Are attack helicopters usually more well-armored than fighters, but less armored than bombers? How so, and why?
In: 470
The closer you are to the ground the more armor you need, everyone and their mother is pot-shotting you. Planes like the A-10 have a ‘tub’ the pilot sits in which protects them from small arms fire. Attack helicopters have similar systems. However, armor doesn’t fix a high-explosive missile. It is practically impossible for a soldier to hit a fighter aircraft since they are out of range and you would need so much armor to protect you from a missile that if you bothered the plane would be unwieldy.
So, if your mission is to plant yourself 500 feet above the ground to provide close air support for your soldiers, you want armor and as much of it as you can get. But, if you get hit by a missile, you are probably going down. Typically (and this isn’t how the Russians are doing it) you want to establish a level of air superiority with fighters, then attack mobile AA sites with radar hunters before you deploy your helicopters. If you don’t you are sending them [helicopters] to slaughter. Ukraine is claiming they have shot down 44 helicopters, and I am inclined to believe the number is somewhat accurate. If there is a heat seeking missile in the vicinity of a helicopter then that helo is at huge risk. They aren’t very fast and their turbines put out at lot of heat. You can armor a turbine engine pretty well but if you blow up a missile around a turbine engine you stand a good chance of disrupting its operation permanently.
If you are dogfighting at mach 1 then armor is a hindrance due to the added weight and it the reality that it just doesn’t help that much.
Latest Answers