A10 Vs. AH64?




 
--
 
April 7th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: A10 Vs. AH64?


Just wondering, which do you prefer as close support for the ground troops and tanks...no problem to make this a CS aircraft- Fixed wings VS. Attack Helicopters....Like, this could go the same way for the Su25 Frogfoot and other CS jets.... So lets hear it...
April 7th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
I personally believe that the helicopters make for better close support, they can move slower, stay on target longer, and can be deployed from forward areas, whereas it is rather labor intensive to build an airstrip for fixed winged aircraft.
April 7th, 2004  
Redleg
 
 
I agree
I would rather have Attack helicopters as backup instead of fixed wings..
They can land (almost) everywhere to be rearmed and refueled.
One attack with an aircraft and it will be gone for hours..
--
April 8th, 2004  
Jamoni
 
True, but an A10 has a longer loiter time, and a higher payload, so it can do more damage per run (in theory). It also has a higher survivability (in theory). I would assume it had a longer range, but I don't know for sure. But mainly, the A10's gun sounds MUCH cooler when fired, so it has my vote. Bear in mind that other than being woken up in the middle of the night by both types of aircraft (due to my housing lying between the airfield and impact ranges ) I have absolutely no experience with these things.
April 8th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Based on experience .. IE, having my ass saved many times by the aul flying tank .. A-10 is my soaring metal angel of death. The pilots are some of the best lads with the biggest brass ones in the world.
April 8th, 2004  
Redleg
 
 
Hm, I forgot about the A-10..
When they arrive I'm sure that they'll get the job done (and more..)
They do need only a short landing strip as well.
(And it's gun sunds real cool too Jamoni.. )

I haven't seen the A-10 in real life, but I have seen the AH-64 (IAF) in action many times in South Lebanon, and I must say that it's quite impressive (and scary to the enemy) to see several AH64 taking turns covering and firing at the enemy for several minutes in a row...

Isn't there plans for phasing out the A-10 in the future??
And I have also heard that some may be kept as forward fire controllers for the Field Artillery??
April 8th, 2004  
FutureRANGER
 
 
In the US there are not plans of replacing the A-10 until 2025 (according to a History Channel documentary).
April 8th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
A funny thing about the A-10, a few years back, someone had the hare-brained idea of using them in the civilian sector as wildland firefighting aircraft back East. I do not know the details of the plan, but one picture that sticks in my head is that of an A-10 painted bright red and white with its manhood ripped out that they were testing this idea with.
April 8th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: acctually


Well, here we go:

1- About the discussion itself, i think its a good match, each has its pros and cons.

2. Redneck, this is , but i acctually like seeing old military aircraft turned to search and rescue/ fire fighting machines...I mean seeing some of those B17 and C47 droping water on a fire turnes me all soft and warm inside....
April 8th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Quote:
Isn't there plans for phasing out the A-10 in the future??
This is the only plane that the USAF stopped procurement on at the end of its initial contract run, and they have tried to kill it off repeatedly. They like to talk about it, but it makes the Army scream to get them realsed into their inventory, and the AF hates the idea of Army having fixed wings.
Eventually, the warthog will be replaced, but no time soon.

Last I heard, they were trying to justify additional F15E Strike Eagle squads to replace the A10s. Of course, the F15 can be retasked to do almost anything BUT CAS. And there will never be enough F-35s to replace the A-10 in CAS roles.

As far as comparing the two, it's really difficult to compare the Apache to the Warthog. It's like the SF vs. SEAL debate. There is no debate because they have different missions. They may be designed to shoot at the same type targets, but the missions are different.

The A-10, while an outstanding AC, and worth its weight in DU when needed, is worth little to the Divisional commander that can't predict his fights in sufficient time to frag the AC in the ATO 24-48 hours ahead. The flexibility the AH-64 provides, or should provide, to the ground commander - ON CALL, organic, poor weather, anti-armor, recon, screen, and deep strike capability. However, Army aviators, Apache pilots in particular, get far to little flight time. The flight time they get is not dedicated to training in difficult environments. The gunnery evolutions they accomplish are poorly constructed and resoursed with far to little ammunition. Fix those problems and the AH-64 will be an asset. But, without the air-mobility of the AH-64 .. it's just another F-16 compared to the A-10.