If I am correct. If the F-35 is not able to provide close air support to the same level as the A-10 (and there is no reason to believe that it can) and if an endless war is indeed the future, then the AH-1Z and AH-64 will become the new masters of close air support.
These guys do good work so the desire to put steel on target isn't the question. The question is if they can do it in a moderate threat environment? How many helicopters have we lost to enemy ground fire? How many have been knocked down due to RPG hits?
I've pushed back on the idea but maybe it needs to be seriously considered. Is it time for the USMC to consider a light strike platform? Is it time for either a Super Tucano or an armed version of the Navy's T-45 Goshawk or perhaps most radically an offer to the USAF to take the A-10 off their hands?
I think the best option for a light attack jet of serious capability might be the new Textron Scorpion. I know it's got a lot to prove, but it still seems very promising.
ReplyDeletesorry but i'm tired of playing with aircraft that are masquerading as the solution to all things...especially when that plane tries to play ISR platform instead of attack or strike. count me out on the Scorpion. i'm just not a fan.
DeleteOf any trainer/light attack plane M346 master might be the most capable (hawk is the most expensive for what it offers) and being twin engined adds some survivability. But M346 is to Russian to be considered.
DeleteHelos have a very important limitation: their speed limits the response time for any call unless they were very close to the supported unit.
ReplyDeleteSupertucanos are too cheap in the eyes of the decisors.
It doesn't look good
More limiting is endurance ,hellos suck at staying on station
DeleteFor the A-10, sorry, I can't say that it is a solution. It's a good plane, mind you, but the support needed is rather heavy. A compromise solution might be to try for a V-22 with a tank of fuel in the belly. You already armed it, just need to give it the legs to match. Added advantage vs the "airplane" solution is that while aircraft can only do strafing runs, the V-22 has the option of hovering and unloading on the enemy as well. And it is already in service and part of the future upgrades chain.
ReplyDeleteOr just keep using the AH-64 and AH-1s. Some of the problems that resulted in some of the shootdowns were the result of overconfidence, not problems with the machines. A bit more caution would have avoided a lot of shit altogether. People may talk about RPG shootdowns, but the RPG is highly inaccurate past 100m. Remember, it is not a guided weapon, it's a point and shoot dumbfire. The Blackhawks in Mogadishu were downed when they were hovering and the gunners popped up from nowhere at close range. Basically a point blank range ambush.
The chinooks that was shot down (Extortion 17) was not hovering yet the taliban still got them with 1 RPG.. and those Apaches heavily damaged in the Karbala Ambush are not hovering either..
Deleteif anything the karbala ambush teached a very expensive lesson to Army Aviation..
https://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Wardak%20CH-47%20Investigation/r_EX%2060.pdf
bunt, when a Chinook comes in to land, it's extremely slow. An aircraft landing at high speeds is called a "crash". And it was 2-3 RPGs, read your report.
DeleteYou're just a civilian being argumentative.
i said the Chinook was NOT hovering , it is moving at 50kts at 150ft AGL. The number is estimate , 2 at minimum and 3 maximum , again it is suspected the weapon used was an OG-7 , not RPG-7 that hit the plane based on their characteristic on the wreckage.
Deleteit is you who do not read the report to the fullest .. and it is you who are being argumentative .. again i dont understand do you mean a military person would instantly be better than civilian in this ? you totally missed a lot of facts in the report even if you are a supposedly 'military guy'..
i really feel sad to see many military / veteran today thought they are above ordinary civilians.. as if their contribution in military leveled them above ordinary citizens and merit them special rights..
You would do well to read this piece by mr Fecth.. a veteran who got it right..
http://stevenspecht.com/uncategorized/if-you-want-to-thank-me-for-service/
Bunt, they are in the fact that they actually DO they things you talk about. Practical over theory. 50kts approach speed, hover/stationary when landing/unloading.
DeleteI know because I deployed by CH-47 before and am Terminal Air Guidance qualified. In layman's terms, I guide the CH-47 for field landings. So kindly don't try to teach me how to do my job when you probably never even seen a CH-47 before.
I may think you're pessimistic but Shas is right, sometimes you do wander into stupidity territory.
BTW OG-7 is the ammuntion used, RPG-7 is the weapon used. An example would by your military's SS2 rifle firing SS109 5.56mm. You don't say someone was shot with an SS109 round do you? No, you say someone was shot with an SS2 rifle.
DeleteThis is what I mean when I say you are just being argumentative, I said an RPG was fired, you say no, it was a rocket ammunition. WTF do you think your OG-7 was fired from? Bamboo poles?
V-22 can't be used for CAS work without a complete redesign. A few puny rockets fired out the front from makeshift pylons does not make it even a half-way decent support aircraft, and it has NO ability to take enemy fire.
DeleteI did say it was a compromise. Half arse fire support > no fire support at all.
DeleteSomething like the old UH-1 gunships. Those were not armoured either but were pretty famous as ground support units. (Helped by Hollywood to an extent).
50kts is hardly "extremely slow speed" for a lumbering transport helicopter.. as you said rpg is good against hovering / stationary choppers, and as i said extortion 17 were not hovering when it was truck by enemy. it is you who being argumentative and then bringing up your military experience as if it have any bearing on then extortion 17 incident. i guess you dont read the documents and content to hide behind your supposed "experience" which have nothing to do with that particular event..
Deletemaybe you feel you are above civilians because of your service ? as for shas, i do not care much about that russian hating guy ..
What a moron.
DeleteWhen a helicopter is landing, you think it's going at 100km/h?
It was fucking 5 seconds from the ground, you think it's going to land at 100km/h?
What you put on paper is one thing. What the situation on the ground is, is another.
This is like your drone idea, until you actually DO the stuff, you won't know how unworkable it is, and a helicopter 5 seconds from the landing going at 100km/h is not likely.
And I met some civilians who have a better grasp on military matters than some specialists.
Unfortunately for you, you are not one of them. So, yes, I'm above you. Suck on that.
I was google searching "CAS Aircraft" and found this
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stavatti.com/SM27ST_OVERVIEW.html
I thought it was rather interesting.
I Googled Stavatti and it looks like a hoax. It is purdy though.
DeleteCould be. I was thinking vaporware or concept art unrealized, but you might be right.
DeleteI like the idea though.
The A-10 is an awesome plane that shows how designing for a single purpose leads to great results.
ReplyDeleteFor the Marine Corp I would suggest looking at the Boeing OV-10(X) Super Bronco over these other options.
It has two engine survivability, the capability to fly slow and low and it can take of and land from short rough fields, even from a small 'carrier' without needing catapults.
love the A-10, to bad it can't be flow of the deck of an LHA or the Marines would be all over it.
ReplyDeleteConvert the A-10 into CAS drones ... simple solution for a still viable CAS airframe..
ReplyDeleteDrones are a no-no. The encrypt/decrypt cycle for a drone takes 2 seconds, in layman's terms, all UAVs have a 2 second lag. Not good while doing a high speed strafing run. Or landing too sometimes.
DeleteI've seen much thought put into that, but the problem is that "drone-izing" the A10 defeats the entire purpose behind the A10: having a high turn radius, comparatively slow and low flying aircraft where pilot can see the target and friendlies on the ground.
DeleteThe latency is one of the biggest drawbacks of drones, but I assume that will be largely alleviated in the future.
Yes to either USAF transferring 100 +/- cherry-picked A-10s, a la an A-10M, to the Marines and/or a Marine-modified, STOBAR-capable Super Tucano. Perhaps a mix of both would be an even superior option, in form flexible CAS and armed-recon capability for the future Marine Corps. Think modernized version of USMC in the days of Skyraiders and A-4.
ReplyDeleteBesides, F-35B's planned replacement of Marine AV-8B will ensure an even greater capability gap for the Marines, at least until Block IV F-35B is fully operational by around 2024, best guess. Whereas, AV-8B can employ Maverick AGM, HARM and Harpoon (and a gun pod)! Take those out of the Marine capability tool box prematurely without a sufficient replacement and there is an extra element of hollowness in the force structure. Something which is arguably miscalculated and not 'good enough' as an acceptable game plan.
But the raw cost-effectiveness, tactical flexibility and long-endurance of a Marine Super Tucano option, and not to mention added survivability over Zulu gunships in it's ability to patrol at over 25,000', would be a capability-multiplier for the Marine Corps. In my view at least.
As much as I love the A-10, they really will be worn out by 2030 - even after the current upgrades. Their capabilities will be needed far into the future. So the short term solution is to keep them, but the longer term solution is something like the A-29 or even Scorpion - cheap, simple and reliable - which is the exact opposite of the F-35.
ReplyDeleteWhy not an A-11?
DeleteThe plane works perfectly already. We just need some tech upgrades and new airframes.
Iterate! Iterate!
Lately I have been looking at CAS planes and my choice would not be the A-10 for the USMC it would be the A-7 Corsair II updated with modern "off the shelf" components. The A-7 was designed for use off of carriers and the concept was very effective in its time, it caries a lot of ordnance and has range and armor. I read that Greece has retired it's A-7's and I have been looking at upgrades and thought that the F118 non after burning turbofan engine could fit but I wasn't sure so I emailed Bill Sweetman (I really didn't think he would answer) and this is the email and response.
ReplyDeleteRonald McVan
Jan 15 (2 days ago)
to william.sweetm.
Could an F118 turbofan (Wiki says 19,000 lbs thrust) fit in an A-7 without major modifications?
Sweetman, Bill
Jan 16 (1 day ago)
to me
No reason why not, since the basic F110 replaced the TF30 in the F-14 and and the YA-7F had an F100 (the F110 was designed to fit in the same space) replacing the TF41.
From: Ronald McVan [mailto:ronmcvan@xxxxxxxxx.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 8:01 PM
To: Sweetman, Bill
Subject: Greek A-7 Updated
Newly built or older A-7's with a service life extension and off the self components that are already in the system is the low cost quick and dirty way to go. The engine swap would give it reliable low maintenance fuel efficient power with an additional 4,000 lbs of thrust. The current generation of electronics and avionics are smaller, lighter and more powerful than what was used before leaving room for the precision weapons guidance systems currently in use.
In addition to the A-7's I would add newly built OV-10x Broncos and I will have another comment on why.
@Lori Gattuso
Delete"An A-7 with afterburner.......is pretty much an F-8. "
Correct, however I was not talking about the YA-7F which used a stretched body with other aerodynamic modifications and an after burning engine, I said an F118 which is a NON after burning engine that would not require a stretched body or other aerodynamic modifications. As close to a drop in replacement as you can get.
"also you could only fly them where you have air superiority or where your only ACM opponents are North Korean women flying Mig-15's."
The subject under discussion is the A-10 and CAS for the Marines. I'm not promoting a multirole fighter or a replacement for the Rhino it should be assumed that other assets will be in play.
"Blacken the skies with Super T's"
The A-29 Super Tacano has a propeller in the front which means you can't add an air to air refueling (AAR) feature. A newly built A-10x Bronco can have a refueling probe attached. Probably. Maybe I should try my luck again with Bill Sweetman and ask him if a probe could be add to anOV-10x. Does anyone following Solomon know enough about AAR to give some more input?
I doubt it, the proximity of any probe to the props would make refueling rather dangerous, not that it couldn't be done but one wrong move and you would literally blow up the aircraft.
DeleteOn the other hand the A-10 is the perfect carrier aircraft, the straight wings mean that it can approach land at a low speed, the heavy landing gear could easily be adjusted to suit carriers and it's got two engines which is considered almost essential for carrier aircraft. It's an old design but the A-10s are basically just bomb trucks, they don't need to be cutting edge. A new batch with folding wings might be required but apart from that it should be fine.
The 3 main runners for a turboprop COIN/CAS are the Airtractor 802U, A-29 Super Tacano and the OV-10x Bronco. If you were just using rotor craft I would use the 802U but with MV-22's in the fleet the 802U is too slow so that leaves the A-29 and OV-10x. Both are a little faster than the MV-22 but there is a critical flaw in USMC use of the A-29, you can not do air to air refueling with a plane that has a single propeller engine up front (same goes for 802U). Newly built Bronco's could have a refueling probe added to the fuselage. I would also use engines, electronics, sensors and avionics that are in the logistics system. I would use the engines from the MC-12 Liberty and I quote from http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mc-liberty/
ReplyDeleteEngine
The MC-12W (standard 350 version) is powered by two Pratt & Whitney PT6A-60A engines each rated at 1,050shp. It is equipped with Hartzell's four-bladed propellers, the FWA4516 on the left and the FWA4513 on the right.
According to Wikipedia the OV-10D used 2 x Garrett T76-G-420/421 turboprop, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) engines so with newly built Broncos it should be easy to switch from Garrett to Pratt & Whitney and add a modern glass cockpit and a refueling probe.
This could be a really really stupid question so please bare with me.
ReplyDeleteCombine these two factors
-The US are developing a stratosphere Airship for astronomic research, with a max altitude of 60k feet.
-Meanwhile in Siberia for mining operations they are already using airships to transport caterpillars weighting 88tons each(an OTO Melara 76mm weights only 7,5 tons empty).
Wouldn’t the best option to develop a gunship airship that would be constantly hovering the zone using gliding ammo.
With the altitude it could achieve (obviously less than 60k feet) it would be out of danger for normal AA means and at the same time its gliding ammo would have an enormous range.
It would be also economic since you would be saving fuel energy.
Is this a really stupid question?
Not really. It is possible, within limitations. Range would be less than you think though, give it about 100km for range, which may sound impressive, until you remember a country is measured in thousands of km and an airship would be slow to redeploy.
DeleteGuns, no. Airships are vulnerable to turbulence, at 60,000 feet, the rounds will be free falling before they hit, guns need a more stable platform, and if you end up adding stabilizers etc, weight would climb.
It's a good idea though for limited, localized defence. Problem is with such a limited mandate, it would be hard to convince people to fund it.
not 60k feet but at 35-45k they would be out of range and still be in operable "lift"(correct word?) since for example vulcano ammo has an apogee altitude of 33k feet.
Deleteyes 100km range isn't much but lets make the math, it would cover a area of around 8000km2, Siria has an area of 185km2, you would need around 25 airships and you would cover the entire country without need of realocating them and ready to fire instantly.
You talking about guns? Missiles I can see the utility, but guns are very, very risky at that kind of ranges. At 12km, even a 1 MOA gun will miss by 12 meters minus gravitational and air resistance effects. And most guns don't hit 1 MOA, most ARs are 2-4 MOA.
DeleteSmart ammo as the abovementioned Vulcano has a CEP of 20mts at 80km for the pzh2000 155mm version(withouth using things like the IR seeker or Laser designation, that would lower the cep to 1 meter ) , yes it comes at a cost of 30-40k (Diehl/OTO mentioned that they costed half of the american counterpart), they neglect flight problems since the first round is a flight control one that sends back the data for the successive burst.
DeleteMeriv, for those marketing ads, they cheat a bit. GPS round, basically grid square artillery, while CAS is more of the pilot spotting and persecuting by himself with a FCO giving "no fire" locations. Different method of usage. Most important of which is that artillery needs a forward observer/STORM to correct for shot. Your floating artillery platform isn't really looking at what it is shooting at.
DeleteAnd I think the 80km round they achieved by halving the normal payload. RAP rounds I think they called it.
Not to mention stability problems, an airship has nothing to stabilize against in midair, action/reaction. Firing a round will cause it to shift. Sticking to glide bombs and missiles might be a better bet.
I'm not really sure if support delivered by air is the best possible option. The US Marines in Afghanistan were complaining that it took 30 min for fast air to get to their location and this was with F-16s. All the suggested CAS aircraft are slower, which means that 30 min might get extended to 45-60 min, which can be an eternity in a fight.
ReplyDeleteA better alternative is probably to bring along your own artillery, even if it is a 81mm mortar, but then that has flaws as well. More men and equipment on a patrol route, more things to land in an amphibious landing, more units that can be hit by IEDs etc, but it compensates by being immediately on call.
So basically you can either have your support fairly immune but late in coming or bring it along for instant responsiveness but increased vulnerability. Personally, I won't mind a 120mm mortar equipped Stryker or MPC or even a Katyusha style blind fired rocket rack.
120mm mortars were the wrath of god in afghanistan. A good friend to have on those lonely mountains devoid of friends.
DeleteI often fantasized about having a larger mortar honestly, like a 155mm one or, something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/240_mm_mortar_M240 or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOS
With MFCS and NLOS capabilities, there is still much growth room in indirect fire assets.
F-18 Hornet - Close Air Support Training: http://youtu.be/UNPVRKlWf5k
ReplyDeleteF-18 put 20mm in Taliban Ass: http://youtu.be/b0naRz2DqbI
F/A-18 Strike Fighter: http://youtu.be/42wmLrU21Bw
Does anyone here have an idea why the Super Tucano was chosen as the winner in the Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance Program?
ReplyDeleteIt probably is cheaper then a new build Bronco, but its also more limited having only one engine, lacking STOL capabilities. Maybe I am old fashioned, or biased but especially in regards to survivability the Super Tucano seems a lot less impressive then the Bronco.
If it was meant to encourage Brazil to buy F18's then it failed.
Well, the US DoD didn't expect Edward Snowden leaks of NSA wiretapping Brazilian president's phone.
DeleteLets face it.. the Gripen is a better plane for Brazil, since their budgets are rather limited and they have other ambitious military plans. Not that 'best suited' seems to be THE argument used most times, when politics is involved.
DeletePersonally I hope the USA react by killing the Tucano program and revive the Bronco..
Meanwhile, I still do not understand why this plane was chosen in the first place.
Well, in my assessment at least, the Super Tucano (available in 1 or 2-seat versions) is an existing platform. It's also cheaper to procure and perhaps nearly twice as economical to operate and sustain. It (Super T) requires significantly less gas per hr than the Bronco, which translates into more sorties and combat hrs for the same lb of gas needing to be trucked into the operating base of question.
DeleteSuper Tucano would also be a smaller visual target and likely quieter at altitude, hence stealthier. Moreover, Super Tucano is apparently already qualified for a slew of capable, modern precision guided and even stand-off munitions - including some produced by Brazil and some by Israel.
Some final notes; it's shorter wing span could make it that much safer to operate off an LHD-type deck and it's also probable that the Super Tucano's wings could be disassembled more easily than could the Bronco's, thus simpler to transport via Cargo lifter?
Wait, you're not suggesting that they fit cats and traps to LHDs?
DeleteNegative. Merely sufficient modifications to the LHD/LHA for a modified Super Tucano (if feasible) to operate under special requirements -- such as Bronco aircraft were perhaps also tested off Amphibious ship decks in the past. Best regards.
DeleteA Super Tucano? Not a chance, even with 22 knots wind over the deck you're going to be touching down with a ground speed of at least 63 knots, and that's assuming that you're Super Tucano is coming back light, it's not going to stop by the end of the deck. You could shove something together to get it to work but to be honest I'd just stick with the Harriers,
DeleteAN-2s might be of some use for LHDs, they're rugged utility aircraft that can take off and land on the decks with no headwind. They could be used for COD, personnel transfer and pretty much any other random use you could dream up for them.
A quick way to generate CAS is to follow the lead of many European/Asian nations: have ALL our trainers be able to to light ground attack. There is no reason for us to have trainers without hardpoints. Especially against a low A2/AD threat like supporting COIN operatons. There is an attack version of the T-6 trainer, the T-45 (In fact BAE has a fighter version of the hawk trainer) and make whatever the next generation trainer the USAF, etc. also attack capable. They are all more economical than pure fighter jets, better endurance (especially the T-6), and two sets of eyes are better than one. In fact what better way to introduce a new pilot to combat than have him ride back seat on a couple missions. Make every trainer CAS capable and you can go from a handful of dedicated ones in peacetime to a whole fleet of them when needed. The jets should all have conformal 25mm pods since the 25 has shown effective against armored vehicles in the sandbox.
ReplyDeleteBut then there is another option: What has worked for a long time is fixed wing gunships like the AC-130. While the Harvest Hawk is ok, it would be nice to have a dedicated Marine gunship, preferably one that is carrier capable. How about one based on the C-2 Greyhound COD aircraft? It has parts commonality with the E-3 which is going to be around for a while, and relatively economical. Its nearly 100mph faster than an Osprey but without the complexity and expense of a V-22. Take some Avenger cannons off the retiring A-10s, refurbish them, given them good fire support sensors and some Kevlar/titanium armor around the engine nacelles and cockpit and you have a high endurance gunship that is carrier capable. You don't have to "wait" for fixed wing gunships, they can loiter in an area for 3-4 hours.
The BAE hawk which the T45 is based on can be armed,
ReplyDelete1× 30 mm ADEN cannon, in centreline pod
Up to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons on five hardpoints, including:
4× AIM-9 Sidewinder or ASRAAM on wing pylons and wingtip rails
1,500 lb (680 kg), limited to one centreline and two wing pylons.
So why not develop the T45 into a light CAS role. The plane is in service, You have pilots trained to fly them so the in service costs should be low.
ReplyDeleteThe best and cheapest CAS will come from the artillery pretty soon. No need for and A-10 or F-35 if you have a howitzer at 40 km of distance
Raytheon's Excalibur 1b demonstrating improved ca…:
http://youtu.be/wbTcrQfsHc4
I foresee NLOS artillery and mortars, equipped with laser guidance means, and fiber optic guided missiles as additional tools if infantry and ground forces need a bigger club sort of speak.
DeleteThere is no replacement for displacement ;) and artillery and mortars fulfill this role handsomely.
In a moderate threat environment the A-10 is only somewhat more survivable than helos. Yes it's tough but we've also been up against third rate air defenses (where there have been any at all) and a number were lost to a poorly trained, equipped, and motivated force in '91. For the very unusual low-level COIN ops we've had for a while it is ok, but against any kind of even decently trained and equipped foe it will really struggle. It is about like the A-1 in Vietnam and a helluva lot of those were lost. It is not as cheap to operate as some types mentioned above and is really overkill in many respects.
ReplyDeleteI think there does need to be more consideration paid to the high-end threat. Cancelling the F-22 was dang near criminal with the F-35 turning out to be even more expensive and with the performance of an F-100. The expense was known when Gates made the move and I can't see him as anything but a cynical hack. But incredibly, I'm not sure what alternative there is at this point. McCain's opposition is not significant, he has opposed many major programs and generally made an assault of himself for decades. He wanted to cancel the C-17.
With the funding crunch, the Marines best alternative would be to buy some Super Hornets. Zero development cost, powerful Congressional support to keep the line open, and an already established logistics pipeline. Anything else is a pipe dream. USAF won't let anyone have their A-10s if only for spite.
There are alternatives, many in fact, to the F35.
DeleteOne of them is restarting the F22 program with an upgraded variant of that plane, basically following the time proven route taken with the F15 , F16 and F18: continuous development.
Ad to this new versions of the F16 or a Boeing build version of the Gripen ( can't and shouldnt give all the business to LM ) and F18's for the navy. O and keep the A10... cheaper and more survivable then any new build would be.
Those are all enthusiasts pipe dreams. No offense but only a handful of types have ever had a second production run. Politically, it will never happen, as it would too plainly demonstrate the pols for the fools they are. I would love nothing more than to see 2-300 more 22s built, especially given the growing evidence via war game and simulation that shows the 2025 force projected now routinely loses to China, but I am enough of a realist to know its not gonna happen.
DeleteThe force structure you argue for is the same one I've argued for for 15 years (minus Gripen), but that battle has been lost. Agree on the need to keep 2 lines open but that ain't gonna happen, either.
"then the AH-1Z and AH-64 will become the new masters of close air support."
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, you are probably going to be proven correct.
I dont forsee the US Military, any branch, buying new COIN aircraft or another dedicated CAS platform, no matter how fucking awesome it is.
There is too much political backing behind "multi-purpose" aircraft, even if the F35 is cancelled (theyll contrive another. Wanna bet six months of income?)
turning the pages of history though, all the way back to the Vietnam war to Iraq, helicopters are NOT, I say again, NOT, replacements for CAS aircraft, even though they are often treated this way. Survivability, rate of climb, payload, and speed are necessary.
I view them as compliments ideal for different mission sets than dedicated CAS aircraft.
Spey might be a bit wacky but if you read a bit about development of A10 ,one reason why fast movers are not very survivable in CAS is fuel that is placed all around the engine so you are only a bullet hole away from a major fire. A10 are cheaper to refurbish than buy new trainer based aircraft.
ReplyDeleteRegarding hypothetical A-10 refurbishment mods... I was pondering (bear with me) actually replacing the GAU-8 (at 4,000lb loaded), with a twin (2x) under-carriage GAU-12/U pod system, the type used on Marine AV-8B. Was contemplating if say, 4 of the 5 center points could be used accordingly (@ 2 gun pod + 2 ammo pod), which would correspond to a total weight of around 2,500lbs, loaded (600 rounds total). Firing rate could be limited to same rate as is limited on the AC-130, or reportedly 1,800 rnds/min, per gun, thus increasing accuracy and conserving ammo (more gun passes). No, it's not the same fire power or same capacity of ammo as the GAU-8, but could still be assessed as 'sufficient'. At least more bang than Marine Corps AV-8B's provide and would be more than F-35B's GAU pod.
DeleteWhat would fill the empty cavity from the removed GAU-8 system? How about perhaps 1,500lbs of additional internal fuel, plus an internal Litening pod kit(?), + electronics for MAWS suite?? This configuration A-10 would still offer 6 under-wing hard points for high value munitions such as Maverick, follow-on air-ground missiles, LJDAM, and other systems.
It won't happen, Sol. USAF will do all it's powers to scrap or destroy the A-10 before they would hand a few working airframes to USMC.
ReplyDeleteThe USAF do not want to admit that an A-10 is far better/superior in CAS and up time than the F-35.
None of those fixed wing crafts is amphibious or can take off from a wasp. With the F2Y Sea Dart built in 1953 how difficult is it to make an amphibious CAS aircraft today?
ReplyDeleteMaybe an A-10 with RAPT retractable floats?
Deletehttp://youtu.be/MDg37UuNxMg
Vought had a plan for an A100 that could take off and land from an LHA
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/LTV%20Atlas%20Concept.pdf