This is when things were normal and it all has to come back to it. If every country in Europe does this we'll just kill everybody. We created EU because the idea of disrespect or conflict between one another is just crazy these days. And there are no Russo nations. Only Russians think that. They are some uber Slavs and all the other Slavic nations are there to exploit. I also don't understand what you are talking about because he didn't talk about history. History of helicopter is not a historical/political lecture.
@@_gungrave_6802 Yes, go back to the Rus and their influence in various European areas and especially beyond. Details of the changing political boundaries would be informative (and complex).
I’m a former ground crew mechanic in The Israeli Air Force. Maintenance is and always will be a difficult aspect to rotary eviction. In 2006 we were positioned in northern Israel while fighting our northern neighbor. We were under attack several times by various rocket systems and we had no defense systems at the time except for running for cover me and a buddy once found ourselves running to a nearby bunker and when our eyes adjusted to the low light bunker we realized it was an ammunitions bunker lol. One spark and we would’ve been gone. Anyway, while we did lose some attack helicopters during that war, it was mostly accidents that did it, and without giving too much away, the IAF does exactly what Peru’s said which is to shot from a longer distance. That approach has been working phenomenally in Gaza but are probably irrelevant for war zones like Ukraine. My take on this is that despite challenges such as manpads, helicopters will definitely be vital in specific future conflicts. Amazing video and well done on the research. The wifey has the Covid so I’ve been taking care of our baby girl all week and this video was such a good escape and a chance for me to unwind. Thank you!
I think it ties back into the argument about tanks being "antiquated', in which tanks and helicopters both continue to provide resources in which thier absence leaves capability vaccumes where there is no effective substitute. If anything, the Ukraine war is a wake up for arms manufacturers to modernize against threats that were seen as hypothetical and are now actualized and credible. Not only will it be an opportunity to modernize airborn assault and fire support practices, but also a study in airborn assault countermeasures.
The industrial model of creative destruction makes me think that the next big move here is drones. Cheaper first , then smarter. As a critter at the top of a food chain for the moment, I am disquieted. Dystopian as all get out. Hope your family is bettter.
The issue is in a war where one opponent is much stronger helicopters were very well. But in a nation with plenty of portable aa weapons and motivated troops then helicopter losses can be exceptionally high. That is why when you see nato nations with such tiny stocks of helicopters you would be out of helicopters in afew days of fighting., i think any stocks of helicopters need to be substantial if a conflict with an equaitable opponent is expected
I think the concept of a dedicated attack helo is obsolete. A transport help with some hard-points that can fitted with stand-off weapons when necessary is probably still useful.
being from Slovenia, where we were fighting our biggest forest fire in our history for the past week, and "half of europe" send their (mostly military) helicopters to help us, I think helicopters will stay in use for some time :)
@@PerunAU "fun" fact: the area of the fire was part of "Soška fronta" (Battles of the Isonzo) during WW1. firefighters could constantly hear explosions of unexploded bombs and mines from that era...
I am Ex-British Army I was trained on the HVM Stormer (SP Starstreak) It's a very hard system for the Aircraft to avoid Because it's detection system the (ADAD) Is not a traditional Radar It's extremely fast Mach 3.5 Semi-Beam Riding when they are painted with a laser the crew has very short time to get out of the way In under a second it's going Mach 3.5 from leaving the launcher These are old notes I was reading from back in 2002 when I did my course so I think these figures have probably have changed since then and have been improved the missile over the years
@@AJPMUSIC_OFFICIAL It was in service before I joined in 1999 with 12 Regiment RA and Then with 47 Regiment at the time but 47 Regiment has rerolled to UAS these day
@@tc12454 It's going Mach 3.5 in under a second you'll still have more time to get out of the way as it's still got to get to the target engagements are usually in minutes and with a good operator the engagement
@@tc12454 No that's the time it takes for the missile to get to mach 3.5 Not the engagement time that will depend on Distance and good operator etc.. The range of the system in my time was 5.5km that's old missile I know it's longer these days I am not going to say what that is on here
A common point I see brought up when talking about the rocket lob attacks is the question, "why use the helicopters in this manner when there are systems much better suited?" Simple answer: its available. Despite being objectively less effective than any of the ground based systems, you aren't going to just stop using them in this manner when you consider that there are a lot of things that need shooting and a limited number of things to shoot at them with. Removing the helicopters from these attacks just means that there are that many less targets getting hit and that those targets will just be pushed off onto other assets. I think its too easy to tend towards the conclusion that this is a wasteful use of these weapons. At the end of the day, what are we expecting? That they only use them under ideal circumstances? The way I see it, the Russians have tons of these cheap unguided rockets. If they were to wait for that perfect time to use them then they are likely just sitting on a huge stock of rockets doing nothing. Better to get them out there and do some damage rather than none.
Thanks. I may be in the minority, but your defense economics topics sound fascinating to me. Side note, I can confirm (through my brother in law in the TDF in the Mykolaiv region) that even small TDF units have ATGM and MANPADS readily available for use. This fact greately increases the moral and the willingness to stand their ground.
That mirrors the experience from WW2. When the boys on the ground had support weapons around which could take out mechanical monsters, they were much more willing (and able) to hold ground. Best wishes to you and your family in this terrible time.
@@irvhh143 An E6 can't take off a helicopter pad or an aircraft carrier. An E6 isn't an ASW platform, it's command and control in the event of lost of ground command from say, nuclear war. E6 is a Boeing 707 which the E3 'AWACS' is also based on. The helicopter is a self-contained ASW package right where you need it that the sub can't counter short of sinking the mothership, at which point the helicopter is going to angrily hunt and retaliate until it runs out of fuel. That same helicopter can also be configured for other jobs like S&R, ship boarding, pirate hunting, supply delivery.
The perception of attack helicopters is another example where it feels like people are using equipment as if they learned to use them from a video game. The image of an attack helicopter providing close air support, bringing destruction down on the enemy in a rain of cannon and rocket fire may look awe inspiring, but it's basically a Hollywood version of terrifying. The truly terrifying use of attack helicopters isn't as cinematic. It's a unit going about its business as usual (especially at night) then suddenly having a portion getting blown up or shot up with no or very little warning. And in the time it takes people to recognize they are under attack and start looking for where the source is the attack helicopters have already disengaged and left. The technical counters won't help you unless you are Constantly looking for the attack from Everwhere. At which point even if the helicopters don't destroy a single piece of equipment they can help destroy the effectiveness of an army because trying for 360 degree, 24/7 defense will fatigue and wear down your army.
@@MichaelFlynn0 While all the sensors and modern hardware Help, they all have limitations. One of the things attack helicopter pilots train in is exploiting them for this sort of combat. Against high flying aircraft automation is relatively easy, but low to the ground there is a Lot of clutter that makes automatic defenses more difficult unless you're willing to have it shoot at every squirrel and Frisbee it detects. And in real life attack helicopters aren't attacking on a small enclosed map from a limited set of directions during a period where the defenders know they will be in combat. So, unless you somehow have millions of defensive systems you can't cover every vulnerable location, forcing you to do things like put a sentry on patrol with a Manpad to fill the gaps. And in the contest of AH that can choose its time and place of attack versus sentry that doesn't know when and where the AH will come from usually the AH wins.
we at least, even in basic military service, have been trained to keep lookouts 24/7, about a third of the force; That reduces effective workforce by a third, obviously, but thats how it is, helicopter or not, I thought? (coincidentally, we were AAGM, so anti-helicopter troops basically, thus our lookouts were looking for everything else, but I thought every unit would keep lookouts?)
You know, that os the same exact rational I've seen to justify keeping marine infantry amphibious capabilities. By all account an amphibious assault in this day and age is suicidal. However the capability to do so still forces the opposition to defend their entire coastline and spread their forces thinner.
About future of helicopters: They can't be replaced in logistics and human transport roles in many terrains. Mountains, jungles, isle hopping, medevac, there is nothing so far that can compare to good old helo. However in combat roles such as convoy escorts and insurgency strikes, we have old platform, AC-130 gunship, and emergent drones. Drones can be up in the air for almost a day with single load of fuel, have precision strike weapons, can carry bombing hover strikes with awesome precision as well. So I think helicopter roles will be shifting towards transport operations more and more.
I can see drones taking over some - but critically not ALL - the combat roles that a helicopter currently does, especially with the standoff 'ordnance trucking' and overwatch roles. Especially since there's a lot less stopping someone on the ground from linking to a drone and taking over sensor and weapon systems on that drone.
@@roguevector1268 Taking over military drone control might been an issue in early phases of use, but we don't see much of it now. Heck, we don't see it when Ukranian soldiers using consumer grade drones vs russian troops. And Russia has decent EWAR capabilities. Military drones have encrypted channels, direct satellite links, semi autonomy programs after loosing direct contact with operator, etc. And drones are a LOT cheaper to replace than helicopter and low chance of pilot live loss.
Or the helicopter will merge with the drone. Computers will make flying it will be as easy as driving a car (so anyone can do it), while you will be able to radio control or it too.
Look at Clay Christensen's work on Creative Destruction in industry. Drones will get smarter, more capable. Start Corolla, end Lexus. Imagine, then drones hunting helo's. MANPADS getting continually smarter, as they have been doing.
In my memory, over the past thirty years, so many types of military equipment have become useless (according to Internet specialists and various kinds of experts), that it’s even a little strange why then someone still produce tanks, artillery, aircraft, helicopters, ships, bulletproof vests and helmets. Recently I came across an article in which the author, talking about Russian air defense systems, came to the conclusion that drones also became obsolete, but after a couple of sentences, he said that Turkey needs to stop supplying them to Ukraine. I think that if any equipment is handled idiotically, it will not be of any use. With the same success, you can hammer nails with a drill and when nothing comes of it, tell everyone that drills are hopelessly outdated.
I don't think it is strange. If taxpayers will pay for it, they will make it. With an uninformed population, you can spend money on the most inefficient and expensive platforms and defense contractors will help pay for your reelection.
The Chinese claimed they had rendered Aircraft Carriers obsolete because of their Doomsday Hypersonic Missiles from Hell...But they are building them like there are going out of style(And before someone says something; Yes, NATO has carrier-killing weapons. Has had them for decades, the AGM-158 LRASM being the latest iteration.
From a soldier's perspective the helicopter absolutely has a role in the Ukraine conflict. It's a challenging operating environment, but when used correctly they can still be devastatingly effective. I put the initial poor use of Russian rotary down to ludicrously incompetent tactical employment based on false assumptions; and their timid use now to a lack of supporting assets to shape the battlespace for their effective employment. Obviously the best situation is to have air dominance; but if you don't have that the key to using rotary assets in a contested environment are proper REDFOR intelligence, excellent ISR picture and skilled terrain masking. REDFOR intelligence gives an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy's ground based air defence so you can plan. Good ISR tells you where they are to avoid them. Terrain masking, route planning and speed will limit the exposure when you absolutely have to transit air defence bubbles. The fact the Russians started this war with opposed airmobile insertions is actually insane. Defence Forces do train for this, on the understanding it's a terrible option and shouldn't really be done unless there are exceptional circumstances. (Add opposed amphibious landings to that list) Even the lightest resistance can have catastrophic results when you make your own force so vulnerable. Using this tactic is like using an infantry Urraah! charge against machineguns in the modern era. Sure you might win, but you're going to get chewed up so badly it hardly matters.
What a lot of people forget is that the helicopter was designed to perform 2 specific roles. 1 was for the fast transport of troops over rough terrain for quick incision and extraction. This is 1 thing that only the helicopter can really perform even today. The second one was to be quick reaction tank destroyers. During the cold war NATO expected that the Soviets would break through locations simply due to the size of their armored forces so these attack helicopters would be able to quickly respond. This is why modern NATO attack helicopters are designed with their sensors on top of the aircraft so that they can hide behind terrain, pop up and fire at an enemy, and then retreat back to cover. They ended up of-course becoming general CAS aircrafts simply because the US ended up only fighting insurgencies that lacked sophisticated air defense systems so there was almost no threat to the crafts.
Don't forget that the US army is not allowed fixed wing close support aircraft as that is relegated to the US air force. Rotary wing aircraft as close support aircraft grew out of the need for them during the Vietnam war as the air force had other missions as well. Army commanders wanted their own close support that they could control. As always, missions tend to expand as a method to get for funding for the hardware.
Helicopters becomes obsolete in ukraine because it's a flatland If you had a war in the jungle it would act godlike there since its harder to lock on and lower visibility and varying altitude
@@everydaydose7779 @perun, if you run out of items on ukraine can you talk about french and us efforts in africa vs the insurgencies there over the last 2 decades?
In ww2 aviation had really high losses too. The difference was they replaced stuff as fast as it got shot down and training times were far shorter. That being said most of germanies prewar experienced pilots were dead by mid 1942. After that their losses climbed higher. In ww1 life expectancy for pilots on the front was about 2 weeks or 2 missions whichever came first. Again far shorter training times and the aircraft were replaced as fast as they were lost. I realize this video is focused on ka52 but I'm curious how many hind and transport helos have been lost to manpads.
losses were pretty much unsustainable on both sides for different reasons. the germans couldn't replace the pilots and planes while the allies couldn't afford to loose bombers at the rate they were and continue their mission, and in the battle of britain, both the brits and germans had unsustainable losses in aircrewes but the brits had the advantage of being able to rest and recouperate as well as launch interceptors with early warning while the german pilots were doing 2-3 sorties a day at the worst part of that stage of ww2 which absolutely burned them out
@@AsbestosMuffins it's even worse when you realize a well trained pilot at one point had 3 months of training. Pilots going into the battle of Britain in ww2 often had 6 weeks and less than 10 hours of actual flight time.
@@AsbestosMuffins OK, well when it comes tot he Battle of Britain at least there is a problem with your statement. Fact is the RAF had more fighters and fighter pilots on active roster in September than they had at the start of the battle in June. Were those pilots dog tired? Sure, they were flying multiple sorties a day, they were exhausted. But then so were the German air crews. The fact does remain though that even early in the Battle of Britain aircraft production, at least when it came to fighters, exceeded losses in Britain. By the end of the Battle in September pilot replacement also exceeded losses. The fact that the RAF had more fighters and fighter pilots by the end of the battle is actually a matter of public record, but very, very few people even in the UK are even aware of that fact. I know I was not until about 6 years ago. Part of that was the fact that pilots who were shot down and bailed out and survived were recovered, some even returning to the air within a day of being shot down. The main part though is the training had started to kick in, people often forget that at the start of the war many of the RAF's training cadres were relocated to Canada, and a huge proportion of RAF crews and pilots were partially or even fully trained there well away from the UK. As a result throughout the war the UK was not only able to sustain its aircrews and pilots, but was able to expand them, massively increasing the number of active squadrons through the war. September 1940 was when the first major influx of the pilots from this new training program really started to flood into the UK, many of them of course from the Empire or the Commonwealth.
Clearly, the infantryman is obsolete. Every war results in a huge number of casualties and ever since the development of the rifle the infantryman has been extremely vulnerable to a wide range of threats!
Until Ai controlled robots are used as infantry, human infantry will be needed to take, hold, and occupy ground. There will always be a need for this role
War is obsolete. Extremely long winded diplomacy, and congressional/ parliamentary filibusters wear at the morale of both your enemy and domestic audience incredibly effectively, proving to be more cost effective and less economically devastating to both parties. In fact, if you examine the criteria and historical context, in sorry what was i saying?
I couldn't be happier watching these 70 minute power point presentations on obscure military things, but i don't know why None the less, love the content Perun
@Uncle Joe A source that is unfortunately few and far between, but that makes it all the more valuable. If you want another one, check out Economics Explained, it almost makes up for our SAS executing unarmed civilians in Afghanistan
@@8calcifer I am not so sure about Economics Explained, they are not remotely on the same level as Perun. I have caught them far too often contradicting themselves so hard I was wondering if they had proofread their script. They constantly fall into the perfect information and rational actors trap. The mistakes were not corrections, they were fundamental. Their minimum wage video is shockingly bad.
I’ll raise you on Richard Bennett. A Luftwaffe pilot (name escapes me at the moment) in his BF-109G fitted his bomb rack with an SC250 equipped with a timed fuse. He flew to an approximate altitude above a USAAF B-17 Combat Box. He released the weapon and it detonated in the middle of the formation destroying 3 and damaging several more.
The Americans did that to themselves repeatedly - a 200lb bomb at terminal velocity will take the entire tail or wing off another bomber even if it doesn’t explode.
Hey Perun! I am a guy who has always been interested in war history and I have to say that you are one of the best channels I have seen on youtube. Your willingness and drive to really dive deep into the heart of the issues. You are willing to really go above and beyond to prove your points and i really enjoy that. I also love the fact that you are really transparent on giving data from both sides and you are really careful to not be in favor of one side or the other when giving data. All in all you are doing a great job and i hope you keep posting!
a small anecdotal story demonstrating just how fragile helicopters are: my friend was serving as a helicopter mechanic, there was at least one instance of someone angerly throwing a wrench at a helicopter and piercing it.
@@enriqueperezarce5485 the actual critical target area on a helicopter is quite small. Pilot(s), engine/transmission, tail rotor drive shaft, and tail rotor. A hole in the skin is trivial. Back in 1996, my school got a UH-1H Huey from the Colorado National Guard. It was a Vietnam veteran, the school got the logbooks with it, and as we were preparing the bird for repainting we found a shell hole in the engine cover that had been filled with some automotive spot filler. The last time the logbooks mentioned damage was 1969.
I don't think we should dismiss heli losses due to accidents that easily. Ultimately, if helicopters are so hard to fly that they keep crushing- that only increases their logistical/financial footprint, especially in peacetime
Flying a helicopter is kinda like playing a drum set. Your right hand controls moving front/back/left/right, your left hand controls up/down, and your feet control which direction your nose points. If you have a hand free, you can control other things...
This can be said of ANY weapons platforms. Our own military has had more losses in training since Vietnam than in all following combat theaters... combined. This is what happens when you have a standing offensive/wartime military force during peacetime. We have a tendency to forget those that die during peacetime, if we find out about them at all. And at the same time, we make fun of other countries that experience these same types of losses; making the whole thing a big joke. Think about that next time you laugh at one of Russia's or China's training losses. And also know this, we have lost so much more than they have...
@@danielduncan6806 on a related note, the more you sweat and occasionally bleed in peacetime, the less you bleed in war. The US flies a lot. The US flies a lot doing wartime missions, including full planning of large-scale operations. While only the 101st trains to do full battalion Air Assault lifts, _every_ US infantry brigade regularly does helicopter operations lifting a company at a time.
Im also glad you and The Chieftain are on conversational terms, saves a lot of back and forth rebuttal videos, which are unnecessary when youre essentially mak8ng the same points from a different perspective, and where theyre different, its due to genuine differences based on those perspectives. Top notch 👍
Can we get a once month video that’s an update on the overall situation in Ukraine. Like an assessment on un/successful tactics and momentum etc. Not asking you to overwork yourself, you just do very good and reliable analysis which is hard to find elsewhere :)
things are looking bad for the western Ukes. Short on everything from manpower, munitions and transports to tanks, aircraft and medical supplies. Exact casualties are impossible to know, but estimates are high on both sides ( for western standards) . Himars has slowed the russian advance, but like they found a way to overcome the tb2 drones, I think it's only a matter of time before they develop a counter to himars. I expect Russ is getting ready for a big push in August, with Uke separatists on the vanguard , naturally.
"Novel weapons" - I had a German farmer throw potatoes at me while I was flying around at low level (our tactical limits were "skids clear of ground and one-half rotor diameter from vertical obstacles") in the late 1980s. We survived.
@@loumencken9644 Timing is everything. Such technology did not exist back then. And, on the one occasion where a rake strike was attempted, its maximum altitude and range were insufficient by about five and twenty feet respectively.
@@jgw9990 In Gulf War 2 a Blackhawk was famously brought down by a farmer with a WW2 vintage bolt action rifle (no casualties though). A small piece of metal hitting the wrong place is all it takes.
11,846 helicopters were lost during Vietnam. 5000 aircrew were killed. The US has since built thousands more and use them in every war. In WW2 tens of thousands of tanks were lost in battle. Yet, every army on earth has them still. Infantry are killed in every war ever fought but so far no one has declared them obsolete. The fact is, war is just dangerous.
Interesting point. Vietnam is probably a weird example. The other technologies you mentioned have won wars on the side of whoever used them best as normally both sides had the technology. However in Vietnam, the USA had, as you point out a mind boggling advantage in it's use of helicopters when it came to numbers and definitely in tech...and yet lost the war. Were helicopters still a central part of most wars since? Yes. But never used in the same way and for good reason. I just can't think of another example of a major system like a helicopter which failed so badly when introduced by a country that was so incredibly strong and yet lost the war it was involved in. It would be like the royal navy loosing ww1 in a series of Dreadnaught based fleet actions. Or like the Romans loosing against barbarians who were better organised infantry. It's unusual that helicopters are still used given your analogy is my point. I had a point. It just took a while 😂
French Knights were slaughtered at Crecy in 1346. The dumbasses were still trying to fight English longbows with armored dudes on horses at Agincourt in the 15th century. Guess what happened? They were slaughtered, but worse. Multirole helos are useful. By all means attach a couple hardpoints that can be used when the opportunity presents itself. But dedicated attack helos are dead as Disco. They literally became obsolete about the same time Disco did. They’ve been useless since the early ‘80s unless you’re literally fighting unarmed civilians.
Every Sunday, I wake up, stretch, and then get excited for my hour long lecture on military strategy and procurement. My younger self just wouldn’t understand. As always, well done. The depth of your analysis is fantastic as always.
I am reminded of Lam Son 719 in 1971. There while flying over very prepared and organized NVA troops, the loses to helicopters was staggering. More than 750 American helicopters took part in Lam Son 719, flying 160,000 sorties. Most of the choppers came from the 101st Airborne. The division lost 84 machines in the campaign, with another 430 damaged. A fifth of those were rendered inoperable. Combined helicopter losses totaled 108 machines destroyed and 618 damaged. During the two months of flight operations, 72 helicopter aircrew members were killed, 59 were wounded and 11 were missing.
@@RobinTheBot Depends on how you look at those numbers. 160k sorties is over 200 sorties per helicopter. Given that, I'd say the losses and damaged craft are actually pretty minimal. Especially as "damaged" can mean anything from a single bullet hole to barely limping back home.
My dad was there with the 101st flying a Cobra. His friend was shot down three different times, and my dad “just” once. They knew they were all going to be hit, he did they just hoped it wasn’t that bad.
@jamesw1313 Fortunately, helicopters (or any aircraft) don’t typically just explode as soon as something hits them, and helos don’t instantly explode when they hit the ground!
A point you arguably missed here too: many drones, especially the ones doing recon, are rotary aircraft too. So maybe the evolution is toward smaller, cheaper, heavily role specialized helicopters working alone and in conjunction rather than big, expensive, multirole manned vehicles.
Yeah I can see smaller drones doing recon and sabotage behind enemy lines so that helicopters (probably heavily armed) can be more effective with less resistance trying to take it down.
As a point, the likes of the Apache, KA etc aren't true multirole aircraft. First and foremost they are gunships, designed to bring serious firepower to a given AO, kill a set target or whatever is giving the guys on the ground trouble, and leave once everything is dead. The reason you find them doing all the extra stuff such as recon is because neither the US nor the Russians or indeed anyone making their own military helicopters has been able to get the recon attack helicopter concept to work. The Comanche for example (seeing as if the bottomless pit that is the US military budget can't do it who the hell can) was a spectacular failure resulting in the Apache and the Cobras having to pick up the missions the Comanche was supposed to do (light recon, escort etc). The US even now is still chasing that particular recon attack helo unicorn with its latest recon helicopter project and I suspect it will fail again.
@@stevec7923 no, but small is usually cheaper and more maneuverable, and without the need to include a passenger compartment, it frees up more options.
The sad part of the way this subject is handled by other media outlets is simply to generate views. I appreciate your efforts to shatter the misconception.
The media doesn't have the time to delve into such detail. A newspaper article has a word count limit and and the evening news maybe has a 5 minute segment they can dedicate on the topic. They have to condense the topic so you can be informed about the 7 day weather forecast.
The goal of any company is to make money. Media organizations do this by selling advertising. The more eyeballs they can get on their content, the more money they can make. So this is where clickbait and sensationalism come in. Factual accuracy and integrity are pretty far down the priority list. 🤷♂
My step father was a Vietnam vet and flew hueys and acted as a chopper gunner at times. He has told me plenty of stories of being shot down two or three times in one day and being sent back up in another one. Huey's were a dime a dozen back then
Back in 2013 I had a client at work and he was of retirement age wearing a hat that said "Korean and Vietnam Vet". I asked him about his service. He was a helicopter Pilot during Vietnam and flew an Ambulance Helicopter. He claimed to have flown over 100 rescue missions and I have no reason to doubt his claims. I asked him if that was a record and he said there was a Marine Pilot that had flow a couple more missions than him but he had flown the second most rescue missions during the entirety of the Vietnam War. He saved hundreds of American and her allies lives. He's a genuine hero with balls of steel to fly those dangerous missions.
Not sure who said this but there is a common quote that goes: "Helicopters are aircraft that don't want to stay in the air". They suffer from really high accident rates because if the tail rotor fails the entire aircraft becomes uncontrollable. If you lose the main rotor, you lose control of the aircraft. Both rotors work in conjunction to keep it from spinning out of control. This is how the double top rotor systems work to avoid needing the tail rotor, but the problem remains. If you lose a propeller or engine in a fixed wing aircraft it can still be flown as a glider to the ground. Helicopters just spin and fall out of the sky.
Not the beast Perun is using as an example here. It's got a pair coaxial contra rotating blades, so does not need a tail rotor. If that complexity and added failure modes is justified, I have no idea. If a rotor on one deck gets displaced into the arc of the other deck, its a mess, very quickly.
@@AleksandrKramarenko True, which is why it's the first thing taught to pilot candidates in the US Army. BUT... autorotation depends on having an intact rotor. If you lose your rotor, or if it's even materially damaged, you're completely f*cked.
And there's a much higher cost and maintenance cost associated with them. I suppose that on one hand it is good because you only need to find the maintenance bays and destroy the supplies and machinery to make replacement parts. From an economics point of view, the more expensive the war can be made for the russians the better. I mean since their ammo dumps are being taken out they have to use helis to deliver munitions, right? I wonder just how porous the lines are
In Afghanistan the Dutch did some pretty awe-inspiring stuff with AH64s, but that was in a very specific mission context. A Chinook helicopter carried special forces into a village who were tasked with capturing local Taliban leaders, the two AH64s where there to provide close air support. One of the pilots (Roy de Ruiter) got awarded the MWO Medal for putting their AH64 directly in the path of enemy mortar fire in order to shield the special forces and the Chinook. Though Manpads are a serious threat, I believe the attack helicopter has its place on the battlefield. Though, I do concur, it's limited. Though I also want to note that as with airplanes such as the A10 or F16 (to some degree) the Attack Helicopter is usually highly dependent on having air-superiority and having destroyed surface-to-air capabilities (SEAD operations). If you don't have it, you might as well start writing off those helo's and other assets that can get shot out of the sky quite easily. And obviously, manpads will eat into your fleet soon enough if they are available to the extend they are in the UA. Though I wonder, if they aren't eating into the stocks of manpads too fast at this moment.
@@SnakebitSTI You need to check the records for the 82nd, 101st, and the 160th - it's not as uncommon as you think. Normally it's cargo helos blocking small arms, putting our "armor" and "door gun" between "hostiles" and the cargo while the cargo gets on. "Gone in 60 seconds? You're slow, rookie - we're gone in 10 if the "cargo" knows the business." P.S. That IS impressive flying, and that's in comparison to the crazy shit the 160th SOAR gets up to.
In my opinion, all of this is heavily dependent on the type of conflict that we'll have to face. A (conventional) conflict between powerful nations, with larger battlefields and a longer duration of the battle, more "traditional" weapons, like artillery, reappear and have a moment to shine again. Fighter jets and helicopters are vulnurable to the enemies air defence and modern anti-air weaponry. You'll loose skilled pilots, experts in their profession, rather quickly, as well as very expensive material. You'll also see more old and "dumb" weapons, as guided ammunition also tends to be very expensive. They will still be used, but on a much smaller scale, as we can see in Ukraine. It's difficult to tell, what lessons we should focus on, as we did not really expected a conflict like this to appear. And to be honest, no western military is really designed for such a conflict, outside of military alliances. We usually think in two categories: 1st a conflict with a (much) weaker nation, that you can dominate through air superiority, precission strikes etc. and 2nd a conflict with a nuclear power, where we usually don't expect a conventional conflict to emerge. This one will destroy everything in the first stages of war, after that it should turn into a category 1 conflict again (almost -> over-simplified).
One of the reasons why the US military spends such a ridiculous amount of money (and why only the insane would want to fight it if they know anything about it) is it Does plan for pretty much the entire range of conflicts. One example, if Ukraine had a US style military (not in size, just had its range of options. Not realistic but this is just for the sake of argument) Russian supply lines would have started getting chewed up early on. The HIMARS is getting a lot of press for its ability to blow up rear areas. It is just one of At Least a half dozen options the US has for doing the same mission. The point I was getting to is that it isn't just the type of conflict but also the combatants that is relevant. Russia and Ukraine have similar military setups, which pushes things towards "conventional" fighting since neither side is having to deal with the totally unexpected.
One of Russias pitfalls here was their idea of eating the cake and keeping it. They could have used their first strike to really cripple ukraines logistics and infrastructure. But they wantdd fo keep it because rebuilding it worse ( and it would be worse) does not endear you to the locals.
@@trazyntheinfinite9895 I'm pretty sure they originally believed in the idea, that a large number of Ukrainians would support them, greet them with waving flags, throw down their government and create an easy victory for them (if their president would have fled the country, like even the US thought would happen, things might have turned out a lot more like the Russians expected it to be). Maybe not all of Ukraine, but certainly a very large part of eastern Ukraine and central Ukraine, all the way up to Kiyv. They propably only assumed the most western parts to put up a fight. I think their intelligence made an huge error here and maybe this is also linked to people not telling Putin the truth and instead supporting what him with what he wants to hear.
Mi-24 is the flying tank. It is actually very heavily armored in specific sections. Ka-52 is more modern in that it primarily relies on duplicate, triplicate etc systems than armor.
You can have a decently designed weapon system, with reasonable, effective doctrines but if you do not have good mechanics, to fix the machines, enough spare parts, enough fuel and aircrew who have trained enough (being dependent of course on have machines that can fly, because they have enough spare parts, mechanics and fuel), then your performance is going to be dismal. Now add to that a logistics system, that both manufactures enough fuel and spare parts, properly stores them, and then gets them to the battlefield. Most armies just do not spend enough on these areas, which is fine, as long as you never use your military for anything other than parades and intimidate your neighbors (and making your own population proud!).
That is especially important for helicopters. They need a lot of service/maintenance, fuel and good pilots. It's also true for civilian helicopters i think they cost something like 1/10 of the military to operate.
I was watching the WW2 channel and Indy quoted someone who wrote regarding the Germans (I paraphrase here), "A country that cannot produce sufficient tank track pins has no business invading another country." Considering the massive logistics failures in Russia today, I thought the quote relevant.
Using longer range PGM s to increase standoff does not make sense. An attack helo is 30 million. This buys a thousand 6x6 trucks. These can be dispersed for protection and for better coverage and as decoys. And, they can be repaired by an uneducated farmboy. Or, one hundred tracked vehicles with all terrain movement. Or, a mix of them. (I am an uneducated farmboy btw)
@@irvhh143 6x6 military trucks that cost $30k and can be repaired by an uneducated farmboy don't really exist anymore. They cost closer to $300k, and the farmboy needs 12-24 weeks of training to be proficient at fixing it. The tracked vehicle doesn't cost $300k, it costs $3 million. Neither the truck nor the tracked vehicle can strike targets at 500km.
@@hailexiao2770 what we are seeing is not 6x6s but Toyota pickups pressed into service. 500km is over the horizon, so a truck is just a viable as a helo platform.
Great video once gain! I think you're threading the topic very carefully when it comes to conclusions. You're saying (and I agree) that helicopters still have a role in some situations - in fact situations that you really can only handle with helicopters. Yet I understand that between neighboring peers or near peers militaries, they don't really have much of a frontline role - for survivability reasons you outlined pretty well and they really are intuitive. As such a LOT of countries really need to take a really hard look at their procurement budgets. Also, this has to be the first large scale conventional war between peer or near peer relatively modern militaries since the age of helicopters. As such, I am sceptical when I see some people blaming the difficulties of helicopters in this war on faulty usage. We just have nothing else to fall back on when it comes to data.
Flew all over Iraq in Army Aviation. From 2000-2020 My unit lost 1 helicopter to an RPG and 1 to a very hard landing. You get shot at all the time. You get hit. People have been saying the tank and helicopter are obsolete. NOT EVEN CLOSE. All you see online is the oh and ah videos. You don't see the hundreds of missions that helicopter went on before it got shot down. You don't see the chalk of 6 helicopters fly in and out of hot zones dropping people off, picking people up (with or without hoods on) having never suffered a loss. You don't see the boring taxi cab or mail hauler missions that are the bulk of flights. You don't hear about the crew flying in a warzone every day never missing a mission to..... haul garbage. Oh they get shot at alright. Same goes for Russian helicopters. The actual numbers just don't add up equalling the time of the helicopter is over. Far from it. Rockets get better. Countermeasures get better. Sure. Older not updated helis might get shot down but still it's not enough. A unit goes on a ton a missions nobody ever sees. Even in combat. Flying is safer than being on the ground.....
I agree with your general sentiment. I do think though you're projecting American experience to the Russian military. Their use and logistics are very different. For example, I doubt they have very many mail delivery missions, because they don't have a lot of support structure to spare for non-critical missions. I'm pretty sure if they used their helicopters the way the US does their helicopters would drop like flies from mechanical failures because they couldn't keep up on.the maintenance requirements. Much respect to you for your service, I hope that didn't sound like I was trying to argue.
@@emotingtanooki6405 Actually they do a fairly good job when wrenching. Don't confuse their planes and helicopters. They build their planes like tanks. Their helicopters on the other hand. Well. The UH-60... Technically you could call it a Russian design. Igor Sikorsky was born in russia..... I've been in a few MI-s Honestly not all the different. The have the same 1 hr of flight to 3-4 hours of maintenance. They have similar flight time till replacement and worn replacement parts. In fact they tend to use their helicopters in a few rolls at once. Our Apache is a fighter. Wanna carry more than two people? Strap them to the outside.. (Which has been done) Russia had dual purpose helis for A LONG time. Hinds are fighters and carry troops. Their newer helis perform just as good as ours and are a bit more robust in some cases. They sacrificed their naval ships for their aircraft programs. A ship can go a long ways under no maintenance. Aircraft can go all the way to the ground unexpectedly because of no maintenance. Think about all those barrel bombs over the past decade. All tossed from Russian helis.(Not by russia. They just built and sold the helis) Very few of those helicopters fell out of the sky without extra holes in them. Russia also used to build more basic designs in higher numbers. Consequently they were also more durable to fight in places like Afghanistan where you can watch the paint on your blades get sandblasted off in flight. And see glowing sparks under night vision. Their newer helis are on par with ours. The Ka-52 is one of the best helicopters in the world. Mi-24 and Mi-28 are no joke. They can take tremendous damage and still fly home or make it to the ground without the BBQ. They have traded range for endurance. (Just one reason why you see the high arc rocket shots) Make no mistake. They are very much on par with our helicopters and maintenance programs. Again at the expense of their Naval ships and why they have a TON of old tanks. They didn't really run out of money all around. They just picked airpower over other equipment. Russia is VERY proud of a few weapon systems. ICBMs, Planes and Helicopters. I REALLY like their Ka-50 and 52. Among other systems they have ejection systems that fire up..... I played a TON of DCS Black Shark back in the day. Even somehow accidently what how did this get in here? I packed a HOTAS and trackIR into setup into some containers marked training tools and when I had time (and power. Fuck they blew up the jenny again) I played DCS while in Iraq. Thanks... No.. I didn't take your comment negatively in any way. Thoughtful posts of differing opinions is what makes YT fun and counterpoints are always welcome. So I put Russia's helicopters on par with ours in all ranked metrics. Their tanks on the other hand.
@@lubricustheslippery5028 Yea. I had a paragraph dealing with the point but I have no idea what happened to it. The gist was they double up duty on a lot of their helies. Like the hind. You don't want one looking for you cause if they can't blow you up dead they can land and out jumps a squad of guys or a ton of ammo resupplying the guys shooting at you. LOL
@@emotingtanooki6405 Russians use helicopters for transport more than anyone in the world. This comes from reality of their geography, where many locations in Siberia and Far East are only supplied by air even doing peacetime as roads don't survive for more than a single seasonal cycle of freezing and melting into a swamp that is a norm for permafrost regions. And the fact that they routinely run attack missions during spring in peacetime... to clear out ice dams in their Siberian and Far Eastern rivers because massive chunks of broken ice will continue to mount downstream in spring melt, creating many localized dams. That when broken tend to cause massive flooding downstream unless they're blown up early. This is why they have by far the heaviest transport helicopters in the world in Mi-26 among many other things, and why they have been using contra-rotating helicopters for a very long time, while Western nations are only starting to really get into them. When it comes to helicopters, Russians remain very much among top of the world in terms of both advanced usage patterns and technology used. Mostly because that was one of the few fields where they needed this technology far more than anyone in the world when USSR fell, as without them they couldn't resupply many regions in their own nation. And while culture of "good enough" as related to both maintenance and following the actual procedures (remember the Chechen downing of Mi-26 that had something like 60% more people than its specs allowed to take?) will always generate problems with usage scenarios of everything when it comes to Russians, their helicopters are also built to withstand that sort of usage. It's why they tend to be far more rugged, especially on transport side.
Modern war between peers or near peers dictates a level of attrition in equipment and human life that decades of counter insurgency focus has oversensitised both the general public and military circles to.
@@trazyntheinfinite9895 Huge set piece battles like that have somewhat gone away in modern war, but we have campaigns like Gulf 1 (1991) and battles like 73 Easting, Rumaila and Norfolk in which US/British Armour went toe to toe with Iraqi Armour and although it was a totally one-sided domination by coalition forces, technologically inferior Iraqi Armour managed to inflict losses on US and UK armour in single digits and casualties in double digits.
@@trazyntheinfinite9895 2 and a half times the number of dead at Kursk have died in the US of COVID, and most in the US have treated this loss of life with ambivalence.
@@Edax_Royeaux It's worth noting that that number of people who died *with* Covid is stretched over ~2.5 years...not ~6 weeks as with Kursk. That's not even comparing the numbers to the population bases at the time...
I haven't bought cable TV in forever because of channels like these! So much information, that's laid out, and framed in context so it makes sense! Thank you.
US lost around 200 helicopters in Vietnam exclusevily to RPG-7 and RPG-2 hits. High numbers of losses is not unique for this conflict yet helicopters still provide much more that it have downsides.
Vietnam isn't the best place to get examples from, since it was where people first learned about large scale helicopter operations. So, a lot of the examples you can get from it are from situations we learned how to Not do. Just look at the technical changes to US helicopters after the war, a lot of changes from lessons learned. The problem is that since then there hasn't been an equivalent conflict to show how the current state if things works out. It's the equivalent of having a bunch of WWI airplane statistics without having a WWII to use to show how things evolved after people had time to digest the lessons learned.
You left off one primary mission of attack helicopters of the past and I think this has greatly impacted the design and use of them. During the Cold War, the AH-64 (in particular) was a replacement for the Tank Destroyer forces of WWII. The US in WWII looked at the German Army and decided it needed a highly mobile response to focus on attempted armor breakthroughs. During the Cold War, NATO expected the Soviets to be able to break through in some places if for no other reason the size of the Soviet armored forces. The attack helicopter's job was to blunt those breakthroughs and slow things down to allow commanders to get ground forces in place to stop these breakthroughs. This is not anything like Ukraine, except maybe for the opening days. The US Marine Corps and the 82 Airborne are being reconfigured because they believe that opposed landings without surprise are not really feasible against modern near peer opponents. These changes are somewhat controversial, but I would argue Hostomel is a great example of their concern. No matter how much warning the US and UK did, it seems that Ukraine was not really ready for 2/24. Thus, Hostomel operation worked initially, but failed as it could not be reinforced once Ukraine was alert. So, in near peer conflict the deep penetration seems like a real problem. Finally, I think we need to really think about close firepower support in general in a war like Ukraine. It is not clear that things like the SU-25 or the A-10 would do much better than KA-52s. Is drone directed precision artillery the answer? Loitering munitions? Drones? I think this is a great topic for the future.
Yeah, but attack helicopters were never tested in reality until now (except for Soviets in Afghanistan). The US took the wrong lessons from Vietnam. They reduced troop levels due to political pressure. They tried to make up for that with technology. But, north Vietnam was getting more guided missiles. The US decided that the answer was better aircraft. But, the war ended before this idea was really put to the test. 45 years later, the helicopter's vulnerability to flak still has not been fixed.
@@irvhh143 I agree with what you are saying at some level. I disagree that the US took the wrong lessons. Perun talked about COIN operations as a good place for helicopters. Which is a lot of what the Vietnam War was. There was not really the static front that we see in Ukraine. Also, my point about replacing Tank Destroyers is that the war that would have seen them used in this way never happened. In Ukraine, the equivalent was the first attempts at breakthroughs by Russia. However, these were defeated by a different weapon system: the ATGM. Helicopters were never used as a mobile anti-armor breakthrough force. One thing that might be illustrative is to look at the use of the 101st in Desert Storm.
The SU-25 flown by both sides have been shot down to the point that neither can operate without severe restrictions like flying nearly on the deck. This was easily predicted many years ago and was the basis for the military's effort to kill the A-10 program, that it wouldn't be able to perform its original mission which was to be a tank killer over the plains of Europe. The S-300 (and successors S-400 and S-500) are supposed to eat up low flying CAS easily. The F-35 was proposed to be the replacement to perform the CAS mission, by launching stand off PGMs either designated by others like ground troops or drones, or with precise coordinates for GPS. This is why the US has been testing and developing the integration of ground troops and the F-35 in Yuma, AZ over the past several years (with reported success).
@@tonysu8860 If you think an aircraft with the excessive downtime, high costs to fly and small numbers as the F-35 will ever do CAS in a war, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
@@tonysu8860 My question would be what advantage an F-35 would have over HIMARS in your scenario. An F-35 costs say $75M each. A HIMARS is about $5M each. That means theoretically you can have 15 HIMARS instead of 1 F-35. The F35 can get there sooner at the start of a conflict, but one could theoretically field 100s of HIMARS instead over time.
cutting corners in both training and application is causing Russia to make helicopters and tanks look obsolete. but the fact remains that they're not obsolete in the slightest.
I think the main point why Russia looks so bad is corruption and tactics. Russia combat formations deemed expandable ,that means in the smallest scale (a tank) he's ordered to take a crossroad and nobody expect the tank to survive when he reach his mission goals, the tank and the crew are ordered to be depleted after the mission. That's why Russia will not recover tanks that break down until the goals are reached for that unit.
"Heck, if you manage to hit a helicopter with a particularly large rock you'll probably do some damage if you get it in the right place.." Are you telling me that trebuchets are viable again?
Trebs were always viable. If something is 300 meters away a 90kg rock would do serious damage to it. Which is why I advocate for hidden trebuchet pits for defensive lines
Now that you mention it I can remember a neighbor's son dying in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan along with a bunch of his fellow marines. I've watched so many helicopter crashes under perfect conditions without the threat of enemy fire to know how dangerous operating one in a war zone must be. Hostomel really was an epic beat down for the Russians, pretty sure that's where some Chechen general got killed along with 56 Russian tanks in a single engagement!! 😮
it was 56 tanks *claimed* by a Ukrainian news site that did not provide a source, and said losses were never confirmed by even the Ukrainian government. a Chechen 'special forces' column was confirmed to have been attacked in the area, with a general killed, by the Ukrainian government but they never mentioned how many tanks or armored vehicles were destroyed. also strangely for this war no photographic evidence was ever provided for the attack, even when it was confirmed to of happened. you would think that if 56 recks on a column in territory that has been recovered by Ukraine would be highly publicized (like the photos of destroyed columns by Kharkiv were), meaning the 56 tanks lost is probably atleast an exaggeration if not a completely false statement.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Also I can remember when 35 Russian tanks were destroyed in that failed river crossing months later and that was said to be largest loss of tanks in a single engagement. At least that one had ample evidence.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 or they cleared it to start reusing the airport immediately and everyone followed their rightful instructions not to take pictures on their cameraphones. You know, like soldiers and employees often do.
When it comes to dealing with complex terrains with lots of mountains and no roads, helicopter mobility is simply irreplaceable. There's nothing else that can do the job
True, but eastern Ukraine is neither mountainous nor short of roads; in this particular war there are other things that can do their job better. There have been, and no doubt will be, conflicts fought in places where they are indeed irreplaceable - it is just that this is not one of them.
Around 700 out of the 2700 Strela-2 & 500 Stinger that were sent by Germany had become unusable due to inproper storage, if someone wanted to know the exact number.
This is the problem with the high tech weapons. Once they run out of inventory, the production line must be restarted. This may not be possible in wartime conditions.
@@Yekenahdinnaematter I don't know tbh. To my understanding the weapons were "blindly" delivered to a site in Poland where they were presorted before delvivery to Ukraine. There it was discovered that some of them are unusuable. I don't now what became of that ~700 rockets.
Well, the upside is that they doo have 2k that they'll probably need to use quickly (before expiration) as well. I hope they also sampled for effectiveness amongst the rest of them. I'm not saying that I don't trust germany but stuff happens sometimes.
@@Yekenahdinnaematter you can probably cannibalize the warhead and electronics. But then you need to go through the electronics with a fine toothed comb to make sure they're good.
Three years in C model gunships.1970,71,72. I think it's safe to say, even though the C was an uprated B airframe, with substantial bite, it was technologically, ridiculously simple and unsophisticated. Resulting in a fairly robust an easy maintenance subject. They had our number by 71, but the C had a surprisingly good survival. First in, surprise was the asset most cherished. The Slicks were the victims by circumstance. And those aircrew are heros.
"You can't use a Toyota dangled from your ship, it just doesn't have the same impact" LOL That line killed me XD Although, I wouldn't be surprised if some Ukrainian fisherman managed to take down a Russian nuclear sub with a Toyota packed with explosives dropped from his fishing boat!
First of all, a huge thanks to Perun. I love the videos-- actual analysis, which is massively refreshing amidst the swirl of uninformed opinion, shoddy research, and simple propaganda filling the modern media space. Narrated powerpoints. Glorious! That said, I'd add that one possible future for the helicopter, or at least rotary-wing aviation, is an evolutionary change in form: specifically, that of the tilt rotor. The V-22 is certainly an example, but the Bell V-280 prototype is a more direct comparison, in that it was designed specifically to replace the Blackhawk. It performs all the familiar helicopter missions, but with additional helpings of range, speed, and lift, as well as, one might reasonably expect, survivability. Anticipating the usual objection-- a gunship version would be a must, in order to avoid recreating the Vietnam-era escort problem which eventually compelled the creation of the Cobra. That challenge is well-understood and can certainly be addressed. Less certain is the response to another challenge-- one which I think will resonate with our host-- namely, affordability. The Bell folks say they can make the machine reasonable both to acquire and to operate... I hope they get the chance to prove it. Here's a link to Bell's V280 promo page, for those who are wondering what I'm going on about. www.bellflight.com/products/bell-v-280
I would love to see your analysis of the implications of this war for the PRC…what lessons do you think they are learning, what are their capabilities with respect to a military move against Taiwan (sea and air lift capability angle may play to your logistics expertise), what is the risk/benefit of such a move? You’ve heard this before, but your productions are some the most high quality, in depth, informational, and logical analyses in the public domain. Thank you for making these available on a public forum.
Summary: Taiwan "I want some of that stuff that's working so well in Ukraine." PRC "Practically everything in our military inventory is based on the same Soviet hardware that's being blown up in Ukraine. And everything we've copied from the Americans don't work as well as the originals. Our missiles better fill the gap." Seriously, for an actual invasion not using air transport of any type, it would take at least a couple hours to cross the Taiwan Strait at highest surface speeds, and that doesn't even consider the time to arrive on a suitable landing spot. China does not currently have helicopter manufacturing technology, so every helicopter of every type (attack, transport, etc) would have to be purchased from Russia. The PLA has only a few large hovercraft and for now is conceived to be launched from landing ship docks. The last likely option is an airborne drop which of course would require air domination to fly transport aircraft over the island of Taiwan. Soon, a small number of Abrams will also be delivered for the possibility that the PLA might somehow be successful in landing some kind of invasion force. Now, considering Taiwan's F-16 fleet plus Harpoons plus other surface and air defenses from the American inventory, what do you think Taiwan's chances are of defending against an invasion short of a surprise?
@@tonysu8860 I'd like to add that just crossing the strait is probably not going to be the part taking the most amount of time. Simply getting all the ships ready, equipment and soldiers stowed is going to easily take hours even with no big complications. And it's going to be very visible when they're doing that.
Perun, you're a saving grace for sure! I was just wondering, what to do against my all time low feeling since this war has started ... I just can't recover from what I'd call "a weird state of shock" since 24th of February. I'm still missing memories for a whole 1+ week after that day, which I "kind of remember", bc I've found a bunch of unanswered e-mails dating back to the beginning of this extremely tragic on-going disaster. Hopefully for Ukraine this war doesn't last for years!
@@Anita-k I remember learning of the war the night it happened. Then having no answer from a guy I know in UA, not sleeping at all and having a University exam the next morning.. God that was a mess.
I was sat in a hotel room thinking Putin was acting a little like Adolf pre-Feb 24th, but I didn't honestly think he would invade. But its the barbarism that has shocked me, whats worse is they have thousands of soldier prepared to commit barbaric acts that aren't part of the normal battlefield. And even worse, while there is some opposition by civilians to this there appears to be widespread support. Which is why I can see the west-Russia split enduring for decades.
I've struggled as well. I'm chronically anxious and despite being far from the fire, it's affected my mental health. I try to be stoic and accept that which I cannot control. You might donate to some NGO supporting the Ukrainian people or war effort if you think it would help. Or talk to a therapist, that's what I did in the week following the initial attack.
Good analysis, I feel like two contributing factors you didn’t look at are the terrain and lack of night flying ability on both sides. There’s arguably nowhere as flat and exposed as eastern Ukraine for RW aviation. How this would play out in an AO with more cover and concealment is hard to tell. Also, due to equipment and/or training, from what I can see there has been almost zero attempt by either side to conduct their RW operations by night. How this would impact their exposure to manually sighted MANPAD systems is hard to tell, but I think even with NVD/IR sights there’d be a significant decline in lethality for a lot of the systems you’ve spoken about.
A big part of the video sounded like attack helicopters' lunch is being eaten by other systems with lower cost and lower risk. What was kind of missing from the video are drones. Many of the close fire support missions could be filled cheaper and safer with drones. Heck, they can even be rotary wing, if needed.
I got something like that from the video, too. The arguments for helicopters as transport vehicles stand for themself. But in an attack/support role a weaponized drone might do the job as effective with lower cost and less risk for personnel. But i'm no expert in the field. I just got the feeling it's not appropriate to throw different types of helo in the same bucket.
I completely agree that drones are superior in any parameter to attack helicopters. Cost,maintenance,endurance,survivability, survivability of crew!! And that changes the entire bottom line. I think attack helicopters will be abandoned. Israel, one of the pioneers in drones and attacking drones already started retiring attack helicopters a long while ago. The only reason why this war looks like this is that both sides don't have access to high-end drones. Each for its reasons. But if you talk about new procurement, why would anyone favor a manned helicopter over a drone(s)?
I am not a specialist in this but drone communications can be jammed. Without it’s operator drone is just a flying brick at worst and a dumb RC model following a predefined path at best. No idea why Russia having a large amount of jammers are not utilizing them effectively (or perhaps they do but we just don’t know about it) but we should expect huge increase in drone countermeasure development.
In reality it is very difficult to jam good drone comms. They are spread spectrum, making them less succeptible to noise and interference. They are high up, so you need to transmit with a lot of power and your range would be very limited. They use antennas that can detect a direction where interference comes from and selectively inhibit the interference. Even jamming military grade gps is difficult. This is why the gmlrs is killing the russians
@@ilanle Not to mention most large military UAVs use satellite comms systems, so they can use antennas that pretty much only look straight up and don't receive signals from any other direction much at all.
I think a Hind with four Drone Operators and a large number of drones providing targeting information could be very effective at scouting and identifying targets. Fast to deploy, easy to redeploy with enough firepower to allow some self protection. "Scouts Out."
The Chieftain, Nicholas Moran, is such a wonderful fellow. I enjoy his content tremendously, just as I have come to enjoy this channel as well! Thanks for what you do!
Even if Attack Helicopters become less popular, there are still missions for other types of helicopters and missions: Medevac - much faster than an ambulance. Logistics - carrying artillery from place to place (much faster than a truck and can do things like set up artillery on a mountain), inserting and recovering special forces (paradrop can insert, but not recover), resupplying troops fast, recon (better done by drones), carrying things and people between ships or between a ship and land (much faster than getting close, or using smaller boats as intermediaries, but limited space). Chinook (the chunky boi with one rotor at the front and one at the back) is not going anywhere.
in my opinion even defensive capabilities. if you face the enemie you can stay or even fly back this does not work with jets. The german tiger in my opinion has its role and it can work great for that role. A heli is a great Anti Tank weapon carrier with way better range than ground units. If the sensorsystems are on top of the main rotor it doesnt need to show itself. fly below the horizon in every terrain and fire anti tank weapons without exposing the helicopter itself just the sensor tree. reposition with superb mobility and do it again. thats in my opinion the best use for a helicopter in modern war. atleast in a attacking role
Military equipment only becomes obsolete when something comes along that does the job better. If loss rates are too high there might be a change in tactics, but losses alone aren't enough to get rid of something all together.
fun fact: Polish Piorun missile, unlike Stinger is not a heat seeker, it uses thermal imaging that simply ignore countermeasures by locking on a silhouette of target, most confirmed kills were done by Pioruns.
When speaking about the Stugna warhead being designed to kill a tank, you missed the opportunity to say "therefore KA-52, nicknamed Flying tabk, is also vulnerable"
Background: It’s my understanding that the Ukrainian AF received 20 Mi-8 military transport helicopters in early May - indirectly courtesy of Afghanistan. Ukraine claims 16 of these were used to resupply the Azovstal defenders over seven missions but two were shot down, on the 5th and 7th missions, and one was lost due to malfunction while rescuing one of the downed helicopters. Keep in mind they were flying into an area with dense Russian air defenses and enemy aircraft concentrated in and around Mariupol. Russian air defenses were beefed up after several missions leading to the losses in the later missions and the ending of further missions but the missions delayed the Russian takeover of the plant tying up Russian forces for a longer time.
@@1GTX1 The events described occurred in the third month of the war, after Russia had regrouped its forces in the east and was consolidating its limited earlier gains.
I would fault Perun in one area, Moore's Law says that every year chips get cheaper, but the cost of weapons go up. This is only starting to have an impact on the fighting. Next year we will have an avalanche of new smart weapons. Wars generally start with the weapons and tactics of the last war. When this war is over the military will be radically changed.
When describing the novel ways people have destroyed helicopters, I must admit I am saddened you did not mention the shoot down via an explosive tipped Bow and Arrow kill.
@@Aptonoth You mean Rambo? Dutch made his own explosive arrowhead and yelled “GET TO DA CHOPPA!,”, but Rambo is the one who shot down a chopper with an explosive arrowhead in Rambo III. Just too bad we never got to see a team-up!
There is one important thing, that is not mentioned in this video and rarely mentioned at all. If your weapon system is inefficient, because the opponent has its counter in every unit down to company or even platoon level, and because every viable strategic target is protected by dedicated assets... then maybe your weapon system is more efficient than it seems after all, even with limited options for an actual combat use. Vast majority of MANPADS carriers in Ukraine will never see an enemy helicopter in combat, just a small fraction will have a chance to effectively engage it. But all of them still have to be trained and equipped for the mission, just because there is a *chance*, that the enemy might employ helicopters around them. How much manpower and equipment goes to security detachments for infrastructure and important points in the rear areas, just because of a possibility of a daring raid. Not saying that it certainly worth it, but it is an important factor. I'd say more important than cost comparison between MANPADS and a helicopter. Because by that logic a bullet costs less, then a soldier, so people are obsolete. And always were (/s).
Absolutely, the enemy having attack helicopters will change how you will and can move your tanks and convoys and what amount of air defense, not just manpads, you will need for infrastructure so that it doesn't get sniped with guided missiles.
I've heard another reason for rocket slinging -- they might try to fool opposing side's counter-battery radars into either initiating battery suppression where there is none, or making it difficult for said radar to determine the origin of fire. not sure how accurate this can be
Sounds like BS. Folks try way too hard to complicate these sorts of things. The Russians are using existing system within the constraints that they are allowed.
Note that mast-mounted sughts, such as on the Apache Longbow and some versions of the Tiger are one option to reducce the exposure of the attack chopper in the defensive role. They're less useful on the offensive role, though AIUI, one tactic for MMS-equipped choppers is to peek over a hill before sprinting to the next.
You know, I am so tired if hearing the complaints by Russian TV about the US equipping Ukraine with weapons. In Vietnam, Russia flooded the NVA with every weapon system in the Soviet arsenal.
I like the idea of a defense budget comparison video. I would also love to see how intelligence is playing a part in the Ukraine war. Everything from civilians with cell phones and small drones to US provided satellite images. I think that is what is making this war so artillery based.
If they are shooting, or looking to shoot someone, then they expect enemy units in the area. The Stugna shooting down the Ka-52 is another example of your earlier point, not enough infantry with the heavy weapons. Not enough scouts, not enough OP's lets the Stugna team get in position uncontested, or lightly contested, and engage the $20M asset with a $10k rocket.
I keep hearing that thing about not enough infantry and I disagree. Yes, some infantry is desirable or even necessary (preferably mechanized infantry) but hardly in any great numbers and not for such things as scouting. Exposing your infantry to fire is exactly not what should be done, the armor is there for a reason... to protect infantry and other lightly armored units. Infantry is needed for ultra close up confrontations, tanks have so little visibility to see all around that it can be unaware of threats within RPG range and possibly to the rear. That is what infantry is needed to protect, the tank's blind spots. Not scouting ahead where infantry would be wiped out easily. As for Russian tank vulnerabilities against AT guns like Stugnas and Javelins... That's just taking advantage of a design defect or decision. Russian designs which are based on Soviet designs are intentionally limited in size and penetration armor so that the tanks can be transported across Europe's bridges on railways. Russian tanks are smaller and therefor less armored and are supposed to make up for their lack of armor with better agility and speed. Compared to the Abrams, Leopard 2 and Chieftain 2, you can see that Western designers made a different choice, no matter how difficult it is to transport Western tanks, bigger and better armored are prime objectives. This is why it took 3 mths for the US to prepare for the Gulf wars, only 3 tanks can be transported by a C-5 or C-117 at a time and can't be transported by rail easily. And that's why it's important to pre-position Abrams everywhere around the world, because we can't transport them fast enough in large numbers for any possible conflict. Note that despite hundreds of tank losses in Ukraine, Russia can keep feeding replacements into Ukraine and doesn't experience a drop in armor capacity. The US wouldn't be able to replace Abrams the same way in a conflict, so it's good that to date no Abrams has ever been reported destroyed although one was disabled when its tracks were shot off.
@@tonysu8860 well this is why the combined arms concept exists. You need armor to protect the troops and take on other tanks and heavy defenses, and you need infantry and scouts to keep the tanks free from having to take on everything, and keep the tanks informed about what is going on around them. To your point, nobody can get enough tanks to a single location to do everything. And you need Helicopters and fixed wing (including drones) to do overwatch over the infantry and tanks to help them. Can you fight a war without them? or course you can, but if the other guy can integrate his armor and infantry better than you can, it is going to be a very expensive war for you. So then it becomes a test of will. Do your leaders have enough willpower to keep pushing the war in spite of the costs? Russia is saying they do have the will to keep fighting, and so does Ukraine. With the extra training and weapons that Ukraine is getting, the expense for Russia will keep rising, and Ukraine too. This is why it is idiotic to fight a modern war, defensive firepower is ludicrously capable compared with the past. Both NATO and CISO have insisted for so long that their capabilities are "purely defensive" for so long that it has dominated their philosophies, at the expense of offensive capabilities. The assumption of every weapon system today is that it will keep falling back towards its supply line, but this cannot be true for both sides. One side needs a greater logistical capability than the other to take the offensive in the war. Neither side in Ukraine has that logistical capability, so it will be a pure war of attrition. @perun made a good point in one of his videos about all those reserve T62 and T72 tanks: how many of them have had the wiring stripped out of them and had that wiring sold on the black market? How many of these vehicles have been stored in a way that they can be brought back into use? Nobody stores vehicles perfectly, some number of them will be combat ineffective, so then the question is, when does NATO start to run out of Anti-tank rockets? How many have been made in the past month? Putin has been lied to by his people, and now he is going to force them to stay in the fight. The soldiers and their families will bear the burden of this stupid war. Nobody is going to win this one, except maybe the armaments companies.
Love your content! With an RAF runway melting last week during the heat wave, could we get a video at some stage around climate change and defence economics. This would be frighteningly interesting.
It looks like he only uses facts and truth, so he can’t speak about climate change and war. Before you get your panties too much in a twist, find the answer to why the climate data does not include data before 1940. Until you can, you are ignorant and should seriously stfu. Pro tip: it was hotter in the uk then
In relation to the rocket slinging attack - 100m CEP is probably within the regions of being reasonable against fixed installations or saturation attacks against infantry targets. Still a hugely inefficient use of munitions but if your pilots are terrified of MANPADs and it's a permitted tactic I can see it being popular.
Another thing beyond CEP is how the rockets themselves land. Because of forward flight, the rockets don't land on a circle but as a line. So if you pick the right orientation to release, you can shoot the rockets a little too soon or a little too late, and still score a few hits because of burst length.
For the Ukrainian side, it could well make sense if you have plenty of rockets but need to conserve your aircraft. The rockets are still made in eastern European countries, and likely aren't being used up in the way artillery shells are. Even if the lower accuracy means you need to do more missions to hit something, maybe that's still better than doing fewer more direct missions where your helicopters are likely to get shot down. I also wonder if part of it for the Ukrainians is just keeping their pilots active and experienced, with the intention of doing more direct and useful attacks if Russian air defences can be suppressed, rather than just have your pilots sat doing nothing.
Rocket slinging is just a secondary mission. Ka-52's are going out loaded with Vikhr and 305 NLOS missiles which we see used every day. Rocket slinging (artillery) is just a secondary mission, no point returning to base with them.
@@MS-wz9jm That's a good point. Using the 9K121 Vikhr would also explain some of the hovering as it requires constant laser illumination of the target.
Honestly the Tiger crashing into your apartment was the most realistic potential option in that chain of events, goddamn Airbus get your shit together.
My conclusions: -Transport and naval helicopters are indispensable. -Armies with limited funds who chiefly prepare for large scale conventional warfare should ditch their attack helicopters. Too expensive, too vulnerable, very limited usefulness. Artillery/MLRS, ammunition stockpiles, logistics, infantry, are all far more useful.
This is a fair assessment but I think there’s a significant RoI on AHs if they’re used as light cavalry that happen to be very heavily armed. They’re incredibly capable at fixing, screening and delaying forces, exploiting seams, etc. A battalion of Apaches can put 400 hellfires anywhere within 100 miles within one hour of notification. On terrain of their choosing, it’s nearly guaranteed that all those hellfires will hit without the enemy even hearing a helicopter…they’ll be behind a hill, trees, or building so far away and so low that no amount of MANPADS or S-400 can affect them. But using them as shock cavalry? Or to penetrate and disrupt the deep area? Leave it to MLRS directed by drones. That’s when you learn they’re glass cannons.
You expressed your appreciation for the civility of the comments. These are civil expressions made by people who are drawn to the analysis of violent wars, the vicious tools of war, the devious strategies of war, etc. You've managed to attract a big bunch of such extraordinary people. Great job!
I think the central elements of developing helicopter doctrine are twofold: 1. They are most useful when you have destroyed the enemy's air defense capabilities. In Vietnam, Soviet Union in Afghanistan, etc., their most aggressive and iconic uses are where the enemy doesn't have a systemic air defense capability. I think this is part of NATO's all-in-on-air doctrine: the air wing will destroy enemy air defense and then fixed wing and rotary aircraft can be aggressively employed as force multipliers. 2. They are expensive in dollar value but cheap in manpower. The loss of an attack helicopter loses you millions of dollars, but only one or two personnel. The loss of an APC loses you ten personnel, but only a few hundred thousand dollars. It's designed to try to trade dollars for manpower: you lose money but gain a manpower advantage over the opponent, which is useful when working with a volunteer force or contract force but you have a gross advantage in industrial capacity.
*The loss of an attack helicopter loses you millions of dollars, but only one or two personnel.* Disagree here. As was mentioned in the video, you might only be losing a couple of pilots, but think of how many hours of training and resources you had to put into them to get them to learn to properly fly a helicopter that you've lost and will take a significant amount of time to replace. Replacing a dozen soldiers is much easier than replacing a couple of well trained, experienced pilots.
@@UzumakiNaruto_ Yes and no. If there was a major conflict, you'd potentially be right. You'd be using a draft or patriotic fervor runs high leading to more volunteers, your opposition is a relatively equal match and so on. But say you're a peace time military from a wealthy country. You now have more money than people. Or if your opposition has more people, while you have more tech, well, you might need the latter to make up for the former. So it makes sense to use that money to make your fewer troops more effective. There's also an economic aspect, especially in peace time. Supporting some higher tech equipment means you're providing trained pilots and technicians, as well as funding some higher tech aspects of your society. So there could be economic benefits that offset the paper price. It is always a trade off, and history is rife with situations where either side of that trade off has come out on top. Smaller but better equipped/trained armies sometimes beat larger enemies, but at other times, large quantities of good enough overruns a smaller but better, pound for pound, force.
Excellent stuff, as always. I've had a few conversations with my dad about some of the points you cover, and it's helped him gain a less... shall we say, "newsy" perspective on this war, and on war in general. Keep up the good work, man. You're killing it.
So... I think this is focusing on the wrong half of the equation. Comparing "cost of MANPADS vs. cost of helicopter" only looks at what the *MANPADS* are doing so it only tells you that the *MANPADS* are worth it, but if the helicopter itself also takes out an even greater value of enemy tanks before it gets shot down, or if it interdicts supplies that cause an entire front to collapse, then obviously it was still a net advantage even in strictly monetary terms. You may as well say "No aircraft have been viable for the last 100 years since they can be shot down by $50 AA shells", or "No infantry are worth it since they can be defeated by $5 bullets"- The question probably isn't how much it eventually costs your enemy to shoot down your system; The question is probably what you can do with that system and how much damage you can inflict with it while you have it.
For once, I’m glad I clicked the bell. As a previous enlisted infantryman, air transport and support is crazy important. Before I watch the rest of the video, I will comment on the title with my opinion. Yes, the helicopter is here to stay. I’ve had a ton of interactions with CH-47s. I learned the meaning of the name much later on after I was stationed at JBLM and I did some advanced insertion training/missions with them previously in theater. The name comes from the native Chinook Indian tribe which means “Great South Wind”. These things kick up an absolute storm. I was pelted with rocks constantly when we used them in Afghanistan. Talk about power. The backwash is welcome when boarding as well during the winter months. With that aside, I think these are absolutely paramount to have in a military sense granted that air is not contested. CH-47s and UH-60s (and the like) are so important for readiness and combat/swift maneuvering of forces. Additionally, frames like the AH-64, greatly aid ground forces (once again, that air superiority is gained) with an armament of munitions that can strike land forces accurately and precisely. It’s why the A10 is so controversial with Congress. It’s the only fixed wing aircraft that can provide immediate close air support (CAS). It’s a platform that doesn’t have a replacement and it’s in desperate need of one with that capability. I bring up the A10 because there’s so many capability gaps that are shared with the helicopter across US branches (Army and Air Force). I’m gonna get into the video now.
I'd argue the station to strike time on an F-16C or F-15E is shorter than on an A-10C in most situations in addition to just being safer platforms to do CAS with, but it'll start a hell of an argument. The A-10 just "feels nice" because you see it closer for longer IMO.
@@foxtrotcharlie5227 but it provides such important capabilities. As a grunt on the ground, they literally change the context of a fight. They need a replacement for sure. But with those frames, we can literally be within range of M4 rifles, whereas with jets, we can’t. As a participant in those situations, it’s such a moral boost and offensive edge. I think it’s also important to say though, that the adoption of the new XM5 and XM250, the current modular approach to CAS may change because of range capabilities. The new grunts need to be trained in longer range tactics, and since many FMs and other doctrine don’t change, it would take a while to train the force for those tactics. There are definitely capability gaps all over the place.
@@ArchOfficial it’s important to remember close air support. Many don’t understand that absolutely capability, but it’s like a sniper in the sky. Even with precise munitions like GBUs, ground forces have to be a way back because of the splash of shrapnel. The A-10 and the AH-64 close that gap and provide us with the outside advantage of overwhelming fire superiority while allowing infantry to still use their weapons within proper range. It’s modular in a sense.
I'm going to add a post production comment here, rather than in the video because it's mere speculation on my part:
I'm still not sold on the pitch up attacks with unguided rockets that the Russians are doing. Namely because yes, with the right systems you can get the rocket dispersion down, but we're seeing videos of Russian helicopters turning during the firing process, or wobbling all over the place, meaning that dispersion is already going to be hundreds of meters minimum. Then there's the problem of how accurate the call for fire and the setting of the release point are - if those are off those rockets are going into empty fields. So personally, I'm still not sold.
There is also a strange misalignment between slides and audio towards the end of the presentation - one transition is missed so the slides are behind the audio. Apologies for that!
I'll also apologise for slipping on the pronunciation of everyone's favorite Polish MANPADS. I slipped into "Perun" rather than "Piorun." Not my worst pronunciation misstep but thought I'd call it out.
Finally, thanks again to the Chieftain for his help in pointing me to sources for this one - there's no evening reading quite like a 400 page manual.
Based on patron votes so far it's looking like I may do a defence-economics video on military budgets next week, but we'll see how production and research go.
I think if you're just gonna try to use Helicopters as unguided artillery, it's probably just better to just use a dedicated MLRS platform... Unless you don't have anything else available
Look out mate. The cheiften will get you into the importance of track tensioning next.
Good to hear here's helping out though. He's a great and knowledgeable guy who can deliver a fine lecture on the most dull subject and make it interesting. His video on paint drying was especially riveting.
@@dx-ek4vr yeah but you could have an Mi-8 on standby for a quick rocket suppression while the BM-21 are going to takes minutes to aim
G'day,
I tried to edit a spelling error in my comment, 1/4 of an hour ago..., and was told
"comment failed to post"...
One wonders if YT is glitching, if my phone is glitching, or if you don't recognise a bouquet when proffered ?
Therefore, this transmission Test.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Testing testing testing (Edit-1)
Okay, that worked.
Let's blame YT, or Optus !
So,
This is a great video.
As a contra deal, backtrack me to my videos to find last fortnight's
"National Transportation Museum...; Visiting My First Aeroplane !"
to have a giggle at the Lawnmower I used to fly !
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Even when they stay on target you can see the dispersion as the rockets come off. They're coming off over 5 degrees or so, thats a big dispersion over 5-8km. Even the few HUD shots showing symbology they're not staying in the circle very well once the rockets start coming off.
Then theres the rocket burn which isn't predicatable enough to judge range to any accuracy. It's not the same as lofting bombs.
I'm pretty sure it's just something for them to do that doesn't involve them exploding. Rockets are dirt cheap, it makes your soldiers think they're doing something and might scare the enemy a bit if some drop close by.
Guys drop everything, the latest 1 hour PowerPoint from Perun has dropped!
*drops coffee and newspaper on kitchen floor*
haha truth!
Its PowerPoint Sunday !
I literally did!
Guess you could say Perun has a pretty engaged audience!
The real problem with Perun's videos being so good is that I watch them all start to finish, which the TH-cam algorithm interprets as "This guy wants to watch lots more of these kinds of videos", and almost all the ones made by other people are terrible.
Time to get acquainted with the "Don't recommend this channel" button
much worse when youtube recommended "history legends"
Thats why Perun should make an in-depth video on how he researches and produces those videos.
Maybe 2-3 creators think about it then. And most common media-outlets too.
Imagine that, good journalism again.
@@artificair4813 No one was around to teach Perun how to make these videos. How come he could do it but these other fake-umentary channels need an advanced 2h powerpoint video in order to even get started doing the research?
At the end of the day it's more likely that they're just lazy, and know that saying a few vague and sweeping statements are already enough to get the clicks rolling in.
@@dsdy1205 Everybody is lazy, its human nature. The problem is that they might be stupid and never went to an university to learn how to research and present their work afterwards.
Because normal education tells you to read a book and believe whatever the book says. My teachers in school never told me to read a second book - or even look up if the author is actually an expert on that matter. And that was before Wikipedia was a thing, which is even worse.
Video was pretty spot on, I agree with pretty much all of it. I believe helicopters are still incredibly important machines of war for so many reasons even with the heavy losses, they've been around for a long time and won't be leaving soon. A not commonly known fact is that the first medevac by helicopter happened in World War 2, we're just two decades off a full century of helicopters being used in combat. There's so many roles for them beyond just lobbing rockets at things. Transport, medevac, escort, VIP, resupply, air assault, moving artillery, so on.
I personally think the likely result of the war is a shift towards only using helicopters in heavily planned operations, at least against capable foes. For Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and pretty much any recent war waged by either a Western power or even Russia/Soviet Union itself, helicopters tended to be consistently available. If you needed an extraction, just call a helicopter. Some fire support? Call in the apache. Wounded man? Get the medevac chinook over there. For even small deployments helicopters are relied upon and are available to respond as the mission develops, with enemy AA capabilities generally only able to deny a small area at any one time. The number of helicopters deployed versus guys on the ground for many modern operations is usually pretty staggering. Against a near-peer or peer foe however, with an air defence network with far longer reach, more radars of higher quality and a heavily increased number of MANPADS, I believe that helicopters remain useful but only with heavy prior planning. I think the Mariupol resupply shows this well - despite being essentially suicide missions, so far behind enemy lines that one pilot even reported being fired on by a ship as they flew out of the port, they still flew them and succeeded a reported 5/7 times, losing 2-3 helicopters. These missions were crucial in keeping the defenders fighting, and there's no other system I can think of that could have pulled off the resupply.
Risking lone helicopters at the front is probably no longer worth it either, for an insertion of troops into enemy territory to succeed it will likely require an escort just as the Vietnam-era assaults did (we saw this at Hostemal with Ka-52s escorting the VDV, as you noted in the video) and it will also need enough helicopters because even after attempts are made to suppress or avoid enemy air defences it is still likely that some dude down there in the trees has a working MANPAD with your name on it, so you'd need enough helicopters that one lucky MANPAD doesn't completely end the operation.
I did want to touch on the rocket slinging, because I think it's a very stupid idea for much the same reason as you. Important to remember that just because both the Ukes and the Russians do it does not make it a good idea, at least in terms of target effect. Equally important is that some people are saying that since the helicopters can't perform normal gun/rocket runs safely anymore, they 'might as well' use them in these toss-bombing missions - but 'might as well' ignores the fact that literally any flight of a helicopter costs money. Fuel, maintenance from wear and tear, transport of logistics for the helicopter, the needs of the crew, the ammo, the risk of having them forward deployed - all of these things are still draining your money/spare parts even if your chopper never gets close to an enemy MANPAD. (For example, the US deployed just 24 Apaches to Kosovo and cost themselves 480 million dollars to do so - the Apaches never fired a shot).
Now I said it's not a good idea for target effect - but it's definitely a good idea if your main goal is simply 'don't die'. Were I the grand armchair general I'd still ground the helicopters instead of using them for these missions, but imagine for a moment you're a pilot or a squadron commander for some helicopters and you get the order from on high to go bomb some place - bonus points if it's not really an important target. You know that you've lost a shitton of helicopters in the early stages of the war, and you also know that saying "no command I won't do that" is not going to go over well - doesn't matter if you're Russian, Ukrainian, American - you can't just tell your commander to fuck off. You can either risk a bunch of lives to do a traditional attack run or fly up, do some toss bombing and report to command that you successfully launched a dozen aircraft, completed all of the attacks and returned to base without any losses, what a champion you are. I don't think this entirely explains why these honestly very expensive and pretty ineffective attacks are taking place, but like with most things in reality I believe it is a small part of a larger answer. In the case of the Ukes it is also entirely possible that it was done out of neccesity of simply having no other systems at the ready as a lot of these toss bombing videos from the Uke side surfaced during the artillery duel in the Donbass where Ukraine repeatedly stated it was suffering ammunition and artillery shortages (about 2 months back).
You pop up in more places than the Iron Armenian.
well said, really enjoyed reading your comment.
I can also see the ballistic arc tactic being used as stopgap artillery. When you don't have suitable terrain or enough time to position artillery you can use long range helicopter bombardment in the meantime until you can. It also gives you the flexibility to strike from any (safe) direction and you aren't vulnerable to counter battery fire. There is also room for improvement, firing faster or from more stable pylons or something to clamp down on the dispersion.
Oh look, it's the guy from the first days of the conflict :). Your streams helped me a lot with dealing with all the information that was saturating the media. I guess you were right about other (potentially more qualified) people taking the role of covering the war in an unbiased manner as well.
I'm not going to lie, even before seeing your comment, this video reminded me of that time Whiskey Heli-rushed you...
So noticing that you had left a comment right after was quite surreal, guess I can never escape the down under gaming.
You are welcome, but I have to say, you're taking the source material and running with it very, very well. Long may it continue.
Defence experts' mentorship & community is what we need... Well done
Praise from The Chieftain is high praise indeed!
Thanks for lending a hand Chieftain. It's a good buzz when an experienced TH-cam channel can help out a new channel. Now about that track tension fascination of yours, you seem to have been slipping lately in mentioning it in your videos as well as "Oh bugger my Tank is on Fire!", both segments are well missed because they are a fun "in joke" for regular viewers.
Mark from Melbourne Australia
He has been pretty selective about which source material he accepts regarding the politics of the conflict. He clearly has a good understanding of economics, but obviously knew little to nothing about Ukraine & Russia prior to the escalation of this conflict, and got a large amount of his early information about the politics from the thick propaganda that was published in late Feb, early March.
@@jamesrowlands8971 What Information is he not including; or what propaganda is he posting, in his presentations to make you feel this way.
Reason I ask is because I've seen quite a few people ever since he started making videos point out this exact criticism however they never tend to elaborate on their exact concerns and problems, or when they do it's usually them denouncing Western propaganda by spouting even more Eastern propaganda so it tends to nor really answer the question in the end.
I'm genuinely curious about your opinion here.
Fun fact: in 1989 a Bell UH-1D helicopter from the Spanish army was downed by a sheperd who threw a stone at it as it was scaring his livestock
So yes, helicopters are very vulnerable indeed
just to let you know i couldn't find a source for this except for one quora post.
@@blueshark4926 you may find it in El País, in Spanish. "La Guardia Civil detiene al presunto autor del derribo de un helicóptero del Ejército de Tierra"
@@lahabitaciondelatrapado4621 found it, thank you
This exchange is the height of civility in regards to asking for sources and investigating them. Thank you for the positive example, both of you.
@@doctorgeneric8070 A shame we don't see this more often.
The primary limitations leading to early Russian and Ukrainian losses of attack helicopters was training/experience. Their attack helicopters have more range than most SHORAD threats in the area as well as ALL MANPAD threats. The Russians cowboyed into knife-fighting ranges using guns and rockets Vietnam style and got their jimmies smacked for it. They completely disrespected the Ukrainians and vastly underestimated their capabilities and paid for it. As you said, the U.S. wasn't losing helicopters from enemy action. The ones they lost were because there were too few Apaches in theater with way too many fire missions and the aging platforms were putting more flight hours than they should have on reduced maintenance schedules. That's why the long mission series were sharply reduced. They couldn't afford to send a critical resource and tie it up for days on a single mission when they could have done hundreds of responses to call for fires in the same amount of time while keeping them close enough to their original unit or supporting FOBs to still see their regular maintenance.
Attack helicopters can still do troop transport escort if they do it smart. Sets of attack helicopters/bombers should have preceded the landing troops to sanitize the area first before committing troops. You shouldn't be flying in a bunch of helicopters and infantry behind enemy lines blind as you're just asking to get your jimmy smacked into the dirt and you will lose assets. If the Russians just stick to using primarily Vikhr missiles and being cautious and methodical about it, they won't lose any more helicopters to MANPADs while still being effective. The probable concern is that at what level has the Russian corruption hit them in advanced missile procurement to where they don't really have enough Vikhr missiles to go around? The irony is, trying to "mortar" dumb fire rockets puts them at far more danger than just fielding older, shorter range ATGMs. A helicopter will almost always have a range advantage over their ground-based adversary for similar sized missiles. The helicopter missiles have the benefit of potential energy stored as launch altitude that the ground-based systems don't have. Given similar missile size/specs, the helicopter missile will always outrange it's ground-launched counterparts. The Apache will outrange it's LAV counterpart with the exact same missile as long as it has some altitude. This is why if you look at Tor and Buk, those missiles are MUCH larger than any missiles being used by an attack helicopter or even many fixed wing aircraft. Attack helicopters primarily survive as you said, by not getting shot at. Modern attack helicopters do this by outranging nearly all SHORAD threats and those they don't outrange, they use terrain masking and radar spoofing techniques to keep themselves alive.
Again, coming from a previous life as a helicopter crewman, the issues the Russians and Ukrainians have faced in their rotary wing service has been mostly a training/doctrinal issue. Their pilots lack combat experience and their commanders lack common-sense on where/how they should deploy helicopters. Any asset that overreaches and pushes well behind enemy lines is likely to be destroyed. U.S. helicopter operations behind enemy lines are known as clandestine operations. It's a secret. It's not much of a secret if you're constantly trying to do it. It puts the enemy on high, constant alert and your helicopter forces lose the element of surprise. That's why the airport raid worked in the beginning for a bit. It was clandestine. The Ukrainians were caught with their pants down and the assault was initially successful. The losses shortly afterwards were because those VDV troops never linked up with the regular forces pushing south because the regular army failed and were repulsed. The Russians got greedy and took losses because of it. The helicopters were lost because they stuck around after the element of surprise was lost and got clapped. It's the primary reason for nearly all of Russia's losses to date in this conflict.
The Russians lack real modern experience and are still using Soviet doctrine for everything. They're misusing all of their equipment against an adversary that's long since been trained to counter said doctrine.
Thank you for your highly informative post! 👍
This missile system is called "Vihrj", mister my orthographists cannot into Latin alphabeto. Kindly with regards
@@worldoftancraft
Then again, both "Yekaterinburg" and "Ekaterinburg" are considered correct spellings. So, I think it's not wrong to write it as "Vikhr".
And on the topic on "kh" even Sukhoi writes their name with a "kh", even though a simple "h" would be correct.
@@Slavic_Goblin is it my decision to write the words of Russian/Ukraînian/Bêlorussian/Bulgarian like it's a retarded dialect of English, thus don't have an orthography the tradition of English loaning would respect? No, it wasn't mine.
By whom it's considered? By people who simply never cared. Who's language identity exists only in political statements - not in the practice.
In this megasmart language even "KrasnoJarsk" exist as a name of one fallen stellar body. Just because it firstly was named by a germanophone then got into the magnificent all inclusive language.
@@worldoftancraft
With transliterations you kind of need to strike a balance between accuracy and practicality. Otherwise, you might as well use the following "spelling": vʲixrʲ... it's the most accurate way.
Hey, even if you eventually start to fall off of the strict Ukraine thing, I utterly adore this type of content, especially when you mix history with the modern context of nations. This stuff will always have a place in my heart, even long after the Ukraine war ends. It’s so lovely to hear and so informative with the PERFECT mix of occasional humor.
With all the negatives of the modern world, this type of content is awesome. During the Vietnam war, all we had was This Week with David Brinkley. Someone like this would not have had a platform other than the local pub or mess hall.
The fact most channels doing this type of content largely ignore the history is why this channel is so good. The history of the Baltic region and Russia has always been a very volatile one for hundreds of years. So people not knowing the nuances of the various Russo nations or even the history of the Rus(the start of Russia) its hard to seriously grasp the political side of things.
@@_gungrave_6802 The whole Europe has always been volatile just as Middle-East and Asia. There is no political side of things. Russia simply doesn't respect the setup in Europe now. England fought France for hundreds of years. France fought the Austro Hungarian Empire etc and then Germany. I could go on about thousands of conflicts in the last 1000 years. What Russia does is take some date and says: " This is when things were normal and it all has to come back to it. If every country in Europe does this we'll just kill everybody. We created EU because the idea of disrespect or conflict between one another is just crazy these days.
And there are no Russo nations. Only Russians think that. They are some uber Slavs and all the other Slavic nations are there to exploit.
I also don't understand what you are talking about because he didn't talk about history. History of helicopter is not a historical/political lecture.
@@_gungrave_6802 Yes, go back to the Rus and their influence in various European areas and especially beyond. Details of the changing political boundaries would be informative (and complex).
I've been watching cnrsenal for years. I'm down for long former content
I’m a former ground crew mechanic in The Israeli Air Force. Maintenance is and always will be a difficult aspect to rotary eviction. In 2006 we were positioned in northern Israel while fighting our northern neighbor. We were under attack several times by various rocket systems and we had no defense systems at the time except for running for cover me and a buddy once found ourselves running to a nearby bunker and when our eyes adjusted to the low light bunker we realized it was an ammunitions bunker lol. One spark and we would’ve been gone.
Anyway, while we did lose some attack helicopters during that war, it was mostly accidents that did it, and without giving too much away, the IAF does exactly what Peru’s said which is to shot from a longer distance. That approach has been working phenomenally in Gaza but are probably irrelevant for war zones like Ukraine. My take on this is that despite challenges such as manpads, helicopters will definitely be vital in specific future conflicts. Amazing video and well done on the research. The wifey has the Covid so I’ve been taking care of our baby girl all week and this video was such a good escape and a chance for me to unwind. Thank you!
I think it ties back into the argument about tanks being "antiquated', in which tanks and helicopters both continue to provide resources in which thier absence leaves capability vaccumes where there is no effective substitute. If anything, the Ukraine war is a wake up for arms manufacturers to modernize against threats that were seen as hypothetical and are now actualized and credible. Not only will it be an opportunity to modernize airborn assault and fire support practices, but also a study in airborn assault countermeasures.
The industrial model of creative destruction makes me think that the next big move here is drones. Cheaper first , then smarter. As a critter at the top of a food chain for the moment, I am disquieted. Dystopian as all get out. Hope your family is bettter.
The issue is in a war where one opponent is much stronger helicopters were very well. But in a nation with plenty of portable aa weapons and motivated troops then helicopter losses can be exceptionally high. That is why when you see nato nations with such tiny stocks of helicopters you would be out of helicopters in afew days of fighting., i think any stocks of helicopters need to be substantial if a conflict with an equaitable opponent is expected
maintenance would be a good video in itself, esp eg training maintenance staff on new weapons mid-war
I think the concept of a dedicated attack helo is obsolete. A transport help with some hard-points that can fitted with stand-off weapons when necessary is probably still useful.
being from Slovenia, where we were fighting our biggest forest fire in our history for the past week, and "half of europe" send their (mostly military) helicopters to help us, I think helicopters will stay in use for some time :)
Can confirm, am Slovenian
Bloody you too have massive forest fire. That planet is really starting to warm up.
Helicopters do things that nothing else can, after all.
Fires are the great enemy of Australians - I wish you all the best fighting them.
@@PerunAU "fun" fact: the area of the fire was part of "Soška fronta" (Battles of the Isonzo) during WW1. firefighters could constantly hear explosions of unexploded bombs and mines from that era...
I am Ex-British Army I was trained on the HVM Stormer (SP Starstreak) It's a very hard system for the Aircraft to avoid Because it's detection system the (ADAD) Is not a traditional Radar It's extremely fast Mach 3.5 Semi-Beam Riding when they are painted with a laser the crew has very short time to get out of the way In under a second it's going Mach 3.5 from leaving the launcher These are old notes I was reading from back in 2002 when I did my course so I think these figures have probably have changed since then and have been improved the missile over the years
Very interesting, I didn't realise the system had been in use that long.
So you have one second to get out of the way of the missile you probably don't even know got launched? LOL. Good luck russia..
@@AJPMUSIC_OFFICIAL It was in service before I joined in 1999 with 12 Regiment RA and Then with 47 Regiment at the time but 47 Regiment has rerolled to UAS these day
@@tc12454 It's going Mach 3.5 in under a second you'll still have more time to get out of the way as it's still got to get to the target engagements are usually in minutes and with a good operator the engagement
@@tc12454 No that's the time it takes for the missile to get to mach 3.5 Not the engagement time that will depend on Distance and good operator etc.. The range of the system in my time was 5.5km that's old missile I know it's longer these days I am not going to say what that is on here
A common point I see brought up when talking about the rocket lob attacks is the question, "why use the helicopters in this manner when there are systems much better suited?" Simple answer: its available. Despite being objectively less effective than any of the ground based systems, you aren't going to just stop using them in this manner when you consider that there are a lot of things that need shooting and a limited number of things to shoot at them with. Removing the helicopters from these attacks just means that there are that many less targets getting hit and that those targets will just be pushed off onto other assets.
I think its too easy to tend towards the conclusion that this is a wasteful use of these weapons. At the end of the day, what are we expecting? That they only use them under ideal circumstances? The way I see it, the Russians have tons of these cheap unguided rockets. If they were to wait for that perfect time to use them then they are likely just sitting on a huge stock of rockets doing nothing. Better to get them out there and do some damage rather than none.
If it’s all you got, okay, but don’t buy more.
Thanks. I may be in the minority, but your defense economics topics sound fascinating to me. Side note, I can confirm (through my brother in law in the TDF in the Mykolaiv region) that even small TDF units have ATGM and MANPADS readily available for use. This fact greately increases the moral and the willingness to stand their ground.
That mirrors the experience from WW2. When the boys on the ground had support weapons around which could take out mechanical monsters, they were much more willing (and able) to hold ground. Best wishes to you and your family in this terrible time.
I agree. I came into this channel on the back of a really good defense economics video
Defence economy topics are what's best about this channel.
@@irvhh143 E6 costs more.
@@irvhh143 An E6 can't take off a helicopter pad or an aircraft carrier. An E6 isn't an ASW platform, it's command and control in the event of lost of ground command from say, nuclear war. E6 is a Boeing 707 which the E3 'AWACS' is also based on.
The helicopter is a self-contained ASW package right where you need it that the sub can't counter short of sinking the mothership, at which point the helicopter is going to angrily hunt and retaliate until it runs out of fuel. That same helicopter can also be configured for other jobs like S&R, ship boarding, pirate hunting, supply delivery.
The perception of attack helicopters is another example where it feels like people are using equipment as if they learned to use them from a video game.
The image of an attack helicopter providing close air support, bringing destruction down on the enemy in a rain of cannon and rocket fire may look awe inspiring, but it's basically a Hollywood version of terrifying.
The truly terrifying use of attack helicopters isn't as cinematic. It's a unit going about its business as usual (especially at night) then suddenly having a portion getting blown up or shot up with no or very little warning. And in the time it takes people to recognize they are under attack and start looking for where the source is the attack helicopters have already disengaged and left. The technical counters won't help you unless you are Constantly looking for the attack from Everwhere. At which point even if the helicopters don't destroy a single piece of equipment they can help destroy the effectiveness of an army because trying for 360 degree, 24/7 defense will fatigue and wear down your army.
Do people need to look ? ... they have sophisticated equipment to do that - microphones, radar, infra red, sonar, night vision, heat vision etc
@@MichaelFlynn0 While all the sensors and modern hardware Help, they all have limitations. One of the things attack helicopter pilots train in is exploiting them for this sort of combat. Against high flying aircraft automation is relatively easy, but low to the ground there is a Lot of clutter that makes automatic defenses more difficult unless you're willing to have it shoot at every squirrel and Frisbee it detects.
And in real life attack helicopters aren't attacking on a small enclosed map from a limited set of directions during a period where the defenders know they will be in combat. So, unless you somehow have millions of defensive systems you can't cover every vulnerable location, forcing you to do things like put a sentry on patrol with a Manpad to fill the gaps. And in the contest of AH that can choose its time and place of attack versus sentry that doesn't know when and where the AH will come from usually the AH wins.
we at least, even in basic military service, have been trained to keep lookouts 24/7, about a third of the force;
That reduces effective workforce by a third, obviously, but thats how it is, helicopter or not, I thought?
(coincidentally, we were AAGM, so anti-helicopter troops basically, thus our lookouts were looking for everything else, but I thought every unit would keep lookouts?)
Which is probably why that guy Perun commented on seen sitting around with a MANPAD in most artillery videos looks so damn tired. Very important job!
You know, that os the same exact rational I've seen to justify keeping marine infantry amphibious capabilities.
By all account an amphibious assault in this day and age is suicidal. However the capability to do so still forces the opposition to defend their entire coastline and spread their forces thinner.
I have a weak bladder and thought I could never go to war. MANPADS is a real game changer for me.
Lmao
I would need a man pad when they told me I was going to the front line \(*_*)/
About future of helicopters: They can't be replaced in logistics and human transport roles in many terrains. Mountains, jungles, isle hopping, medevac, there is nothing so far that can compare to good old helo. However in combat roles such as convoy escorts and insurgency strikes, we have old platform, AC-130 gunship, and emergent drones. Drones can be up in the air for almost a day with single load of fuel, have precision strike weapons, can carry bombing hover strikes with awesome precision as well. So I think helicopter roles will be shifting towards transport operations more and more.
I can see drones taking over some - but critically not ALL - the combat roles that a helicopter currently does, especially with the standoff 'ordnance trucking' and overwatch roles. Especially since there's a lot less stopping someone on the ground from linking to a drone and taking over sensor and weapon systems on that drone.
@@roguevector1268 Taking over military drone control might been an issue in early phases of use, but we don't see much of it now. Heck, we don't see it when Ukranian soldiers using consumer grade drones vs russian troops. And Russia has decent EWAR capabilities. Military drones have encrypted channels, direct satellite links, semi autonomy programs after loosing direct contact with operator, etc. And drones are a LOT cheaper to replace than helicopter and low chance of pilot live loss.
Or the helicopter will merge with the drone. Computers will make flying it will be as easy as driving a car (so anyone can do it), while you will be able to radio control or it too.
Look at Clay Christensen's work on Creative Destruction in industry. Drones will get smarter, more capable. Start Corolla, end Lexus.
Imagine, then drones hunting helo's. MANPADS getting continually smarter, as they have been doing.
@@Paciat that's what Turkey is doing with their new unmanned attack helicopter
In my memory, over the past thirty years, so many types of military equipment have become useless (according to Internet specialists and various kinds of experts), that it’s even a little strange why then someone still produce tanks, artillery, aircraft, helicopters, ships, bulletproof vests and helmets. Recently I came across an article in which the author, talking about Russian air defense systems, came to the conclusion that drones also became obsolete, but after a couple of sentences, he said that Turkey needs to stop supplying them to Ukraine. I think that if any equipment is handled idiotically, it will not be of any use. With the same success, you can hammer nails with a drill and when nothing comes of it, tell everyone that drills are hopelessly outdated.
Mah damned hammah took 30 minutes to hammah this here screw thing inta mah wall. Hammah's are obsolete!
More seriously, Yup, totally agree with you.
@@alganhar1 probably used a Soviet hammer, an American hammer would've been a game changer.
I don't think it is strange. If taxpayers will pay for it, they will make it. With an uninformed population, you can spend money on the most inefficient and expensive platforms and defense contractors will help pay for your reelection.
My old SLR is now redundant from my RAAF days ;-)
The Chinese claimed they had rendered Aircraft Carriers obsolete because of their Doomsday Hypersonic Missiles from Hell...But they are building them like there are going out of style(And before someone says something; Yes, NATO has carrier-killing weapons. Has had them for decades, the AGM-158 LRASM being the latest iteration.
From a soldier's perspective the helicopter absolutely has a role in the Ukraine conflict. It's a challenging operating environment, but when used correctly they can still be devastatingly effective. I put the initial poor use of Russian rotary down to ludicrously incompetent tactical employment based on false assumptions; and their timid use now to a lack of supporting assets to shape the battlespace for their effective employment.
Obviously the best situation is to have air dominance; but if you don't have that the key to using rotary assets in a contested environment are proper REDFOR intelligence, excellent ISR picture and skilled terrain masking. REDFOR intelligence gives an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy's ground based air defence so you can plan. Good ISR tells you where they are to avoid them. Terrain masking, route planning and speed will limit the exposure when you absolutely have to transit air defence bubbles.
The fact the Russians started this war with opposed airmobile insertions is actually insane. Defence Forces do train for this, on the understanding it's a terrible option and shouldn't really be done unless there are exceptional circumstances. (Add opposed amphibious landings to that list) Even the lightest resistance can have catastrophic results when you make your own force so vulnerable. Using this tactic is like using an infantry Urraah! charge against machineguns in the modern era. Sure you might win, but you're going to get chewed up so badly it hardly matters.
Its real Pyrrhus of Epirus hours
What a lot of people forget is that the helicopter was designed to perform 2 specific roles. 1 was for the fast transport of troops over rough terrain for quick incision and extraction. This is 1 thing that only the helicopter can really perform even today. The second one was to be quick reaction tank destroyers. During the cold war NATO expected that the Soviets would break through locations simply due to the size of their armored forces so these attack helicopters would be able to quickly respond. This is why modern NATO attack helicopters are designed with their sensors on top of the aircraft so that they can hide behind terrain, pop up and fire at an enemy, and then retreat back to cover. They ended up of-course becoming general CAS aircrafts simply because the US ended up only fighting insurgencies that lacked sophisticated air defense systems so there was almost no threat to the crafts.
Don't forget that the US army is not allowed fixed wing close support aircraft as that is relegated to the US air force. Rotary wing aircraft as close support aircraft grew out of the need for them during the Vietnam war as the air force had other missions as well. Army commanders wanted their own close support that they could control. As always, missions tend to expand as a method to get for funding for the hardware.
www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/3622
Helicopters becomes obsolete in ukraine because it's a flatland
If you had a war in the jungle it would act godlike there since its harder to lock on and lower visibility and varying altitude
@@everydaydose7779 @perun, if you run out of items on ukraine can you talk about french and us efforts in africa vs the insurgencies there over the last 2 decades?
The US Army Cobra has a hover/hold function... I am not sure in real combat about the overall effectiveness of hovering on a modern battlefield.
In ww2 aviation had really high losses too. The difference was they replaced stuff as fast as it got shot down and training times were far shorter. That being said most of germanies prewar experienced pilots were dead by mid 1942. After that their losses climbed higher. In ww1 life expectancy for pilots on the front was about 2 weeks or 2 missions whichever came first. Again far shorter training times and the aircraft were replaced as fast as they were lost. I realize this video is focused on ka52 but I'm curious how many hind and transport helos have been lost to manpads.
losses were pretty much unsustainable on both sides for different reasons. the germans couldn't replace the pilots and planes while the allies couldn't afford to loose bombers at the rate they were and continue their mission, and in the battle of britain, both the brits and germans had unsustainable losses in aircrewes but the brits had the advantage of being able to rest and recouperate as well as launch interceptors with early warning while the german pilots were doing 2-3 sorties a day at the worst part of that stage of ww2 which absolutely burned them out
A 2 week life expectancy is terrifying. You're being sent in to die in a meaningless fight that nobody will remember you got involved in.
@@AsbestosMuffins it's even worse when you realize a well trained pilot at one point had 3 months of training. Pilots going into the battle of Britain in ww2 often had 6 weeks and less than 10 hours of actual flight time.
Mid-1942 is too early, more like end of '43, but correct in principle
@@AsbestosMuffins OK, well when it comes tot he Battle of Britain at least there is a problem with your statement. Fact is the RAF had more fighters and fighter pilots on active roster in September than they had at the start of the battle in June.
Were those pilots dog tired? Sure, they were flying multiple sorties a day, they were exhausted. But then so were the German air crews.
The fact does remain though that even early in the Battle of Britain aircraft production, at least when it came to fighters, exceeded losses in Britain. By the end of the Battle in September pilot replacement also exceeded losses.
The fact that the RAF had more fighters and fighter pilots by the end of the battle is actually a matter of public record, but very, very few people even in the UK are even aware of that fact. I know I was not until about 6 years ago. Part of that was the fact that pilots who were shot down and bailed out and survived were recovered, some even returning to the air within a day of being shot down. The main part though is the training had started to kick in, people often forget that at the start of the war many of the RAF's training cadres were relocated to Canada, and a huge proportion of RAF crews and pilots were partially or even fully trained there well away from the UK.
As a result throughout the war the UK was not only able to sustain its aircrews and pilots, but was able to expand them, massively increasing the number of active squadrons through the war. September 1940 was when the first major influx of the pilots from this new training program really started to flood into the UK, many of them of course from the Empire or the Commonwealth.
Clearly, the infantryman is obsolete. Every war results in a huge number of casualties and ever since the development of the rifle the infantryman has been extremely vulnerable to a wide range of threats!
Think of the cost effectiveness of destroying an infantryman with a bullet! This counter is way too efficient.
Until Ai controlled robots are used as infantry, human infantry will be needed to take, hold, and occupy ground. There will always be a need for this role
@@kevinsun7617 cost to train US Army infantryman $50000
Cost of single AK-47 bullet $0.30
@@artnull13 cost for the infantryman needs a zero added. Cost of the AK round needs a zero removed. XD
War is obsolete. Extremely long winded diplomacy, and congressional/ parliamentary filibusters wear at the morale of both your enemy and domestic audience incredibly effectively, proving to be more cost effective and less economically devastating to both parties. In fact, if you examine the criteria and historical context, in sorry what was i saying?
I couldn't be happier watching these 70 minute power point presentations on obscure military things, but i don't know why
None the less, love the content Perun
Knowledge is power.
@Uncle Joe A source that is unfortunately few and far between, but that makes it all the more valuable. If you want another one, check out Economics Explained, it almost makes up for our SAS executing unarmed civilians in Afghanistan
@@8calcifer I am not so sure about Economics Explained, they are not remotely on the same level as Perun. I have caught them far too often contradicting themselves so hard I was wondering if they had proofread their script. They constantly fall into the perfect information and rational actors trap. The mistakes were not corrections, they were fundamental. Their minimum wage video is shockingly bad.
I’ll raise you on Richard Bennett. A Luftwaffe pilot (name escapes me at the moment) in his BF-109G fitted his bomb rack with an SC250 equipped with a timed fuse. He flew to an approximate altitude above a USAAF B-17 Combat Box. He released the weapon and it detonated in the middle of the formation destroying 3 and damaging several more.
Hey Animarchy
well 120kg of TNT and 130 kg of steel fragment sure deadly if it go off mid air
Hi , the name you are looking Is Heinz Knoke , His book was called" I flew for the Fuhrer"
I hope this helps,
The Americans did that to themselves repeatedly - a 200lb bomb at terminal velocity will take the entire tail or wing off another bomber even if it doesn’t explode.
Wait... someone did that?! Sheesh, I'm surprised that didn't become doctrine!
Hey Perun! I am a guy who has always been interested in war history and I have to say that you are one of the best channels I have seen on youtube. Your willingness and drive to really dive deep into the heart of the issues. You are willing to really go above and beyond to prove your points and i really enjoy that. I also love the fact that you are really transparent on giving data from both sides and you are really careful to not be in favor of one side or the other when giving data. All in all you are doing a great job and i hope you keep posting!
a small anecdotal story demonstrating just how fragile helicopters are: my friend was serving as a helicopter mechanic, there was at least one instance of someone angerly throwing a wrench at a helicopter and piercing it.
Imagine what a slap round out of a .50 cal can do that helicopter that’s ridiculous.
@@enriqueperezarce5485 If the round doesn’t just detonate first, it would probably go straight through the helicopter depending on where it hit.
Slap on duct tape (100mph tape) and fly on!
@@kieranwalsh2058 I understood the reference
@@enriqueperezarce5485 the actual critical target area on a helicopter is quite small.
Pilot(s), engine/transmission, tail rotor drive shaft, and tail rotor.
A hole in the skin is trivial.
Back in 1996, my school got a UH-1H Huey from the Colorado National Guard. It was a Vietnam veteran, the school got the logbooks with it, and as we were preparing the bird for repainting we found a shell hole in the engine cover that had been filled with some automotive spot filler. The last time the logbooks mentioned damage was 1969.
Growing up I was never this excited for the weekly hour long slide show.
I really like that Perun doesn't use his titles as clickbait, but actually hints at what he's going to argue.
I literally yelled "YEAH" when I seen the Perun notification. Been waiting all week for this PowerPoint briefing. Cheers mates 🍻
Same!
Thank you for reminding me to turn on notifications. As much as those work on YT these days.
^^ this
I don't think we should dismiss heli losses due to accidents that easily. Ultimately, if helicopters are so hard to fly that they keep crushing- that only increases their logistical/financial footprint, especially in peacetime
One thing that can help is better automation of the actual business of flying, much as how the F-22 and 35 can effectively fly themselves
Flying a helicopter is kinda like playing a drum set. Your right hand controls moving front/back/left/right, your left hand controls up/down, and your feet control which direction your nose points.
If you have a hand free, you can control other things...
They become easier to fly all the time. Air Sea Rescue helicopters can basically fly themselves and hold a hover in a gale!
This can be said of ANY weapons platforms. Our own military has had more losses in training since Vietnam than in all following combat theaters... combined. This is what happens when you have a standing offensive/wartime military force during peacetime. We have a tendency to forget those that die during peacetime, if we find out about them at all. And at the same time, we make fun of other countries that experience these same types of losses; making the whole thing a big joke. Think about that next time you laugh at one of Russia's or China's training losses. And also know this, we have lost so much more than they have...
@@danielduncan6806 on a related note, the more you sweat and occasionally bleed in peacetime, the less you bleed in war.
The US flies a lot. The US flies a lot doing wartime missions, including full planning of large-scale operations. While only the 101st trains to do full battalion Air Assault lifts, _every_ US infantry brigade regularly does helicopter operations lifting a company at a time.
Im also glad you and The Chieftain are on conversational terms, saves a lot of back and forth rebuttal videos, which are unnecessary when youre essentially mak8ng the same points from a different perspective, and where theyre different, its due to genuine differences based on those perspectives. Top notch 👍
Can we get a once month video that’s an update on the overall situation in Ukraine. Like an assessment on un/successful tactics and momentum etc. Not asking you to overwork yourself, you just do very good and reliable analysis which is hard to find elsewhere :)
That would be great!
things are looking bad for the western Ukes. Short on everything from manpower, munitions and transports to tanks, aircraft and medical supplies.
Exact casualties are impossible to know, but estimates are high on both sides ( for western standards) .
Himars has slowed the russian advance, but like they found a way to overcome the tb2 drones, I think it's only a matter of time before they develop a counter to himars.
I expect Russ is getting ready for a big push in August, with Uke separatists on the vanguard , naturally.
This would be great, especially as the war moves away from teh spotlight.
I don't think tactics or strategy are *really* Perun's thing, he is more of a big-picture guy.
@@BoleDaPole well, by august, they’ll have another 10,000 trained troops from the UK ready to go, and US lends lease isn’t stoping anytime soon.
"Novel weapons" - I had a German farmer throw potatoes at me while I was flying around at low level (our tactical limits were "skids clear of ground and one-half rotor diameter from vertical obstacles") in the late 1980s.
We survived.
You were lucky. They probably weren't infrared-homing potatoes- those things are deadly. 😁
@@loumencken9644 Timing is everything.
Such technology did not exist back then.
And, on the one occasion where a rake strike was attempted, its maximum altitude and range were insufficient by about five and twenty feet respectively.
@@TheLoachman You joke but I heard a story of a helicopter being dropped by some farmer that threw a rock at it which hit the wrong place.
@@jgw9990 In Gulf War 2 a Blackhawk was famously brought down by a farmer with a WW2 vintage bolt action rifle (no casualties though). A small piece of metal hitting the wrong place is all it takes.
Well, brt you made a lot of raw potato chips that day.
Be glad a big rock was not included in that volley!
(Really ness up rotor blades).
11,846 helicopters were lost during Vietnam. 5000 aircrew were killed. The US has since built thousands more and use them in every war. In WW2 tens of thousands of tanks were lost in battle. Yet, every army on earth has them still. Infantry are killed in every war ever fought but so far no one has declared them obsolete. The fact is, war is just dangerous.
Interesting point. Vietnam is probably a weird example. The other technologies you mentioned have won wars on the side of whoever used them best as normally both sides had the technology. However in Vietnam, the USA had, as you point out a mind boggling advantage in it's use of helicopters when it came to numbers and definitely in tech...and yet lost the war.
Were helicopters still a central part of most wars since? Yes. But never used in the same way and for good reason.
I just can't think of another example of a major system like a helicopter which failed so badly when introduced by a country that was so incredibly strong and yet lost the war it was involved in. It would be like the royal navy loosing ww1 in a series of Dreadnaught based fleet actions. Or like the Romans loosing against barbarians who were better organised infantry.
It's unusual that helicopters are still used given your analogy is my point. I had a point. It just took a while 😂
French Knights were slaughtered at Crecy in 1346. The dumbasses were still trying to fight English longbows with armored dudes on horses at Agincourt in the 15th century.
Guess what happened?
They were slaughtered, but worse.
Multirole helos are useful. By all means attach a couple hardpoints that can be used when the opportunity presents itself. But dedicated attack helos are dead as Disco.
They literally became obsolete about the same time Disco did.
They’ve been useless since the early ‘80s unless you’re literally fighting unarmed civilians.
There is still a place for helicopters but it is a dangerous place.@@AdamMGTF
Every Sunday, I wake up, stretch, and then get excited for my hour long lecture on military strategy and procurement. My younger self just wouldn’t understand.
As always, well done. The depth of your analysis is fantastic as always.
I am reminded of Lam Son 719 in 1971. There while flying over very prepared and organized NVA troops, the loses to helicopters was staggering.
More than 750 American helicopters took part in Lam Son 719, flying 160,000 sorties. Most of the choppers came from the 101st Airborne. The division lost 84 machines in the campaign, with another 430 damaged. A fifth of those were rendered inoperable. Combined helicopter losses totaled 108 machines destroyed and 618 damaged. During the two months of flight operations, 72 helicopter aircrew members were killed, 59 were wounded and 11 were missing.
Christ! That's basically every single one of them.
@@RobinTheBot Depends on how you look at those numbers. 160k sorties is over 200 sorties per helicopter. Given that, I'd say the losses and damaged craft are actually pretty minimal. Especially as "damaged" can mean anything from a single bullet hole to barely limping back home.
Who would have guessed that heli's flying over heavily defended NVA territory would face withering ground fire.
My dad was there with the 101st flying a Cobra. His friend was shot down three different times, and my dad “just” once. They knew they were all going to be hit, he did they just hoped it wasn’t that bad.
@jamesw1313 Fortunately, helicopters (or any aircraft) don’t typically just explode as soon as something hits them, and helos don’t instantly explode when they hit the ground!
It's so fun to see discussion on this phase of the war. I hadn't thought about these battles since early '23.
A point you arguably missed here too: many drones, especially the ones doing recon, are rotary aircraft too. So maybe the evolution is toward smaller, cheaper, heavily role specialized helicopters working alone and in conjunction rather than big, expensive, multirole manned vehicles.
Yeah I can see smaller drones doing recon and sabotage behind enemy lines so that helicopters (probably heavily armed) can be more effective with less resistance trying to take it down.
As a point, the likes of the Apache, KA etc aren't true multirole aircraft. First and foremost they are gunships, designed to bring serious firepower to a given AO, kill a set target or whatever is giving the guys on the ground trouble, and leave once everything is dead. The reason you find them doing all the extra stuff such as recon is because neither the US nor the Russians or indeed anyone making their own military helicopters has been able to get the recon attack helicopter concept to work. The Comanche for example (seeing as if the bottomless pit that is the US military budget can't do it who the hell can) was a spectacular failure resulting in the Apache and the Cobras having to pick up the missions the Comanche was supposed to do (light recon, escort etc). The US even now is still chasing that particular recon attack helo unicorn with its latest recon helicopter project and I suspect it will fail again.
@@Fordmister yeah, Perun was kinda jumping back and forth in the video between different roles in any case.
Maybe we'll start to see heavily-armed attack drones. There's no engineering rule that says drones have to be small.
@@stevec7923 no, but small is usually cheaper and more maneuverable, and without the need to include a passenger compartment, it frees up more options.
The sad part of the way this subject is handled by other media outlets is simply to generate views. I appreciate your efforts to shatter the misconception.
The media doesn't have the time to delve into such detail. A newspaper article has a word count limit and and the evening news maybe has a 5 minute segment they can dedicate on the topic. They have to condense the topic so you can be informed about the 7 day weather forecast.
The goal of any company is to make money. Media organizations do this by selling advertising. The more eyeballs they can get on their content, the more money they can make. So this is where clickbait and sensationalism come in. Factual accuracy and integrity are pretty far down the priority list. 🤷♂
My step father was a Vietnam vet and flew hueys and acted as a chopper gunner at times. He has told me plenty of stories of being shot down two or three times in one day and being sent back up in another one. Huey's were a dime a dozen back then
Back in 2013 I had a client at work and he was of retirement age wearing a hat that said "Korean and Vietnam Vet". I asked him about his service. He was a helicopter Pilot during Vietnam and flew an Ambulance Helicopter. He claimed to have flown over 100 rescue missions and I have no reason to doubt his claims. I asked him if that was a record and he said there was a Marine Pilot that had flow a couple more missions than him but he had flown the second most rescue missions during the entirety of the Vietnam War. He saved hundreds of American and her allies lives. He's a genuine hero with balls of steel to fly those dangerous missions.
He's a war criminal.
Not sure who said this but there is a common quote that goes: "Helicopters are aircraft that don't want to stay in the air". They suffer from really high accident rates because if the tail rotor fails the entire aircraft becomes uncontrollable. If you lose the main rotor, you lose control of the aircraft. Both rotors work in conjunction to keep it from spinning out of control. This is how the double top rotor systems work to avoid needing the tail rotor, but the problem remains. If you lose a propeller or engine in a fixed wing aircraft it can still be flown as a glider to the ground. Helicopters just spin and fall out of the sky.
Choppers can glide too. Look up the term autorotation. It's what you do when you lose engine power.
Not the beast Perun is using as an example here. It's got a pair coaxial contra rotating blades, so does not need a tail rotor. If that complexity and added failure modes is justified, I have no idea. If a rotor on one deck gets displaced into the arc of the other deck, its a mess, very quickly.
@@AleksandrKramarenko True, which is why it's the first thing taught to pilot candidates in the US Army. BUT... autorotation depends on having an intact rotor. If you lose your rotor, or if it's even materially damaged, you're completely f*cked.
And there's a much higher cost and maintenance cost associated with them. I suppose that on one hand it is good because you only need to find the maintenance bays and destroy the supplies and machinery to make replacement parts.
From an economics point of view, the more expensive the war can be made for the russians the better. I mean since their ammo dumps are being taken out they have to use helis to deliver munitions, right? I wonder just how porous the lines are
In Afghanistan the Dutch did some pretty awe-inspiring stuff with AH64s, but that was in a very specific mission context. A Chinook helicopter carried special forces into a village who were tasked with capturing local Taliban leaders, the two AH64s where there to provide close air support. One of the pilots (Roy de Ruiter) got awarded the MWO Medal for putting their AH64 directly in the path of enemy mortar fire in order to shield the special forces and the Chinook. Though Manpads are a serious threat, I believe the attack helicopter has its place on the battlefield. Though, I do concur, it's limited. Though I also want to note that as with airplanes such as the A10 or F16 (to some degree) the Attack Helicopter is usually highly dependent on having air-superiority and having destroyed surface-to-air capabilities (SEAD operations). If you don't have it, you might as well start writing off those helo's and other assets that can get shot out of the sky quite easily. And obviously, manpads will eat into your fleet soon enough if they are available to the extend they are in the UA. Though I wonder, if they aren't eating into the stocks of manpads too fast at this moment.
Wow. Not often you hear about pilots using their helicopters to physically shield people.
@@SnakebitSTI You need to check the records for the 82nd, 101st, and the 160th - it's not as uncommon as you think.
Normally it's cargo helos blocking small arms, putting our "armor" and "door gun" between "hostiles" and the cargo while the cargo gets on. "Gone in 60 seconds? You're slow, rookie - we're gone in 10 if the "cargo" knows the business."
P.S. That IS impressive flying, and that's in comparison to the crazy shit the 160th SOAR gets up to.
In my opinion, all of this is heavily dependent on the type of conflict that we'll have to face. A (conventional) conflict between powerful nations, with larger battlefields and a longer duration of the battle, more "traditional" weapons, like artillery, reappear and have a moment to shine again. Fighter jets and helicopters are vulnurable to the enemies air defence and modern anti-air weaponry. You'll loose skilled pilots, experts in their profession, rather quickly, as well as very expensive material. You'll also see more old and "dumb" weapons, as guided ammunition also tends to be very expensive. They will still be used, but on a much smaller scale, as we can see in Ukraine.
It's difficult to tell, what lessons we should focus on, as we did not really expected a conflict like this to appear. And to be honest, no western military is really designed for such a conflict, outside of military alliances.
We usually think in two categories: 1st a conflict with a (much) weaker nation, that you can dominate through air superiority, precission strikes etc. and 2nd a conflict with a nuclear power, where we usually don't expect a conventional conflict to emerge. This one will destroy everything in the first stages of war, after that it should turn into a category 1 conflict again (almost -> over-simplified).
One of the reasons why the US military spends such a ridiculous amount of money (and why only the insane would want to fight it if they know anything about it) is it Does plan for pretty much the entire range of conflicts.
One example, if Ukraine had a US style military (not in size, just had its range of options. Not realistic but this is just for the sake of argument) Russian supply lines would have started getting chewed up early on. The HIMARS is getting a lot of press for its ability to blow up rear areas. It is just one of At Least a half dozen options the US has for doing the same mission.
The point I was getting to is that it isn't just the type of conflict but also the combatants that is relevant. Russia and Ukraine have similar military setups, which pushes things towards "conventional" fighting since neither side is having to deal with the totally unexpected.
One of Russias pitfalls here was their idea of eating the cake and keeping it.
They could have used their first strike to really cripple ukraines logistics and infrastructure.
But they wantdd fo keep it because rebuilding it worse ( and it would be worse) does not endear you to the locals.
@@trazyntheinfinite9895 I'm pretty sure they originally believed in the idea, that a large number of Ukrainians would support them, greet them with waving flags, throw down their government and create an easy victory for them (if their president would have fled the country, like even the US thought would happen, things might have turned out a lot more like the Russians expected it to be). Maybe not all of Ukraine, but certainly a very large part of eastern Ukraine and central Ukraine, all the way up to Kiyv. They propably only assumed the most western parts to put up a fight. I think their intelligence made an huge error here and maybe this is also linked to people not telling Putin the truth and instead supporting what him with what he wants to hear.
Mi-24 is the flying tank. It is actually very heavily armored in specific sections. Ka-52 is more modern in that it primarily relies on duplicate, triplicate etc systems than armor.
@@luckyo11, Mi-24 is flying IFV, to be precise.
You can have a decently designed weapon system, with reasonable, effective doctrines but if you do not have good mechanics, to fix the machines, enough spare parts, enough fuel and aircrew who have trained enough (being dependent of course on have machines that can fly, because they have enough spare parts, mechanics and fuel), then your performance is going to be dismal. Now add to that a logistics system, that both manufactures enough fuel and spare parts, properly stores them, and then gets them to the battlefield. Most armies just do not spend enough on these areas, which is fine, as long as you never use your military for anything other than parades and intimidate your neighbors (and making your own population proud!).
That is especially important for helicopters. They need a lot of service/maintenance, fuel and good pilots. It's also true for civilian helicopters i think they cost something like 1/10 of the military to operate.
I was watching the WW2 channel and Indy quoted someone who wrote regarding the Germans (I paraphrase here), "A country that cannot produce sufficient tank track pins has no business invading another country." Considering the massive logistics failures in Russia today, I thought the quote relevant.
Using longer range PGM s to increase standoff does not make sense. An attack helo is 30 million. This buys a thousand 6x6 trucks. These can be dispersed for protection and for better coverage and as decoys. And, they can be repaired by an uneducated farmboy. Or, one hundred tracked vehicles with all terrain movement. Or, a mix of them. (I am an uneducated farmboy btw)
@@irvhh143 6x6 military trucks that cost $30k and can be repaired by an uneducated farmboy don't really exist anymore. They cost closer to $300k, and the farmboy needs 12-24 weeks of training to be proficient at fixing it. The tracked vehicle doesn't cost $300k, it costs $3 million. Neither the truck nor the tracked vehicle can strike targets at 500km.
@@hailexiao2770 what we are seeing is not 6x6s but Toyota pickups pressed into service.
500km is over the horizon, so a truck is just a viable as a helo platform.
Great video once gain! I think you're threading the topic very carefully when it comes to conclusions. You're saying (and I agree) that helicopters still have a role in some situations - in fact situations that you really can only handle with helicopters. Yet I understand that between neighboring peers or near peers militaries, they don't really have much of a frontline role - for survivability reasons you outlined pretty well and they really are intuitive. As such a LOT of countries really need to take a really hard look at their procurement budgets.
Also, this has to be the first large scale conventional war between peer or near peer relatively modern militaries since the age of helicopters. As such, I am sceptical when I see some people blaming the difficulties of helicopters in this war on faulty usage. We just have nothing else to fall back on when it comes to data.
Flew all over Iraq in Army Aviation. From 2000-2020 My unit lost 1 helicopter to an RPG and 1 to a very hard landing. You get shot at all the time. You get hit. People have been saying the tank and helicopter are obsolete. NOT EVEN CLOSE. All you see online is the oh and ah videos. You don't see the hundreds of missions that helicopter went on before it got shot down. You don't see the chalk of 6 helicopters fly in and out of hot zones dropping people off, picking people up (with or without hoods on) having never suffered a loss. You don't see the boring taxi cab or mail hauler missions that are the bulk of flights. You don't hear about the crew flying in a warzone every day never missing a mission to..... haul garbage. Oh they get shot at alright. Same goes for Russian helicopters. The actual numbers just don't add up equalling the time of the helicopter is over. Far from it. Rockets get better. Countermeasures get better. Sure. Older not updated helis might get shot down but still it's not enough. A unit goes on a ton a missions nobody ever sees. Even in combat. Flying is safer than being on the ground.....
I agree with your general sentiment.
I do think though you're projecting American experience to the Russian military. Their use and logistics are very different. For example, I doubt they have very many mail delivery missions, because they don't have a lot of support structure to spare for non-critical missions.
I'm pretty sure if they used their helicopters the way the US does their helicopters would drop like flies from mechanical failures because they couldn't keep up on.the maintenance requirements.
Much respect to you for your service, I hope that didn't sound like I was trying to argue.
I think the video was mostly about helicopters used as weapons. He should talked about Helicopters as an logistic tool to.
@@emotingtanooki6405 Actually they do a fairly good job when wrenching. Don't confuse their planes and helicopters. They build their planes like tanks. Their helicopters on the other hand. Well. The UH-60... Technically you could call it a Russian design. Igor Sikorsky was born in russia.....
I've been in a few MI-s Honestly not all the different. The have the same 1 hr of flight to 3-4 hours of maintenance. They have similar flight time till replacement and worn replacement parts. In fact they tend to use their helicopters in a few rolls at once.
Our Apache is a fighter. Wanna carry more than two people? Strap them to the outside.. (Which has been done)
Russia had dual purpose helis for A LONG time. Hinds are fighters and carry troops.
Their newer helis perform just as good as ours and are a bit more robust in some cases. They sacrificed their naval ships for their aircraft programs. A ship can go a long ways under no maintenance. Aircraft can go all the way to the ground unexpectedly because of no maintenance.
Think about all those barrel bombs over the past decade. All tossed from Russian helis.(Not by russia. They just built and sold the helis) Very few of those helicopters fell out of the sky without extra holes in them.
Russia also used to build more basic designs in higher numbers. Consequently they were also more durable to fight in places like Afghanistan where you can watch the paint on your blades get sandblasted off in flight. And see glowing sparks under night vision.
Their newer helis are on par with ours.
The Ka-52 is one of the best helicopters in the world.
Mi-24 and Mi-28 are no joke. They can take tremendous damage and still fly home or make it to the ground without the BBQ.
They have traded range for endurance.
(Just one reason why you see the high arc rocket shots)
Make no mistake. They are very much on par with our helicopters and maintenance programs.
Again at the expense of their Naval ships and why they have a TON of old tanks.
They didn't really run out of money all around. They just picked airpower over other equipment. Russia is VERY proud of a few weapon systems. ICBMs, Planes and Helicopters.
I REALLY like their Ka-50 and 52. Among other systems they have ejection systems that fire up..... I played a TON of DCS Black Shark back in the day. Even somehow accidently what how did this get in here? I packed a HOTAS and trackIR into setup into some containers marked training tools and when I had time (and power. Fuck they blew up the jenny again) I played DCS while in Iraq.
Thanks... No.. I didn't take your comment negatively in any way. Thoughtful posts of differing opinions is what makes YT fun and counterpoints are always welcome.
So I put Russia's helicopters on par with ours in all ranked metrics.
Their tanks on the other hand.
@@lubricustheslippery5028 Yea. I had a paragraph dealing with the point but I have no idea what happened to it. The gist was they double up duty on a lot of their helies. Like the hind. You don't want one looking for you cause if they can't blow you up dead they can land and out jumps a squad of guys or a ton of ammo resupplying the guys shooting at you. LOL
@@emotingtanooki6405 Russians use helicopters for transport more than anyone in the world. This comes from reality of their geography, where many locations in Siberia and Far East are only supplied by air even doing peacetime as roads don't survive for more than a single seasonal cycle of freezing and melting into a swamp that is a norm for permafrost regions. And the fact that they routinely run attack missions during spring in peacetime... to clear out ice dams in their Siberian and Far Eastern rivers because massive chunks of broken ice will continue to mount downstream in spring melt, creating many localized dams. That when broken tend to cause massive flooding downstream unless they're blown up early.
This is why they have by far the heaviest transport helicopters in the world in Mi-26 among many other things, and why they have been using contra-rotating helicopters for a very long time, while Western nations are only starting to really get into them. When it comes to helicopters, Russians remain very much among top of the world in terms of both advanced usage patterns and technology used. Mostly because that was one of the few fields where they needed this technology far more than anyone in the world when USSR fell, as without them they couldn't resupply many regions in their own nation.
And while culture of "good enough" as related to both maintenance and following the actual procedures (remember the Chechen downing of Mi-26 that had something like 60% more people than its specs allowed to take?) will always generate problems with usage scenarios of everything when it comes to Russians, their helicopters are also built to withstand that sort of usage. It's why they tend to be far more rugged, especially on transport side.
Modern war between peers or near peers dictates a level of attrition in equipment and human life that decades of counter insurgency focus has oversensitised both the general public and military circles to.
Imagine a ww2 kursk like event happening....
@@trazyntheinfinite9895 Huge set piece battles like that have somewhat gone away in modern war, but we have campaigns like Gulf 1 (1991) and battles like 73 Easting, Rumaila and Norfolk in which US/British Armour went toe to toe with Iraqi Armour and although it was a totally one-sided domination by coalition forces, technologically inferior Iraqi Armour managed to inflict losses on US and UK armour in single digits and casualties in double digits.
@@trazyntheinfinite9895 2 and a half times the number of dead at Kursk have died in the US of COVID, and most in the US have treated this loss of life with ambivalence.
@@Edax_Royeaux It's worth noting that that number of people who died *with* Covid is stretched over ~2.5 years...not ~6 weeks as with Kursk. That's not even comparing the numbers to the population bases at the time...
@@Edax_Royeaux deaths to disease even pandemics and epidemics have always been treated very differently than deaths to violence.
I haven't bought cable TV in forever because of channels like these! So much information, that's laid out, and framed in context so it makes sense! Thank you.
US lost around 200 helicopters in Vietnam exclusevily to RPG-7 and RPG-2 hits.
High numbers of losses is not unique for this conflict yet helicopters still provide much more that it have downsides.
vietnam might be a good comparison in that we were so despirate for any result that we did all sorts of dumb things, same with russia in this conflict
@@AsbestosMuffins Vietnam was 20 years while Ukraine war is like 5-6 months till now.
Most helicopters losses were from AA fire not from unguided rockets
Vietnam isn't the best place to get examples from, since it was where people first learned about large scale helicopter operations. So, a lot of the examples you can get from it are from situations we learned how to Not do. Just look at the technical changes to US helicopters after the war, a lot of changes from lessons learned.
The problem is that since then there hasn't been an equivalent conflict to show how the current state if things works out.
It's the equivalent of having a bunch of WWI airplane statistics without having a WWII to use to show how things evolved after people had time to digest the lessons learned.
@@redeyexxx1841 USA was directly in Vietnam from 1965 to 1973, so 8 years. Still a lot of time, but not as absurd of a difference
You left off one primary mission of attack helicopters of the past and I think this has greatly impacted the design and use of them. During the Cold War, the AH-64 (in particular) was a replacement for the Tank Destroyer forces of WWII. The US in WWII looked at the German Army and decided it needed a highly mobile response to focus on attempted armor breakthroughs. During the Cold War, NATO expected the Soviets to be able to break through in some places if for no other reason the size of the Soviet armored forces. The attack helicopter's job was to blunt those breakthroughs and slow things down to allow commanders to get ground forces in place to stop these breakthroughs. This is not anything like Ukraine, except maybe for the opening days.
The US Marine Corps and the 82 Airborne are being reconfigured because they believe that opposed landings without surprise are not really feasible against modern near peer opponents. These changes are somewhat controversial, but I would argue Hostomel is a great example of their concern. No matter how much warning the US and UK did, it seems that Ukraine was not really ready for 2/24. Thus, Hostomel operation worked initially, but failed as it could not be reinforced once Ukraine was alert. So, in near peer conflict the deep penetration seems like a real problem.
Finally, I think we need to really think about close firepower support in general in a war like Ukraine. It is not clear that things like the SU-25 or the A-10 would do much better than KA-52s. Is drone directed precision artillery the answer? Loitering munitions? Drones? I think this is a great topic for the future.
Yeah, but attack helicopters were never tested in reality until now (except for Soviets in Afghanistan). The US took the wrong lessons from Vietnam. They reduced troop levels due to political pressure. They tried to make up for that with technology. But, north Vietnam was getting more guided missiles. The US decided that the answer was better aircraft. But, the war ended before this idea was really put to the test. 45 years later, the helicopter's vulnerability to flak still has not been fixed.
@@irvhh143 I agree with what you are saying at some level. I disagree that the US took the wrong lessons.
Perun talked about COIN operations as a good place for helicopters. Which is a lot of what the Vietnam War was. There was not really the static front that we see in Ukraine.
Also, my point about replacing Tank Destroyers is that the war that would have seen them used in this way never happened. In Ukraine, the equivalent was the first attempts at breakthroughs by Russia. However, these were defeated by a different weapon system: the ATGM. Helicopters were never used as a mobile anti-armor breakthrough force.
One thing that might be illustrative is to look at the use of the 101st in Desert Storm.
The SU-25 flown by both sides have been shot down to the point that neither can operate without severe restrictions like flying nearly on the deck. This was easily predicted many years ago and was the basis for the military's effort to kill the A-10 program, that it wouldn't be able to perform its original mission which was to be a tank killer over the plains of Europe. The S-300 (and successors S-400 and S-500) are supposed to eat up low flying CAS easily. The F-35 was proposed to be the replacement to perform the CAS mission, by launching stand off PGMs either designated by others like ground troops or drones, or with precise coordinates for GPS. This is why the US has been testing and developing the integration of ground troops and the F-35 in Yuma, AZ over the past several years (with reported success).
@@tonysu8860 If you think an aircraft with the excessive downtime, high costs to fly and small numbers as the F-35 will ever do CAS in a war, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
@@tonysu8860 My question would be what advantage an F-35 would have over HIMARS in your scenario. An F-35 costs say $75M each. A HIMARS is about $5M each. That means theoretically you can have 15 HIMARS instead of 1 F-35. The F35 can get there sooner at the start of a conflict, but one could theoretically field 100s of HIMARS instead over time.
The discussion of "is X obsolete?" stems from the way Russia is using said equipment and the fact that they still have to learn what combined arms is.
I think we should crowdfund a bug poster in the sky carried by blimps and stuff, it would read: "NO THEY'RE JUST SHIT AT USING IT".
cutting corners in both training and application is causing Russia to make helicopters and tanks look obsolete. but the fact remains that they're not obsolete in the slightest.
lol, it seems that Russia did very well in Syria and they are during well in Ukraine. The USA lost a lot of Helos in Vietnam.
I think the main point why Russia looks so bad is corruption and tactics. Russia combat formations deemed expandable ,that means in the smallest scale (a tank) he's ordered to take a crossroad and nobody expect the tank to survive when he reach his mission goals, the tank and the crew are ordered to be depleted after the mission. That's why Russia will not recover tanks that break down until the goals are reached for that unit.
"Heck, if you manage to hit a helicopter with a particularly large rock you'll probably do some damage if you get it in the right place.." Are you telling me that trebuchets are viable again?
Trebuchets have always been viable. Just let me stand well away from the thing while you wind it up.......
Perhaps he hints at pineapples
Under the right circumstances, yes. Mind it will be single use.
Trebs were always viable. If something is 300 meters away a 90kg rock would do serious damage to it. Which is why I advocate for hidden trebuchet pits for defensive lines
Or Ballistas!
Now that you mention it I can remember a neighbor's son dying in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan along with a bunch of his fellow marines. I've watched so many helicopter crashes under perfect conditions without the threat of enemy fire to know how dangerous operating one in a war zone must be. Hostomel really was an epic beat down for the Russians, pretty sure that's where some Chechen general got killed along with 56 Russian tanks in a single engagement!! 😮
it was 56 tanks *claimed* by a Ukrainian news site that did not provide a source, and said losses were never confirmed by even the Ukrainian government. a Chechen 'special forces' column was confirmed to have been attacked in the area, with a general killed, by the Ukrainian government but they never mentioned how many tanks or armored vehicles were destroyed.
also strangely for this war no photographic evidence was ever provided for the attack, even when it was confirmed to of happened. you would think that if 56 recks on a column in territory that has been recovered by Ukraine would be highly publicized (like the photos of destroyed columns by Kharkiv were), meaning the 56 tanks lost is probably atleast an exaggeration if not a completely false statement.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Also I can remember when 35 Russian tanks were destroyed in that failed river crossing months later and that was said to be largest loss of tanks in a single engagement. At least that one had ample evidence.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 or they cleared it to start reusing the airport immediately and everyone followed their rightful instructions not to take pictures on their cameraphones. You know, like soldiers and employees often do.
@@spinecho609 Very unlikely for obvious reasons
PLEASE do the "nerdy" video on why defense budgets can't be compared like-for-like. I'd freakin' LOVE that!
When it comes to dealing with complex terrains with lots of mountains and no roads, helicopter mobility is simply irreplaceable. There's nothing else that can do the job
True, but eastern Ukraine is neither mountainous nor short of roads; in this particular war there are other things that can do their job better. There have been, and no doubt will be, conflicts fought in places where they are indeed irreplaceable - it is just that this is not one of them.
Around 700 out of the 2700 Strela-2 & 500 Stinger that were sent by Germany had become unusable due to inproper storage, if someone wanted to know the exact number.
This is the problem with the high tech weapons. Once they run out of inventory, the production line must be restarted. This may not be possible in wartime conditions.
@@Yekenahdinnaematter I don't know tbh.
To my understanding the weapons were "blindly" delivered to a site in Poland where they were presorted before delvivery to Ukraine. There it was discovered that some of them are unusuable. I don't now what became of that ~700 rockets.
The definition of obsolete is "no longer produced", which makes such weapon systems troublesome to use.
Well, the upside is that they doo have 2k that they'll probably need to use quickly (before expiration) as well. I hope they also sampled for effectiveness amongst the rest of them. I'm not saying that I don't trust germany but stuff happens sometimes.
@@Yekenahdinnaematter you can probably cannibalize the warhead and electronics.
But then you need to go through the electronics with a fine toothed comb to make sure they're good.
Three years in C model gunships.1970,71,72. I think it's safe to say, even though the C was an uprated B airframe, with substantial bite, it was technologically, ridiculously simple and unsophisticated. Resulting in a fairly robust an easy maintenance subject. They had our number by 71, but the C had a surprisingly good survival. First in, surprise was the asset most cherished. The Slicks were the victims by circumstance. And those aircrew are heros.
Thank you for doing these. I can't tell you how refreshing it is to get intelligent analysis without any agenda.
"You can't use a Toyota dangled from your ship, it just doesn't have the same impact" LOL That line killed me XD
Although, I wouldn't be surprised if some Ukrainian fisherman managed to take down a Russian nuclear sub with a Toyota packed with explosives dropped from his fishing boat!
Well Top Gear did modify a Toyota to become amphibious & called it the Toy-boat-a
First of all, a huge thanks to Perun. I love the videos-- actual analysis, which is massively refreshing amidst the swirl of uninformed opinion, shoddy research, and simple propaganda filling the modern media space.
Narrated powerpoints. Glorious!
That said, I'd add that one possible future for the helicopter, or at least rotary-wing aviation, is an evolutionary change in form: specifically, that of the tilt rotor. The V-22 is certainly an example, but the Bell V-280 prototype is a more direct comparison, in that it was designed specifically to replace the Blackhawk. It performs all the familiar helicopter missions, but with additional helpings of range, speed, and lift, as well as, one might reasonably expect, survivability.
Anticipating the usual objection-- a gunship version would be a must, in order to avoid recreating the Vietnam-era escort problem which eventually compelled the creation of the Cobra. That challenge is well-understood and can certainly be addressed.
Less certain is the response to another challenge-- one which I think will resonate with our host-- namely, affordability. The Bell folks say they can make the machine reasonable both to acquire and to operate... I hope they get the chance to prove it.
Here's a link to Bell's V280 promo page, for those who are wondering what I'm going on about.
www.bellflight.com/products/bell-v-280
Absolutely spot on. The importance of using any tool, be it a screwdriver, laptop, or attack helicopter correctly in the right environment is key.
One note on the Star Streak. The British DID test it against light AFVs and it did work well as an "improvised AT missile" due to its laser guidance.
If it works, it works.
Found the WT UK main
@@dsdy1205 I'm just an American that just happened to see the AT test of the Star Streak online.
I can’t seem to find the footage online, would you be able to provide a link?
@@dejeffmcbob It's ministry of defense footage from 2006. I bet they still have it.
Just started listening and already laughing trying to imagine a helicopter crashing onto Perun's house. One of the best channels on youtube. Zero BS.
I would love to see your analysis of the implications of this war for the PRC…what lessons do you think they are learning, what are their capabilities with respect to a military move against Taiwan (sea and air lift capability angle may play to your logistics expertise), what is the risk/benefit of such a move?
You’ve heard this before, but your productions are some the most high quality, in depth, informational, and logical analyses in the public domain. Thank you for making these available on a public forum.
Agreed!
Summary:
Taiwan "I want some of that stuff that's working so well in Ukraine."
PRC "Practically everything in our military inventory is based on the same Soviet hardware that's being blown up in Ukraine. And everything we've copied from the Americans don't work as well as the originals. Our missiles better fill the gap."
Seriously, for an actual invasion not using air transport of any type, it would take at least a couple hours to cross the Taiwan Strait at highest surface speeds, and that doesn't even consider the time to arrive on a suitable landing spot. China does not currently have helicopter manufacturing technology, so every helicopter of every type (attack, transport, etc) would have to be purchased from Russia. The PLA has only a few large hovercraft and for now is conceived to be launched from landing ship docks. The last likely option is an airborne drop which of course would require air domination to fly transport aircraft over the island of Taiwan. Soon, a small number of Abrams will also be delivered for the possibility that the PLA might somehow be successful in landing some kind of invasion force. Now, considering Taiwan's F-16 fleet plus Harpoons plus other surface and air defenses from the American inventory, what do you think Taiwan's chances are of defending against an invasion short of a surprise?
@@tonysu8860 I'd like to add that just crossing the strait is probably not going to be the part taking the most amount of time.
Simply getting all the ships ready, equipment and soldiers stowed is going to easily take hours even with no big complications. And it's going to be very visible when they're doing that.
Perun, you're a saving grace for sure!
I was just wondering, what to do against my all time low feeling since this war has started ... I just can't recover from what I'd call "a weird state of shock" since 24th of February.
I'm still missing memories for a whole 1+ week after that day, which I "kind of remember", bc I've found a bunch of unanswered e-mails dating back to the beginning of this extremely tragic on-going disaster.
Hopefully for Ukraine this war doesn't last for years!
I think a lot of people were paralysed after it happened. You're not alone.
@@PerunAU
Thank you so very much for letting me know!
@@Anita-k I remember learning of the war the night it happened. Then having no answer from a guy I know in UA, not sleeping at all and having a University exam the next morning.. God that was a mess.
I was sat in a hotel room thinking Putin was acting a little like Adolf pre-Feb 24th, but I didn't honestly think he would invade.
But its the barbarism that has shocked me, whats worse is they have thousands of soldier prepared to commit barbaric acts that aren't part of the normal battlefield.
And even worse, while there is some opposition by civilians to this there appears to be widespread support. Which is why I can see the west-Russia split enduring for decades.
I've struggled as well. I'm chronically anxious and despite being far from the fire, it's affected my mental health. I try to be stoic and accept that which I cannot control. You might donate to some NGO supporting the Ukrainian people or war effort if you think it would help. Or talk to a therapist, that's what I did in the week following the initial attack.
Good analysis, I feel like two contributing factors you didn’t look at are the terrain and lack of night flying ability on both sides.
There’s arguably nowhere as flat and exposed as eastern Ukraine for RW aviation. How this would play out in an AO with more cover and concealment is hard to tell. Also, due to equipment and/or training, from what I can see there has been almost zero attempt by either side to conduct their RW operations by night. How this would impact their exposure to manually sighted MANPAD systems is hard to tell, but I think even with NVD/IR sights there’d be a significant decline in lethality for a lot of the systems you’ve spoken about.
I love how your videos just keep getting longer and longer. Which in the case of this channel also means better.
A big part of the video sounded like attack helicopters' lunch is being eaten by other systems with lower cost and lower risk. What was kind of missing from the video are drones. Many of the close fire support missions could be filled cheaper and safer with drones. Heck, they can even be rotary wing, if needed.
I got something like that from the video, too.
The arguments for helicopters as transport vehicles stand for themself. But in an attack/support role a weaponized drone might do the job as effective with lower cost and less risk for personnel.
But i'm no expert in the field. I just got the feeling it's not appropriate to throw different types of helo in the same bucket.
I completely agree that drones are superior in any parameter to attack helicopters. Cost,maintenance,endurance,survivability, survivability of crew!!
And that changes the entire bottom line. I think attack helicopters will be abandoned.
Israel, one of the pioneers in drones and attacking drones already started retiring attack helicopters a long while ago.
The only reason why this war looks like this is that both sides don't have access to high-end drones. Each for its reasons.
But if you talk about new procurement, why would anyone favor a manned helicopter over a drone(s)?
I am not a specialist in this but drone communications can be jammed. Without it’s operator drone is just a flying brick at worst and a dumb RC model following a predefined path at best. No idea why Russia having a large amount of jammers are not utilizing them effectively (or perhaps they do but we just don’t know about it) but we should expect huge increase in drone countermeasure development.
In reality it is very difficult to jam good drone comms. They are spread spectrum, making them less succeptible to noise and interference. They are high up, so you need to transmit with a lot of power and your range would be very limited. They use antennas that can detect a direction where interference comes from and selectively inhibit the interference. Even jamming military grade gps is difficult. This is why the gmlrs is killing the russians
@@ilanle Not to mention most large military UAVs use satellite comms systems, so they can use antennas that pretty much only look straight up and don't receive signals from any other direction much at all.
I think a Hind with four Drone Operators and a large number of drones providing targeting information could be very effective at scouting and identifying targets. Fast to deploy, easy to redeploy with enough firepower to allow some self protection. "Scouts Out."
The Chieftain, Nicholas Moran, is such a wonderful fellow. I enjoy his content tremendously, just as I have come to enjoy this channel as well!
Thanks for what you do!
Even if Attack Helicopters become less popular, there are still missions for other types of helicopters and missions:
Medevac - much faster than an ambulance.
Logistics - carrying artillery from place to place (much faster than a truck and can do things like set up artillery on a mountain), inserting and recovering special forces (paradrop can insert, but not recover), resupplying troops fast, recon (better done by drones), carrying things and people between ships or between a ship and land (much faster than getting close, or using smaller boats as intermediaries, but limited space).
Chinook (the chunky boi with one rotor at the front and one at the back) is not going anywhere.
in my opinion even defensive capabilities.
if you face the enemie you can stay or even fly back this does not work with jets.
The german tiger in my opinion has its role and it can work great for that role.
A heli is a great Anti Tank weapon carrier with way better range than ground units.
If the sensorsystems are on top of the main rotor it doesnt need to show itself.
fly below the horizon in every terrain and fire anti tank weapons without exposing the helicopter itself just the sensor tree.
reposition with superb mobility and do it again.
thats in my opinion the best use for a helicopter in modern war. atleast in a attacking role
i mean hey look at the new black hawk replacement, the raider. which is setup to be faster, and much harder to lock
>Many people
“System X is doing bad, it must be obsolete!”
>Me
“Have you considered it might be user error/the fault of the operator?”
It's strange how pumped I get for these weekly power points ...love it
Military equipment only becomes obsolete when something comes along that does the job better. If loss rates are too high there might be a change in tactics, but losses alone aren't enough to get rid of something all together.
fun fact: Polish Piorun missile, unlike Stinger is not a heat seeker, it uses thermal imaging that simply ignore countermeasures by locking on a silhouette of target, most confirmed kills were done by Pioruns.
When speaking about the Stugna warhead being designed to kill a tank, you missed the opportunity to say "therefore KA-52, nicknamed Flying tabk, is also vulnerable"
No, that's the Mi-24/Mi-35.
I thought all of Putin's tanks could fly?
Well, the turrets, at least.
@@WaspCameraInSpringfield only if they get sufficient Ukrainian encouragement. . . . .
I think he thought he'd leave that to the comment section. After all, if he used all the jokes you'd have nothing to say 😒
Background: It’s my understanding that the Ukrainian AF received 20 Mi-8 military transport helicopters in early May - indirectly courtesy of Afghanistan. Ukraine claims 16 of these were used to resupply the Azovstal defenders over seven missions but two were shot down, on the 5th and 7th missions, and one was lost due to malfunction while rescuing one of the downed helicopters. Keep in mind they were flying into an area with dense Russian air defenses and enemy aircraft concentrated in and around Mariupol. Russian air defenses were beefed up after several missions leading to the losses in the later missions and the ending of further missions but the missions delayed the Russian takeover of the plant tying up Russian forces for a longer time.
I think that Russians didn't care much about both TB2 drones or Ukranian helicopters in the first month of the war, they had bigger problems to solve.
@@1GTX1
The events described occurred in the third month of the war, after Russia had regrouped its forces in the east and was consolidating its limited earlier gains.
I love how this guy just straight up did a PowerPoint on TH-cam, what a power move!
I would fault Perun in one area, Moore's Law says that every year chips get cheaper, but the cost of weapons go up.
This is only starting to have an impact on the fighting. Next year we will have an avalanche of new smart weapons.
Wars generally start with the weapons and tactics of the last war. When this war is over the military will be radically changed.
More like PowerPoint move ;)
@@SiilkLone Genius
VDV Commander: "Get those troops on the ground!"
Ukrainian SAM Operator: "Da."
This comment needs mpre support 😏
When describing the novel ways people have destroyed helicopters, I must admit I am saddened you did not mention the shoot down via an explosive tipped Bow and Arrow kill.
J.R. forever ; )
Dutch from Predator would be proud.
I saw that documentary. I thought the ramming by tank death was probably a n issue with tactics.
@@Aptonoth You mean Rambo? Dutch made his own explosive arrowhead and yelled “GET TO DA CHOPPA!,”, but Rambo is the one who shot down a chopper with an explosive arrowhead in Rambo III. Just too bad we never got to see a team-up!
@@bluemarlin8138 Predator is more famous bow scene imo. I didn't even remember Rambo bow scene until you mentioned it.
There is one important thing, that is not mentioned in this video and rarely mentioned at all. If your weapon system is inefficient, because the opponent has its counter in every unit down to company or even platoon level, and because every viable strategic target is protected by dedicated assets... then maybe your weapon system is more efficient than it seems after all, even with limited options for an actual combat use. Vast majority of MANPADS carriers in Ukraine will never see an enemy helicopter in combat, just a small fraction will have a chance to effectively engage it. But all of them still have to be trained and equipped for the mission, just because there is a *chance*, that the enemy might employ helicopters around them. How much manpower and equipment goes to security detachments for infrastructure and important points in the rear areas, just because of a possibility of a daring raid. Not saying that it certainly worth it, but it is an important factor. I'd say more important than cost comparison between MANPADS and a helicopter. Because by that logic a bullet costs less, then a soldier, so people are obsolete. And always were (/s).
Absolutely, the enemy having attack helicopters will change how you will and can move your tanks and convoys and what amount of air defense, not just manpads, you will need for infrastructure so that it doesn't get sniped with guided missiles.
Great, an hour long power point presentation, exactly what I needed to enhance my day.
People who say "enhance" often say "spot on." They sound ridiculous.
I understand they're now breeding helicopters instead of manufacturing them. At least, I hear a lot about helicopter parents.
>Commonwealth accent >Loves the Starstreak. Checks out. Excellent video, relevant to my job.
Un-countermeasureable missile go shwoosh
I've heard another reason for rocket slinging -- they might try to fool opposing side's counter-battery radars into either initiating battery suppression where there is none, or making it difficult for said radar to determine the origin of fire. not sure how accurate this can be
Sounds like BS. Folks try way too hard to complicate these sorts of things. The Russians are using existing system within the constraints that they are allowed.
Note that mast-mounted sughts, such as on the Apache Longbow and some versions of the Tiger are one option to reducce the exposure of the attack chopper in the defensive role. They're less useful on the offensive role, though AIUI, one tactic for MMS-equipped choppers is to peek over a hill before sprinting to the next.
You know, I am so tired if hearing the complaints by Russian TV about the US equipping Ukraine with weapons.
In Vietnam, Russia flooded the NVA with every weapon system in the Soviet arsenal.
I like the idea of a defense budget comparison video.
I would also love to see how intelligence is playing a part in the Ukraine war. Everything from civilians with cell phones and small drones to US provided satellite images. I think that is what is making this war so artillery based.
If they are shooting, or looking to shoot someone, then they expect enemy units in the area. The Stugna shooting down the Ka-52 is another example of your earlier point, not enough infantry with the heavy weapons. Not enough scouts, not enough OP's lets the Stugna team get in position uncontested, or lightly contested, and engage the $20M asset with a $10k rocket.
I keep hearing that thing about not enough infantry and I disagree.
Yes, some infantry is desirable or even necessary (preferably mechanized infantry) but hardly in any great numbers and not for such things as scouting. Exposing your infantry to fire is exactly not what should be done, the armor is there for a reason... to protect infantry and other lightly armored units. Infantry is needed for ultra close up confrontations, tanks have so little visibility to see all around that it can be unaware of threats within RPG range and possibly to the rear. That is what infantry is needed to protect, the tank's blind spots. Not scouting ahead where infantry would be wiped out easily.
As for Russian tank vulnerabilities against AT guns like Stugnas and Javelins... That's just taking advantage of a design defect or decision. Russian designs which are based on Soviet designs are intentionally limited in size and penetration armor so that the tanks can be transported across Europe's bridges on railways. Russian tanks are smaller and therefor less armored and are supposed to make up for their lack of armor with better agility and speed. Compared to the Abrams, Leopard 2 and Chieftain 2, you can see that Western designers made a different choice, no matter how difficult it is to transport Western tanks, bigger and better armored are prime objectives. This is why it took 3 mths for the US to prepare for the Gulf wars, only 3 tanks can be transported by a C-5 or C-117 at a time and can't be transported by rail easily. And that's why it's important to pre-position Abrams everywhere around the world, because we can't transport them fast enough in large numbers for any possible conflict. Note that despite hundreds of tank losses in Ukraine, Russia can keep feeding replacements into Ukraine and doesn't experience a drop in armor capacity. The US wouldn't be able to replace Abrams the same way in a conflict, so it's good that to date no Abrams has ever been reported destroyed although one was disabled when its tracks were shot off.
@@tonysu8860 well this is why the combined arms concept exists. You need armor to protect the troops and take on other tanks and heavy defenses, and you need infantry and scouts to keep the tanks free from having to take on everything, and keep the tanks informed about what is going on around them. To your point, nobody can get enough tanks to a single location to do everything. And you need Helicopters and fixed wing (including drones) to do overwatch over the infantry and tanks to help them. Can you fight a war without them? or course you can, but if the other guy can integrate his armor and infantry better than you can, it is going to be a very expensive war for you. So then it becomes a test of will. Do your leaders have enough willpower to keep pushing the war in spite of the costs? Russia is saying they do have the will to keep fighting, and so does Ukraine. With the extra training and weapons that Ukraine is getting, the expense for Russia will keep rising, and Ukraine too.
This is why it is idiotic to fight a modern war, defensive firepower is ludicrously capable compared with the past. Both NATO and CISO have insisted for so long that their capabilities are "purely defensive" for so long that it has dominated their philosophies, at the expense of offensive capabilities. The assumption of every weapon system today is that it will keep falling back towards its supply line, but this cannot be true for both sides. One side needs a greater logistical capability than the other to take the offensive in the war. Neither side in Ukraine has that logistical capability, so it will be a pure war of attrition.
@perun made a good point in one of his videos about all those reserve T62 and T72 tanks: how many of them have had the wiring stripped out of them and had that wiring sold on the black market? How many of these vehicles have been stored in a way that they can be brought back into use? Nobody stores vehicles perfectly, some number of them will be combat ineffective, so then the question is, when does NATO start to run out of Anti-tank rockets? How many have been made in the past month?
Putin has been lied to by his people, and now he is going to force them to stay in the fight. The soldiers and their families will bear the burden of this stupid war. Nobody is going to win this one, except maybe the armaments companies.
Love your content! With an RAF runway melting last week during the heat wave, could we get a video at some stage around climate change and defence economics. This would be frighteningly interesting.
It looks like he only uses facts and truth, so he can’t speak about climate change and war.
Before you get your panties too much in a twist, find the answer to why the climate data does not include data before 1940. Until you can, you are ignorant and should seriously stfu.
Pro tip: it was hotter in the uk then
I pulled my back out yesterday and have been stuck in bed all weekend. So I’m finally glad to have a Perun lecture to listen to!
In relation to the rocket slinging attack - 100m CEP is probably within the regions of being reasonable against fixed installations or saturation attacks against infantry targets. Still a hugely inefficient use of munitions but if your pilots are terrified of MANPADs and it's a permitted tactic I can see it being popular.
Another thing beyond CEP is how the rockets themselves land. Because of forward flight, the rockets don't land on a circle but as a line. So if you pick the right orientation to release, you can shoot the rockets a little too soon or a little too late, and still score a few hits because of burst length.
For the Ukrainian side, it could well make sense if you have plenty of rockets but need to conserve your aircraft. The rockets are still made in eastern European countries, and likely aren't being used up in the way artillery shells are. Even if the lower accuracy means you need to do more missions to hit something, maybe that's still better than doing fewer more direct missions where your helicopters are likely to get shot down. I also wonder if part of it for the Ukrainians is just keeping their pilots active and experienced, with the intention of doing more direct and useful attacks if Russian air defences can be suppressed, rather than just have your pilots sat doing nothing.
Rocket slinging is just a secondary mission. Ka-52's are going out loaded with Vikhr and 305 NLOS missiles which we see used every day. Rocket slinging (artillery) is just a secondary mission, no point returning to base with them.
@@MS-wz9jm That's a good point. Using the 9K121 Vikhr would also explain some of the hovering as it requires constant laser illumination of the target.
Honestly the Tiger crashing into your apartment was the most realistic potential option in that chain of events, goddamn Airbus get your shit together.
My conclusions:
-Transport and naval helicopters are indispensable.
-Armies with limited funds who chiefly prepare for large scale conventional warfare should ditch their attack helicopters. Too expensive, too vulnerable, very limited usefulness. Artillery/MLRS, ammunition stockpiles, logistics, infantry, are all far more useful.
This is a fair assessment but I think there’s a significant RoI on AHs if they’re used as light cavalry that happen to be very heavily armed.
They’re incredibly capable at fixing, screening and delaying forces, exploiting seams, etc. A battalion of Apaches can put 400 hellfires anywhere within 100 miles within one hour of notification. On terrain of their choosing, it’s nearly guaranteed that all those hellfires will hit without the enemy even hearing a helicopter…they’ll be behind a hill, trees, or building so far away and so low that no amount of MANPADS or S-400 can affect them.
But using them as shock cavalry? Or to penetrate and disrupt the deep area? Leave it to MLRS directed by drones. That’s when you learn they’re glass cannons.
Knowledgeable, well researched and, above all, reflecting high integrity - sadly missing from most things these days. Thanks for your valuable work.
You expressed your appreciation for the civility of the comments. These are civil expressions made by people who are drawn to the analysis of violent wars, the vicious tools of war, the devious strategies of war, etc. You've managed to attract a big bunch of such extraordinary people. Great job!
I think the central elements of developing helicopter doctrine are twofold:
1. They are most useful when you have destroyed the enemy's air defense capabilities. In Vietnam, Soviet Union in Afghanistan, etc., their most aggressive and iconic uses are where the enemy doesn't have a systemic air defense capability. I think this is part of NATO's all-in-on-air doctrine: the air wing will destroy enemy air defense and then fixed wing and rotary aircraft can be aggressively employed as force multipliers.
2. They are expensive in dollar value but cheap in manpower. The loss of an attack helicopter loses you millions of dollars, but only one or two personnel. The loss of an APC loses you ten personnel, but only a few hundred thousand dollars. It's designed to try to trade dollars for manpower: you lose money but gain a manpower advantage over the opponent, which is useful when working with a volunteer force or contract force but you have a gross advantage in industrial capacity.
*The loss of an attack helicopter loses you millions of dollars, but only one or two personnel.*
Disagree here. As was mentioned in the video, you might only be losing a couple of pilots, but think of how many hours of training and resources you had to put into them to get them to learn to properly fly a helicopter that you've lost and will take a significant amount of time to replace.
Replacing a dozen soldiers is much easier than replacing a couple of well trained, experienced pilots.
@@UzumakiNaruto_ Yes and no. If there was a major conflict, you'd potentially be right. You'd be using a draft or patriotic fervor runs high leading to more volunteers, your opposition is a relatively equal match and so on. But say you're a peace time military from a wealthy country. You now have more money than people. Or if your opposition has more people, while you have more tech, well, you might need the latter to make up for the former. So it makes sense to use that money to make your fewer troops more effective.
There's also an economic aspect, especially in peace time. Supporting some higher tech equipment means you're providing trained pilots and technicians, as well as funding some higher tech aspects of your society. So there could be economic benefits that offset the paper price.
It is always a trade off, and history is rife with situations where either side of that trade off has come out on top. Smaller but better equipped/trained armies sometimes beat larger enemies, but at other times, large quantities of good enough overruns a smaller but better, pound for pound, force.
Excellent stuff, as always. I've had a few conversations with my dad about some of the points you cover, and it's helped him gain a less... shall we say, "newsy" perspective on this war, and on war in general.
Keep up the good work, man. You're killing it.
So... I think this is focusing on the wrong half of the equation. Comparing "cost of MANPADS vs. cost of helicopter" only looks at what the *MANPADS* are doing so it only tells you that the *MANPADS* are worth it, but if the helicopter itself also takes out an even greater value of enemy tanks before it gets shot down, or if it interdicts supplies that cause an entire front to collapse, then obviously it was still a net advantage even in strictly monetary terms.
You may as well say "No aircraft have been viable for the last 100 years since they can be shot down by $50 AA shells", or "No infantry are worth it since they can be defeated by $5 bullets"- The question probably isn't how much it eventually costs your enemy to shoot down your system; The question is probably what you can do with that system and how much damage you can inflict with it while you have it.
For once, I’m glad I clicked the bell. As a previous enlisted infantryman, air transport and support is crazy important. Before I watch the rest of the video, I will comment on the title with my opinion.
Yes, the helicopter is here to stay. I’ve had a ton of interactions with CH-47s. I learned the meaning of the name much later on after I was stationed at JBLM and I did some advanced insertion training/missions with them previously in theater. The name comes from the native Chinook Indian tribe which means “Great South Wind”. These things kick up an absolute storm. I was pelted with rocks constantly when we used them in Afghanistan. Talk about power. The backwash is welcome when boarding as well during the winter months.
With that aside, I think these are absolutely paramount to have in a military sense granted that air is not contested. CH-47s and UH-60s (and the like) are so important for readiness and combat/swift maneuvering of forces.
Additionally, frames like the AH-64, greatly aid ground forces (once again, that air superiority is gained) with an armament of munitions that can strike land forces accurately and precisely. It’s why the A10 is so controversial with Congress. It’s the only fixed wing aircraft that can provide immediate close air support (CAS). It’s a platform that doesn’t have a replacement and it’s in desperate need of one with that capability. I bring up the A10 because there’s so many capability gaps that are shared with the helicopter across US branches (Army and Air Force).
I’m gonna get into the video now.
The A-10 is a terrible aircraft.
I'd argue the station to strike time on an F-16C or F-15E is shorter than on an A-10C in most situations in addition to just being safer platforms to do CAS with, but it'll start a hell of an argument. The A-10 just "feels nice" because you see it closer for longer IMO.
@@foxtrotcharlie5227 but it provides such important capabilities. As a grunt on the ground, they literally change the context of a fight. They need a replacement for sure. But with those frames, we can literally be within range of M4 rifles, whereas with jets, we can’t. As a participant in those situations, it’s such a moral boost and offensive edge.
I think it’s also important to say though, that the adoption of the new XM5 and XM250, the current modular approach to CAS may change because of range capabilities. The new grunts need to be trained in longer range tactics, and since many FMs and other doctrine don’t change, it would take a while to train the force for those tactics. There are definitely capability gaps all over the place.
@@ArchOfficial it’s important to remember close air support. Many don’t understand that absolutely capability, but it’s like a sniper in the sky. Even with precise munitions like GBUs, ground forces have to be a way back because of the splash of shrapnel. The A-10 and the AH-64 close that gap and provide us with the outside advantage of overwhelming fire superiority while allowing infantry to still use their weapons within proper range. It’s modular in a sense.
Lazerpig, the TH-camr, has single-handedly shown that the A-10 is a dogshit aircraft even in its specific role of CAS.