Yeah, I think we're on the same page, just different paragraphs.Aesop wrote:Like I said.Jericho941 wrote:Short answer: I, too, would like a living pony made out of diamonds. They're essentially asking for a subsonic F-15E with the F-35's cockpit and the A-10's gun.
Long answer: When Pierre Sprey is the voice of sanity, you're in trouble. You can get some of what they want out of a Super Hawg, but not all of it. Stronger engines generally mean more weight, and additional fuel and weapons definitely do. That's going to impact your maneuverability. You're certainly not going to make a jet with 15,000 pounds of ordnance and a full fuel load dance like a Zero.
So we agree on that much.
But if they could upgrade the A-10 evolutionary, instead of going for revolutionary, they'd take a load of mission off the F-35's far too optimistically full plate, and maybe whittle it down to something usable for the other eleventy missions left behind.
Then everybody wins, except the @$$holes who thought you could shoehorn 9 aircraft for 3 services into 1 airframe, which was a fool's errand from the get-go, and has been every time we've tried it.
And the guys on the ground still get actual CAS missions flown by dedicated CAS aircraft; a FrankenA-10 now, and something better down the road.
Fun fact: The YA-10 and YA-9 originally flew off against each other with M61 Vulcans mounted.Rich wrote:Problem is, when you screw with the gun on the A-10, unless you're willing to add a whole bunch of internal braces, struts and whatnot to mount the new gun, you're talking a whole new fuselage.blackeagle603 wrote:" It's not an exaggeration to say the A-10 is a plane wrapped around a big gun. It is tightly wrapped around it. You're going to want a smaller gun, ammo drum, or both."
How important is a 30mm to this CAS mission, vs a 20mm or 25mm?
An M61 20mm is 1/3 the length and 1/4 the weight of the GAU-8. With HEI rounds is it enough for the CAS role?
I really don't see the point of one oversized gun in an aircraft dedicated to CAS. The whole point of a CAS platform is, after all, to help troops in contact, and those that are about to be. In an environment where you're operating such an aircraft, the likelihood of encountering a tank more advanced than some enterprising guy's Killdozer is barely non-zero. Otherwise, that's where the aforementioned menagerie of existing USAF inventory that does the whole "track and kill moving targets from ranges greater than eight nautical miles while flying at altitudes above 20,000 feet" comes into play.blackeagle603 wrote:I'm back at the replacement airframe idea. A smaller gun would open some degrees of design freedom.
Is a tank killer gun role really called for in the current era? If no, then would 20mm or 25mm be adequate for the CAS role?
If that seems optimistic, remember the CBU-105. In the opening hours of the conflict, possibly before your troops get the chance to cross into enemy territory, the bomb trucks should've already rendered the enemy's armor down to a historical footnote. If not, we're still playing the "supersonic and armed with PGMs" game, and it's not quite time for our CAS bruiser to show up.
So it really comes down to "what caliber for jeeps, camels, and assholes with AKs?" Something for which virtually every modern aircraft cannon is adequate for. So while looking at 20mm and 25mm would be worthwhile, I think it's also worth considering looking for something with perhaps a lower velocity, but a bigger HEI payload.
TL;DR: I dig it.
Practicality be damned, I'd ask Northrop Grumman to make us some A-9s before doing that, purely for the sake of national dignity.Netpackrat wrote:I bet the Georgians would be happy to sell us some new SU-25s.
