I think the Bronco's chances are pretty low, just because it doesn't do anything particularly well and setting up a new line is pretty expensive. Light attack isn't the A-10 replacement.
They couldn't even survive Buks. Now days, the USAF/USN has such long range standoff munitions they're completed irrelevant.
You are both right. The original concept of the AHRLAC was for a low-cost multirole aircraft that could offer some of the benefits of a helicopter, while being flexible enough to operate in various other ISR roles. The lead designer was part of the original Rooivalk Gunship project. And he did a fine job on those requirements.
Bronco II only has to out-fly the Dishka heavy machineguns fielded by local dissidents, smugglers, etc.
That's why the Bronco II, something more akin to a powered glider, is a poor successor to the OG Bronco, which was more of a cargo plane. Not really sure what II offers over a drone.
It only has 1 engine.
It was pretty dumb for Boeing to let them use the Bronco name, but they had a passing involvement at the time.
I was also surprised by it's relatively early demise. A broken airplane is always tough to overcome in a competition. I would suspect that there were other industrial issues and integration security issues that played a part of the decision. Honestly at this point, and knowing what little I do know on the subject, I would throw my hat in with the Sierra Nevada "Coyote". Two engines (important in poorly developed areas), tremendous payload flexibility, and perhaps most importantly it has already been flown by US AFSOC for a considerable amount of time, so they have trained pilots and maintainers with combat experience. The imponderables of politics (a.k.a. money) may be the only black swan on this program for me.
Plenty of things batter than a nearly 50 year old platform using arguably 80yr old concepts of operation.
The USAF's attempt to replace it with the original MQ-X 'Hunter-Killer' program did not go well.
Alas, the Army can't afford it. Not enough people slots to put into it. Not enough funds for all the parts and maintenance. The A-10 for all its greatness was designed into the Air Force means and methods. Probably not surprising the Air Force and the Army do things differently. As much as the Army loves the A-10 (favorite bar none), the Army also loves that it is the Air Force's aircraft.
Also the Air Force said that the army can not make new air fields or parts for it.
Though reading your post again, I realise that I misunderstood your statement as promoting the idea of an unmanned replacement, rather than what you actually meant, i.e. converting existing A-10 airframes to at least semi-autonomous UCAVs. I think we have at least one thread relating to the latter idea lurking around somewhere...
Not sure that solves many problems, does'nt make the plane any younger, etc. I suppose it updates the avionics, but you could do that to the manned aircraft. Also while UAV's are great over someone else's sparsely populated region, how realistic is it to have say 200 flying over say Poland, targeting Russian Tanks? Do we have the command and control for that, and with enemy UAV and manned fighters hunting them?
Not yet. But close: FARA
