How Would You Improve the A-10?

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Dayton3, Aug 23, 2015.

  1. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Let's say a future president decides we need more A-10s for the future. Several hundred more. How would you improve the basic overall design and features to become the next generation A-10?

    I would start with the two man A-10 that Fairchild built as a prototype. Upgrade the avionics and weapons sensors. More, modern and more powerful engines perhaps. If it was viable with thrust vectoring to improve maneuverability and short field performance.

    Would that be too radical?
     
  2. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It needs to have a 2 man cockpit and a way to swivel the gun on it. In this day and age it looks like terrorism is going to be the conflict for many years to come so CAS aircraft will be chasing down smaller vehicles and people instead of attacking tank columns. A gun that can swivel around independent of the aircraft is key to that type of warfare. What makes the Apache so deadly is the fact that it can swivel that chain gun around while the A-10 has to do gun runs. The majority of kills with the Apache in OEF and OIF were from the chain gun. Rockets aren't used very often and Hellfire missiles are usually used when the gun runs out of bullets or they need to take down a building or something.

    The Apache pretty much does what the AC-130 does only at lower altitude. In most of those youtube videos you see the Apaches are simply flying circles overhead and the gunner is looking out the left or right swiveling the gun sights around looking for things. Depending on the situation they may go outbound and come back in to engage or simply fire right then and there. The AC-130 does the same thing only higher up. A new CAS fixed wing aircraft needs the ability to do that to stay effective in this modern terrorism war. As of right now the A-10 has to see a target then fly outbound then come back inbound to engage. Allowing the gun to move means it can just loiter overhead and slew the gun around to engage whatever it wants without the need for gun runs.

    The A-10 is good but where it falls short is when it needs to attack people or vehicles that are scattered around the battlefield. Terrorists don't usually keep formations and whatnot they tend to run all over the place. So the A-10 has to pretty much pick one of those specific targets out while doing the inbound run then come back around and shoot another one. AH-64s can shoot that and that and that and that and that etc all on one run because the gun moves. Plus there are two people in the Apache so one pilot can shoot something with the gun out the left door then the other guy can shoot the rockets or the missiles at something out front then the guy with the gun can shoot something else etc. It provides a deadly cocktail of firepower on a single pass.

    A 2 pilot A-10 with a swiveling gun would be devastating to the enemy. It can carry more munitions than the Apaches and can stay on station longer. If they developed something like that then I'd see it taking the crown from the Apache as the deadliest aircraft in the arsenal. Or they could just build more AC-130s and keep them loitering over the battlefield at all times. Nothing is more devastating than that thing. They can virtually stay on station forever.
     
  3. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, other then being much slower, a much reduced range, no mid-air refueling capability, very little linger ability, much less ordinance, and no 105mm cannon.

    Myself, if I was to consider a "replacement" for the A-10, I would probably start with the F-111/F-14 as the starting point. VSR would increase it's speed, giving it more surviveability and penetration capability in contested airspace. 2 crew members would help in preventing "friendly fire" incidents, freeing up the pilot to fly, and the second seater to take care of ordinance delivery. But keep the guns and armor of the A-10, to contine with the aircraft being tough and surviveable to most ground fire.
     
  4. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The A-10s cannon is 30mm.
     
  5. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    8,968
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How about a laser on the cockpit?
     
  6. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "How Would You Improve the A-10? "

    Honestly, only some technical improvements to modernize all the technologies as latest jets have, rest can stay most way ... as for example done with the C-130 in the past.
    A-10 was so often told to be death and still is alive ... I can remember how it was told before 1991 that a F-16 with gun pod under the hull will replace the Wart Hog" ... but utterly failed with it.
     
  7. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Care to elaborate?
     
  8. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is it's main armament.

    The AC-130 has many different packages with different armament. But most common is 2 20mm cannons, 1-2 40-60mm cannons, and a 105mm cannon (the same as the artillery piece). But these are for different missions.

    Yea, the A-10 can put the fear of God against most forces, foot and armored. But nothing quite puts the fear of God into troops in the open as a big lumbering cargo bird that can fire a freaking artillery piece on top of their heads.

    Now all we need to do is start to fire ICBMs out of cargo planes and we can rule the world.

    Did all of the sharks die?
     
  9. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The A-22.
    An Apache nose on an MV22 wing/engine assembly, with the back half being a controller operated articulated GAU-8 to cover the frontal 120deg lateral and 45deg vertical zone. As that cannon is the only thing its going for it. It would operate as an AC130 basically, but for smaller and more flexible in its particular specilization.

    It would look like a freaky wasp and have a freaky sting!!!

    Or for higher altitude loitering, perhaps put two, one either side of the fuselage so they could rotate and angle down more :omg:

    Otherwise, use an F35 :cool:
     
  10. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Q: How would you improve the A-10?

    A: I'd put one in my shed :)

    Lol.

    You magnificent bastard.
     
  11. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I meant the way they operate, not the capabilities. The Apaches aren't really used in their designated role in Afghanistan. They pretty much just orbit in one nice large circle above an area and shoot things like the 130's do only at a much lower altitude and for much less time as you said.
     
  12. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,532
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How to improve the A10?

    • Better avionics and electronics are the first to come to mind.
    • Extra speed without reducing maneuverability, range or loiter time.
    • Two-person cockpit.

    As for a swiveling gun, I don't know. While their are benefits, it also increases complexity which means more things that can go wrong. One of the reasons for the A10's success is that it is simple. The main gun is almost right on the planes center line so aiming is almost instinctive. You just point the nose at the target and pull the trigger. A swiveling gun would require a computer assisted gun site to be accurate.
     
  13. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'd make it bigger and a lot more powerful, maybe even giving it THREE big engines so it could carry a lot and go faster. My idea would be to make something like the Fairchild C111 the "Flying Boxcar" but as a fast gunship, not for transport, a cross between the Apache and the BUFF, whatever that is.

    Having a 2 man cockpit with side aimable cannons. It could fly in, take out a row with the Vulcan, then return to fly circles over trouble spots

    It would, however, still be slow and a tempting target for ground missiles, I dunno how to deal with that, ideas?

    Not my area of expertise but they fly low over my house every day and I can't help but think they have a unique psychological effect, even without destroying the world.
     
  14. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    OTOH how about a NO man cockpit. A smaller UAV but with the same weaponry. Think of how it would feel to see an swarm of these arrive
     
  15. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, that is of course because there is no real "armor" being used by the other side. So like any other piece of military hardware, they then fall back to their secondary mission, CAS. That is like saying that UH-60 is not used in it's "designed role" when it is used to fight fires. Or the Vulcan gun was not used in it's "designed role" when it was used against equipment and personnel instead of aircraft.

    All military equipment has "multiple roles", and are not "one trick ponies". Yes, the poncho is designed to be worn to keep water off of a soldier. But it can also be used as a tent, a litter, to collect fresh water, and hundreds of other uses.
     
  16. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The issue with speed is not really with the number of engines, as much as the design of the aircraft. Specifically the wings.

    The wing design is the main reason why it operates as slow as it does. In order to go faster, they need to sweep the wings back. But that then has an effect that is not desired, increasing the minimum speed. It looses raw lift, and has to replace it by speed to stay aloft, meaning it has to move faster over the battlefield.

    Hence, my suggestion of VSW. In tight to achieve high speed, then able to extend them when slower speeds are needed. You can mount 10 engines on an A-10, it will not permit it to go much faster, it will simply rip the wings off because they are simply not designed to high speeds.

    Silhouette of high speed jet:

    [​IMG]

    Silhouette of A-10:

    [​IMG]

    See the differences?
     
  17. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    VSW it is then, Also, I am looking at the extra power more to make it able to lift more weaponry and munitions. I recognize it will still be comparatively slow, how do you protect a slow airplane?

    Does the A10 owe anything to the Stuka? The wings seem to have that proportionality and with the engines it looks a lot like the Stuka Jet the Germans were going to deploy in Russia but never produced. Probably just a superficial resemblance to the untrained eye though.
     
  18. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Primarily by making it as small as reasonably possible, and be able to perform the mission.

    You sound like you are trying to create a "flying tank". And that is actually a classic Soviet-Russian concept. But what is not needed is a fixed wing version of the HIND.

    You sound almost like you want to combine the AC-130, BUFF and Warthog into a single aircraft "to rule them all". Sorry, can't happen. Each has their own concept behind the design, and their own unique roles in a combat environment. It is impossible to try and combine them all.

    If that is what you want, simply make a new designation of the B-52, an AC-52, throwing in all the ordinance and more from the AC-130 into a BUFF hull. That however would still not make it a real replacement for the A-10.
     
  19. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Errrr no, its got very little to do with wing sweep. It's more about airfoil thickness, a thin wing is required for high speed. Have a look at the X29 for example.

    x29.jpg

    The A10 only brings the cannon, as other platforms can lug in bombs (which can now be better delivered from safer higher altitudes). So if its all about the cannon, then it should be about a deployable, flexible platform which can carry lots of fuel and sensors and a big cannon with lots of ammo, hence my A22 idea. But the whole idea of the A10 is a bit redundant these days. If there is no real EW or surface-air threats then you might as well use huge CAS stacks of drone's being run by the JTAC's direct.
     
  20. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sounds like someone needs to read up on swept wings and the idea behind them, particulary about fluid compressibility near the speed of sound and means to counter it. Wing thickness is also a conributing factor.
    [​IMG]
     
  21. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Replace the ejector seat with a small explosive device to assure the pilot does not survive when shot down in combat. This would avoid the agony of Americans having to learn and see our pilots being tortured and then beheaded or burned alive. The A-10 is an outdated dinosaur fully unneeded and all that must be given up in modernization of actually modern weapons systems can not possibly be justified.

    In reality, the question is no different than asking how the original P47 Thunderbolt should be modified for modern combat? The answer is that it can't.

    A relative of ours is in the Air Force and works on the aircraft. A-10 Thunderbolts are at that base and they even have the A-10 slogan on the wall. Low. Slow. Kill Everyone Below. They like the A-10. They also recognize it's era is in the past and it has no place in the future.

    While the A-10 is likable for it's extreme unique design, it is recognized as an outdated dinosaur that continuously sucks urgently needed funds for building an Air Force for the future, rather than pretending outdated technology and tactics can be preserved forever - while other nations are rapidly upgrading their air power and their anti-aircraft technology. Over the next decade the A-10 will just be flying death traps little different than putting pilots in blimps or biplanes.
     
  22. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How much do the branches of service NOT want the A-10s? The Air Force can't even give them away to the Marines or Army, despite all the claims they are for ground troops support. Aircraft even just sitting on the ground are very expensive due to the constant need to train and maintain maintenance and support crews, continuously train new pilots and constant servicing. NO branch of the American military even wants the existing A-10s for free. That tells the story.
     
  23. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Marines can't use them because they are not capable of operating from carriers. Remember, Marine Pilots are not known as "Naval Aviators" for nothing after all. The only combat aircraft that the Marine Corps has that are not carrier capable are a handfull of F-5s used by a training squadron out of Yuma for agressor training. Everything else (other then their strange KC-130J which will have weapon pods added but is still primarily a refueler) that goes into combat can operate from Navy ships and carriers.

    The Army can not use them because of the Key West Agreement. So trust me, the last thing the Air Force would ever want to do is to give them to the Army, thereby opening the door for them to create an Army Air Corps II. And BTW, the Air Force never offered the A-10 to the Army, that was a question asked to the Secretary of the Army, and it was refused primarily because of money. It would cost billions for the Army to take them over (building new air bases, training crew and mechanics, etc, etc, etc), money the Army simply does not have.

    http://www.military.com/daily-news/...ed-in-taking-a10-warthogs-from-air-force.html

    Next time, try a little research before making such claims.
     
  24. sunnyside

    sunnyside Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    4,573
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Really I think the plane has lost it's niche. It wouldn't be able to achieve it's original purpose against a modern armored column due to improvements in anti aircraft guns and surface to air missiles.

    However it filled niches we didn't have great options for in long term CAS for insurgencies and hunting for vehicles in the desert that lacked air defenses. I think it should focus on those sort of requirements by going the drone route. The A-10 has to put a lot of weight into armoring up that cockpit, so it would gain more than typical from not having a pilot. Basically we'd be adding a gun type drone to our arsenal. If done well this might allow for more precise strikes as opposed to a hellfire missile taking out the target...and the orphanage next door.

    If not drones I think we should look to drive down costs so that they can be fielded in numbers.
     
  25. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, on the batttlefield of a modern military operation with tank columns moving forward in an offensive action, the "anti aircraft guns and surface to air missiles" are not on the front lines themselves. They are miles behind the tank column, unable to keep up with it's rapid movement. The most they would have is some scattered MANPAD type systems and the heavy machine guns.

    The really dangerous systems move much slower then a tank column, and take time to get emplaced. Not to mention that the most effective ones work with RADAR guidance, something that aircraft like the A-10 can detect and avoid.

    Remember, the A-10 was designed and built to kill tanks in a Fulda Gap - WWIII type scenario against the Warsaw Pact. And in such an engagement, the tanks would have had little to no air defenses. Look to our own environment when we had the attack into Iraq in 1990 (and again in 2003). Our tanks raced forward to engage the Iraqi tanks, with little to no air defenses. Systems like the AVENGER and STINGER was all they had, everything else was left behind protecting their forward bases and logistics points.

    Typically when an armored column goes on the offensive, it leaves it's air defense units way behind, 25-50 miles or more. When the Battle of 73 Easting happened, the nearest "real air defense" units were well over 100 miles away, protecting the command posts, hospitals, and other key locations. There was simply no way they could keep up with such a force.

    In the time it takes to roadmarch such a unit, move them to a new location, then emplace again in order to engage new air targets, the tank column would have moved another 50-100 miles. They simply can't keep up with that kind of pace.
     

Share This Page