Heat signature was never small enough to consider it as any kind of protection. Since later 70x all major forces in the world also have head-on capable MANPADS in invertory. The main advantage of fixed wing aircrafts vs helicopters is speed, which greatly reduce call response time and dangerous exposure to enemy AD time.Would the use of the A-10C Thunderbolt II be better than attack helicopters for close air support of ground forces. The first flight of the aircraft (A-10Thunderbolt II) occurred in May 1972. From 1972 until today the ground to air weapons have greatly improved. Is the heat signature small enough to help protect the aviators from these new threats?
Some videos of helicopter gunships in a close support role:Interesting is that while the tactics used by Apaches have changed it has nearly nothing to do with technical evolution.
It is more vice versa.
A Longbow on it's classical mission of finding enemy vehicles with his very nice radar is normally even more a hover and shoot ambush helicopter.
The current usage against mostly lightly armed guerillas operating very close to ones own troops and in sometimes difficult terrain (citys, mountains) favors the strafing/moving helicopter and often enough the Longbow radar is not even carried because it is of no big use but expensive if hit by small arms fire.
These tactics would be nearly suicide if one wants to do this against a halfway sophisticated enemy who is going to shredd your helicopters if they try to do some strafing runs.
To operate only one aircraft type you'd pick a multipurpose helicopter. There is no point having close air support for your troops if you do not have a helicopter to transport your troops.What if you are a small country that does not have the luxury of operating 2 platforms. And you need an aircraft for CAS, which would u chose for operating against factions and insurgencies? or does the A-10's ability not overlap with the tiger/apache enough to be able to replace it?
The A-10 is going through some upgrades which will significantly enhance it's capabilities. I would say the Warthog will still be around for more than just a few years. Have a look at the links below.Few weeks ago my friend, btw American KFOR officer said to me that A-10 will be completely removed from US air force in "few" years !!!
Is there on forum someone from USAF, officer maybe, who know something
about this ?
I like this plane pretty much
From what I heard it should be around until at least 2028, probably longer.The A-10 is going through some upgrades which will significantly enhance it's capabilities. I would say the Warthog will still be around for more than just a few years. Have a look at the links below.
A-10 upgrade effort transforms Warthog capabilities
A-10/OA-10 THUNDERBOLT II (USAF Factsheet)
Well, from my POV the original concept of hovering helo was a mistake anyway. Even 1 (one) soldier with decent weapon (ATGM, RPG, MG) happened nearby of hovering point can ruin the day for whole airwing. Such hovering tactic may have remote chance of success against deeply penetrated tank columns which dont have friendly flanks, are generally isolated from support units, and concentrated on rather small area - but rather useless in attack or even initial defense phase - when enemy tanks trying to breakthrough your lines.Interesting is that while the tactics used by Apaches have changed it has nearly nothing to do with technical evolution.
It is more vice versa.
A Longbow on it's classical mission of finding enemy vehicles with his very nice radar is normally even more a hover and shoot ambush helicopter.
The current usage against mostly lightly armed guerillas operating very close to ones own troops and in sometimes difficult terrain (citys, mountains) favors the strafing/moving helicopter and often enough the Longbow radar is not even carried because it is of no big use but expensive if hit by small arms fire.
These tactics would be nearly suicide if one wants to do this against a halfway sophisticated enemy who is going to shredd your helicopters if they try to do some strafing runs.
Great videos of the Apaches. Its gotta suck being hit by the 30mm though......Some videos of helicopter gunships in a close support role:
Gunship strafing run
Apache takes out insurgents
Hmmm, the whole idea behind the Apache was that, together with some Kiowa spotters, it hovers some kms away and fires his Hellfires as fast as he can thrwo them out than gets back to his resupply point and start another run.
The same goes for helicopters like the Bo-105 (PAH1) but they lacked the technology to fire more than a pair of HOTs in a reasonable timeframe before they have to get to a new firing position.
In the end they tend to hover behind or directly over your own lines to add alot of AT-capability to your line of defense which. This positioning reduces the threat of enemy MANPADs, AAA, etc. alot. Just 4 Apaches add 64 Hellfires to your line of defence which is a real boost to blunt the enemy formations before they get into close contact with your line.
Deep attack runs on the other hand can very well result in heavy losses. The same goes for a more floating situation with the helicopters trying to get into flanking ambush positions.
A battlefield in the late '80s is going to be so saturated by all kinds of systems which can hurt a helicopter that I suspect that one takes heavy casualties as soon as one leaves the relatively safety of your own lines of defense.
Not only did tactics play into it, but one could also look at night time capabilities that most western attack helicopters had during the Cold War thru present day.Well, of course it was a bit more complex than just hovering there. The approach and departure paths and such were the more difficult part.
Look at some of the Bo-105 videos available on youtube and such - approach and departure below treeline and hills, sweep up into hover above and shoot as fast as possible before dropping below LOS of ADA assets.
Was pretty much the standard tactic till late 80s or so.