Why the need for A-10 Warthogs now-a-days when you have Apache Helicopters?

[pauldun170]

Foreign Object Damage (FOD) is a big killer of turbines. The A-10's high ground clearance, coupled with the high engine position allows them to use less than ideal runways.
https://www.businessinsider.com/a-1...ng-on-improvised-runways-in-california-2019-6

here again off a dry lake bed.
https://theaviationist.com/2014/05/01/a-10-mud-lake-pix/

The wheel track is around 20', allowing operations off a regular two lane road. 57 foot span fits in standard road right of ways. Knock down the signs and go to work for daylight operations with no runway at all.

Thats what the brochure says
However. All the cool kids do that nowadays

America's New 'Austere Airfield' Fighter Exercises Could Be Bad News For China

The U.S. Air Force has begun its first ever Pacific exercises using new F-35 fighter jets for austere airfield operations, with the stealth aircraft deployed to Guam's

militarywatchmagazine.com

 

[Captante]

Of course, if you sent out some Apache attack helicopters to go tank busting instead, their commanding officer would probably insist on roughly the same level of air support for them as well.

You're right... it makes more sense to send some armed drones instead. Nobody wants to see dead or captured pilots on CNN.

I strongly suspect the choppers would need MORE air-support.... the A-10 may be a relatively slow and heavy jet-aircraft but it's still a jet-aircraft.

Bottom line is that manned fighter-aircraft have already seen their best days unless and until we invent something like Star Trek level "inertial dampener's".

And even then the pilot is still directly at risk which is a huge disadvantage vs remotely piloted or AI-powered drones.

 

[gorobei]

bismark has done a breakdown of some of the myths on the a-10.

the 30mm gun is somewhat overrated for actually killing armor. they seemingly got as many or more kills with mavericks in iraq, which a bunch of other planes can also deploy without having to get close enough to take damage.
the usaf and usmc have seen the data and are going the PGM route. things like the small diameter bomb gbu-39 allow the f-35 to fly outside of the range of spaa and manpad and still get bombs on target. stealth allows them to operate earlier in the war when they havent achieved total air superiority and sead with the f22/f15, ea-18g, awac.

there is a distinction between close air support (attacking enemy engaged with ground troops on the front line) and air interdiction (attacking enemy columns located well behind enemy lines). the a-10 going brrrrrtt in multiple passes is good for ground soldier morale and bad for enemy morale. but if you want the actual threat of the enemy armor taken out, the pgms from a f-35 way high up unseen by the guys on the ground is way to go. the a-10 did interdiction in iraq, but the amount of external pods with ecm, sensors, fuel, etc just makes it that much slower which increases the amount of time they are exposed to sams and other threats.

the marines are willing to use f-35 vtol in much closer foward air bases (runwayless) than the a-10 bases can get. so the loiter time is much higher, which also means more time functioning as recon passing data thru sensor fusion back to the awacs.

as to the OP, the a-10 and ah-64 were fine for the original theater they were intended for (fulda gap forrests and hills). but for more varied terrains and sea, both are not ideal, and neither supersedes the other much less some new platform.