Designing the replacement for the A-10

Jeb said:
The solution for replacing the A-10 isn't in the airframe, it's in the weapons. SDBII, APKWS, BLU-108, Hellfire R9X, and then the stuff on the drawing board...there's nothing that the A-10 does that other airframes can't replicate other than make that big buzzsaw noise and pepper a tennis court-sized area with 30mm every so often. The A-10's most impressive weapon is hype. And all its armor and redundancy isn't so it can "stay in the fight", it's so it can give its pilot extra time to get out of danger once it's hit.

I mean, I get it...I had the A-10 t-shirt when I was a kid and bought into the legend too.
Click to expand...
The challenge is that the A10 is underpowered (as I said in the OP, that's the one gripe the current pilots have about it) and has the RCS of a barn which greatly increases its vulnerability to mobile AA gun and SAM systems.

The lifespan of the A10 can be extended with new weapons, yes. But at some point those A10s are going to run out of fatigue life in the airframes and need to be replaced. Which is what this thread is about.

As a side note, the Hellfire R9X is almost exclusively a drone weapon, if it's a situation where you're flying an A10/replacement you don't need the flying ginsu.
 
H_K said:
In terms of what « looks right », I keep thinking of something like Boeing’s Quiet Bird (Model 853).

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.

1443788169297119917.jpg
Click to expand...

Fitting two CFM-56 side by side into a LO airframe without making the aircraft fat is quite a challenge (60" diameter each!)
 
VTOLicious said:
Fitting two CFM-56 side by side into a LO airframe without making the aircraft fat is quite a challenge
Click to expand...
Completely agree. That makes no sense IMHO.

My proposal is to go in a different direction and use a simple medium bypass jet (perhaps a modern Adour/F405 equivalent?) - simple and reasonably efficient. But since 2 engines are needed for redundancy and more thrust, and since separation is desirable, the 2nd engine could be a turboprop like the PT6A.

The result wouldn’t be as big as an A-10, perhaps 12-15t MTOW, but without the giant gun to lug around that would be fine.
 
Last edited:
With precision weapons the replacements are already here. They include F-35s, F-16s, drones, artillery.... The days of relying on gun attacks are outdated.
 
Scott Kenny said:
As a side note, the Hellfire R9X is almost exclusively a drone weapon, if it's a situation where you're flying an A10/replacement you don't need the flying ginsu.
Click to expand...
I agree. But the R9X is a good counter to the idea that the A-10 can "hit a small target that you don't want to blow up" (as if the GAU-8 doesn't demolish an area the size of a tennis court with every burst).
 
H_K said:
My proposal is to go in a different direction and use a simple medium bypass jet (perhaps a modern Adour/F405 equivalent?) - simple and reasonably efficient. But since 2 engines are needed for redundancy and more thrust, and since separation is desirable, the 2nd engine could be a turboprop like the PT6A.

The result wouldn’t be as big as an A-10, perhaps 12-15t MTOW, but without the giant gun to lug around that would be fine.
Click to expand...
Whatever is used needs to be something in current use in the US military, not unique to the Replacement.

And turboprop will do ugly things to the RCS.
 
Let us review the page-one requirements:
  • Needs much more powerful engines, and those engines need to be ones in common use in the DOD already.
  • Needs to be able to fly higher and faster.
  • Uses the 25mm GAU-12 or GAU-22, which are used across the DOD and NATO and can therefore be reloaded at any base that operates F-35s.
  • Other avionics also need to be used on other aircraft.
  • Needs to be somewhat LO at a minimum, does not need to be absurdly LO like the B-21.
  • Needs to be as resistant to battle damage as the A-10, if not more.
  • Needs to be as quickly repairable as the A-10.
  • Needs to have the loiter time of the A-10.
  • (bonus points for figuring a way to get the Army to pay for the plane, unless we throw the Key West Agreement out entirely and let the Army fly their overhead CAS while USAF does interdiction)
In my opinion these requirements were basically designed to just force a "faster stealth A-10" as the solution. But the A-10 was designed to solve a particular problem, and if the same problem exists and we were trying to solve it today, would we necessarily solve it that way? I think we should focus on the very core requirement, and drive everything else from that.

Even if we say the core requirement being: we need to reliably deliver close air support to the frontline -- what type of frontline? In another brushfire war I want a long loiter time but I don't need stealth. In WW3, I need stealth but a long loiter time may be unnecessary because I need to get in and get out to survive -- and if I'm using standoff weapons how much armor do I need anyways. Do we need to design one plane for both jobs, does that make sense to do?

For WW3, I think you start arriving at like the F-35B. Able to operate from dispersed airbases yet stealthy, excellent sensors, and delivers the big booms that couldn't be delivered by artillery or apaches.
 
Last edited:
HS.820 said:
Let us review the page-one requirements:
  • Needs much more powerful engines, and those engines need to be ones in common use in the DOD already.
  • Needs to be able to fly higher and faster.
  • Uses the 25mm GAU-12 or GAU-22, which are used across the DOD and NATO and can therefore be reloaded at any base that operates F-35s.
  • Other avionics also need to be used on other aircraft.
  • Needs to be somewhat LO at a minimum, does not need to be absurdly LO like the B-21.
  • Needs to be as resistant to battle damage as the A-10, if not more.
  • Needs to be as quickly repairable as the A-10.
  • Needs to have the loiter time of the A-10.
  • (bonus points for figuring a way to get the Army to pay for the plane, unless we throw the Key West Agreement out entirely and let the Army fly their overhead CAS while USAF does interdiction)
In my opinion these requirements were basically designed to just force a "faster stealth A-10" as the solution. But the A-10 was designed to solve a particular problem, and if the same problem exists and we were trying to solve it today, would we necessarily solve it that way? I think we should focus on the very core requirement, and drive everything else from that.
Click to expand...
While that wasn't my specific intention, I will admit that it does end up kinda like that.

Let's run through where each of those bullet points comes from.
  • New engines because the A-10 carries more weight in bombload than it has in thrust. This makes it slow. The USAF also likes to complain about having to pay for supporting the A-10s and all the unique systems/equipment when the A-10 exists to support the US Army, which is why the engines need to be common with at least one other aircraft and ideally more than that.
  • Flying higher and faster is to make the Replacement faster strategically. That straight wing runs into trouble trying to fly above 20kft which also kills the range of the plane and makes it hard for tankers to drag someplace.
  • The 25mm gun is another part of the "USAF bitching about paying for specific equipment that is used to support the US Army" issue.
  • Shared avionics is another part of the "USAF bitching about paying for specific equipment that is used to support the US Army" issue.
  • Being somewhat LO is to provide improved survivability against mobile AAA and SAMs that it will be flying around. I'm thinking maybe Have Glass F-16 levels, not F-35 and definitely not B-21 levels here.
  • Resisting battle damage is for when the LO fails to prevent the guns and SAMs from hitting.
  • Being as quickly repairable is for when the plane has been hit and the battle is still going on, trying to turn the plane back around again. This may not be a WW3 priority, but it did make events like Iraq 2003 a lot easier.
  • Loiter time is less for assuming that the Replacement is going to vulture over a unit, but will be stacked up some 25-50 miles behind the front lines waiting for a breakthrough attempt to stomp on.

HS.820 said:
Even if we say the core requirement being: we need to reliably deliver close air support to the frontline -- what type of frontline? In another brushfire war I want a long loiter time but I don't need stealth. In WW3, I need stealth but a long loiter time may be unnecessary because I need to get in and get out to survive -- and if I'm using standoff weapons how much armor do I need anyways. Do we need to design one plane for both jobs, does that make sense to do?
Click to expand...
Admittedly, the loiter time requirement from the A-10 came out of Vietnam, where the Skyraider could stay overhead of a downed aircraft until the CSAR helos could arrive. Or where the Skyraider could stay overhead while it bombed and strafed an entire NVA division into dust.

For COIN, I see the "orbiting overhead CAS" as being best served by drones like the Reaper or Mojave, not even a manned plane.

For WW3, I see the "orbiting overhead CAS" stacking up into orbits some 25-50 miles behind the lines for the breakthrough attempts. Call it 5 minutes out or so less. There may well be a stealthy JSTARS passing formation data from beyond the front lines, but that's not the job of the "orbiting overhead CAS".


HS.820 said:
For WW3, I think you start arriving at like the F-35B. Able to operate from dispersed airbases yet stealthy, excellent sensors, and delivers the big booms that couldn't be delivered by artillery or apaches.
Click to expand...
Remember the A-7 versus A-10 thread? I see the F-35 of whatever type as doing the battlefield interdiction mission like the A-7s more than the CAS role like the A-10s. Out, smash the breakthrough attempts while they're still in road march formation and before they shake out into attack formations. Stealthy JSTARS passes information to the stacked orbits and the F-35s where the breakthroughs will try to happen. F-35s hit the mobile SAMs and SPAAGs while it's there, to make life safer for the Apaches and Replacements.
 
HS.820 said:
Let us review the page-one requirements:
  • Needs much more powerful engines, and those engines need to be ones in common use in the DOD already.
  • Needs to be able to fly higher and faster.
  • Uses the 25mm GAU-12 or GAU-22, which are used across the DOD and NATO and can therefore be reloaded at any base that operates F-35s.
  • Other avionics also need to be used on other aircraft.
  • Needs to be somewhat LO at a minimum, does not need to be absurdly LO like the B-21.
  • Needs to be as resistant to battle damage as the A-10, if not more.
  • Needs to be as quickly repairable as the A-10.
  • Needs to have the loiter time of the A-10.
Click to expand...
AFSOC & big fighter AF will not ever even create a Operational Requirements Doc (ORD) which calls for any 1 for 1 replacement of A-10 or any CAS dedicated aircraft. A concept for the wind. AFSOC can forward a ORD for Nex Gen Gunship ie an Overseer.
HS.820 said:
  • (bonus points for figuring a way to get the Army to pay for the plane, unless we throw the Key West Agreement out entirely and let the Army fly their overhead CAS while USAF does interdiction)
Click to expand...
Literally prohibited by Congressional action.
HS.820 said:
In my opinion these requirements were basically designed to just force a "faster stealth A-10" as the solution. But the A-10 was designed to solve a particular problem, and if the same problem exists and we were trying to solve it today, would we necessarily solve it that way? I think we should focus on the very core requirement, and drive everything else from that.
Click to expand...
See above.. no conventional TACAIR solution has any chance of developing and F-35Bs etc will always be a "lower density asset" so ground cmdrs will likely be short on support, as CAS will never be a AF priority. This forum, but not this thread, has been thru this NUMEROUS times. It is getting boring.
HS.820 said:
Even if we say the core requirement being: we need to reliably deliver close air support to the frontline -- what type of frontline? In another brushfire war I want a long loiter time but I don't need stealth. In WW3, I need stealth but a long loiter time may be unnecessary because I need to get in and get out to survive -- and if I'm using standoff weapons how much armor do I need anyways. Do we need to design one plane for both jobs, does that make sense to do?
Click to expand...
www.aerotime.aero

USSOCOM selects Air Tractor-based light combat aircraft for Armed Overwatch - AeroTime

The AT-802U Sky Warden has been selected by the United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) for its Armed Overwatch program. The initial $170 million contract will see the delivery of up to 75 aircraft, which will begin in 2023. The aircraft are intended to be used for counter-insurgency...
www.aerotime.aero www.aerotime.aero
 
Last edited:
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.
 
red admiral said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hadn't thought about that, but give the Super Bug the GAU-22 and a full Have Glass V or VI treatment and it might work. Oh, and the CFTs they designed, even if I hate the way upper surface CFTs look.
 
I don’t think a $100M+ jet (F-35B, Super Hornet or whatever) is what most people would have in mind when they think ground interdiction, CAS and A-10 replacement.
 
H_K said:
I don’t think a $100M+ jet (F-35B, Super Hornet or whatever) is what most people would have in mind when they think ground interdiction, CAS and A-10 replacement.
Click to expand...
F-35 was pretty explicitly designed for ground interdiction.

But yes, people don't usually think a CAS bird should cost as much as a front-line fighter. Unless it's got most of the electronics of said front-line fighter, which is the big driver in costs.
 
H_K said:
I don’t think a $100M+ jet (F-35B, Super Hornet or whatever) is what most people would have in mind when they think ground interdiction, CAS and A-10 replacement.
Click to expand...
But how do you make it cheaper with this list of requirements? What to trade off?
 
red admiral said:
But how do you make it cheaper with this list of requirements? What to trade off?
Click to expand...
Good question. Probably need to compromise on size & performance, use off the shelf components... similar to how Textron’s Scorpion was designed but much more optimized for combat.

Also need to ask ourselves if we are really replacing the A-10 for gun-runs and danger-close CAS or rather inventing a new manned “quarterback” for battlefield observation & air interdiction beyond the typical range of 155mm artillery, attack helicopters and loitering drones?

Then need to figure out how to integrate UAVs, MALD-like decoys, loitering munitions and all the other Manned Unmanned Teaming concepts…

E.g. One key open question is does this platform operate at 30-50k ft (above most tactical air defenses) and rely on offboard sensors / UAVs or does it come in at 100ft using the MK1 eyeball and relying on speed, terrain hugging and decoys to stay alive? Or does it need to be able to do both depending on the circumstances and threat level from high-altitude SAMs and enemy fighters?
 
H_K said:
E.g. One key open question is does this platform operate at 30-50k ft (above most tactical air defenses) and rely on offboard sensors / UAVs or does it come in at 100ft using the MK1 eyeball and relying on speed, terrain hugging and decoys to stay alive? Or does it need to be able to do both?
Click to expand...
Difficult to outrun tactical LDEW nowadays, and even more difficult to self target if you're that low

Your quarterback concept seems like Have Blue to me

A significantly smaller, cheaper airframe has got to seriously compromise on internal weapon capacity (2 Hellfires?) or accept external carriage and have higher RF signature - but in that case why not just put a better DAS on Predator/Reaper/Avenger?
 
What about an LO unmanned gunship in the likes of Tacit Blue, loitering high above the battlefield, stuffed with SDBs, ALEs, etc., ready to get a target assigned by ground forces any time?
 
Last edited:
Sounds like the needed replacement is a stealthy ARES two-seat FAC version, with the weapons offloaded to ground or unmanned shooters. GLMRS, helos, and suicide drones can do the shooting part.
 
GTX said:
With precision weapons the replacements are already here. They include F-35s, F-16s, drones, artillery.... The days of relying on gun attacks are outdated.
Click to expand...

While precision is certainly important, when supporting troops in contact it is critical that support can be given in close proximity to friendly forces. Typical ground engagements ranges have been less than 250 meters between friendly and enenmy forces - most often less than 50 meters.

"Precision" weapons such as SDB, Hellfire, Griffin, etc. have danger close distances that make them difficult to employ in close proximity to friendly forces. They work by exploding and sending fragements into the enemy. While their aiming may be precise, their effects are not.

Until a low collateral damage weapon that harms ONLY enemy forces is developed (ie a Counter Fratricide Weapon) guns are still the weapons that can employed by aircraft closest to friendly forces.

Here are the danger close distances for several different weapons for comparison:

GBU-39 : 225
AGM-114 : 110-115
AGM-176 : 120
LCDB : 100
FFAR : 200


30mm (AC-130) : 100
GAU-8 : 65
M61: 60
M230 : 40


Scott Kenny said:
As a side note, the Hellfire R9X is almost exclusively a drone weapon, if it's a situation where you're flying an A10/replacement you don't need the flying ginsu.
Click to expand...

I would say the opposite is true. Supposely that Hellfire variant is designed for very low collateral damage. It may be exactly the kind of weapon that could be used when supporting troops in contact.
 
red admiral said:
But how do you make it cheaper with this list of requirements? What to trade off?
Click to expand...
Do not need supersonic capabilities, just high subsonic. call it Mach 0.8 or so. So engines do not require afterburners, and airframe does not require high strength high heat tolerance materials.

Do not necessarily need a super high end air interception radar, but do need good ground mapping and terrain following radar. (if the only difference is software, it's cheaper to use the same build on more aircraft than have a custom build for each)

Do need a back seater to operate drones in MUMT and act as flying FAC.


H_K said:
E.g. One key open question is does this platform operate at 30-50k ft (above most tactical air defenses) and rely on offboard sensors / UAVs or does it come in at 100ft using the MK1 eyeball and relying on speed, terrain hugging and decoys to stay alive? Or does it need to be able to do both depending on the circumstances and threat level from high-altitude SAMs and enemy fighters?
Click to expand...
I would want it able to do both, to have the option as defenses evolve. That allows the planes to last longer, so their costs get amortized over longer lives.


VTOLicious said:
What about an LO unmanned gunship in the likes of Tacit Blue, loitering high above the battlefield, stuffed with SDBs, ALEs, etc., ready to get a target assigned by ground forces any time?
Click to expand...
Probably one of the drones the Replacement will quarterback, not the Replacement itself.


quellish said:
While precision is certainly important, when supporting troops in contact it is critical that support can be given in close proximity to friendly forces. Typical ground engagements ranges have been less than 250 meters between friendly and enenmy forces - most often less than 50 meters.

"Precision" weapons such as SDB, Hellfire, Griffin, etc. have danger close distances that make them difficult to employ in close proximity to friendly forces. They work by exploding and sending fragements into the enemy. While their aiming may be precise, their effects are not.

Until a low collateral damage weapon that harms ONLY enemy forces is developed (ie a Counter Fratricide Weapon) guns are still the weapons that can employed by aircraft closest to friendly forces.

Here are the danger close distances for several different weapons for comparison:

GBU-39 : 225
AGM-114 : 110-115
AGM-176 : 120
LCDB : 100
FFAR : 200


30mm (AC-130) : 100
GAU-8 : 65
M61: 60
M230 : 40
Click to expand...
I believe you can have guns a little closer than that if you make a gun run parallel to the line of contact instead of perpendicular.

Also, do you happen to have the Danger Close range for APKWS? Because I was leaning towards APKWS for the long distance danger close shots, as the plane rolls in for the gun pass. Should be under 100m, i think.


quellish said:
I would say the opposite is true. Supposely that Hellfire variant is designed for very low collateral damage. It may be exactly the kind of weapon that could be used when supporting troops in contact.
Click to expand...
Is the Hellfire powered through the entirety of flight? If so, the rocket will act as a high explosive when the casing shatters on impact. And that makes a larger boom than an unpowered kinetic impact with ginsu blades deployed.
 
GTX said:
www.thedrive.com

A-10 Pilot's Compelling Case For Replacing Warthogs With Super Hornets

An A-10 Weapons Instructor lays out how buying F/A-18E/Fs fits the Air Force's imperatives and keeps the A-10's unique braintrust intact.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
That's a very well argued point.

I see two problems with it.
1) It's a Navy plane. USAF hates Navy planes.
2) the M61 gun has lousy dispersion compared to the GAU8 or GAU-22, roughly twice the diameter of CEP. This means that the strafing run line can't be as close to the troops in contact.

But for an "oh shit the war just started we need a new plane right frakking NOW!!!eleventy-one!" option, it is excellent.

I still want the 25mm GAU-22 for the tighter dispersion and heavier punch over the M61, it may be possible to stuff the 25mm into the nose of the Rhino as a more dedicated ground attack plane. It'd cost more to do the fit and integration, though, and may actually require stretching the nose by the difference in length between 20x102mm and 25x137mm ammo.
 
GTX said:
www.thedrive.com

A-10 Pilot's Compelling Case For Replacing Warthogs With Super Hornets

An A-10 Weapons Instructor lays out how buying F/A-18E/Fs fits the Air Force's imperatives and keeps the A-10's unique braintrust intact.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
Thats a pretty compelling case. I wonder how difficult it would be to modify the plane for the 25mm cannon, ditch the afterburners (and supersonic capability), and the wing folding mechanism. Maybe de-rate the radar so the air force doesn't use it as a fighter.

Another option is the mini-Hornet in a dedicated attack version of the T-7A, probably with a bigger wing.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I don't see much in the F/A-18 option that F-35s and upgraded F-16s couldn't do.
Click to expand...
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).


Desertfox said:
Thats a pretty compelling case. I wonder how difficult it would be to modify the plane for the 25mm cannon, ditch the afterburners (and supersonic capability), and the wing folding mechanism. Maybe de-rate the radar so the air force doesn't use it as a fighter.
Click to expand...
I'd keep the afterburners for when the bad guys decide to shoot at the Super Bugs. Keeping the wing fold mechanism is just for commonality, I don't think that the USAF F-4s lost their wing folds.
 
isayyo2 said:
Not the first time Super Hornets have been proposed...

Air Force urged to consider Navy F-18s

Officials want the Air Force to weigh all possibilities for dealing with the Air National Guard’s aging fleet of fighter jets.
www.govexec.com www.govexec.com
Click to expand...
How likely is a rival service's plane becoming motivation for the AF to put new money on an older generation. This especially when they nixed there own vastly brand new f-16 derivative. Block 70 is likely drastically better than any Hornet. F-18 was originally the F-17 which lost to F-16 in the first place. More nonsense..
 
Scott Kenny said:
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).
Click to expand...
The F-35B is going to have better short-takeoff and landing performance than either of them, the USAF could always make a purchase of those.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
The F-35B is going to have better short-takeoff and landing performance than either of them, the USAF could always make a purchase of those.
Click to expand...
Worst range and bay size of all the F35s. Oh, and IIRC most expensive as well.

Needs to be cheaper than the F-35A, ideally by at least $15mil.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I don't see much in the F/A-18 option that F-35s and upgraded F-16s couldn't do.
Click to expand...
I was thinking along the same lines. The USAF could take its oldest F-16D two seaters (Block 25/30… about 50 available) and re-role them for the FAC(A) mission, with an updated rear cockpit to handle drones. That would mean freeing up F-16Ds currently used for training… should be possible with the T-7 coming into service.

The last A-10s meanwhile could continue to be used for CAS in more permissive environments and where the 30mm gun is absolutely needed.
 
H_K said:
I was thinking along the same lines. The USAF could take its oldest F-16D two seaters (Block 25/30… about 50 available) and re-role them for the FAC(A) mission, with an updated rear cockpit to handle drones. That would mean freeing up F-16Ds currently used for training… should be possible with the T-7 coming into service.

The last A-10s meanwhile could continue to be used for CAS in more permissive environments and where the 30mm gun is absolutely needed.
Click to expand...
That is an excellent idea and would work well for the "China just declared war, we need everything we can get RIGHT NOW" option.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom