A-10 vs AH-64

[allhailIndia]

Recently I saw a documentary on Discovery, (seemed to be an old one), about the advantages of the AH-64 Apache over the A-10 Thunderbolt in anti-tank warfare. A lot was made about the fact that the Apache could spring on the unwary tanks and destroy them while A-10 could only scare them under good conditions.

However, Gulf War and Kosovo seem to have thrown a spanner into the works of the Apaches as most of the time they ended up being grounded while the "wart-hogs", as the A-10's are uncharitably called did the bulk of the work.

Anyway, this is only my assessment and I am hoping somebody more knowledgeable in these matters can clear it up.

 

[ellie]

well the conditions were very bad for the apache. Plus the a-10 gun can destry most vehicles so it can do a lot more than scare them.

I guess if you can afford it, you have both available.

There are problems with the new apache

the uk bought some recently. And they found that when the missiles were fired there was a small but dignifigant chance of damaging the rotors.

Plus altho the apaches were delivered on schedule the training simulator was not, leaving apaches with no pilots!

 

[thestonesfan]

In the Jane's computer sim for the Longbow, I kicked all kinds of a$$.

But I've never flown an A-10. Course, I could kick a$$ in a Cessna shooting a .38 out the window!

 

[joycem10]

check out this article on this issue.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2081906

I dont really agree with the conclusions in the article and it seems like a typical journalistic response.

i belive a rotary wing ground support force is necessary, if only for the ability to operate without landing strips. just beacuse it does not perform as well on flat terrain does not mean it wont perform in other circumstances. you need to remember that when the AH-64 was conceived it was with an eye to a major tank battle in germany. terrain which is far more hilly and wooded.

all that said. the US needs to reevaluate the AH-64. it does not seem to be a flexible enough platform. im aware that a replacement for the AH-64 was recently nixed (the cherokee?), and i think that decision needs to be reevaluated.

 

[allhailIndia]

I thought it was the Comanche?

And yes I based some of my assumptions on that article XIII mentioned as well.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

The article arguing for scrapping attack helos is very, very silly and unrelated to military reality.
The A-10 and AH-64D are different aircraft, with different roles.
The so called "disaster" when AH-64s encountered ground fire was simply a case of the helos not being used in their optimum manner - coming in at night, and launching their missiles from stand off positions outside of the ground fire envelope, and then following that up with Hydra rockets and cannon fire.
The A-10 is a very good, hardy aircraft, but it is slow, and not a panacea to all military problems. It is a good tank plinker, but the Apache Longbow is more versatile and stealthier. They work well together.
One doesn't need to be destroyed in favour of the other. Slowmovers, fast movers and attack helos all have a role on the battlefield.

The Commanche has not be cancelled, and is entering some service according to schedule last time I checked. It is not a replacement for the AH-64, but rather for the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior. It is a scout/recon/light attack helo.

With further developments in standoff anti armour and anti personnel missiles, the AH-64D Longbow Apache is a cutting edge weapon. It wasn't presented with ideal circumstances in Iraq, but was hardly a disaster. The suggestion of going against all other analysis and the lessons of military history and scrapping helicopters is just plain silly.

Smart bombs allow even heavy bombers do give close ground support. The A-10 has its place. So does the Longbow Apache. So does artillery.
So does naval gunfire support.

 

[allhailIndia]

True, but what's the point if they perform only when the conditions "are just right"

How many battles are fought under good conditions??

 

[ellie]

well this was the desert

now consider a conflict in rugged mountainous terrain, and the heli would have cme into its own imho

 

[CurtSibling]

The machine is only as good as the man (or woman) at the controls.

 

[joycem10]

im not arguing for ditching the AH-64, just reevaluating it. is it flexible enough? can it be deployed rapidly enough? what kind of logistical train is it dragging?

i think these are valid questions given recent depolyments.

only an idiot, or a journalist, would argue for the removal of rotary wing aircraft from the ground support role. im just beginning to question whether the AH-64 is the optimal platform for the types of conflicts we can expect to be engaged in for the next 10-20 years.

 

[CurtSibling]

'Flying tanks' like the AH-64 have changed the face of mobile warfare.

They will not be phased out any time soon.

 

[allhailIndia]

But will we see them in a wider role like the A-10, (they destroyed nearly half the Iraqi tanks taken out by air), or just limited engagements?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Curt - Indeed, mein Kamerad.

Indian boy - No battles will ever be under "just right" conditions, which is why military forces should keep a wide range of capabilities, and do so. In situations where there is a heavy sandstorm preventing helos and airpower from hitting the enemy, artillery keeps on plugging. In other situations, a different force combination is employed.

The rotary attack battalions of a divisions aerial brigade are most flexible, and can get in quickly. Helos are employed by units which deploy first up. Heavier divisions have heavier components. They are deployable, and provide very good bang for buck in terms of logistics et al.

It is ironic that one finds oneself defending attack helos and airpower in one thread, and providing what may appear to be a contrary viewpoint in another. But they are not contrary; they are complimentary. Attack helos, close air support from both tank plinkers and fast movers, tube and rocket artillery, main battle tanks - they all are essential parts of victory in modern warfare.

 

[CurtSibling]

I can't wait to see what the next generation of attack gunships will look like!

How about a copter thread!

 

[allhailIndia]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade

It is ironic that one finds oneself defending attack helos and airpower in one thread, and providing what may appear to be a contrary viewpoint in another. But they are not contrary; they are complimentary. Attack helos, close air support from both tank plinkers and fast movers, tube and rocket artillery, main battle tanks - they all are essential parts of victory in modern warfare.

Let me get this straight, are you or are you not trying to support Donald Rumsfeld's decision to get rid of heavy artillery and tanks in favour of more planes and choppers??

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I am not trying to support such a plan, and nor do I support such a plan. I believe that leaning too far either way is erroneous. I certainly believe that tanks and artillery are absolutely essential, and that airpower is an extremely potent weapons. These are not mutually exclusive. I believe not in cutting two heavy divisions, but in reactivating two heavy divisions along XXI plans. With Crusader.

Now, here is a reply I tried to post, but the server was too busy:

Limited engagement? Tee hee. 24 Longbow Apaches, with all the improvements in fire control radar and other matters that it entails. Each carrying 16 Hellfire missiles. Each of which can kill just about any armoured vehicle. A fire and forget missile with a range of 8 to 12 kilometres. That is 384 missiles, which even with some misses can really ruin the day of any brigade, or even larger unit. Followed up by this hail of missiles, then the M230 chain guns shoot up what is left. When used in a manner which makes the most of its capabilities, the AH-64D is a most capable and deadly weapons system. With the arrival of Arrowhead in 2004, it will be even more so

The Apache is also of great use in counter insurgency and other low intensity conflicts, as well as high intensity armoured warfare. It is highly survivable.
In the engagement described in the article, of the 33 helos that went into the maelstrom of groundfire, only one ended up being lost. It is a sign of the times when the loss of one piece of equipment is seen as a major disaster and failure of said equipment.

 

[CurtSibling]

Well posted, Stringfellow Darkshade!

*cue Airwolf music*

 

[Simon Darkshade]

How about something a bit more ...appropriate. Let me see, evil commander, waves of attack helos descending out of the skies, surfs up...Flight of the Valkyries!

 

[ellie]

This is interesting

The british strategic defence review advocated exactly that,

In other words less armor / as90 etc

Replaced with apache's and swift mobile brigades such as air assault brigade.

But i think this conflict has shown how important howitzers and armor etc are even now.

You can kill people with air power

you hold ground with ground troops imho.

 

[CurtSibling]

A man looks his coolest saluting from the commanders-hatch of a tank!

This photo of a WW2 Romanian Panther is proof!