Let's see if I can understand this, the Op doesn't like the A-10 and claims that perhaps the AH-64 or perhaps the AH-1 would be a good replacement for it. Well let's consider this for a moment, if I were to take a Russian 23MM and hit the A-10 several times and it keeps hitting back and flys home, and the consider the fact the AH-64 and the AH-1 can be brought down with small arms fire the OP's quote is somewhat off the mark.
I chalk most of this off to the kind of amateuristic things I read all the time from those who do not understand the military.
The attack helicopters have their role, but it is not the same as that of an Attack Fighter. In fact, most today do not even know what the original role of the AH was in the first place.
In the 1950's and 1960's, the tank was one of the most expensive items in the military arsenal, short of a heavy bomber. And the early lightly armored helicopters were one of the least expensive. But in the US any aircraft required an officer to fly.
So the Army vastly increased it's Warrant Officer program, and rapidly developed the early anti-tank helicopters. It was figured that they could throw away 4 helicopters in exchange for 1 tank if the Warsaw Pact ever came streaming into Central Europe. And they could easily operate along the edge of the battle area, something fighters and bombers have a hard time doing.
But dumping entire specialized classifications of a weapon system without an equal replacement is always a recipe for disaster. The advent of modern tanks has not eliminated the role of the tank destroyer, the advent of better machine guns did not eliminate the need for a rifleman. Grenade launchers did not eliminate the need for light mortars or hand grenades.
In a modern battlefield, aircraft all have their areas of operation. Helicopters and attack fighters generally operate just on the edge of the battlefield. Helicopters on a local level normally directly supporting the units they are assigned to, fighters like the hog responding to where more help is needed. Fighters normally operate overhead, engaging other fighters to keep them from attacking our ground forces. Bombers try to penetrate and operate behind the enemy lines.
A lot of the problem here is that a lot of people in here with little to no comprehension of theatre wide strategy and tactics assume that the wars we have been involved in the last 15 years is how it always has been, and always will be. It is not, fighting against such technologically inferior opponents is actually quite unusual, and it took months and years to organize our military to work effectively against them.
And if we change everything to only meet this kind of threat, then we are crippled if we have to face an enemy that is closer to our capabilities, like Russia, China, or even Brazil or India. Each of those nations has some pretty good technology, training, and doctrine, along with a lot of other countries.
If we scrapped all of our Attack Fighters, we will then be in a world of hurt if we need them in a future conflict. Deciding to kill them makes about as much sense to me as deciding that since the short bed and long bed pickups do anything a medium bed can do, then the manufacture of all standard medium bed pickups should be cancelled.
