By John Q. Hosedrinker 
South Korea has abandoned plans to acquire 36 additional Apache attack helicopters due to rising costs and the increasing vulnerability of helicopters in modern warfare. Funding for the program was nearly eliminated in a recent supplementary budget, with officials citing the need to shift defense priorities towards unmanned systems and advanced technologies. The decision reflects concerns about the cost-effectiveness of the Apache and the impact of drone and missile threats, as demonstrated in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. This shift aligns with similar reevaluations of attack helicopter programs in the U.S., Japan, and Australia.
Read the original article here
Korea opts out of Apache helicopters, betting on drones and AI, a move that seems surprisingly forward-thinking. It’s hard to ignore the impact drone warfare has had, especially with the vivid examples from the Ukraine conflict. The sheer efficiency of drones, the way they can inflict massive damage at a fraction of the cost of traditional military hardware, really makes you think. The attack on those Russian airfields – billions of dollars in damage from a few million in drones – that’s a game-changer.
You have to wonder if South Korea is onto something significant. The shift towards drones and AI is fascinating, especially when you consider other nations’ strategies. For example, Israel, a global leader in drone manufacturing, initially seemed to embrace the drone revolution. However, their current experiences have led them to a different conclusion: drones, for now, don’t offer the same critical capabilities as Apache helicopters, particularly when facing a different type of enemy. Israel’s interest in purchasing more Apaches highlights this divergence.
It’s worth remembering that the Russian KA-52s proved incredibly effective in Ukraine, especially when hindering offensives, demonstrating that attack helicopters do have substantial value, particularly in specific contexts. So the question remains: why does South Korea seem to believe that drones and AI are a more suitable option for its specific situation?
The Ukraine war has shown how drones and artillery have taken center stage, but is that the definitive future? The destruction captured in some of the drone attack videos is undeniable – swift, immense, and comparatively inexpensive. Imagine a swarm of $500 drones versus a multi-million-dollar helicopter. Drones have already shown they can get close to helicopters with close calls, so it’s a reasonable assumption that this is a smart move. It makes sense to focus on the practical tech solutions in this rapidly evolving landscape.
Considering the US military’s direction, with the MV-75 replacing the Blackhawk and incorporating gunship capabilities alongside a growing reliance on drones, the trend seems clear. And it’s easy to see why: you eliminate the risk to pilots. A huge factor in warfare these days. The decision by Poland to purchase dozens of Apaches is interesting in comparison. It’s a lot of money.
While we’re on the subject of electric warfare and drones, electronic warfare could be a huge problem for drones once a more advanced country takes them seriously, for sure. AI kill bots raise ethical questions, too. Building reliable self-driving cars is a challenge; imagine the complexity of autonomous weapons systems. A warship, no matter how advanced, is vulnerable to inexpensive drones, right? The shift from “big tech” to practical tech seems very smart.
The situation in Ukraine has turned into a testing ground for various weapons and technologies. It’s like the big players – the EU, US, and China – are observing how their investments and technologies play out. Everyone has spent years analyzing Russian military tech, and now they’re seeing it in action. It’s unfortunate that Ukraine is the battlefield for this process, but that’s the reality. On the other hand, Israel’s need to project power, makes it still look to the Apache.
South Korea’s specific threats are more limited than Israel’s and may change with how the world evolves. Their primary concern likely involves defending their borders against a conventional military force. Israel, however, faces a different set of adversaries – militias and guerrilla groups – requiring a different approach and a greater need to project power in a broader region.
The Second Nagorno-Karabakh war in 2020 was an early indicator of drone warfare’s impact, and it was a harbinger of what we’re seeing in Ukraine. Azerbaijan’s widespread drone use proved critical in determining the conflict’s outcome, and those cheap kamikaze drones showed their impact then.
It’s not a given that drones will completely replace helicopters. Drones’ weaknesses in the face of modern artillery, missiles, and guided munitions. As anti-drone technology advances, drones are likely to become less effective. However, the value of the Apache will remain for different missions. It’s the long-term vision of warfare in the future that is starting to shift.
Ultimately, South Korea’s strategy reflects a calculated assessment of its specific security needs. They are not completely abandoning attack helicopters, but pivoting investment toward drones to complement existing capabilities. The emergence of drone countermeasures and laser systems will change the equation. However, the Apache still has a vital role, especially in specific mission profiles and contested environments.