Never thought of that!

[blackeagle603]

There's a lot of relatively low time S-3's in mothballs. Long legs and loiter time. Already set up for external stores. Lot of time on station, room to stand up, take a leak, four 0/0 seats, room in back for extra gear, observers/gunners. Or convert the rear seat area to a weapons/bomb bay.

[Vonz90]

If you want to make a plane that can mount a GAU-8 and fly without it, you're either going to have a piss-weak ammo load or a massive airframe (i.e. land-based-only) to get around weight and balance concerns.

When people say that the A-10 is a plane built around a giant gun, they're hardly exaggerating. It is barely enough plane spread thin over a massive gun.

I probably should have said "a big gun". The GAU-8 is basically 60's technology. As good as it is, I'm pretty sure we could develop a better solution these days. Maybe one externally cooled barrel system using liquid propellant. Something like that.

Why would you use liquid propellant? My understanding is that solid propellants give much more power per weight/volume than liquids.

Or did you mean liquid coolant for the barrel?

Were I in charge of a design project to do one, I would look at both actually. Most of the moden big gun systems seems to be going down that track. Maybe a bit less power density but you ditch the weight of the brass and get semi-infinite variability on the charge. Would have to do a deep dive to weigh the tradeoffs but that seems like a good place to start.

[Vonz90]

Be nice to have an airframe that could carry a serious amount of armor plate.

More armor weight means more horsepower means more fuel for bigger engines means more weight means more.........you get the picture.

Realistically, the A10 was designed to kill tanks in a medium threat environment, with friendly fast movers providing top cap air cover. Ground fire from .50, 20mm-23mm, and short-medium range SAMs were the main threat. It is armored accordingly.

For lower threat CAS, you need to protect the pilots from ground fire up to .50cal........maybe 20-23mm. Self-sealing fuel tanks add protection for that area, twin engines give redundancy. The plane should be able to limp home on one engine after jettisoning its external stores. A GAU-19 or twin M2s combined with a 40mm "chunker" like the Mk-19 would be excellent for pudgies in the open, Hiluxes with MGs/cannons in the bed, and most buildings. 2.75" rocket launchers can be loaded with HE, WP, or flechette loads. One could even hang a TOW or Hellfire on the plane if needed.
Serious STOL capability(T/O & land in less than 600') means giving up speed on the higher end(parasitic drag), unless we are talking VTOL jets. Which burn huge amounts of fuel, have limited loiter times, and can't lift a lot.

There is no perfect CAS plane, just the most practical & efficient for the required job.

We don't need a COIN / low threat aircraft. Anything will work for that.

[Yogimus]

The discussion we are having now is why this aircraft will never happen.

[D5CAV]

Another reason to leave the USAF to polishing their missiles and flying their interceptors.

The only branches that like the "hogs" are the US Army and USMC. At least the USMC can call for some AV8s for CAS.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurp ... 41210.aspx

The USAF keeps trying to kill the "hog". The US Army keeps asking for it back. Just give us the "hogs" and be done with it!

Riddle me this Batman: How come the US Army can have ballistic missiles (one of my US Army buddies spent his career driving Pershing IIs all over Germany), but not fixed wing aircraft?

[Jericho941]

I probably should have said "a big gun". The GAU-8 is basically 60's technology. As good as it is, I'm pretty sure we could develop a better solution these days. Maybe one externally cooled barrel system using liquid propellant. Something like that.

In that case, the GAU-12 is probably adequate.

30mm a bit overkill for CAS?

Kinda-sorta-maybe-but-not-really? It's in a gray area, really.

Unless the objective is to have a tank killer replacement for the A-10, seems like a GAU-19 fifty call, a 3 barrel 20mm like the M197 (used in Broncos and Cobras), or both on a fixed wing platform, would be as heavy as you'd need (with the upside of being able to carry more rounds). Seems like a 20mm from above is a bit of heartburn for armor anyway but I'd leave that for the legs and tankers here to comment on.

Remember, the 30mm won't penetrate the armor of any MBT built after the 1960s. It'll chew up anything mounted on the outside, which is still useful, but the A-10's primary anti-tank weapon is the Maverick.

The reason why the 30mm is preferred in CAS is because of its precision and payload. An HEI loadout is great in the antipersonnel role, which is a stumbling block for our other jets running 20mm: Sometimes you'll see target pod video of guys running or on a bike, get completely obscured with dust puffs, and come out the other side unscathed. That just doesn't happen with 30mm.

Some gun deficiencies may be mitigated with SDBs. Though I haven't heard good things about the initial batch.

If you've got room throw a Mk19 grenade launcher in just for grins and to spread the love over a wider area on the ground.

An air-specific one should be developed if that were to happen; its rate of fire is awfully low for a fixed-wing weapon. I'll defer to the guys here with actual experience with it, but I've heard it's not very reliable.

The discussion we are having now is why this aircraft will never happen.

'Cause at the end of the day, what we have may not be perfect, but does the job well enough that there's no pressing need seen for a replacement. Kinda the same reason everyone's still running around with M16s and M4s instead of SCARs and ACRs.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurp ... 41210.aspx

What a load.

The Air Force isn't trying to kill the Hawg. Congress is trying to kill the Hawg. They effectively already have. "Air Force efforts to kill the A-10" are more like trying to take a terminally ill patient off of expensive life support, rather than give it a few more weeks.

[blackeagle603]

Yeah, Mk19 velocity is pretty low so that poses some challenges to it's usefulness as an airborne standoff weapon too. Though for area denial purposes... I imagine a guy on the ground would be looking for a hole to crawl into.

[Yogimus]

Think of a gunship style orbit with an articulated turret instead of a nose mounted strafer.

[tcourtplayer]

They would be nice in a COIN or low intensity conflict, but an updated OV10 would not have a very good survivability in a high intensity conflict.

Their get home rate in Vietnam was not very good either for that matter. 63 lost in VN, the total built was only like 350 and less than 200 of them actually made it to VN, that makes a best case loss rate of more than 30%. I'm sure they are fun to fly, but that is not something I would sign up for.

I'd rather they make a semi-stealthy (most bang for the least buck) new two seat A-10-ish type of aircraft with the big gun removable so you can load other payload for other missions.

Slow speed, big payload, long loiter time, short landing capability - sell it to the Navy too as a dual mission ASW and CAS airframe.

This.

As nestalgic as a modern A-1 would be its day has passed for most conflicts. A modernized A-10 style aircraft in 2 seats is the way to go. It has been proven time and again that having a second seat vastly improves crew SA and ordinance accuracy (both keys in CAS) and if packaged right could be sold to the navy in the modern version of a S-3/CAS (and the right 5/7th fleet Admiral will see the value and push it). Will it ever be a day one aircraft? No, but it will be very effective on day 2+ and a hell of a lot more survivable than the A-1. The problem both the navy and Air Force have run into is they spend all their money on day 1 aircraft and then bastardized them to work on day 2+. If we lose the A-10 without a modern update this is the niche we are really losing.

[Vonz90]

Yeah, Mk19 velocity is pretty low so that poses some challenges to it's usefulness as an airborne standoff weapon too. Though for area denial purposes... I imagine a guy on the ground would be looking for a hole to crawl into.

Yes, this. Mk 19 velocity is so low that we could only mount the the stern of our patrol boats since it is possible to shoot yourself with them at top speed (and higher elevations) if they are on the bow. Really do not think it would be suitable for a fixed wing aircraft.