Are attack helicopters usually more well-armored than fighters, but less armored than bombers? How so, and why?
In: 470
You also have to think about the combat situations attack helicopters, and ground attack aircraft like the A-10 are going to be exposed to. A fighter jet like an F-22 is usually suited to shooting down other aircraft; aircraft which will be armed with high speed missiles which no armor will be able to protect against (at least not enough protection to keep the aircraft airborne for long after a hit). In the case of fighters, it’s much more important to use speed and maneuverability to try to outrun or evade an enemy missile or fighter jet, and a heavy armor scheme would greatly hinder those abilities. If a fighter is used for a ground attack mission, they typically use standoff (military speak for Long range) weaponry. Targets on the ground ideally will never even hear the fighter jet dropping a bomb on them; and thus, the targets chances of firing back at the fighter jet are slim. Now on to attack helicopters and ground attack aircraft. They have armor schemes specifically designed to protect the pilots and other critical flight components because their mission is to hover/fly in low to the ground with much slower speed, thereby making them a much easier target for enemies on the ground to shoot at with small arms like machine guns, shoulder launched rockets, and other such infantry weapons.
Latest Answers