Designing the replacement for the A-10

[VTOLicious]

So sounds more like a Super Hornet is your answer. Could be further modified with weapon pods and maybe a thicker, longer span wing to improve loiter time (fuel and aero) at the expense of speed.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ase-for-replacing-warthogs-with-super-hornets

 

[BlackBat242]

Cheaper than the F-35A to buy, better short takeoff performance than the F-16, and landing gear rugged enough to work off of PSP runway matting. I believe that a Super Bug with CFTs also has better range than the F-16s the USAF uses (not sure how F-16 with CFTs compares, but the USAF doesn't currently use CFTs on the -16s and would have to buy them).

1. Last I saw (about 5-6 years ago) F/A-18Es were almost exactly the same flyaway price as F-35Cs - most of the "comparisons" were the typical "less GFE" numbers - no radar and no engine(s). While the radar systems are virtually the same price, and one F414 IS a bit cheaper than one F135, the UB requires TWO F414s - which puts the GFE price above that of the F-35C... neatly cancelling out the higher airframe cost.

2. You need those UberBug CFTs, as it is pretty short-legged in its basic state.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Should Future Fighter Be Like A Bomber? Groundbreaking CSBA Study - Breaking Defense

WASHINGTON: America’s next war plane may look much more like a stealthy long-range bomber than a sleek, fast and maneuverable fighter. That’s the conclusion of a wide-ranging study by the respected Center for Budgetary and Strategic Assessments. Breaking Defense obtained a copy of the report...

breakingdefense.com

That sounds a lot like the "missiles make it so that no fighters will need a gun anymore" that proved so wrong in Vietnam.

Will the 6thgen fighters be huge? You bet. I expect the USN version to "only" be about 85,000lbs MTOW due to catapult and arresting gear limits, and the USAF version over 100,000lbs MTOW. But I still expect them to be capable of supercruise, if only to shorten the time to get them from their base to where the fighting is. I still expect them to be able to maneuver like a fighter, for when an 5th gen aircraft gets close with an IR homing missile (or for when the ROE do not allow BVR missile shots, as in Vietnam).

But I do NOT see the WW3 CAS plane being that stealthy. Have Glass V F-16, not F-22 or even F-35.

 

[Scott Kenny]

1. Last I saw (about 5-6 years ago) F/A-18Es were almost exactly the same flyaway price as F-35Cs - most of the "comparisons" were the typical "less GFE" numbers - no radar and no engine(s). While the radar systems are virtually the same price, and one F414 IS a bit cheaper than one F135, the UB requires TWO F414s - which puts the GFE price above that of the F-35C... neatly cancelling out the higher airframe cost.

Huh. Was not expecting that. Goes to show that avionics is definitely the largest cost driver these days, along with the costs of the Gripen.

2. You need those UberBug CFTs, as it is pretty short-legged in its basic state.

Yes, I was assuming as much. I'm just not sure how Super Bug range without CFTs compares to Viper range without CFTs, and how range with CFTs compares.

 

[H_K]

In terms of what « looks right », I keep thinking of something like Boeing’s Quiet Bird (Model 853).

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/boeing-quiet-bird-1962-stealth-project.7460/

This had a slightly-swept wing for good all-round performance, as befits an observation plane (low 80 knot stall speed, Mach 0.7 cruise up to 50,000 feet). Lots of internal volume in the fuselage. Reasonable level of RCS reduction.

Now imagine scaling it up to fit an internal weapons bay for Hellfire / SDB sized guided ordnance (I personally would omit the gun or use an external gunpod like the F-35B’s). Also could add streamlined (low-RCS) optional wingtip rocket pods.

Maybe stretch a little to reduce drag at higher speeds (Mach 0.7-0.9) - see this nice what-if in the above thread:

Still leaves the question of engine separation and redundancy, plus optimizing for low speed loiter, so I’d be tempted to add a PT6 turboprop in the nose like on the Aarok UAV (which would allow to throttle back the jet engine at low speeds and make use of the propeller’s better efficiency):

This would produce a fast mixed-propulsion combat air support aircraft with twin engine redundancy, excellent loiter, and the ability to operate across a wide range of speeds.

A little like the early 50s Breguet Vultur, perhaps?

I’ve been doodling with my idea of a stealthy fast battlefield air interdiction aircraft inspired by Boeing’s Quiet Bird or Scaled Composites’ Model 401. The goal is to scale it up to accommodate some internal weapons and potentially with mixed propulsion to add propulsion redundancy and improve low speed performance and loiter time.

Here’s a quick take of a 150% scaled Quiet Bird. The top view is just a start… I need to draw it side-by-side with Textron’s Scorpion next, add a side view, and look at the internal weapons bay arrangement in more detail.

For weapons I’m thinking an internal bay for 6x SDBs or 9x common launch tubes, which is similar to the RAH-66 Comanche’s internal weapons capacity back in the day.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I’ve been doodling with my idea of a stealthy fast battlefield air interdiction aircraft inspired by Boeing’s Quiet Bird or Scaled Composites’ Model 401. The goal is to scale it up to accommodate some internal weapons and potentially with mixed propulsion to add propulsion redundancy and improve low speed performance and loiter time.

Only downside to mixed propulsion is the huge RCS.

For weapons I’m thinking an internal bay for 6x SDBs or 9x common launch tubes, which is similar to the RAH-66 Comanche’s internal weapons capacity back in the day.

Point of order, the Commanche was an armed recon helicopter, not a front line attacker.

 

[H_K]

Only downside to mixed propulsion is the huge RCS.

With composite blades does the propeller actually impact RCS much? I’m thinking there must be a reason why RAH-66 was able to be stealthy even with a giant rotor and also why many UAVs still use propellers?

Point of order, the Commanche was an armed recon helicopter, not a front line attacker.

I think it’s a continuum. When doing armed recon from high altitude the low radar signature is worth the trade off of fewer weapons. When doing low altitude interdiction or CAS you can load weapons under the wings (including laser guided rockets etc). Comanche had the option of external carriage for attack missions… so same idea.

 

[Scott Kenny]

With composite blades does the propeller actually impact RCS much? I’m thinking there must be a reason why RAH-66 was able to be stealthy even with a giant rotor and also why many UAVs still use propellers?

Because those UAVs using propellers don't care about RCS? Also, many composite props and rotors have a metal leading edge for damage resistance, and that increases the RCS even more.

The trick for a radar-stealthy rotorcraft seems to be a combination of blade shaping and rotor RPM, so that the rotor blades don't appear to be moving much to the radar. Like how a plane's props on video will appear to slow or change direction of rotation depending on the relationship between shutter speed and rpm. I saw a really eerie video of a Hind at an airshow, the main rotor RPM and shutter speed synced so well that the rotor appeared to be completely stationary! Same idea, just different "light" frequency.

I think it’s a continuum. When doing armed recon from high altitude the low radar signature is worth the trade off of fewer weapons. When doing low altitude interdiction or CAS you can load weapons under the wings (including laser guided rockets etc). Comanche had the option of external carriage for attack missions… so same idea.

Ah, okay, I follow you now! Objection withdrawn.