Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?

[NeilChapman]

Pretty expensive kill shot. What's a Hellfire missile cost? 60-80k?

It was. More like 110k today, 150k for a brimstone. 40k for SDB... still expensive if your goal is to kick up dirt.

That sounds like a lot of A10 flight time.

 

[jeffb]

Pretty expensive kill shot. What's a Hellfire missile cost? 60-80k?

It was. More like 110k today, 150k for a brimstone. 40k for SDB... still expensive if your goal is to kick up dirt.

I wonder how many of them don't detonate!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XcsCIBJC0A

The Apache in the above video fires one hellfire into the concrete roof which fails to detonate, fires a second one at essentially the same spot which detonates successfully but, likely as a result of the concrete structures within the building's second storey, fails to kill the attackers; finally they put a third one in the windows that the Taliban (whoever) is firing out of, satisfying gouts of flame and explosive debris issue from the storey's remaining openings. I guess third times the charm! Makes for an expensive business though.

Thing is though, event an A-10 is going to be firing these into structures like this and they'd be doing it without the ability to stand-off hovering to assess the effect.

 

[Pioneer]

Pretty expensive kill shot. What's a Hellfire missile cost? 60-80k?

It was. More like 110k today, 150k for a brimstone. 40k for SDB... still expensive if your goal is to kick up dirt.

Interesting....thanks for sharing!!

Many of these weapons are still over-kill and wistful for their application/targets.
I'm looking forward to seeing more of the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS)!
Its interesting to note that:

The APKWS is approximately one-third the cost and one-third the weight of the current inventory of laser-guided weapons, has a lower yield, more suitable for avoiding collateral damage

https://youtu.be/2_JTT3OsDJQ
Unfortunately, the target carrier isn't buttoned up
Would have been good to see the effects of contained overpressure

Regards
Pioneer

 

[marauder2048]

Pretty expensive kill shot. What's a Hellfire missile cost? 60-80k?

It was. More like 110k today, 150k for a brimstone. 40k for SDB... still expensive if your goal is to kick up dirt.

That sounds like a lot of A10 flight time.

For attacking dismounts you really want height-of-burst fuzing which is selectable on JDAM/SDB and fixed-height on Hellfire Romeo (not sure about Brimstone).
Probably something that could be added to APKWS and something they've looked at for various aerial cannon rounds.

 

[quellish]

For attacking dismounts you really want height-of-burst fuzing which is selectable on JDAM/SDB and fixed-height on Hellfire Romeo (not sure about Brimstone).
Probably something that could be added to APKWS and something they've looked at for various aerial cannon rounds.

Here's the problem. When friendly troops are in contact they're... in contact. Generally at rifle range or less - let's be generous and say less than 100 meters. The "danger close" distance for a 500 JDAM with airburst fuzing is 230 meters. I don't want to be the guy that has to tell people to leave cover and run 130 m away from the enemy so a bomb can be dropped.

In contrast the 25mm cannon on an AC-130 has a risk distance of 65m and the M61 is 60m. GBU-39 with airburst is 160 , 500 lb Low Collateral Damage Bomb is 100, Hellfire is between 110 and 125 depending on variant.

 

[DrRansom]

quellish - from the danger close ranges, it seems like a gun is mandatory for any CAS aircraft...

 

[quellish]

quellish - from the danger close ranges, it seems like a gun is mandatory for any CAS aircraft...

Guns do have advantages. Unfortunately many platforms have small magazines.

What often happens is that during a troops in contact event, you have several platforms show up to the party with different ordinance. So you might have a pair of F-15s with 1000b JDAMs, an F-22 with SDBs, etc. The person(s) controlling the CAS engagement have to sort out the best way to employ what's available from what platforms given the situations in both ground and air.
Not an easy job. The book "Danger Close: Tactical Air Controllers in Afghanistan and Iraq" is a very good look at how this is done, and how CAS has changed dramatically over the last 20 years.

It would be interesting to know the danger close ranges of newer small munitions like Griffin.

 

[AeroFranz]

I wonder about the effectiveness of lasers in CAS. Deep magazine, very low dispersion, but limited to certain target sets.

 

[quellish]

I wonder about the effectiveness of lasers in CAS. Deep magazine, very low dispersion, but limited to certain target sets.

A big mirror makes a big beam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTx_qTwQqjU

 

[marauder2048]

For attacking dismounts you really want height-of-burst fuzing which is selectable on JDAM/SDB and fixed-height on Hellfire Romeo (not sure about Brimstone).
Probably something that could be added to APKWS and something they've looked at for various aerial cannon rounds.

Here's the problem. When friendly troops are in contact they're... in contact. Generally at rifle range or less - let's be generous and say less than 100 meters. The "danger close" distance for a 500 JDAM with airburst fuzing is 230 meters. I don't want to be the guy that has to tell people to leave cover and run 130 m away from the enemy so a bomb can be dropped.

In contrast the 25mm cannon on an AC-130 has a risk distance of 65m and the M61 is 60m. GBU-39 with airburst is 160 , 500 lb Low Collateral Damage Bomb is 100, Hellfire is between 110 and 125 depending on variant.

IIRC, the average firefight distances in Iraq and Afghanistan were bi-modal either less than 65m or greater than 300m i.e. deliberately close-in in an attempt to negate CAS or far enough away to necessitate the use of less well provisioned DMR or LMG fires.

I think danger-close for HOB Griffin is very close to that of HOB Hellfire Romeo

 

[quellish]

IIRC, the average firefight distances in Iraq and Afghanistan were bi-modal either less than 65m or greater than 300m i.e. deliberately close-in in an attempt to negate CAS or far enough away to necessitate the use of less well provisioned DMR or LMG fires.

I think danger-close for HOB Griffin is very close to that of HOB Hellfire Romeo

Historical studies prove that 90 percent of all urban engagements occur where friendly and enemy forces are within 50 meters of each other, and that urban engagements using supporting arms occur with less than 250 meters between the same. The JTAC/FAC must select the appropriate ordnance to limit the potential of friendly fire incidents, particularly in an urban environment.

 

[Dragon029]

While I wouldn't disagree with that data, what about non-urban environments?

 

[marauder2048]

IIRC, the average firefight distances in Iraq and Afghanistan were bi-modal either less than 65m or greater than 300m i.e. deliberately close-in in an attempt to negate CAS or far enough away to necessitate the use of less well provisioned DMR or LMG fires.

I think danger-close for HOB Griffin is very close to that of HOB Hellfire Romeo

Historical studies prove that 90 percent of all urban engagements occur where friendly and enemy forces are within 50 meters of each other, and that urban engagements using supporting arms occur with less than 250 meters between the same. The JTAC/FAC must select the appropriate ordnance to limit the potential of friendly fire incidents, particularly in an urban environment.

Good that the latest studies are in conformance with historical truthiness

I tend to think the danger close figures for cannon are for high-angle strafes only or assume the strafing run is always
parallel to the line of contact.

The main point is that none of the cannon rounds currently employed were really designed for anti-personnel use
but they're looking at time/proximity fuzed 25mm and 30mm rounds for this purpose.

 

[cluttonfred]

Once you get away from tank-busting and focus more on attacking light vehicles and personnel, high velocity is less important than terminal effect and the 30mm ADEN/DEFA rounds start to look very attractive. Something like the GIAT 30M 781 from the Eurocopter Tiger (higher velocity and rate of fire using the same ammo as the Apache's M230) would make a lot of sense. HEDP rounds would still give adequate performance against light armor. The GIAT's weight is one fourth that of the A-10's GAU-8 and the ammunition weighs half as much per round, so you could retain an excellent strafing capability for less then half the original system's installed weight.

 

[marauder2048]

Once you get away from tank-busting and focus more on attacking light vehicles and personnel, high velocity is less important than terminal effect and the 30mm ADEN/DEFA rounds start to look very attractive. Something like the GIAT 30M 781 from the Eurocopter Tiger (higher velocity and rate of fire using the same ammo as the Apache's M230) would make a lot of sense. HEDP rounds would still give adequate performance against light armor. The GIAT's weight is one fourth that of the A-10's GAU-8 and the ammunition weighs half as much per round, so you could retain an excellent strafing capability for less then half the original system's installed weight.

Not sure how moving to higher muzzle velocity cannon than M230 helps when even the M230's lower velocity round required a fuze redesign to work reliably against dismounts on various surfaces.

 

[cluttonfred]

Not sure how moving to higher muzzle velocity cannon than M230 helps when even the M230's lower velocity round required a fuze redesign to work reliably against dismounts on various surfaces.

Interesting. It is my understanding that the HEDP ammo used in the M230 is quite effective in an anti-personnel role. I seem to remember something about a 3m lethal radius, which seems about perfect for the kind of strafing near friendly troops we are discusssing? Care to elaborate?

If there really is a shortcoming there in terms of the fuse and/or terminal effect, it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to develop a modified round with enhanced anti-personnel capacity.

 

[marauder2048]

Not sure how moving to higher muzzle velocity cannon than M230 helps when even the M230's lower velocity round required a fuze redesign to work reliably against dismounts on various surfaces.

Interesting. It is my understanding that the HEDP ammo used in the M230 is quite effective in an anti-personnel role. I seem to remember something about a 3m lethal radius, which seems about perfect for the kind of strafing near friendly troops we are discusssing? Care to elaborate?

If there really is a shortcoming there in terms of the fuse and/or terminal effect, it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to develop a modified round with enhanced anti-personnel capacity.

A couple of efforts (well documented at NDIA's Fuze and Armaments conferences) :

* Fuze modification to prevent over-penetration into soft surfaces (sand/soil) prior to detonation.
* Improved fragmentation effects: bigger and higher velocity fragments.
* Proximity sensor to enable HOB fuzing which in turn permits penetration through cover then detonation.

To put the challenges in perspective: even the lower velocity rounds fired from M230 experience 100,000 Gs

 

[quellish]

Interesting. It is my understanding that the HEDP ammo used in the M230 is quite effective in an anti-personnel role. I seem to remember something about a 3m lethal radius, which seems about perfect for the kind of strafing near friendly troops we are discusssing? Care to elaborate?

The risk estimate distance for the Apache 30mm is 70m at 500m. I believe the "lethal" radius is 5m or more.

 

[marauder2048]

From a January 27th, 2016 presentation

 

[Arjen]

From Aviation Week: Carter Touts 'Arsenal Plane', Surrenders on A-10

[...]
The Pentagon will retain “more fourth-generation fighter/attack aircraft” under the new budget, Carter said. The plan includes a total surrender to those in Congress and the military who criticized the Air Force’s earlier plans, announced two years ago, to retire the entire force of A-10 Warthog close-air-support aircraft. A-10 retirement has been kicked out to 2022, and Carter referred to the aircraft’s “devastating” effect against Islamic State forces.
[...]

More at the link.

 

[marauder2048]

From Aviation Week: Carter Touts 'Arsenal Plane', Surrenders on A-10

[...]
The Pentagon will retain “more fourth-generation fighter/attack aircraft” under the new budget, Carter said. The plan includes a total surrender to those in Congress and the military who criticized the Air Force’s earlier plans, announced two years ago, to retire the entire force of A-10 Warthog close-air-support aircraft. A-10 retirement has been kicked out to 2022, and Carter referred to the aircraft’s “devastating” effect against Islamic State forces.
[...]

More at the link.

2022 would be very close to SASC chair McCain's putative out-of-office date.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-studying-future-attack-aircraft-options-422936/

 

[robunos]

Might be relevent here :-

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/09/why-is-america-using-these-antique-planes-to-fight-isis.html

Yes, I know it's The Daily Beast, and it's David Axe... :

cheers,
Robin.

 

[Flyaway]

Whatever wins the T-X could perhaps be used in this role.

 

[Moose]

It's unlikely the T-X will be robust enough for the A-10 fans, and it almost certainly won't be able to mount the GAU-8 effectively.

 

[cluttonfred]

The GAU-8 is overkill for anything less the the Soviet tank-busting mission it was designed for. If, and I'll believe it when I see it, we see a next-generation close support aircraft to succeed the A-10, I suspect the emphasis will be sensors and precision munitions. I certainly hope they also keep a gun, but it would not need to be as powerful as the GAU-8. The logical choice in terms of standardization would be a version of the 25 x 137mm GAU-12 Equalizer from the Harrier II and the Spooky gunship or the lighter GAU-22/A from the F-35 using the same ammunition as the Army's M242 Bushmaster. Anything too heavily armored to engage with the gun would get a precision-guided missile.

 

[Moose]

The GAU-8 is overkill for anything less the the Soviet tank-busting mission it was designed for. If, and I'll believe it when I see it, we see a next-generation close support aircraft to succeed the A-10, I suspect the emphasis will be sensors and precision munitions. I certainly hope they also keep a gun, but it would not need to be as powerful as the GAU-8. The logical choice in terms of standardization would be a version of the 25 x 137mm GAU-12 Equalizer from the Harrier II and the Spooky gunship or the lighter GAU-22/A from the F-35 using the same ammunition as the Army's M242 Bushmaster. Anything too heavily armored to engage with the gun would get a precision-guided missile.

The point I was getting at is that the A-10 fever is more A-10 fever than CAS fever. If the future of CAS is dialing in coordinates for precision munition strikes then drones, B-1s, and F-35s cruising along at a few thousand feet are probably just fine. But there are those who think CAS is about cool moments like when an A-10 gets low over a line of dunes and the Avenger goes "BRAAAAAAAPP" and wow did you see how many bullets it shot it was badass! The A-10 Uber Alles crowd has already crapped on the GAU-22 at length because it's not the GAU-8. If someone official were to propose T-X to replace A-10, it will take about a nanosecond for the raging negative responses to start.

 

[quellish]

The point I was getting at is that the A-10 fever is more A-10 fever than CAS fever. If the future of CAS is dialing in coordinates for precision munition strikes then drones, B-1s, and F-35s cruising along at a few thousand feet are probably just fine. But there are those who think CAS is about cool moments like when an A-10 gets low over a line of dunes and the Avenger goes "BRAAAAAAAPP" and wow did you see how many bullets it shot it was badass! The A-10 Uber Alles crowd has already crapped on the GAU-22 at length because it's not the GAU-8. If someone official were to propose T-X to replace A-10, it will take about a nanosecond for the raging negative responses to start.

If you review the last several pages of this thread you will see discussion of the "danger close" distances for various weapons.

Typical engagement distances for troops in contact is well less than 250 meters.
The "danger close" distances for guided explodey-things are quite large (160 meters up to 1000s).
The distance for a gun is much less - well under 100 meters.

This is why guns are favored for CAS. All of this is covered in this thread, with sources.

The GAU-22 has not completed any testing useful for a CAS discussion, so it would be silly to compare it to the GAU-8, M61, etc.

 

[cluttonfred]

quellish, I agree with your comments except for the last bit.

The GAU-22 has not completed any testing useful for a CAS discussion, so it would be silly to compare it to the GAU-8, M61, etc.

The GAU-22 is a lightened (one less barrel) and supposedly more accurate version of the GAU-12, and the primary applications of the GAU-12 are gun pods on USMC Harrier IIs and side guns on the AC-130U gunships (modern "Puff the Magic Dragon), so there must be a lot of CAS-related data on the gun and ammunition. If that weren't enough, the 25 x 137mm rounds are also used in the M242 Bushmaster in its various forms on literally thousands of IFVs and naval mountings, so there should be no shortage of info on terminal effects.

 

[quellish]

The GAU-22 is a lightened (one less barrel) and supposedly more accurate version of the GAU-12, and the primary applications of the GAU-12 are gun pods on USMC Harrier IIs and side guns on the AC-130U gunships (modern "Puff the Magic Dragon), so there must be a lot of CAS-related data on the gun and ammunition. If that weren't enough, the 25 x 137mm rounds are also used in the M242 Bushmaster in its various forms on literally thousands of IFVs and naval mountings, so there should be no shortage of info on terminal effects.

There is data on the GAU-12, not the GAU-22. They are different enough that using the GAU-12 data would be misleading.

 

[NeilChapman]

The GAU-8 is overkill for anything less the the Soviet tank-busting mission it was designed for. If, and I'll believe it when I see it, we see a next-generation close support aircraft to succeed the A-10, I suspect the emphasis will be sensors and precision munitions. I certainly hope they also keep a gun, but it would not need to be as powerful as the GAU-8. The logical choice in terms of standardization would be a version of the 25 x 137mm GAU-12 Equalizer from the Harrier II and the Spooky gunship or the lighter GAU-22/A from the F-35 using the same ammunition as the Army's M242 Bushmaster. Anything too heavily armored to engage with the gun would get a precision-guided missile.

The point I was getting at is that the A-10 fever is more A-10 fever than CAS fever. If the future of CAS is dialing in coordinates for precision munition strikes then drones, B-1s, and F-35s cruising along at a few thousand feet are probably just fine. But there are those who think CAS is about cool moments like when an A-10 gets low over a line of dunes and the Avenger goes "BRAAAAAAAPP" and wow did you see how many bullets it shot it was badass! The A-10 Uber Alles crowd has already crapped on the GAU-22 at length because it's not the GAU-8. If someone official were to propose T-X to replace A-10, it will take about a nanosecond for the raging negative responses to start.

I agree that A-10 fever is more A-10 fever than CAS fever but perhaps for a different reason. I perceive A-10 fever as three things...

1. Guys in shit getting CLOSE support and being very grateful. You can get much closer support (closer to the guys your protecting) with guns than missiles. Also, the BRAAAAAAPP makes an impression it seems.
2. The fear BRAAAAAAPP and the A-10 engines engenders in our enemies.
3. The gratefulness of the pilots that get shot to hell and are able to get home.

If the T-X were designed to take damage as described in the article and video below I'd be all for it.

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_A-10-battle-damage/story0016.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7JM82fa5ZY

The A-10 is also relatively inexpensive to operate - <$18k hr. BRAAAAAPP is way cheaper (about $100k cheaper) than a missile to kill a few bad actors.

 

[quellish]

The A-10 is also relatively inexpensive to operate - <$18k hr. BRAAAAAPP is way cheaper (about $100k cheaper) than a missile to kill a few bad actors.

You also do not have to ask the enemy to step back another 200+m before using it.

 

[NeilChapman]

The A-10 is also relatively inexpensive to operate - <$18k hr. BRAAAAAPP is way cheaper (about $100k cheaper) than a missile to kill a few bad actors.

You also do not have to ask the enemy to step back another 200+m before using it.

Exactly

 

[fightingirish]

U.S. Air Force Colonel Avery Kay is considered the father of the A-10 Thunderbolt, also known as the Warthog. He was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery on March 11, 2016.

Video:
https://youtu.be/ZGRhkA9OfA4

https://youtu.be/ZGRhkA9OfA4

 

[Flyaway]

Beyond the A-10

—JOHN A. TIRPAK4/8/2016

​A draft requirements document for a “follow-on” close air support airplane is making its way around the Air Force now, top service planner Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes told reporters following at an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast Thursday. The service will look for “the sweet spot” of capability and cost on a continuum that ranges from a “low-end” CAS platform, like the A-29 Super Tucano or AT-6, to continuing operations with the A-10, to something all-new that would be uniquely configured for a future CAS mission. “We’ll be looking for … what we can afford in the numbers that we need to do the mission,” Holmes said, but the “commitment is a long way off” before USAF can actually launch a program of record. Affecting it, too, will be how much room USAF will have in a Combat Air Force level of 1,900 aircraft “that Congress gave us,” Holmes said, and how much of that can be apportioned to aircraft that can only function in “a permissive environment.” The figure of 1,900 is “close” to what USAF thinks it needs, but has to include F-22s and F-35s, the new “penetration” aircraft that will derive from the Air Superiority 2030 plan, and is “all complicated by the bow wave” of other requirements, such as nuclear triad modernization, that starts to hit in 2023, he said. It’s possible the T-X program will yield a spinoff aircraft that could meet the CAS need, Holmes acknowledged, but USAF has adamantly kept any CAS requirements out of the T-X. “We’re buying a trainer,” he insisted, although offerors might possibly get extra credit for having the power and growth space for a possible CAS function. The CAS platform requirement will land on Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh’s desk “this spring,” Holmes said, and will fold in with a larger study of Combat Air Forces by the fall. (See also What’s Next for CAS from the December 2014 issue of Air Force Magazine.)

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2016/April%202016/April%2008%202016/Beyond-the-A-10.aspx

 

[Ian33]

The GAU-8 is overkill for anything less the the Soviet tank-busting mission it was designed for.

Wrong.

It was the ONLY airborne gun bar the AC-130 big bad boys to be able to smash through the thick concrete like compound walls the Taliban liked to hide behind.

The Apache, F18, 16, 15, all would just pockmark the stuff. The A10 tore through and killed the other side. I've seen hundreds of hours of helmet camera footage from UK SF and Royal Marines. It ate the walls for a snack.

That gun saved hundreds of lives each year.

 

[GTX]

As a former A-10 pilot, when Sabin was selected to join the 31st TES, he was keen to bring his CAS experience to the F-35. The new jet has been touted as an eventual replacement for legacy airframes, such as the F-16s and A-10s. This plan has spurred several head-to-head comparisons in the media, especially between the A-10 and the F-35. To Sabin, however, that match up is like comparing “apples to chainsaws.”


Maj. Ethan Sabin, who has 10 years experience flying the A-10 Thunderbolt II, is now at the forefront of testing the capabilities of the Air Force’s newest and most technologically advanced fighter: the F-35. As for the perceived feud between proponents of the A-10 and the F-35, he believes the two platforms are not competitors, but are complimentary, with the F-35’s ability to collect battlespace data and share it with legacy aircraft making the entire force more lethal. (U.S. Air Force photo/J.M. Eddins Jr.)
“They are two totally different things that serve totally different purposes,” he explained. “The bottom line is the A-10 does certain things very well. It is very effective as a close air support platform. The F-35 does certain things very well, and when you leverage its capabilities correctly, it can be very effective as a CAS platform.

“I think the important point to note is to find that fine balance between where to use one versus where to use another. I wouldn’t feed myself with a chainsaw. Vice versa, I wouldn’t try to cut down a tree with an apple. They’re just different, and they have different capabilities.”

Even though the two airframes vary in many ways, Sabin believes his new jet can be just as efficient as the A-10 he once flew.

“The biggest thing … is the training of the pilot in the platform,” Sabin said. “We are going to take a lot of the lessons learned that the A-10s have in their close air support experience, apply it to our platform, continue to integrate with those guys on the spectrum of CAS operations, and build our CAS playbook, like they have done for so many years.”

http://airman.dodlive.mil/2016/04/the-perfect-storm/

 

[NeilChapman]

New job for A-10's. How about them apples. Like to see the "someone" try and force one of these down. Pretty tough critter.

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/740671/pacaf-a-10s-hh-60s-fly-first-air-contingent-missions-in-philippines.aspx

 

[Richard N]

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/466762/bagram-pilots-save-60-soldiers-during-convoy-ambush.aspx

A-10 Close In Support

Bagram pilots save 60 Soldiers during convoy ambush

"According to the pilots, that really stirred up the attacking force. The enemy moved even closer to the friendlies in an attempt to prevent the A-10 from attacking again. The ground forces were now taking on a large amount of fire from the trees and surrounding high terrain.

"We just kept putting down more 30 mm rounds," said the second A-10 pilot, also deployed from Moody AFB. "The bad guys were closing in and according to the muzzle flashes there were a lot of them, but because people were shooting all over the place, the JTAC didn't feel safe bringing in helicopters in to evacuate the wounded personnel."

The pilots said usually after the first or second pass, the enemy runs away, but this enemy force was large and willing to fight. The pilots continued to fire 30 mm rounds, but the enemy force refused to fall back. Now, the enemy force was close enough to engage the unit with grenades, so the convoy's commander approved the pilots to engage "danger-close." The term is meant to clearly communicate to the ground and air forces that the need for support is so grave the ground commander is willing to accept the potential risk to the friendly unit for the life-saving employment from the air.

"We train for this, but shooting danger-close is uncomfortable, because now the friendlies are at risk," the second A-10 pilot said. "We came in for a low-angle strafe, 75 feet above the enemy's position and used the 30-mm gun -- 50 meters parallel to ground forces -- ensuring our fire was accurate so we didn't hurt the friendlies.

The engagement lasted two hours that day, and in that time, the A-10s completed 15 gun passes, fired nearly all their 2,300, 30-mm rounds, and dropped three 500-pound bombs on the enemy force.

"The last gun runs must have made them give up," the two pilots agreed "because the firing stopped."

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The GAU-8 is overkill for anything less the the Soviet tank-busting mission it was designed for. If, and I'll believe it when I see it, we see a next-generation close support aircraft to succeed the A-10, I suspect the emphasis will be sensors and precision munitions. I certainly hope they also keep a gun, but it would not need to be as powerful as the GAU-8. The logical choice in terms of standardization would be a version of the 25 x 137mm GAU-12 Equalizer from the Harrier II and the Spooky gunship or the lighter GAU-22/A from the F-35 using the same ammunition as the Army's M242 Bushmaster. Anything too heavily armored to engage with the gun would get a precision-guided missile.

I would argue the opposite. For air to ground 25x127mm/30x173mm is not big enough and is used as a compromise to impact on a non-purpose designed platform. A bigger shell in the 35-37-40mm class provides lower dispersion increasing accuracy. This enables stand off shooting with far less rounds and a smaller safety templete (ie closer danger close). Also with modern rounds a bigger shell provides a lot more potential for airbursting rounds and anti-structure. Plus of course the "old" armour penetration. Which since new generation tanks are being built with thicker roof armour and active protection systems requires more gunpower to enable target defeat. The gunship medium gun weapon was changed from 40mm Bofors to 30mm Bushmaster to leverage the new airbursting ammunition without a development spend (it was an in-service weapon) even though it decreases their standoff capability. A much better Gunship option would be the 35mm Bushmaster, 40mm Super Shot or the 40mm CTA gun. Tacair requires a faster firing gun for use from a high speed platform but there are options in these types of calibres available.