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.

 

[THW74]

I apologize for the necromancy, but, I read a few pages and had a few observations:

The 30mm x 173mm isn't that effective nor v. likely to be employed against tanks.
For soft targets / personnel, a 25mm HE round, perhaps a higher RPM may work.
The 25mm being smaller + lighter, you'd also probably carry more rounds (1,500).
(and would've preserved the nose for RADAR / SAR / EOTS, as mentioned).

Can't a laser designator JTACs have can be used with a t-pod & a PGM (SDB, etc)?
Making the cannon a secondary munition ... with the 250 lb class providing similar
(if not superior) casualty radius & accuracy than a strafing run could ..?

If I recall ... the F135-PW-100 are approximately $20-million per engine.
With 2 (for redundancy) you're $40M in engines alone & F-35 CPFH

 

[uk 75]

The A10 and AH64 combination worked well in the hilly terrain of the Fulda and Hof gaps in West Germany where they would have taken out Soviet armour crossing the border.
They were not likely to last long in this role, as the war itself was expected to only last days or at the most weeks.
The Ukraine war has already lasted over two years and shown that glide bombs and drones are the weapons of choice.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

The A10 and AH64 combination worked well in the hilly terrain of the Fulda and Hof gaps in West Germany where they would have taken out Soviet armour crossing the border.
They were not likely to last long in this role, as the war itself was expected to only last days or at the most weeks.
The Ukraine war has already lasted over two years and shown that glide bombs and drones are the weapons of choice.

The Ukraine War has also been a rather unusual conflict in many ways. I don't think open conventional warfare between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in the 1980s would have resembled what it turned into these two years. Although I imagine fighting could easily drag on longer than expected, or turn to chemical and nuclear warfare depending on how bad things get.

I fully expect counters to small drones to mature and proliferate, although if the next major conflict is focused around air and seapower small drones may not even be very relevant.

 

[RJMAZ]

I think there is huge demand for a manned subsonic attack aircraft.

In 1990 we had the A-4, A-6, A-7, A-10, Buccaneer, AMX, F-117and Super Etendard jets in service. Add the Bronco, Mohawk, Pucará twin engine turboprops and C-130 gunship to the list.

Supersonic multirole fighters have replaced most of the high end ground attack roles but at a much higher purchase and operating cost. Cheap drones have replaced the low end high endurance roles. The A-10 is the most difficult aircraft to replace in that list which is why it is still in service in large numbers.

It would be unwise to design a direct replacement for the A-10 as we should be considering the full spectrum of ground attack roles. There are many ground attack roles that could be taken away from the expensive supersonic multirole fighters and given to this subsonic attack aircraft. A subsonic aircraft with a straighter wing and higher bypass ratio engines will have greater range at the same aircraft weight or be much lighter/cheaper at the same range.

Avionics wise we all agree that the F-35 sensor fusion engine would be used with the EOTS targeting turret. A small and cheap AESA radar would feed the sensor fusion engine instead of the expensive F-35 radar.

I do not think this aircraft would need a cannon.
Now this will be controversial. 50 years ago the smallest guided weapon was an expensive Maverick missile. A long range 30mm cannon to provide cheap kills was critical to fill the gap. Once again we should consider the full spectrum from a small 50 cal cannon all the way up to a 2,000lb bomb or cruise missile. The key is to not have big gaps in the weapons envelope. We now have laser guided 70mm rockets that can do the same damage at twice the distance of a dozens 30mm rounds. Take a look at the 40mm Pike missile and people should be thinking of it as a laser guided 40mm cannon. Bullets, rockets and missiles they are all just rough categories.
I could imagine a drum of 40mm Pike missiles like a MK 19 grenade launcher. The F-35 EOTS points the laser at the tank or ground target using the pilots fancy helmet. The 40mm Pike missiles hits the target without the aircraft having to strafe the target or change direction. The 40mm Pike missiles when air launched at medium altitude would have 10+ km range and could be used to take out enemy drones and helicopters at a much lower cost than a Stinger missile.
There are so many small warhead glide bombs and missiles that can do the job of the 30mm cannon. APKWS. Martlet missile. AGM-176 Griffin. GBU-44/B Viper Strike. Laser guidance allows for a very cheap seeker in the weapon and the expensive targeting system is in the aircraft.
Aircraft design
My design would have a two small private jet engines optimised for high subsonic endurance. It would have high levels of stealth to allow CAS to be performed at medium altitude. No armor needed. I would aim for the same internal payload and range of the F-35 but the empty weight and MTOW should be around half due to that straight high and efficient engines. My goal would be for it to be half the cost to purchase and operate relative to the F-35. It would be just as effective as the F-35 in most ground attack missions. In the high endurance CAS role using the 40mm guided missiles it would be superior to the F-35.

Rough numbers.
20,000lb empty weight.
10,000lb internal fuel capacity.
5,000lb internal weapons capacity.
5,000lb external weapon capacity.
40,000lb MTOW
Two 10,000lb thrust engines for survivability.
Central weapon bay for two 2,000lb bombs
Engines on either side for survivability.
Exhaust nozzles like the YF-23 for low IR signature.
It would have design elements of the X-47B, MQ-20 and MQ-25.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Again, the reason for a cannon is to have a weapon that has a ~50m danger close range. 70mm rockets have at least a 100m danger close range, and Hellfire class missiles are 150-200m.

 

[RJMAZ]

You must have stopped reading and started typing as soon as I said "Now this will be controversial"

I proposed a 40mm low recoil cannon with laser guided 40x430mm bullets. They have a 0.27 kg explosive charge and only a 10m kill radius. They are currently used by special forces and offer far more precision and less collateral damage than a heavy cannon.

The AC-130 for decades has used a 40mm bofors cannon as its highest precision and lowest collateral damage weapon. Stepping up to a laser guided 40mm round gives even more accuracy.

The A-10 fires 30x173mm bullets. There is zero chance your 30x173mm unguided dumb bullets would have less collateral damage than a 40x430mm laser guided bullet. A burst of bullets from an A-10 with the best pilot would have more scatter and a larger area of damage compared to a 40mm laser guided bullet.

The 40mm laser guided bullet would be able to destroy an enemy vehicle directly behind a friendly vehicle. 30mm unguided bullets from a moving aircraft 2-3km away could not do this.

Friendly forces on the ground now have tiny handheld laser designators to use with these these laser guided bullets. The soldier with the designator can be hidden up close and the laser guided 40mm bullet can be fired from a kilometre away. The same handheld laser designator can be used for the 40mm rounds fired from the aircraft sitting many kilometres away at medium altitude.

You can swap put the word bullet for rocket or missile if you like. They all use an explosive material to accelerate through a tube on the way to the target.

 

[quellish]

The 40mm laser guided bullet would be able to destroy an enemy vehicle directly behind a friendly vehicle. 30mm unguided bullets from a moving aircraft 2-3km away could not do this.

It sounds like you are talking about the XM25 or XM307

XM25 CDTE - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

XM307 Advanced Crew Served Weapon - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[RJMAZ]

It sounds like you are talking about the XM25 or XM307

I am talking about the Raytheon Pike munition. It is already in service. It can be fired from any 40mm grenade launcher or from a dedicated launcher. Pike doesn't care where the source of the laser designator is. It could be from a EOTS system on the aircraft from a tiny quadcopter or from a soldier on the ground.

It would be very easy to integrate onto any aircraft. Soldiers on the ground could be designating a target and a pilot in a small Cessna prop aircraft could shoot it out the window in the general direction. Pike will then hit the target. The easiest option would be to have a couple dozen 40mm tubes on the weapon bay doors. So when the weapon bays doors open the Pike munitions are ready to fire. A more elegant system would be a belt feed system

Pike (munition) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Scott Kenny]

You must have stopped reading and started typing as soon as I said "Now this will be controversial"

I proposed a 40mm low recoil cannon with laser guided 40x430mm bullets. They have a 0.27 kg explosive charge and only a 10m kill radius. They are currently used by special forces and offer far more precision and less collateral damage than a heavy cannon.

That's a low velocity automatic grenade launcher.

And IIRC a danger close range of 100m.

 

[RJMAZ]

That's a low velocity automatic grenade launcher.

And IIRC a danger close range of 100m.

You can call it whatever you want. Slow guided bullet. Fast guided grenade. Guided rocket. Guided missile. Guided munition.

At the end of the day you have missed the point. You probably didn't even know such a weapon was in service.

 

[asVAL]

I am talking about the Raytheon Pike munition. It is already in service. It can be fired from any 40mm grenade launcher or from a dedicated launcher. Pike doesn't care where the source of the laser designator is. It could be from a EOTS system on the aircraft from a tiny quadcopter or from a soldier on the ground.

It would be very easy to integrate onto any aircraft. Soldiers on the ground could be designating a target and a pilot in a small Cessna prop aircraft could shoot it out the window in the general direction. Pike will then hit the target. The easiest option would be to have a couple dozen 40mm tubes on the weapon bay doors. So when the weapon bays doors open the Pike munitions are ready to fire. A more elegant system would be a belt feed system

Pike (munition) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Pike isn't in service hell no.

 

[RJMAZ]

Pike isn't in service hell no.

Already in service. Here is a summary of it's usage in Iraq.

'A Kill-Shot, Every Time': The Raytheon Pike

By: Warren GrayCopyright © 2021“When you have the capability to send something a mile and a half, and hit within five yards or less of the bad guy, you are achieving what our troops have always wanted — take out a specific target and minimize collateral damage.” — Frank Antenori, Raytheon...

gunpowdermagazine.com

 

[asVAL]

Already in service. Here is a summary of it's usage in Iraq.

'A Kill-Shot, Every Time': The Raytheon Pike

By: Warren GrayCopyright © 2021“When you have the capability to send something a mile and a half, and hit within five yards or less of the bad guy, you are achieving what our troops have always wanted — take out a specific target and minimize collateral damage.” — Frank Antenori, Raytheon...

gunpowdermagazine.com

So first the single shot CRV7-PG and now Pike.. The syrup men really like laser guided stuff huh.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You can call it whatever you want. Slow guided bullet. Fast guided grenade. Guided rocket. Guided missile. Guided munition.

At the end of the day you have missed the point. You probably didn't even know such a weapon was in service.

Too large a danger close range is what I call it.

If you're doing actual Close Air Support, you need a weapon that you can use within 50m of friendly troops. And Pike or any other 40mm grenade IS NOT IT.

 

[quellish]

Too large a danger close range is what I call it.

If you're doing actual Close Air Support, you need a weapon that you can use within 50m of friendly troops. And Pike or any other 40mm grenade IS NOT IT.

Basically anything explode-y is not going to cut it, no matter how guided it is.

 

[RJMAZ]

Too large a danger close range is what I call it.

If you're doing actual Close Air Support, you need a weapon that you can use within 50m of friendly troops. And Pike or any other 40mm grenade IS NOT IT.

You are totally wrong. The GAU-8 is the most accurate 30mm cannons. It has an accuracy of 5 mil, 80 percent. This means at 2 km distance 80% of the bullets hit within a 25 metre circle. If you Including the other 20% of bullets, a burst of 100 round and shrapnel from vehicles the kill circle is closer to 50 metres. This does not take into account the pilot skill level.

The Pike missile at 2 km away has an accuracy within 5 metres. The explosive is smaller than your average hand grenade. A hand grenade typically has a 5 metre kill radius and 15 metre wound radius.

Pike is less of a danger to troops in close proximity. The troops can be the one pointing the laser designator on the target. This means the aircraft can fire the Pike munition from 5+ km away and not even have to see the target.

Nothing would stop a Pike missile being made with a warhead 10% of the size. But such a weapon would only be used to prove a point. Such a small warhead couldn't even disable a car and probably wouldn't even kill the occupants.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You are totally wrong. The GAU-8 is the most accurate 30mm cannons. It has an accuracy of 5 mil, 80 percent. This means at 2 km distance 80% of the bullets hit within a 25 metre circle. If you Including the other 20% of bullets, a burst of 100 round and shrapnel from vehicles the kill circle is closer to 50 metres. This does not take into account the pilot skill level.

The Pike missile at 2 km away has an accuracy within 5 metres. The explosive is smaller than your average hand grenade. A hand grenade typically has a 5 metre kill radius and 15 metre wound radius.

Pike is less of a danger to troops in close proximity. The troops can be the one pointing the laser designator on the target. This means the aircraft can fire the Pike munition from 5+ km away and not even have to see the target.

Nothing would stop a Pike missile being made with a warhead 10% of the size. But such a weapon would only be used to prove a point. Such a small warhead couldn't even disable a car and probably wouldn't even kill the occupants.

The Danger Close range for a 40mm grenade is ~150m. Which kinda sucks because the maximum effective range is 160m.

There have been US soldiers killed in peacetime from an M203 round exploding and throwing fragments clear back to the shooting position 150m from point of detonation.

 

[RJMAZ]

The Danger Close range for a 40mm grenade is ~150m. Which kinda sucks because the maximum effective range is 160m.

There have been US soldiers killed in peacetime from an M203 round exploding and throwing fragments clear back to the shooting position 150m from point of detonation.

If we are talking extreme examples then the 30mm cannon when used against armoured vehicles has also sent fragments at deadly speeds beyond 150 metres.

The A-10 can use the PGU-14/B depleted uranium round and PGU-13/B high explosive round. A typical 100 round burst from the cannon has more total explosive power than a single Pike munition.

Most people thought the 70mm rocket was the smallest laser guided weapon. This explain your original comment that a 30mm is better for close proximity close air support. I agree that a 30mm cannon is better than a 70mm rocket for targets within 50 metres of friendly forces. Your initial reply mentioned 70mm rockets. Now you know such a small and accurate laser guided 40mm munition exists there is no need to keep defending the original comment.

When the Pike munition is fired there will be a countdown for impact. The friendly forces aren't going to stand up and face the impact area to increase the chance of being hit by a fragment. In most scenarios where friendly forces are 50 metres from the target the Pike munition will be safer than 30mm rounds fired from a strafing aircraft.

For arguments sake let's say they are equal. Now you must consider the safety of the firing aircraft. When firing the Pike munition the aircraft can be in a MUCH safer position. Now let's say 1000 thousands 30mm cannon rounds equals 10 Pike munitions. How much does the 30mm cannon plus 1000 rounds weigh? How much does 10 Pikes and launch tubes weigh?

The Pike solution will be less than a quarter of the weight per target hit. This means a lighter aircraft, more range or far more Pike missiles carried. One Pike capable CAS aircraft can then do the job of multiple CAS aircraft equipped with a 30mm cannon.

The 40mm diameter is really nice as it is compatible with the standard grenade launchers. Expect in the coming years and decades we will see 40mm guided munitions that are even smaller, cheaper and more accurate than Pike.

The whole point of CAS is to provide firepower far above that of a 50 cal and sniper rifles carried by the soldiers on the ground. I do not see a need for an aircraft carried weapon that is smaller than Pike.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Pike is a slow weapon. ~15-20sec flight time to 2000m. Plus it requires a lased target.

A 30mm hits within a couple seconds of firing and does not require a lased target. (even if we are using a laser to show the CAS pilot where we want the rounds placed, once the pilot is lined up the laser can be turned off)

Pike is functionally a US equivalent of an RPG-7. How many planes do you see with RPG-7s wired up to their wings?

 

[quellish]

The whole point of CAS is to provide firepower far above that of a 50 cal and sniper rifles carried by the soldiers on the ground. I do not see a need for an aircraft carried weapon that is smaller than Pike.

Nope, it does not have anything to do with the amount of firepower. If it did BLU-82s would be used for CAS. More firepower is better, right?

The point of CAS is to be able to provide support against adversaries that are in close proximity to friendly forces.

Close air support (CAS) is defined as air action by aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and that require detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces (Joint Publication 3- 09.3, Close Air Support). CAS provides supporting firepower in offensive and defensive operations to destroy, disrupt, suppress, fix, harass, neutralize, or delay enemy targets as an element of joint fire support. The speed, range, and maneuverability of airpower allows CAS assets to attack targets that enable the ground scheme of maneuver. When conditions for air operations are permissive, CAS can be conducted at any place and time friendly forces are in close proximity to enemy forces and, at times, may be the best means to exploit tactical opportunities.

 

[RJMAZ]

Pike is a slow weapon. ~15-20sec flight time to 2000m. Plus it requires a lased target.

Nope. Pike would be faster than the A-10 cannon. Operating at 10,000 feet the CAS aircraft will have a better battlefield picture and it will identify the target faster. The Pike missile is then fired.

The A-10 has to decide which direction it wants to attack from. Line up the aircraft and perform the strafing run. The Pike munition travels much faster than the A-10.

(even if we are using a laser to show the CAS pilot where we want the rounds placed, once the pilot is lined up the laser can be turned off)

The CAS aircraft's targeting pod has the laser designator. Using soldiers with their own laser designator is additional capability far beyond what a 30mm cannon can achieve.

Pike is functionally a US equivalent of an RPG-7. How many planes do you see with RPG-7s wired up to their wings?

Soon you will be calling an AMRAAM an RPG. Aircraft are already carrying weapons that are effectively identical to the Pike just in a larger size.

The AGM-176 Griffin is a surface-to-surface weapon that weighs only 20kg. It is now flown under the wings of multiple drones in the air-to-surface role as it is a third of the size of a Hellfire missile. It also uses laser guidance as that is the best low cost form of guidance. Griffin has been in service for 15 years.

Likewise the laser guided 70mm rockets are flown on more than a dozen aircraft including the F-16. Pike if fired from the air is operationally identical to the APKWS and Griffin just with less collateral damage.

Technology has improved to make the weapons smaller. The GBU-44 has already proven that a small laser guided warhead is better than a cannon when used on the AC-130. This is a small laser guided glide bomb with tiny 1kg warhead. Instead of the AC-130 flying loops dangerously around the target it can drop these small bombs from a safe position. Even the GBU-44 are a better solution than a 30mm cannon from an A-10 strafing g

Pike simply combines an even smaller warhead with extra range provided by a rocket motor. In 2030 I would bet my house that we will have small aircraft and drones firing laser guided and rocket powered weapons that are the size of Pike. This is super obvious. The ideal weapon for a large quadcopter would be for a weapon like Pike. Dropping hand grenades from quadcopters makes its very likely for the drone to be shot down. It is the ultimate way to perform CAS.

They can not fit a 30mm cannon on a small drone. The reason can be explained by one word. Recoil.

Nope, it does not have anything to do with the amount of firepower. If it did BLU-82s would be used for CAS. More firepower is better, right?

The point of CAS is to be able to provide support against adversaries that are in close proximity to friendly forces.

If the amount of firepower didn't matter we would see CAS aircraft firing smoke grenades and 7.62mm rounds. Your CAS reference clearly mentioned the words "destroy" and "fire support". I googled fire support.

Fire support generally consists of fire from heavy or crew-served weaponry with high firepower, including strikes and barrages from artillery, mortars, rocket artillery, and missiles; naval gunfire support from naval artillery; airstrikes, strafes, and close air support from military aircraft; and drone strikes from unmanned combat aerial vehicles; among various other forms. Fire support is typically ordered and directed by an observe

"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_support

Sorry gentlemen you are both 100% wrong.