Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
The A-10 is a dedicated platform to a higher degree than the AH-64, making it less versatile and therefore less useful outside of a few missions US policymakers decided needed a transformation.
The modern CAS works via MUM-T = Manned UnManned Teaming.
Key to MUM-T is connectivity and situational awareness and thus persistence in the combat area. The AH-64, being a helicopter, is naturally more persistent and can maneuver better over a smaller area.
So that covered the capability to do CAS. Now onto taking a hit back.
Although the A-10 is known to be tough, it is only relative to the very extremely fragile fighters we have today. It is, in absolute terms, very fragile as well. We have no way to guarantee a MANPADS won't shoot it down, hence we just assume it would be downed in that case to avoid any surprises.
It owes its relative toughness to its layout. But we are not really armoring planes. They'll remain static in their ability to take a missile. Missiles only increase in lethality though.
If we assume both the AH-64 and A-10 likely can take a hit but we certainly want to avoid any such risks, we have to look at how they're employed.
An A-10 gets much of its effect from the idea it needs to get up close and personal to employ its weapons. There isn't really any need to do that anymore, though. Today we prefer more standoff weapons, but if we're employing standoff weapons, why even use the A-10 in that case?
An AH-64 would be better for delivering those munitions 9/10 of the times. Its flight characteristics are better for it, and the fact it has 2 crewmen means more sophisticated weapons and systems can be employed, with greater focus/attention.
Next up is the cost - keeping a plane in the air naturally costs more. Its parts go through higher stress at any given point, especially during maneuvers.
So the AH-64 has an edge in cost, firepower, survivability, and maneuverability (in most cases).
The modern CAS works via MUM-T = Manned UnManned Teaming.
Key to MUM-T is connectivity and situational awareness and thus persistence in the combat area. The AH-64, being a helicopter, is naturally more persistent and can maneuver better over a smaller area.
So that covered the capability to do CAS. Now onto taking a hit back.
Although the A-10 is known to be tough, it is only relative to the very extremely fragile fighters we have today. It is, in absolute terms, very fragile as well. We have no way to guarantee a MANPADS won't shoot it down, hence we just assume it would be downed in that case to avoid any surprises.
It owes its relative toughness to its layout. But we are not really armoring planes. They'll remain static in their ability to take a missile. Missiles only increase in lethality though.
If we assume both the AH-64 and A-10 likely can take a hit but we certainly want to avoid any such risks, we have to look at how they're employed.
An A-10 gets much of its effect from the idea it needs to get up close and personal to employ its weapons. There isn't really any need to do that anymore, though. Today we prefer more standoff weapons, but if we're employing standoff weapons, why even use the A-10 in that case?
An AH-64 would be better for delivering those munitions 9/10 of the times. Its flight characteristics are better for it, and the fact it has 2 crewmen means more sophisticated weapons and systems can be employed, with greater focus/attention.
Next up is the cost - keeping a plane in the air naturally costs more. Its parts go through higher stress at any given point, especially during maneuvers.
So the AH-64 has an edge in cost, firepower, survivability, and maneuverability (in most cases).
To a certain degree they are a bit hidebound and I sometimes wonder why they haven't put out an RFI for soldiers mounted in armour on horseback.
