A-10 Thunderbolt II:

GarryB wrote:

Well or just reduce size of the gun, going for Vulcan like AMX International did is legit imo, fill it with AP/HE mix of rounds and whoala, you have huge amount of space remaining for electronic and other equipment.

The problem with US gatlings is that they tend to require electric motors to power them... are not the lightest weapons in their class and for short bursts of fire take time to spool up to full rate of fire.

In comparison the single barrel 25mm cannon they fitted to the AV-8 are smaller, lighter... much more powerful than the 20mm US guns and reach cyclic rate almost immediately meaning more rounds on target faster.

Even just looking at Soviet and Russian aircraft gatlings their gas powered design means they accelerate much faster while not needing a large electric motor to power them and in every category tend to be better... ie the 23mm Soviet gatling fires more than twice the rate of fire and is much lighter with a much heavier projectile with a better payload than the 20mm vulcan.
The only advantage the vulcan has is muzzle velocity but if you put an APFSDS round in a 23mm gatling you would get the same muzzle velocity too.

As shown by the 2A38M twin barrel cannon on the Tunguska sometimes fixed twin barrel guns offer better fire power to weight ratios in cannon.

For the next gen CAS aircraft the Russians might have a 57mm cannon...

I know they require engine, however Vulcan is alot smaller than Avenger beast. I like alot Mauser BK27 gun, it somehow brings vibe of being fairly light and still offer decent ammunition size. Actually when i think about it, only thing i like about F35 is its gun GAU-22/A 4 bores x25mm. GSh-301 is like 46kg, GAU-22/A is 104kg, sounds legit to me. Better ammunition than Vulcan, far lighter than GAU-8.

Ye i heard about that, tho i am not sure if that isnt abit of an overkil, that gun size on aircraft hasnt been used since basically WW2 if you exclude transport aircraft based gunships. Cappacity of the gun would be quite limited due to volume and weight... and imo most of the targets can be neutralised by improvement of current 25, 27 and 30mm ammunition, after all even tanks you strike where they are vulnerable. But oh well, we will see.

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Well or just reduce size of the gun, going for Vulcan like AMX International did is legit imo, fill it with AP/HE mix of rounds and whoala, you have huge amount of space remaining for electronic and other equipment.

The problem with US gatlings is that they tend to require electric motors to power them... are not the lightest weapons in their class and for short bursts of fire take time to spool up to full rate of fire.

In comparison the single barrel 25mm cannon they fitted to the AV-8 are smaller, lighter... much more powerful than the 20mm US guns and reach cyclic rate almost immediately meaning more rounds on target faster.

Even just looking at Soviet and Russian aircraft gatlings their gas powered design means they accelerate much faster while not needing a large electric motor to power them and in every category tend to be better... ie the 23mm Soviet gatling fires more than twice the rate of fire and is much lighter with a much heavier projectile with a better payload than the 20mm vulcan.
The only advantage the vulcan has is muzzle velocity but if you put an APFSDS round in a 23mm gatling you would get the same muzzle velocity too.

As shown by the 2A38M twin barrel cannon on the Tunguska sometimes fixed twin barrel guns offer better fire power to weight ratios in cannon.

For the next gen CAS aircraft the Russians might have a 57mm cannon...

I know they require engine, however Vulcan is alot smaller than Avenger beast. I like alot Mauser BK27 gun, it somehow brings vibe of being fairly light and still offer decent ammunition size. Actually when i think about it, only thing i like about F35 is its gun GAU-22/A 4 bores x25mm. GSh-301 is like 46kg, GAU-22/A is 104kg, sounds legit to me. Better ammunition than Vulcan, far lighter than GAU-8.

Ye i heard about that, tho i am not sure if that isnt abit of an overkil, that gun size on aircraft hasnt been used since basically WW2 if you exclude transport aircraft based gunships. Cappacity of the gun would be quite limited due to volume and weight... and imo most of the targets can be neutralised by improvement of current 25, 27 and 30mm ammunition, after all even tanks you strike where they are vulnerable. But oh well, we will see.

57mm is basically large enough to be guidable to an extent. You won't need much because you won't shoot many rounds at a target; perhaps 3-4 rounds and that will already be enough for a very high likelyhood of a hit and even just one such round can take the enemy vehicle out of commision.

That said I would shudder to think at what kind of setup and airframe a plane would need to handle the recoil from such a caliber, and the weight/dimensions of the gun too would probably make it prohibitive.

The US Air Force will delay retirement of the A-10 Warthog indefinitely, citing the ongoing threat of Daesh – and Russian "aggression."

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20160114/1033154565/a-10-warthog-no-retirement.html#ixzz3xKBhj5EE

USAF firming A-X requirements for A-10 'Warthog' alternative

Lt Gen James “Mike” Holmes, USAF deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, says it’s the first step in the long process of planning and budgeting for an aircraft that might someday replace the hardy Fairchild Republic A-10. If approved by the air force chief of staff, a future close-air-support platform will be considered by a "planning choices” panel this fall for possible inclusion in the service’s five-year budget plan for fiscal years 2018-2022.

“We are developing that draft requirements document and staffing it around the air force now,” Holmes said after an Air Force Association forum in Washington DC on 7 April. “When it’s ready, we’ll compare that to what we have available, compare it to keeping the A-10, and compare it to what it would take to replace [the A-10] with another airplane.”

Holmes pointed to non-development alternatives like the Embraer/Sierra Nevada A-29 Super Tucano or Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine turboprops, which are "available now". He also suggests the industry-funded Textron AirLand Scorpion or something that "other people are building or fielding" – maybe light attack versions of the Finmeccanica M-346 Master or Korea Aerospace Industries T-50 Golden Eagle trainers, which are already being proposed as Northrop T-38 Talon replacements under "T-X".

“The question is, where is the sweet spot as we talk about what’s available now and what the optimum CAS replacement will be?” Holmes says. “If you’re not careful, you can make an airplane that’s so hard to build that you never get it, so you need to hit that capability/affordability line about right.”

Some air force funding has been earmarked for “AT-X studies”, which will consider light attack variants of the USAF’s next-generation trainer. A brand new A-X aircraft is being considered, but it would cost much more to develop.

US Air Combat Command first hinted at a “future CAS platform” in a strategic guidance document posted in August 2015. The A-10 “Warthog” is being replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35, but the stealth aircraft is considered overly expensive for regular air cover missions in uncontested airspace.

Pentagon weapons tests hope to trial the F-35 in the close-air-support mission to identify any shortcomings. A flyoff between the A-10 and F-35 is planned for fiscal year 2018 or 2019. Current USAF plans would draw down the A-10 force between 2018 and 2021.

House Legislation Restricts A-10 Retirement

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/04/25/house-legislation-restricts--10-retirement/83508968/

US Air Force Seeks New Warplane in Struggle Against Daesh

High-ranking US Air Force officials have been discussing ways to find a lower-cost replacement for their current warplane.

At present, the A-10 warthog supports ground efforts against Daesh, also known as IS/Islamic State, and costs roughly $20,000 per hour to operate. Air Force Chief of Staff Mike Welsh would like to get that cost down to $4,000 or $5,000.
Two F-16's Barely Miss Colliding during a Georgia air show on May 5, 2009.

"We need something to keep doing, at much lower cost, the types of things we’re doing in the counterinsurgency fight today," he said, adding that he wants a plane "that brings more firepower, that is more responsive" in a "low-to-medium-threat environment."

Welsh also remarked that budget restrictions may make finding a replacement for the warthog difficult.

"I’d love to build a new CAS [close air support] airplane right now while we still have the A-10 [and then] transition the A-10 community into the new CAS airplane,we just don’t have the money to do it and we don’t have the people to keep flying the A-10 and build a new airplane and bed it down."

Lt. General Mike Holmes said that the Air Force is currently looking for the best option for a new warplane based on the funds available.

"The question is exactly where is the sweet spot…between what’s available now and what the optimum CAS replacement would be," he said. "We are working along that continuum to see exactly what the requirement is that we can afford and the numbers that we need to be able to do the mission."

There’s a chance that a new CAS design will be rejected, and in that case there are several similar crafts already available.The Beechcraft AT-6, Textron Airland Scorpion are two turboprop options, while the Embraer A-29 Super Tucano, a light jet, is also under consideration.

Even if the Air Force is able to pass a new CAS design, Welsh is already thinking about life after the next arsenal plane.

"Eventually, I think the right close air support replacement is something that’s overhead the ground force all the time and is firepower on demand," he said. "It’s flying artillery."

He described this evolution in CAS as a "flying Coke machine," a drone "that would orbit high above the battlefield with a variety of bombs and release them on command from ground observers."

The A-10 Warthog remains in service and its retirement has been delayed because of its critical role in the campaign against Daesh. In November, head of Air Combat Command Gen. Herbert Carlisle said,"I think moving it to the right and starting it a bit later and maybe keeping the airplane around a little bit longer is something that’s being considered based on things as they are today and that we see them in the future."

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James agreed, saying,"I welcome reports that the Air Force has decided to keep the A-10 aircraft flying through fiscal year 2017, ensuring our troops have the vital close-air support they need for missions around the world."

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160617/1041480657/air-force-wants-new-warplane.html#ixzz4BojksnUv

Old Faithful: Air Force Secretary Says No Replacement Proposal for A-10

The US Air Force, considering an alternative for its aging A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, has no replacement proposal, US Air Force’s top civilian Deborah Lee James said.

The A-10 Thunderbolt II, affectionately known as the Warthog, is a versatile, effective and time-tested aircraft, capable of performing various combat tasks. One of its key features is a "built-in redundancy for close-air-support," which made Air Force command decide to keep it in service at least until 2022.

The problem with the Warthog is that it is old. The need for constant maintenance for the aging warplanes makes its operational cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000 an hour. Aiming to reduce that cost to some $4,000 or $5,000, the Air Force is reportedly looking into the machine that will replace the Warthog in close air support (CAS).

But there have been no proposals, said Deborah Lee James, the Air Force Secretary.

"So far, I have read about this in the news," she said during a news conference. "I have not actually seen a proposal on any of this that has come forward to me. So it, for sure, is pre-decisional. It hasn't been decided on. You just put your finger on it, where would we get the money? Not at all clear to me."

"We got the backs of the people on the ground who need a [CAS] mission performed. So I'm just going to wait to see whatever this proposal is, to come forward, but of course the money is the important thing and we have the A-10, we have the F-16 — you're aware of all the different aircraft [that] are able to perform close air support."

Aside from the F-16 Falcon, a possible replacement for the A-10 is the next-generation F-35 jet fighter, although it has been plagued by many flaws and technical problems. The US Air Force performed a thorough comparison of the two warplanes, whose release date is separated by almost fifty years, to determine whether the replacement is justified.

When asked about the new Lockheed-Martin jet, James was reassuring, defending a machine that is projected to cost some $1 trillion over its operational life, and claiming that the Air Force will soon declare the F-35 ready for combat.

"Part of the declaration of [combat readiness] is that the F-35 can do the CAS missions that were designated as required as part of IOC — not the full-up CAS but what's called the limited CAS," she said.

The Air Force is also considering different aircraft types to take the CAS role. According to Air Force Chief of Staff Mike Welsh, full time overhead "flying artillery," like the Lockheed AC-130 Spectre, may fit the bill.

Welsh also suggested that a drone, capable of delivering bombs on demand, something he described as a "flying Coke machine," is also an option.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160729/1043736241/air-force-proposal-thunderbolt-replacement.html

According to Antony Angrand article «L'A-10 épargné jusqu'en 2021 au moins», published in the journal «Air & Cosmos», the American attack Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II is to be decommissioned from US Air Force at the earliest in 2021. This was announced by the US Air Force, Gen. David Golfeyn during a press conference. Date of write-offs "warthog" will be determined on the basis of the discussion, in which the new US Secretary of Defense James Mattis will participate.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2424284.html

A-10 Warthog Attack Aircraft saved from scrapheap and will remain in the US military arsenal for the foreseeable future.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201705291054077540-warthog-aircraft-saved-from-axe/

GarryB wrote:Actually... having thought about it a bit I think the biggest problem with the A-10 is its big tank killing gun.

The whole aircraft is compromised around that huge cannon and the dumbest thing you could do is try to develop a new aircraft around an even bigger gun.

The best weapon would be a compact light cannon for most targets, while for anti armour use or for use against enemy armoured units simple laser guidance kits for unguided rockets and bombs makes rather more sense... 80mm rockets with 5kg warheads and pin point accuracy means one rocket one truck, so a 20 tube rocket pod becomes quite potent. The 122mm rocket with a 35kg warhead would make most modern tanks melt and five rockets per pod means lots of them can be carried at once.

Then you have the fixed rockets like the S-25 with over 100kgs of HE and the 266mm rocket pod with a 150kg HE warhead... one rocket per pylon but devastating payloads.

And of course guided and unguided bombs and missiles of all types... who needs a big complicated gun?

Or.. guided variant of something like this.

"Serbia's state-owned defence manufacturer Yugoimport has unveiled a new, indigenously developed, air-to-surface unguided rocket - the BR-VZ 128 mm M15 - that it is offering for the international market.

Intended for launch from an L-128-04 four-barrel rocket launcher pod on fixed- or rotary-wing aircraft, the BR-VZ 128 mm M15 is an evolution of Yugoimport's earlier 128 mm NR-VZ M-74 and NR-VZ M-80 air-to-surface unguided rocket variants.

Yugoimport said the L-128-04 launcher is compatible with suspension and release hook assemblies from 250 mm to NATO standard 355.6 mm/14 inch.

The company said that the BR-VZ 128 mm M15 is a new design and while retaining the 128 mm calibre, at 197 cm it is slightly longer than the M-74 (180.6 cm) and M-80 (178.6 cm) variants, but remains compatible with the L-128-04 launcher.

With a launch weight of 52.7 kg, the BR-VZ 128 mm M15 can achieve a maximum speed of 600 m/s, and an effective range of between 1,500 m and 3,000 m. Yugoimport has integrated a new RM M15 128 mm composite propellant rocket motor developed by Serbia's EdePro, and features four wrap-around folding stabiliser fins to the rear of the rocket. Yugoimport is also offering two warhead options (both weighing 22 kg) for the rocket: the BG-KR M15 128 mm cumulative tandem warhead and the BG-TF M15 128 mm high-explosive warhead."