Pretty amazing to see the rest of the world lulled into a fantasy that Apaches aren’t the most terrifyingly effective and unpredictable weapon system on earth.

The problem with attack helicopters hasn’t been that they can’t do damage. The problem is that in several conflicts, they’ve also been very vulnerable. There are a lot of MANPADS and other low-altitude anti-aircraft weapons floating around the modern battlefield.

My understanding is that the modern role of the attack helicopter, at least in the US military, is generally seen as a deep strike role — slipping in behind lines and striking critical things, as opposed to Cold War doctrine, where it was more of a way to counter to rapidly move weapons to counter tank pushes, alongside the A-10.

Even in the first few hours of the Russo-Ukrainian war, which was probably the ideal time to use them, when Ukraine was essentially unprepared, Russian attack helicopters were already taking MANPADS losses, at the Battle for Hostomel Airport.

One prominent example where the Apache was used in the deep strike role and did not meet with success:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala

The 2003 attack on Karbala was an unsuccessful strike on the Iraqi Republican Guard’s Medina Division by the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Medina Division was mostly deployed along the Karbala gap, west of the city of Karbala itself. The Iraqi division was targeted as it was the best equipped Iraqi unit, and its destruction would negatively affect Iraqi military morale. The Medina Division sustained only limited damage during the engagement.

The 31 AH-64 Apaches of the 11th Attack Helicopter Regiment took off from Tactical Assembly Area Vicksburg, which was inside Objective Rams. One Apache crashed immediately after takeoff when its pilot became disoriented. When the Apaches turned north toward Karbala, signals intelligence picked up over 50 Iraqi cell phone calls alerting the Iraqi forward units of their approach. As the helicopters came within range, the Iraqis signaled their troops to open fire by turning off the city’s power grid for several seconds. Ground troops then opened up with a barrage of PKM, NSV, ZU-23-2, and AZP S-60 fire.

The Apaches turned back for Tactical Assembly Area Vicksburg after a half-hour of combat. Most were without functioning navigation equipment. At least two narrowly avoided a mid-air collision.[3] Post-battle analysis indicated the American gunships were targeted in a deliberately planned ambush[11] with cannon fire, RPGs, and small-arms all emanating from camouflaged fire teams.

Of the 29 returning Apaches, all but one suffered serious damage. On average, each Apache had 15-20 bullet holes. One Apache took 29 hits. Sixteen main rotor blades, six tail blades, six engines, and five drive shafts were damaged beyond repair. In one squadron only a single helicopter was fit to fly. It took a month until the 11th Regiment was ready to fight again. The casualties sustained by the Apaches induced a change of tactics by placing significant restrictions on their use.[12] Attack helicopters would henceforth be used to reveal the location of enemy troops, allowing them to be destroyed by artillery and air strikes.[3]

That being said, I’m not personally some sort of opponent of the attack helicopter. First, I don’t know if the intended use has shifted again, as it did from the Cold War to the post-Cold War era. Many long-running, successful weapons platforms have drastically transformed in their intended use. The B-52 was originally intended to penetrate hostile, contested airspace. It stopped being able to do that many decades ago, but still has a role as an ALCM platform, or as a conventional bomber in uncontested airspace.

And second, I can think of successes, too. The Karbala ambush that I mentioned happened during the Gulf War. But Apaches also played an important and successful role in that war. Here’s a summary of the first day of the air war. The first damage done to Iraqi forces were by Apache gunships that slipped up, at low altitude, to radar installations and destroyed them, punching a hole immediately prior to the masses of other aircraft flying through the hole that had been created.

EDIT: In fairness, one quote in the article, from the Indian guy, suggests that they’re maybe more interested in being able to haul ATGMs to a given location and pop up from behind terrain to attack armor that shows up near the front lines, which is also a role in which Russian attack helicopters have been used successfuly in Ukraine.