USAF seeks a new A-10.

[Bluenose]

The GAU-8 is not used very often, is not considered very effective against current targets and lacks HE for use against non-armoured targets. I know that is an popular statement, but it is true. Any A-10 replacement - if manned- is very unlikely to have a similar weapon. An unmanned equivalent is almost certain not to have a heavy cannon.

Sorry, guys, but that's the way it goes.

[TacCovert4]

Originally Posted by Bluenose

The GAU-8 is not used very often, is not considered very effective against current targets and lacks HE for use against non-armoured targets. I know that is an popular statement, but it is true. Any A-10 replacement - if manned- is very unlikely to have a similar weapon. An unmanned equivalent is almost certain not to have a heavy cannon.

Sorry, guys, but that's the way it goes.

I'd agree with some of that statement. I think that a cannon still provides a cost effective solution to a number of problems when lifecycle cost and ammo are compared to say a hellfire per target. But I would agree that latest generation tanks are all but invulnerable to 30mm, and the lack of substantial HE is a problem.

That's why I'd suggest a 40mm cannon instead for a new bird. Lower RoF, but can be compensated for with much better aiming systems. Better AP performance out of a APFSDS round that should be able to defeat all IFVs for some time to come and can rip into all but the best tanks from above. Plus you can get HE and even proximity fuzed anti-personnel fragmentation into that size shell.

I think that pulling the gun is a premature move. Note that pretty much every other combat aircraft has a gun, and all of them have at one point or another either been derided or outright removed, and in the latter case replaced after painful lessons.

But that specific gun, yes, it might be getting too long in the tooth for the job.

[Bluenose]

That's why I'd suggest a 40mm cannon instead for a new bird. Lower RoF, but can be compensated for with much better aiming systems. Better AP performance out of a APFSDS round that should be able to defeat all IFVs for some time to come and can rip into all but the best tanks from above. Plus you can get HE and even proximity fuzed anti-personnel fragmentation into that size shell.

There is probably an in-between, something like the APKWS II that fits on unguided rockets. If you could cost-effectively put something similar to steer cannon rounds then it might be effective.

I think that pulling the gun is a premature move. Note that pretty much every other combat aircraft has a gun, and all of them have at one point or another either been derided or outright removed, and in the latter case replaced after painful lessons.

Totally with you on that; I would always keep a cannon on a fighter,

[TacCovert4]

Possibly. OTOH, actual targeting systems have improved enough that from the air, where there aren't exactly obstacles and folds in the terrain like on the ground, unguided projectiles can be effective enough.

I'd consider a cannon as an antipersonnel area weapon, hitting a beaten zone, even if it's a relatively small one, with HE and fragmentation shells perfect for shredding soft skins and squishies. With a mix of AP and HE, it could shred IFVs and their crews.

For attacking proper Tanks, the cannon would be the secondary solution. Primary solution would be to engage with missiles.

[Bluenose]

Possibly. OTOH, actual targeting systems have improved enough that from the air, where there aren't exactly obstacles and folds in the terrain like on the ground, unguided projectiles can be effective enough.

But they require aircrew time and attention as well as - usually - altitude loss. Accuracy has also never been great and is likely to suffer in the face of any defensive systems.

I'd consider a cannon as an antipersonnel area weapon, hitting a beaten zone, even if it's a relatively small one, with HE and fragmentation shells perfect for shredding soft skins and squishies. With a mix of AP and HE, it could shred IFVs and their crews.

Think about the number of projectiles required to 'beat' any given zone; aircraft carry ammunition for short, accurate bursts. 'Working' an area might have been relevant in 1944-45 but the projectile to space ratio, protection levels of many targets and proliferation of MANPADS all suggests that this is no longer viable.

For attacking proper Tanks, the cannon would be the secondary solution. Primary solution would be to engage with missiles.

For most targets, TBH. The current issue is cost of ordinance vs. target, though weapons such as Brimstone and SDB are not perfect, they go some way towards addressing this. I would agree, though, that all things being equal a cannon would be an obvious way to engage a single vehicle.

[Escape2Victory]

Originally Posted by Bluenose

[SNIP]

For most targets, TBH. The current issue is cost of ordinance vs. target, though weapons such as Brimstone and SDB are not perfect, they go some way towards addressing this. I would agree, though, that all things being equal a cannon would be an obvious way to engage a single vehicle.

Some of this cost is linked to a low tolerance for collateral damage, only killing specified, approved targets and no one else, meaning targeting pods and precision missiles towards the limits of what is technically possible and therefore expensive. This has not always been the case and is bundled up with the current high importance placed on human rights and extension of such to all nations and peoples.

I do wonder if this is a fad or trend that may not be with us forever.

[Bluenose]

Some of this cost is linked to a low tolerance for collateral damage, only killing specified, approved targets and no one else, meaning targeting pods and precision missiles towards the limits of what is technically possible and therefore expensive. This has not always been the case and is bundled up with the current high importance placed on human rights and extension of such to all nations and peoples.

I do wonder if this is a fad or trend that may not be with us forever.

It is certainly a topic for debate. While the whole collateral aspect is part, there is a wider trend which is underlined by economy of effort. This has pushed effectiveness down from the platform to the weapon so that they can be used across a wider range of aircraft (or vehicles) with less need for the aircraft to be an expensive, high-performance type. It also reflects shrinking fleets.

The object, therefore, is an accurate, multi-role weapons with standoff range that can be released by manned / unmanned aircraft out of range of air defences that hit very accurate with just enough power to kill whatever is that specific target. At low cost, if possible.

Cannon are, in some respects, at the other end of the spectrum, but since wars rarely go as planned they retain a place in the arsenal.

[TacCovert4]

I know I had said I would post my concept of a functional A-10 replacement. But I never did. So here goes:

Mission: All-Weather Multi-role Strike, Close Air Support, Electronic Warfare, ELINT.

Ancillaries: Multi-Service capable platform (IOW built as Carrier Capable, USAF model would simply have tail hook and catapult linkages removed and different refueling point piping). Key systems and pilots armored against shrapnel and rifle-caliber fires. Redundant electronic plus backup mechanical flight control systems.

Base Aircraft: A-6 Intruder. I'm putting this in here so that you can visualize some of the basics about the bird. I'm torn between a high wing monoplane on that model with engines separated a bit more to increase survivability, or a low wing monoplane with the engines mounted above the wing roots for the same reason, probably the latter.

Name: Dauntless?

Crew: 2. Pilot + WSO/EWO (depending on mission). Side by side seating (1, allows better communication, important on EW/ELINT missions. 2, Maximizes armor as you can can encase both crew in the same 'tub' rather than having wholly separate cells, allowing for more armor at less weight).

Weight: 28,000lbs
Max Weight: 60,000lbs

Range: 2600nm

Speed: 650mph max, Stall 120mph

Armament:

Cannon: Possibilities of GAU-12, or a reduced variant of the GAU-7 (like the M197 is a reduced M61 Vulcan) or even a chain-drive autocannon in 25-35mm caliber (ROF being not quite as important as it is on a dogfighter).

Other armaments would be 7-9 hardpoints (depending on wing layout) with a maximum total weight of 15000lbs, including all current and anticipated marks of bombs, AGMs, rockets, or gun pods, to include Sidewinder AAMs (for self-defense).

Hardpoints could also carry fuel tanks, EW pods, or ELINT pods, plus a single central mounted pod for drogue buddy refuelling (Navy/Marine model)

Avionics/Sensors: I don't pretend to be an expert on this. My thoughts are primarily avoiding using Radar but possibly having it on board as it adds more flexibility. Primary sensors would be NV, IR, and the like.

Final thoughts: The purpose of this bird is to operate in semi-permissive and permissive environments, just as the A-10 is designed to do. Things that I'm adding on are more range, and the second crewman to allow for additional missions. She'd be low observable, but not designed as true Stealth on the same scale as say the F22 was, more somewhere between that and the B1B. Additional speed without sacrificing low speed performance will allow her to cover the gap between base and combat zone quicker, meaning better responses to ground forces and less time vulnerable in the combat zone. There are quite a number of roles that have been lacking a bird, such as EW, and this bird would be able to cover that role without being truly specialized, meaning that it's an affordable option and gives flexibility to a commander.

[wolfhnd]

Originally Posted by McMax

Good news but we all know that the biggest problem with CAS is that the USAF has the mission. Before any new aircraft the mission needs to be taken from the USAF and handed over to US Army Aviation.

That is why we need to replace the A-10 with a more rugged remote controlled vertical takeoff and landing remote controlled vehicle with awe inspiring fire power.

It's 2017 not 1965.

[Half Pint John]

Originally Posted by TacCovert4

I know I had said I would post my concept of a functional A-10 replacement. But I never did. So here goes:

Mission: All-Weather Multi-role Strike, Close Air Support, Electronic Warfare, ELINT.

Ancillaries: Multi-Service capable platform (IOW built as Carrier Capable, USAF model would simply have tail hook and catapult linkages removed and different refueling point piping). Key systems and pilots armored against shrapnel and rifle-caliber fires. Redundant electronic plus backup mechanical flight control systems.

Base Aircraft: A-6 Intruder. I'm putting this in here so that you can visualize some of the basics about the bird. I'm torn between a high wing monoplane on that model with engines separated a bit more to increase survivability, or a low wing monoplane with the engines mounted above the wing roots for the same reason, probably the latter.

Name: Dauntless?

Crew: 2. Pilot + WSO/EWO (depending on mission). Side by side seating (1, allows better communication, important on EW/ELINT missions. 2, Maximizes armor as you can can encase both crew in the same 'tub' rather than having wholly separate cells, allowing for more armor at less weight).

Weight: 28,000lbs
Max Weight: 60,000lbs

Range: 2600nm

Speed: 650mph max, Stall 120mph

Armament:

Cannon: Possibilities of GAU-12, or a reduced variant of the GAU-7 (like the M197 is a reduced M61 Vulcan) or even a chain-drive autocannon in 25-35mm caliber (ROF being not quite as important as it is on a dogfighter).

Other armaments would be 7-9 hardpoints (depending on wing layout) with a maximum total weight of 15000lbs, including all current and anticipated marks of bombs, AGMs, rockets, or gun pods, to include Sidewinder AAMs (for self-defense).

Hardpoints could also carry fuel tanks, EW pods, or ELINT pods, plus a single central mounted pod for drogue buddy refuelling (Navy/Marine model)

Avionics/Sensors: I don't pretend to be an expert on this. My thoughts are primarily avoiding using Radar but possibly having it on board as it adds more flexibility. Primary sensors would be NV, IR, and the like.

Final thoughts: The purpose of this bird is to operate in semi-permissive and permissive environments, just as the A-10 is designed to do. Things that I'm adding on are more range, and the second crewman to allow for additional missions. She'd be low observable, but not designed as true Stealth on the same scale as say the F22 was, more somewhere between that and the B1B. Additional speed without sacrificing low speed performance will allow her to cover the gap between base and combat zone quicker, meaning better responses to ground forces and less time vulnerable in the combat zone. There are quite a number of roles that have been lacking a bird, such as EW, and this bird would be able to cover that role without being truly specialized, meaning that it's an affordable option and gives flexibility to a commander.

Add on rough unimproved field capable. Side by side makes for a larger frontal target and really wouldn't cut the weight down. Think Apache or Cobra they have protected cockpits.

[TacCovert4]

Originally Posted by Half Pint John

Add on rough unimproved field capable. Side by side makes for a larger frontal target and really wouldn't cut the weight down. Think Apache or Cobra they have protected cockpits.

The first part isn't much of an issue since it would already be carrier capable, so the suspension would be up to it. Ensuring large enough wheels/tires, and that the intakes aren't set up to eat a pile of FOD on takeoff or landing would be the concerns, and then just expect to cut about a third off of typical combat payload to account for a dirt airfield. I don't think that you could realistically get a modern combat aircraft to fly from a grassy field like a WW1 bird, but maybe a minimally improved airfield.

As for the second, it almost becomes a matter of personal opinion as to the best layout and which one provides the best costs/benefits between visibility for the back seater, communications between the crew, and target profile. I think that there are benefits to the side by side arrangement on this bird, as a back seater would have a terrible view of the ground from behind the pilot, and unlike a helo the pilot would be best seated to the front.