A10 Vs. AH64?

SHERMAN

Active member
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...
 
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.
 
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..
 
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 :roll: ) I have absolutely no experience with these things. :D
 
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.
 
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??
 
In the US there are not plans of replacing the A-10 until 2025 (according to a History Channel documentary).
 
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.
 
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 :eek:fftopic: , 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....
 
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.
 
What are the current plans for "Puff the magic dragon" and related aircraft? Are they still a great asset, or are they becoming long in the tooth. Are there plans to replace them with anything new?
I just love the idea: "How BIG of a gun can we get to fly?"
 
sherman105 said:
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...

I'm an A-10 driver, so I am biased, but here's my opinion for what it's worth.

The Army needs to learn from the Marine Corps some TT&P on how to employ their rotary wing assets and not get the crap shot out of them, as well as how to keep up with a highly mobile and fast moving ground component. I'll quote a major from my squadron who used to fly helos in the Army, "If you want to create screwed up tactics for a weapons system, give it to the Army."

Aside from that, you can't really compare helos and fixed wing that are employed in CAS. It's like apples and oranges. I will say the strengths of one platform cover the weaknesses of the other, and vice versa.

We don't do enough JAAT training in peacetime to effectively employ helos and fixed wing together when we go to war. It really is a shame, like I said, we can cover each others' six and really give the enemy hell.

More has to happen on the 'jointness' issue among higher pay grades than mine to make this type of training a reality. Reference the 'Operation Anaconda' mess when the Air Force was left out of the game plan until just a few hours before execution.

Bottom line, each type of platform has its place, and when used synergistically, 1 + 1 = 3.
 
here comes three cents worth..(1+1=3)

You cant compare em. Its like the other post said, each was made to fulfill a specific combat environment and task. The A-10 was originally designed to fill the Tank Killing task in eastern europe against the warsaw pact tank hordes. Its a low slow areial platform, capable of holding bombs, mavericks, and such, and getting it pilot back alive no matter how much of it was shot away ( I think one made it back shy of 1/3 of a wing, one engine, and 1/2 a tail and it made it back). A helicopter is good too for all the right reasons it was made: low slow get in get out and land anywhere. but it is like comparing apples and oranges.


Me personally? if its tanks i want dead, its an A-10. If its troops, or my hide out of a sling, its a helicopter.

As the dirty old man on Robocop said " Cant I have Both of you"? :D
 
The Army needs to learn from the Marine Corps some TT&P on how to employ their rotary wing assets and not get the crap shot out of them, as well as how to keep up with a highly mobile and fast moving ground component. I'll quote a major from my squadron who used to fly helos in the Army, "If you want to create screwed up tactics for a weapons system, give it to the Army."

The USMC, has a dedicated WTI program for its aviators, which demands tough realistic training and applies sufficient dollars to the flying hour program to ensure that the pilots can meet the demands of the environments. You won't see this in the Army (see former post), except for TF 160. The unwillingness of higher eschelon types to recognize that the number of aircraft in the force structure has little to do with the outcome is the root cause of the problem; numbers of well trained crews to fly those aircraft will always be the long pole in the tent. Once the Army gets its head from its ass and starts putting in the time and dollars, the Apache will be an excellent asset.
 
Yeah, if your people don't have their shit together, it doesn't matter what shit they have. That's a common failing in our techno-centric society. We think that the guy with the best gear will win, but not if he can't use it. You give a green private an m16, and an old vet a bolt action .22, and let's see who comes out alive.
 
An interesting exchange of views from people who have expereince with both airframes. As our MOD has just spent a small fortune on AH-64D (but have cut just enough corners that they don't seem to work properly)it is interesting to hear about the lack of funding for realistic training in demanding environments. It was intersting to see that of the 24 AH-64's deployed by the US from Germany to the Kosovo campaqin, none saw action but two were lost in orientation flights in the mountainous terrain on the Albanian/Kosovan border, around 8% of the delpoyed combat power. No weapons system is better than the human soldier who has to use it.

Incidently, the sour joke in the British Army is that if you see any plane in the sky take cover. The RAF is so small (and their pilots too busy drinking gin in their air conditioned hotels) that it won't be them, so it is either US or enemy, in which case the result is usually the same - we get bombed. Thereforethe SOP is to take over! Just a cultural observation - not meant as a personal insult to anyone who flies USAF.
 
lol

lol at that.But the RAF pilots are good. I think the AH64 is a great bird. We got Yassin with one....
 
tuff

They are both well equipped fighting machines withthe best pilots. But the A10 could do a lot more damage than a helocopter.
 
Back
Top