Are attack helicopters usually more well-armored than fighters, but less armored than bombers? How so, and why?
In: 470
Where and how an aircraft is armored is a reflection of its role. Attack helicopters are generally close to the action and loiter over the battlefield to support the ground forces. So they will be armored to protect the crew and critical systems, there’s only so much you can armor an aircraft though and many dedicated anti aircraft weapons at that range are more than advanced enough to punch through what you can put on one though light anti-personnel weapons are generally not able to cause significant damage. Fighters will also be armored according to their intended use and since gun-based dog fighting is largely obsolete they’re largely trying to prevent detection and engagement more than trying to survive a direct hit from a missile or shell, they also have to balance speed, stealth, and payload with armor and weapons are just too powerful for armor to be the priority. Bombers also have a variety of roles, a b52 for example is a very different role than a a-10, the b52 is there to deliver massive loads of ordnance to strategic targets over massive ranges, the a-10 is to support tactical ground forces with direct engagement with combatants, so its pilots sit in a titanium tub and the systems are all redundant to the point that it can take a lot of fire and still fly. It’s all a balancing act with weight, role, payload, maneuverability, and target.
Latest Answers