Are attack helicopters usually more well-armored than fighters, but less armored than bombers? How so, and why?
In: 470
Good try Russia, we got you broke and cornerd with the kind of military tech your malnourished, disgruntled , ill educated wanna be scientist “best and brightest” couldn’t even comprehend.. just give it up with the Ukraine bull shit and we’ll get you back into the modern world
Do modern bombers even have armor?
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.
Bombers are not armored. Airplanes in general are not armored with very few exceptions like the A-10.
Helicopters are armored a bit.
Planes are not armored because they generally fly too high for cannon fire to be effective against them, so the only threat are long range, high altitude missiles. The exceptions being the planes designed for the role of close air support, which fly low and are threatened by low-level small arms and lighter anti-aircraft cannon fire. Basically planes use their altitude and speed as their defence.
Helicopters are always at threat against small arms and cannon fire, so they have important parts with some armor plating. Engines, cockpit, redundant control systems, etc. They may be able to take some hits and survive, but generally speaking, thats just to survive. As soon as an aircraft takes fire, the mission is over, time to go back to base. Not worth the risk of a crash later.
All aircraft are incredibly fragile even if they have some armor. Although there are reports of A-10s and F15s returning missing wings and such…..this is looked at more as a “woah that was lucky, lets never do that again” rather than operating with the intention of trading fire with anti-aircraft weapons.
Not for nothing, but this is the third or fourth ELI5 post in a few days asking interesting questions about seemingly innocent military capabilities. At what point does OPSEC training kick in here or are we just going to keep replying?
The only armored aircraft currently are attack helicopters and some ground attack planes. This us because armor is very heavy and avoiding getting hit in the first place is preferable to having to use armor.
modern day fighters and bombers are not armored. the A-10, a ground-attack aircraft, has an armored bathtub around the cockpit to protect the pilot, and attack helicopters are similarly armored
To add some history, in the WW2 era armour in aircraft was a big thing, especially US aircraft that could be surprisingly durable. When dogfighting was mostly done with regular machine guns armour was a very viable choice, especially as better engines made the weight more manageable. This led to a period of heavier cannons being used over machine guns and heavier armour being employed.
However when missles became a thing armour became functionally meaningless as missiles could pack enough power to overcome any reasonable amount of armour. So what remains is mostly only in aircraft exposed to small arms ground fire, being the only case where any value really is left.
Because helicopters fly low and easier to hit, they need more armor. Jets have some but not a ton. These days bombers don’t really have the armor like they did back in the day. That’s because now you don’t send bombers into an area where they could get shot down, and if you do you use a bomber that flies super fast and has stealth technology.
Latest Answers