Thread: A-10 Successor

Originally Posted by PubFather

Been doing a little bit of thinking - and it looks to me that there is huge potential for an "A-10" like aircraft.

For example, the UK in Afghanistan has been using the Harrier in the CAS role but without a gun, its proving less than satisfactory. The next aircraft slated to be the RAF's CAS aircraft is the Typhoon (to which they have finally realised a working gun will be essential, a small triumph for common sense). Yet using the Typhoon is an environment like Afghanistan to pop RPG squads seems a terrible misuse of an expensive a/craft.

I know the US intends to hold onto its A-10s for another 15-20 years but after that, the F35 would be as "over-the-top" for the CAS role as the Typhoon.

Surely there could be a huge market for an aircraft that was:
A) Cheap
B) Survivable and reliable (simple)
C) Had a decent warload and range
D) A powerful gun armament, although not necessarily equivalent to the Avenger.
E) Improvised airfield capable.

It wouldnt need the full range of expensive fighter avionics, radar etc so it could be cheaper. It wouldnt require "stealth". In the modern world of low-intensity warfare, surely a cheap aircraft "gunship" offers huge potential?

I know the Frogfoot exists - are there any other a/craft that currently exist would fit this bill?

During the 1980s the US Army actually looked into adopting a modernized P-51 mustang derivitave for CAS and "Hind Hunting".

Nothing much became of it, but IIRC they did build at least one prototype.

Originally Posted by jgetti

I would think such an aircraft could be quite popular as well. However, I have a feeling that if we attempted to replace the A-10 with a new design, the pentagon would request an aircraft that had all sorts of high tech bells and whistles, and not nearly enough good old fashioned ruggedness and armor (though effective, this is part of the problem with the Apache). Then by the time the aircraft production is to begin, it will cost 20 times as much and will require another decade to complete (maybe that's a slight exaggeration). But maybe I'm just pessimistic,, hehe.

Hell, the DoD has already added a whole slew of bells and whistles as it is to the A-10.

And no, many of the pilots/crew dogs DO NOT like all the 'improvements'. Hell, i've had pilots ***** to me that the AIM-9s and Jamming pods were "just a waste of payload."

The TGTing pods are a huge aid though, and all the Hog drivers seem to love them.

Originally Posted by starsiege

fast enough to avoid easy aquisition? man do u know how SLOW the A 10 is? its one of its MAJOR drawbacks in the future wars. and manportable sams are proliferating moer and more. hence just ruggedness wont help.

The Hog indeed didn't prove immune to IR SAMs, as shown by the A-10 losses during ODS :

* 2 Feb 1991 : A-10A (SA-16)
* 15 Feb 1991 : A-10A (SA-13)
* 15 Feb 1991 : A-10A (SA-13)
* 19 Feb 1991 : OA-10 (SA-9)
* 22 Feb 1991 : A-10A (SA-16)
* 27 Feb 1991 : OA-10A (SA-16)

As noted in the CPGW report :

1. "The A-10 is susceptible to threats due to the longer exposure time caused by insufficient engine thrust which limits rate-of-climb, acceleration and maneuver, and cruising speed."

2. "While the survivability features of the A-10 are good, future aircraft should be designed with higher performance to reduce susceptibility to damage while maintaining low vulnerability."

Originally Posted by starsiege

fast enough to avoid easy aquisition? man do u know how SLOW the A 10 is? its one of its MAJOR drawbacks in the future wars. and manportable sams are proliferating moer and more. hence just ruggedness wont help. it is obsolete cos helicopters have usurped the role of the A10. and modern anti aircraft defence aquisition is VERY fast indeed. a figther doing mach 1.5ish or more while doing its strike run would have a high chance of escaping..but a lumbering A10?..

Your grammar sucks but I think the point you are trying to make is that the A-10 is neither very very fast (F-16) or very very slow (Apache).

And I agree. That's why I said it's fast enough to avoid easy acquisition. Easy. EASY. E.A.S.Y. Get it? So a bunch of gomers can't just point rifles and MGs in the air and fire on cell phone command and riddle a flight of A-10s full of mission-kill like they were able to do against that Apache mission. Likewise a strike run of mach+ is sure fast (does anyone even DO that for CAS?), but it doesn't give you a lot of time to put steel (or DU) on target.

longbows have the stealth advantage..while the a 10 does not.
as for the variety of ordanace, as i said.. heavy ordanance can be deliverd by multirole figters while hellfires/rockets/30 mm fire can be done by helos.

a combination of helos and multirole aircraft are very potent, much more than the A10.

But your combination requires more parts inventory and manpower than a "simple" A-10 package does. You might just as well have turned your statement around and said that "the A-10 can fulfill the same missions as a variety of other airframes". No matter which way we point that logic it's only useful to a certain extent.

rem in the iraq war(91) a group of apaches took out iraqi radar sites (and the iraqis thought ti was a computer glitch) while the attack planes(multi-role) streamed in thru the gap to attack an unsuspecting bagdad.

would an A10 done the same thing? nope.

You mean one group of aircraft were tasked with air defense suppression so that another could do perform its mission unmolested? Where's the punchline?

u seem to be underestimating the potential of attack helos

No, I'm actually ignoring the potential of attack helos because I'm asking you how the A-10, an extremely popular and useful CAS aircraft, is obsolete.

Attack choppers are fine for what they are, but they have their limitations too.

-dale

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

During the 1980s the US Army actually looked into adopting a modernized P-51 mustang derivitave for CAS and "Hind Hunting".

Nothing much became of it, but IIRC they did build at least one prototype.

The Army used a F-51D (44-72990) as a chase aircraft for the YAH-56 Cheyenne helicopter gunship program in 1968. Another two F-51Ds (68-15795 and 65-15796) were ordered from Cavalier in 1968 as chase aircrafts, and subsequently used for various CAS experiments after the cancellation the YAH-56 program. One of them (68-15795) was for instance equipped with a 106mm RR for evaluation purposes.

The Air Force briefly showed some interest in a low-cost CAS aircraft (primarily meant for use by foreign AFs under MAP). Under the so-called Pave Coin program, the Piper company (which took over from Cavalier Aircraft) developped the Enforcer, of which two prototypes were built in 1971 (one single-seat designated PE-1 with FAA registration N201PE and one twin-seat designated PE-2 with FAA registration N202PE).

Although evaluation of the Enforcer confirmed its performance, the Air Force quickly lost interest in the Pave Coin program with the end of the US involvement in Vietnam.

Congressional pressure led to another contract for two new prototypes (FAA registration N481PE and N482PE, carrying the Piper designation PA-48) in September 1981, further Air Force evaluation taking place at Eglin AFB and Edwards AFB during 1983-1984. Despite satisfactory evaluation, the Air Force decided not to purchase any and both prototypes were placed in storage in late 1986.

Of the Enforcer prototypes produced :
* N481PE has been fully restored and can be seen at the National Museum of the USAF at Wright-Patterson AFB.
* N482PE awaits restoration at Edwards AFB.
* N201PE is disassembled and in storage.
* N202PE was lost in a crash off the Florida Coast.

The Army doesn't appear to have tested any of the Enforcer prototypes during the 1970s / 1980s.