A-10C Thunderbolt II

[God Bless USA]

Would the use of the A-10C Thunderbolt II be better than attack helicopters for close air support of ground forces. The first flight of the aircraft (A-10Thunderbolt II) occurred in May 1972. From 1972 until today the ground to air weapons have greatly improved. Is the heat signature small enough to help protect the aviators from these new threats?

[Chrom]

Would the use of the A-10C Thunderbolt II be better than attack helicopters for close air support of ground forces. The first flight of the aircraft (A-10Thunderbolt II) occurred in May 1972. From 1972 until today the ground to air weapons have greatly improved. Is the heat signature small enough to help protect the aviators from these new threats?

Heat signature was never small enough to consider it as any kind of protection. Since later 70x all major forces in the world also have head-on capable MANPADS in invertory. The main advantage of fixed wing aircrafts vs helicopters is speed, which greatly reduce call response time and dangerous exposure to enemy AD time.

[rjmaz1]

There is considerable of overlap between an attack helicopter such as an AH-64 Apache and the A-10.

Each have advantages and disadvantages over the other. Each platform has missions that it can do that the other can not. There are many close air support missions shared or could be shared.

The evolution of the Apache has seen it become more like the A-10a. Instead of hovering and shooting it now shoots on the move while hugging the ground. The Apache now performs a lot of the roles that would have been performed by the A-10 many years ago. The A-10 has evolved into the A-10c which has moved to higher altitudes and use standoff weapons.

Lighter attack helicopters have doctrine that is even further apart from the A-10.

They definitely compliment each other well and the US is lucky enough to have two platforms to perform both of these niches. Neither platform will become redundant in the near future.

[Waylander]

Interesting is that while the tactics used by Apaches have changed it has nearly nothing to do with technical evolution.
It is more vice versa.
A Longbow on it's classical mission of finding enemy vehicles with his very nice radar is normally even more a hover and shoot ambush helicopter.

The current usage against mostly lightly armed guerillas operating very close to ones own troops and in sometimes difficult terrain (citys, mountains) favors the strafing/moving helicopter and often enough the Longbow radar is not even carried because it is of no big use but expensive if hit by small arms fire.

These tactics would be nearly suicide if one wants to do this against a halfway sophisticated enemy who is going to shredd your helicopters if they try to do some strafing runs.

[Salty Dog]

Interesting is that while the tactics used by Apaches have changed it has nearly nothing to do with technical evolution.
It is more vice versa.
A Longbow on it's classical mission of finding enemy vehicles with his very nice radar is normally even more a hover and shoot ambush helicopter.

The current usage against mostly lightly armed guerillas operating very close to ones own troops and in sometimes difficult terrain (citys, mountains) favors the strafing/moving helicopter and often enough the Longbow radar is not even carried because it is of no big use but expensive if hit by small arms fire.

These tactics would be nearly suicide if one wants to do this against a halfway sophisticated enemy who is going to shredd your helicopters if they try to do some strafing runs.

Some videos of helicopter gunships in a close support role:

Gunship strafing run

Apache takes out insurgents

[ltb]

it all depends on what you are going for really. One could not put a large payload down with a helicopter like you would be able to with fast air, but by the same token fast air does not give you the loyter time and seminance of ground dominance which the helicopter does.

The helicopter has the advantage of having a longer time on target and so creating more of a millitary foot print

[jtl310]

What if you are a small country that does not have the luxury of operating 2 platforms. And you need an aircraft for CAS, which would u chose for operating against factions and insurgencies? or does the A-10's ability not overlap with the tiger/apache enough to be able to replace it?

[rjmaz1]

What if you are a small country that does not have the luxury of operating 2 platforms. And you need an aircraft for CAS, which would u chose for operating against factions and insurgencies? or does the A-10's ability not overlap with the tiger/apache enough to be able to replace it?
To operate only one aircraft type you'd pick a multipurpose helicopter. There is no point having close air support for your troops if you do not have a helicopter to transport your troops.

If the country is small then a helicopter can reach any point rather quickly. The transit speed of the A-10 is much quicker but you'd have to start traveling longer distances for transit speed to make a difference. A helicopter can take off quicker and from bases further forward offsetting the transit speed.

The sheer cost of operating an Apache or A-10C would be out of reach of most small countries. The Super Tucano is a better option if you already have a utility helicopter for transport duties.

Just as an A-10 could perform some Apache missions, an Apache could perform some missions used by light scout/utility helicopters. These missions may not be able to be performed by an A-10.

Any country that operated a fixed wing platform would always have an existing helicopter fleet. So if you were limited to one platform it would be a utility helicopter that could be used for light gunship duties as well as transport. To operate a single aircraft you would never choose the A-10 as it cannot transport troops and supplies.

An A-10 and Apache is fairly specialised and you would not consider buying these systems unless you were operating multiple platforms. If you have a utility helicopter and transport helicopter then you may consider a dedicated gunship. However a light trainer such as the Hawk may be a better all round option as it could provide air defence if required.

These are only suggestions, everyone has a different requirement.

[F-15 Eagle]

The Air Force also has the MQ-1 and MQ-9 that can do a lot of the missions performed by the A-10. The MQ-9 can carry up to 14 Hellfire missiles or 4 Hellfire missiles and 2 500lbs bombs and have greater range and endurance than the A-10. There in high demand in Iraq and Afghanistan though they are not replacing the A-10 they do a lot of their missions. Though as of now they only have 10 in service and more would be nice.

[jtl310]

Thnx for the replies! I completely forgot about the reaper considering they will in time gain more capabilities.

[Kosovo=Serbia]

Few weeks ago my friend, btw American KFOR officer said to me that A-10 will be completely removed from US air force in "few" years !!!
Is there on forum someone from USAF, officer maybe, who know something
about this ?
I like this plane pretty much

[Salty Dog]

Few weeks ago my friend, btw American KFOR officer said to me that A-10 will be completely removed from US air force in "few" years !!!
Is there on forum someone from USAF, officer maybe, who know something
about this ?
I like this plane pretty much

The A-10 is going through some upgrades which will significantly enhance it's capabilities. I would say the Warthog will still be around for more than just a few years. Have a look at the links below.

A-10 upgrade effort transforms Warthog capabilities (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123029281)

A-10/OA-10 THUNDERBOLT II (USAF Factsheet) (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=70)

[F-15 Eagle]

The A-10 is going through some upgrades which will significantly enhance it's capabilities. I would say the Warthog will still be around for more than just a few years. Have a look at the links below.

A-10 upgrade effort transforms Warthog capabilities (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123029281)

A-10/OA-10 THUNDERBOLT II (USAF Factsheet) (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=70)

From what I heard it should be around until at least 2028, probably longer.

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[Chrom]

Interesting is that while the tactics used by Apaches have changed it has nearly nothing to do with technical evolution.
It is more vice versa.
A Longbow on it's classical mission of finding enemy vehicles with his very nice radar is normally even more a hover and shoot ambush helicopter.

The current usage against mostly lightly armed guerillas operating very close to ones own troops and in sometimes difficult terrain (citys, mountains) favors the strafing/moving helicopter and often enough the Longbow radar is not even carried because it is of no big use but expensive if hit by small arms fire.

These tactics would be nearly suicide if one wants to do this against a halfway sophisticated enemy who is going to shredd your helicopters if they try to do some strafing runs. Well, from my POV the original concept of hovering helo was a mistake anyway. Even 1 (one) soldier with decent weapon (ATGM, RPG, MG) happened nearby of hovering point can ruin the day for whole airwing. Such hovering tactic may have remote chance of success against deeply penetrated tank columns which dont have friendly flanks, are generally isolated from support units, and concentrated on rather small area - but rather useless in attack or even initial defense phase - when enemy tanks trying to breakthrough your lines.

[Waylander]

Hmmm, the whole idea behind the Apache was that, together with some Kiowa spotters, it hovers some kms away and fires his Hellfires as fast as he can thrwo them out than gets back to his resupply point and start another run.

The same goes for helicopters like the Bo-105 (PAH1) but they lacked the technology to fire more than a pair of HOTs in a reasonable timeframe before they have to get to a new firing position.

In the end they tend to hover behind or directly over your own lines to add alot of AT-capability to your line of defense which. This positioning reduces the threat of enemy MANPADs, AAA, etc. alot. Just 4 Apaches add 64 Hellfires to your line of defence which is a real boost to blunt the enemy formations before they get into close contact with your line.
Deep attack runs on the other hand can very well result in heavy losses. The same goes for a more floating situation with the helicopters trying to get into flanking ambush positions.

A battlefield in the late '80s is going to be so saturated by all kinds of systems which can hurt a helicopter that I suspect that one takes heavy casualties as soon as one leaves the relatively safety of your own lines of defense.

[F-15 Eagle]

Some videos of helicopter gunships in a close support role:

Gunship strafing run (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1of92r7vFuU&feature=related)

Apache takes out insurgents (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsb7NwRbD3s&feature=related)

Great videos of the Apaches. Its gotta suck being hit by the 30mm though......

[Chrom]

Hmmm, the whole idea behind the Apache was that, together with some Kiowa spotters, it hovers some kms away and fires his Hellfires as fast as he can thrwo them out than gets back to his resupply point and start another run.

The same goes for helicopters like the Bo-105 (PAH1) but they lacked the technology to fire more than a pair of HOTs in a reasonable timeframe before they have to get to a new firing position.

In the end they tend to hover behind or directly over your own lines to add alot of AT-capability to your line of defense which. This positioning reduces the threat of enemy MANPADs, AAA, etc. alot. Just 4 Apaches add 64 Hellfires to your line of defence which is a real boost to blunt the enemy formations before they get into close contact with your line.
Deep attack runs on the other hand can very well result in heavy losses. The same goes for a more floating situation with the helicopters trying to get into flanking ambush positions.

A battlefield in the late '80s is going to be so saturated by all kinds of systems which can hurt a helicopter that I suspect that one takes heavy casualties as soon as one leaves the relatively safety of your own lines of defense.


Hmm, i cant really imagine Apache hovering directly before enemy lines. If enemy spot them in time - it could get very ugly for Apaches. Artillery, MLRS, ATGM's, and enemy aviation might well end such run prematurely.

For quick shoot at already reckoned targets own aviation and artillery will be far better in most circumstances.

I still think since about later 70x this concept of hovering helicopter against adequate equipped enemy was wrong. However, it could be well used against technologically much inferior enemy.

[kato]

Well, of course it was a bit more complex than just hovering there. The approach and departure paths and such were the more difficult part.

Look at some of the Bo-105 videos available on youtube and such - approach and departure below treeline and hills, sweep up into hover above and shoot as fast as possible before dropping below LOS of ADA assets.
Was pretty much the standard tactic till late 80s or so.

[eckherl]

Well, of course it was a bit more complex than just hovering there. The approach and departure paths and such were the more difficult part.

Look at some of the Bo-105 videos available on youtube and such - approach and departure below treeline and hills, sweep up into hover above and shoot as fast as possible before dropping below LOS of ADA assets.
Was pretty much the standard tactic till late 80s or so.

Not only did tactics play into it, but one could also look at night time capabilities that most western attack helicopters had during the Cold War thru present day.

[Waylander]

@Chrom
What is your problem with hovering in a scenario where the red hordes are marching through western germany?
This may be the only way to survive.
As it has been already mentioned it was not just helicopters hovering and firing.
Approach the point of fire via a concealed route below tree line.
Let something like your Kiowa scout, Bo-105 scout or ground assets in contact with you find a good spot to hit the enemy columns (the Longbow upgrade added a huge amount of tracking capabilities for this role).
Get up a little bit above tree line and fire your ATGMs as fast as possible and from as far away as possible (4km+) and then return to the refuel and rearm point via another concealed route.
This is nearly the only way to avoid as much enemy air defence assets as possible.
The concealed approach over own territory helps to protect against enemy long range SAMs/radars and against enemy fighters.
That you pop up nearly above your own enemy lines and just barely above tree level helps against close range air defence systems directly attached to the enemy formations while the range of your ATGMs makes it possible to outrange systems like the Shilka.
It is not like you make it out. They are not popping up nearly directly in front of the enemy formations right above enemy territory.

What would be the alternative? Doing strike runs against enemy columns?
You propose strikes by fixed wing assets can get alot uglier because these strike aircrafts are often enough much more exposed to enemy air defence asstes of all kind than a helicopter which uses all kinds of terrain to avoid these assets.

[Chrom]

@Chrom
What is your problem with hovering in a scenario where the red hordes are marching through western germany?
This may be the only way to survive.
As it has been already mentioned it was not just helicopters hovering and firing.
Approach the point of fire via a concealed route below tree line.
And then they get ambushed by enemy flanks guards... because they failed to notice 1-2 BMP's or just a soldier squad with ATGM's, MADPADS.. Simply put, in such rapidly changed situation it would be very, very dangerous to rely on concealment approach.

Compare it with more common aviation or helo tactic - quick sweep, attack, quick disengage before enemy can target. All this while flying as fast as possible. For this tactic several BMP's or ATGM's are much, much less dangerous. Even MANPADS require up to several minutes preparation - which would be enough against hovering helos, but not sufficient against quickly moved air targets.

Still, even that approach wouldnt be very efficient against later 70x- early 80x common "Red horde" offensive group. All these mobile SAM's and AAA, being integral part of tank/rifle regiments, will give good enough protection.



Let something like your Kiowa scout, Bo-105 scout or ground assets in contact with you find a good spot to hit the enemy columns (the Longbow upgrade added a huge amount of tracking capabilities for this role).
Get up a little bit above tree line and fire your ATGMs as fast as possible and from as far away as possible (4km+) and then return to the refuel and rearm point via another concealed route.
As i said, this maneuver will still require much more time than quick attack on the run, and while hovering helo will present much easer target for anything including even small arms and artillery. Btw, this also includes tanks main gun! Remember, a large part of soviet tank ammo load was HE ammo!

This is nearly the only way to avoid as much enemy air defence assets as possible.

But this will expose helos to everything else, while still not completely hiding it from AD assets.


The concealed approach over own territory helps to protect against enemy long range SAMs/radars and against enemy fighters.
This is not the main question here. Concealed approach can be also well used by every other aircrafts or helo - it is not exclusive to hovering attack helo

That you pop up nearly above your own enemy lines and just barely above tree level helps against close range air defence systems directly attached to the enemy formations while the range of your ATGMs makes it possible to outrange systems like the Shilka.
The problem is, such tactic is very heavy reliant on terrain, and enemy would be also very well aware of such possibility. Even 1 small forward enemy group near such lucrative attack point will result in heavy causalities among very expensive helos. Hell, even just an hidden enemy scout 10km away from this hovering point (or even from a way to this hovering point) can ruin a day for such helo wing. I stress it again, still hovering helo is a dream target for anyone, including for these who wouldnt even think about attacking moving helo in other case.


It is not like you make it out. They are not popping up nearly directly in front of the enemy formations right above enemy territory.
Doesnt matter in the slightest if they pop in front, sides or behind main formation.

What would be the alternative? Doing strike runs against enemy columns?
You propose strikes by fixed wing assets can get alot uglier because these strike aircrafts are often enough much more exposed to enemy air defence asstes of all kind than a helicopter which uses all kinds of terrain to avoid these assets.

My proposal is dont use hovering tactic against half-competent enemy. Use helos with "quick shoot on the run" tactic, use low-level fixed wing aircrafts like A-10.

P.S. Btw, if enemy control airspace up to high alt (with SAM's or whatever) - and this seems to be implication of your wish to avoid using high-alt bombers and hiding from enemy aviation - then using helos for attack is even more suicide. Even more so hovering helos, which require more time to setup attack than other helos and fixed wing aircrafts.

[kato]

P.S. Btw, if enemy control airspace up to high alt (with SAM's or whatever)
In the Cold War scenario in Germany, neither side would have really controlled the air.
Both sides would focus on keeping air superiority - primarily through SAM belts - over their own area, while attempting to reduce hostile air forces through targeted destruction of infrastructure, especially airfields, with heavy escort forces.

All USAFE A-10 were for such reasons held in the second wave in the UK btw (10th TFW, 81st TFW), with the only other units there being the bombers (F-111E/F). The 17th AF HQ in Germany had ~100 F-15C, ~200 F-16 and a considerable number of EW and SEAD aircraft (EF-111A, EC-130H, F-4G). Not assets meant for CAS.
The RAF would have had some 30 Harriers for CAS in Germany, along with ~100 Tornados for strike missions and ~25 Phantoms for intercepts.
Germany itself had some 100 Alpha Jets for CAS, although these were stationed such that they would protect the flanks against breakthroughs (the RAF Harriers filled much the same role for the center).
The Tornados, armed with MW1 or JP223, would perform anti-tank strike missions, nothing you'd want to be close to.

The fixed SAM belts however meant that these almost entirely weren't really all that capable at intercepting at low altitude. Even dedicated heavier low-altitude SAMs such as 2K12 Kub had a minimum altitude of 50m, and attack helos were meant to specifically stay below that. Other systems (9K31, 9K33, 9K33M) had other problems that could be exploited, especially in the to be expected ECM-heavy environment.

Besides which you wouldn't have a single attack helo attacking. Or a pair. Think squadrons and entire wings attacking over the whole front. With typical maintenance numbers, there'd be roughly 25% of the entire attack helo fleet attacking along a 1400 km long front.
This fleet would have consisted of some 650 attack helos (~200 AH-1, ~200 PAH-1, ~150 AH64, ~50 Gazelle HOT, ~50 Lynx TOW) and some 400 further armed scout helos (such as OH-58A/C/D).

[Chrom]

The fixed SAM belts however meant that these almost entirely weren't really all that capable at intercepting at low altitude. Even dedicated heavier low-altitude SAMs such as 2K12 Kub had a minimum altitude of 50m, and attack helos were meant to specifically stay below that. Other systems (9K31, 9K33, 9K33M) had other problems that could be exploited, especially in the to be expected ECM-heavy environment.



Remember, low-level approach is NOT exclusive to hovering helos. Any other helo can do it just as well.

Kub in optical mode can engage targets as low as 25m.

Also, in early 80x Buk-M was already fielded, which had no problems to engage low-flying targets. Tunguska, which is even more mobile and dangerous for helicopters and low-alt aircrafts, was fielded in later 80x - but this still proves my point what by 80x the concept of hovering helo (and even any other helo) against "red tank hordes" was not very successful .

But this is not my original point. I was specifically skeptical about hovering attack mode, as in my view this expose helos to more danger, regardless of SAM's presence or absence.


As for ECM-heavy environment...

First, this goes both ways. Second, at least new Buk and Tunguska had adequate (by that time) anti-ecm and anti-radar missile protection. I dont think it would be easy job to affect them at such close range.

[kato]

Kub in optical mode can engage targets as low as 25m.
Light Attack Helos meant for European battlefields hovered around far below that. That's why 9K33M was fielded, to lower the engagement zone down to 10m altitude.

Also, in early 80x Buk-M was already fielded, which had no problems to engage low-flying targets. Tunguska, which is even more mobile and dangerous for helicopters and low-alt aircrafts, was fielded in later 80x
9K37 was fielded first in 1979, 9K37M in 1984. Both had a minimum intercept altitude of 30m.
9K22 combined SAMs with ADA for specifically that reason, getting below that magic 25-30m engagement line. However, the original 9K22 was only produced in a LRIP run, and replaced by 2K22M which due to some problems wasn't introduced before 1990 (though technically it was ready by 1986-1988).
Neither 9K37 nor 9K22 were exactly widespread on the European battlefield, especially as the Soviets didn't hand these down.

Remember, low-level approach is NOT exclusive to hovering helos. Any other helo can do it just as well.
[...]
But this is not my original point. I was specifically skeptical about hovering attack mode, as in my view this expose helos to more danger, regardless of SAM's presence or absence.

Sure, but a non-hovering helo will automatically spend far more time in the LOS of hostile anti-aircraft systems. That's what the primary point is - not just keeping below the radar, but also plainly keeping out of sight.

In a ECM environment, most AA against helos would rely on passive IR seeker missiles, command guidance, laser beam-riding, IR/EO on about anything else. Passive IR seekers have a number of problems, especially in a heat-source-rich environment, and the rest would be a case of dodging it.

Most AA engagement systems have reaction times between 8 and 15 seconds minimum, missile systems often more. Enough time for the sweep-up-fire-sweep-down routine. A handful close-in range systems were a lot faster, but that's why you'd do this at long range. Same on the Western side btw, Germany built Gepard and Roland exactly to have something with combined radar and IR sensors, and very low reaction times.

Approaching low but keeping in sight of sensors will always give your enemy more time to react, no matter how much you hug the terrain.

[Waylander]

And then they get ambushed by enemy flanks guards... because they failed to notice 1-2 BMP's or just a soldier squad with ATGM's, MADPADS.. Simply put, in such rapidly changed situation it would be very, very dangerous to rely on concealment approach.

Compare it with more common aviation or helo tactic - quick sweep, attack, quick disengage before enemy can target. All this while flying as fast as possible. For this tactic several BMP's or ATGM's are much, much less dangerous. Even MANPADS require up to several minutes preparation - which would be enough against hovering helos, but not sufficient against quickly moved air targets.

Still, even that approach wouldnt be very efficient against later 70x- early 80x common "Red horde" offensive group. All these mobile SAM's and AAA, being integral part of tank/rifle regiments, will give good enough protection.


You don't get the idea behind the used tactics.
As Kato already said all these movements are done to stay out of enemy radar and LOS detection for as long as possible.
Because of that you approach the forward line of defense via a concealed route over own territory. This minimizes the chance to get shot at by unsuspected enemy forces like the mentioned BMP, MBT, MANPAD team, etc. And I am talking about being so low that I have no problems touching the helicopter out of the tank hatch.
Because of that you just pop up barely above tree line when you have your target data.
Because of that your scouts do most of the searching for as long as possible.
Because of that one tries to fire the helo mounted ATGMs from outside the range of systems like Shilka, tank mainguns, etc. (4km+)

All this is done to minimize the engagement time of the enemy and to minimize the amount of systems he can bring to bear against your helos.
I never stated that Helos wouldn't take casualties. They would like everyone else. But a Helo doing a fast attack run onto a mechanized rifle regiment exposes it for a much longer time to everything from Tunguskas to AK-74s.

And your proposed ATGM teams and BMPs are not going to throw out the same amount of AT-missile fire like for example a pair of Apaches. Not even close to that and not over the same distance.

As i said, this maneuver will still require much more time than quick attack on the run, and while hovering helo will present much easer target for anything including even small arms and artillery. Btw, this also includes tanks main gun! Remember, a large part of soviet tank ammo load was HE ammo!

Why would it? A Kiowa only exposes it's mast mounted sensors and a Bo also just the top of the cabin. The whole process of popping up, firing the ATGMs as fast as possible against already designated targets and getting down is much faster than every attack run one could do against an enemy column.
And the range of the ATGMs makes sure that the helos stay out of the range of much more systems including your mentioned main guns and small arms. This is not the case for an attack run.

This is not the main question here. Concealed approach can be also well used by every other aircrafts or helo - it is not exclusive to hovering attack helo

Quote:


The way it is done by NATO AT-helicopters is exclusive to this tactic. For sure one can do it with every helicopter but as soon as one crosses the forward line of defense and especially when it starts it's attack run onto the enemy formation it is much much more exposed to any kind of AA asset. There will be so much metal in the air over a motorised rifle regiment that even without specialized AA-assets a helo doing a run is going to have a tough time.

The problem is, such tactic is very heavy reliant on terrain, and enemy would be also very well aware of such possibility. Even 1 small forward enemy group near such lucrative attack point will result in heavy causalities among very expensive helos. Hell, even just an hidden enemy scout 10km away from this hovering point (or even from a way to this hovering point) can ruin a day for such helo wing. I stress it again, still hovering helo is a dream target for anyone, including for these who wouldnt even think about attacking moving helo in other case.


And again, because of that one tries to stay above ones own territory for as long as possible. In the ideal situation for the whole attack. YOur idea on the other side brings the helos into enemy territory and maximizes the threats you just mentioned.
And what kind of scout with enough firepower is going to be on the route of the helos when this route is over ones own territory. If there is an enemy BMP platoon behind your lines without you knowing it you have much bigger problems than the survival of your helos.

Doesnt matter in the slightest if they pop in front, sides or behind main formation.


What kind of statement is that? As if it doesn't matter if you pop up above ones own lines or if one has to sneak through enemy territory to get some side shots against the enemy formation. The chance that there are no enemy forces close to your side or right in front of you is much bigger if one pops up above ones own line.

My proposal is dont use hovering tactic against half-competent enemy. Use helos with "quick shoot on the run" tactic, use low-level fixed wing aircrafts like A-10.

P.S. Btw, if enemy control airspace up to high alt (with SAM's or whatever) - and this seems to be implication of your wish to avoid using high-alt bombers and hiding from enemy aviation - then using helos for attack is even more suicide. Even more so hovering helos, which require more time to setup attack than other helos and fixed wing aircrafts.

Kato already explained it. Every low flying aircraft is always going to be much more exposed to enemy AD assets than a helicopter doing a low level (6 meters above ground) approach and it is also going to be exposed to much more ground fire during it's attack run.

[kato]

Additionally, helos would have primarily been used to reinforce own (counter-) thrusts on the ground, or to prevent own forces from being overrun. If there are no friendly forces nearby, there's no reason not to just have your artillery - or aircraft with cluster AT bombs - execute a strike along the lines of "fire quadrant, 500x500, go".

In an ideal combined-arms situation in such a thrust, the helo would execute its missile strikes from just behind your own lines, overfiring own forces to provide additional firepower to the front line before hostile forces come into weapon range with own forces.

The approach-low, attack-directly-and-fast, get-away-as-fast-as-possible isn't a tactic suitable for helos, but is worthwhile if the potential damage is worth the risk. A Tornado with twin JP223, a MW1 dispenser or a B61 will use such a tactic, supported by heavy ECM and jamming. However, in that case, you're not aiming at taking out a platoon of tanks or two, but you're aiming at taking out the entire regiment at once in this single strike, which would definitely be worth risking the aircraft (... unless there's a Lance or Pluton battery within range).

[Waylander]

That's what I wrote earlier in one of my posts.
The Helos blunt the enemy fomrations before the actual ground engagement begins, reinforce weakpoints or soften up enemy positions before a counterattack.

This picture shows our PAHs doing a prepatory strike while the tank platoon is ready to come out of cover and make itself wide for the attack.