Next generation Warthogs?

[cluttonfred]

Does anyone know of designs proposed to replace the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II in the close air support role? I don't mean proposals to use multirole fighters for close air support, I mean proposals for a next generation armored, survivable, specialized ground attack machine to replace the aging A-10. Thanks!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The other Firefox!

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4372.0

But no... no A-10 replacement....

 

[lastdingo]

The armour was really meant against the 23mm AAA and small warhead ManPADS of the Warsaw pact (warhead weight below 1.2 kg, less than 400 g actual high explosive during the Cold War!).
Neither is taken seriously today, for modern A/G attack sensors easily outrange both. Longer-range threats have greater effect on the target and would require far too heavy armour plating if one decided to go the armour route to counter them.
We simply stay out of range or employ electronic/laser countermeasures for protection.

The best chance for a (moderately) armoured flying thing would be a AH-64 successor.

 

[cluttonfred]

I have to say that I disagree entirely with this reasoning. It is certainly true than multirole aircraft with stand-off weapons can engage known targets from beyond small arms, light AA gun and even MANPADS range. But that is not close air support. From what I understand of combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is still a role for a low and slow attack aircraft with the ability to shrug off even heavy machine gun fire and manpads. Helicopters have simply proven to be too vulnerable, even the Apache, and the fast movers can neither loiter close enough nor stay on station long enough for a truly immediate response.

IMHO, the A-10 today, while upgraded, is still hampered by its relatively unsophisticated avionics, dated design and the fact that its original raison d'être - an awesome 30mm anti-tank cannon - is really overkill for most missions today. A smaller, quieter, stealthier version with a more modest gun, composite armor, state of the art avionics for improved situational awareness, and more numerous but smaller smart munitions could still fill the original anti-tank role but be better suited to the COIN, CAS and FAC roles which the A-10 fills today.

It is as clear a statement as any about how little the USAF actually cares about COIN, CAS and FAC that there seem to have been no new designs even proposed to replace the A-10 in over 30 years!

The armour was really meant against the 23mm AAA and small warhead ManPADS of the Warsaw pact (warhead weight below 1.2 kg, less than 400 g actual high explosive during the Cold War!).
Neither is taken seriously today, for modern A/G attack sensors easily outrange both. Longer-range threats have greater effect on the target and would require far too heavy armour plating if one decided to go the armour route to counter them.
We simply stay out of range or employ electronic/laser countermeasures for protection.

The best chance for a (moderately) armoured flying thing would be a AH-64 successor.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/aircraft-pictures/2010/02/fairchild-a-10.html

In the USAF "Flight Plan" for UAS, the next-generation MQ-X aircraft is expected to perform the CAS role, in addition to several missions also performed now by the MQ-9.

Lockheed MQ-X concept attached. See http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6843

 

[Matej]

Good point overscan. There already is the large, quick response fleet of MQ-1 and MQ-9 that can stay over the battlefield longer than A-10 was ever able to. Today the world is different. You don't need to spray your enemy with thousands of bullets, you simply need one that directly hit the target without the lateral damage. GAU-8A was a very good choice in the time, when there was not any precise guidance system. Now the overall concept is obsolete (and too risky for the crew on board). There is also another trend to reborn the light turboprop fighters, such as Super Tucano, but that's different story.

 

[Michel Van]

have I miss something ?!

Fairchild Republic A-10 had to be replace by the F-35A
or have the Pentagon change the plan ?

 

[yasotay]

While I agree that loiter time is an issue for current rotorcraft and that the A-10 remains the preeminent CAS aircraft and I do take issue with the assertion regarding vulnerability. I think a cursory review will find that the attack helicopters are in combat far more often than the available CAS. Sortie rate alone make this evident. While I cannot provide supporting evidence other than word of mouth. Also I think that if you look at the records for Desert Storm, more A-10 were lost to ground fire than attack helicopters, although in fairness the A-10 were in action for a longer period of time. Even in the worst action for attack helicopters in recent history (11th Regt.) all but one AH made it back to base, some with significant damage. Within a day a number of the aircraft were returned to service and within a week almost all of the entire fleet was continuing combat operations. Having talked with a number of returning aircrew, they are being shot at on a regular basis and getting patched up while continuing the mission. If anything the reason there have been more attack helicopters lost it is because there are more of them in daily operation in the close combat environment. How many A-10 are in operations in theater versus Apaches, Cobras and Kiowa Warrior? What is the daily sortie rate for the attack helicopters compared to A-10. Honestly I don't know, and I could be wrong.

Do not take this as A-10 bashing. A brilliant aircraft that the USAF cannot politically dump. While I think it inevitable that more unpopular missions like CAS will become automated, I can only hope for the sake of the troopers on the ground that dramatic improvements in quality of optical sensors, bandwidth and other means will give the folks sitting in Nevada the same awareness as the A-10 pilot currently has. Lets also hope that bandwidth limitations and hackers don't become overly critical to the missions. Would hate for the connection to get lost as the aircraft puts rounds on target or someone provides the enemy with the means to override the control of an automated asset like this.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

While I agree that loiter time is an issue for current rotorcraft and that the A-10 remains the preeminent CAS aircraft and I do take issue with the assertion regarding vulnerability. I think a cursory review will find that the attack helicopters are in combat far more often than the available CAS.

Also of significant importance here is the change in attack helicopter flying brought about by new technology and requirements. In particular the move from flying nap of earth and shooting from hover to flying at >5,000 feet above ground and shooting from cruise. The British Army with the WAH-64D adopted this mission profile and the US Army has moved to it after OIF and in particular the Karbarla battle. With the new EWSP the threat of guided missiles is decreased and the attack helicopter can fly higher to see and shoot better and get away from AAA. This would be a mission profile that the RAH-66 would have been ideal at. Comanche and Crusader… Rumsfeld must have been a Manchurian Candidate to justify these emasculations of US Army offensive support. Attack helicopters flying the high profile are ideal CAS platforms. The only thing that would be better would be the Firefox.

 

[yasotay]

While I agree that loiter time is an issue for current rotorcraft and that the A-10 remains the preeminent CAS aircraft and I do take issue with the assertion regarding vulnerability. I think a cursory review will find that the attack helicopters are in combat far more often than the available CAS.

Also of significant importance here is the change in attack helicopter flying brought about by new technology and requirements. In particular the move from flying nap of earth and shooting from hover to flying at >5,000 feet above ground and shooting from cruise. The British Army with the WAH-64D adopted this mission profile and the US Army has moved to it after OIF and in particular the Karbarla battle. With the new EWSP the threat of guided missiles is decreased and the attack helicopter can fly higher to see and shoot better and get away from AAA. This would be a mission profile that the RAH-66 would have been ideal at. Comanche and Crusader… Rumsfeld must have been a Manchurian Candidate to justify these emasculations of US Army offensive support. Attack helicopters flying the high profile are ideal CAS platforms. The only thing that would be better would be the Firefox.

Abraham I agree with you completely about the change in tactics being crucial to the better survivability along with the new ASE equipment found on most of the modern attack helo's down range. Thank you for including that.

Alas Comanche was by the time it was cancelled in need of termination. All of the extra kit that had been hung on the aircraft had made it seriously overweight. Also all of the super tech on board would have made it a hard stand aircraft. While the Army prefers to operate from hard stand when it can (who wouldn't) it is still a operate from austere location organization. Spent a lot of time working Comanche and watched it go from a lightweight fighter to a massive abortion. I doubt the RAH-66 at mission weight would have been able to operate at the altitudes needed today. It was supposed to kill ZSU and 2S6 so the Apache could kill Soviet tanks on the IGB.

As to the F-35 replacing the A-10. I think this is as ridiculous as the thought of using F-16 for the mission. Yes they can sit at 20,000 feet and drop precision things but when the enemy is close and personnel that is not viable. In recent operations in Afghanistan attack helicopters have been putting 30mm fires on enemy combatants three meters from the NATO troops that are being supported. Not sure, even with wonder optics if you can do that from 20K. F-35 like the F-16 before it is a small package with lots of critical components crammed into a small space. Any aircraft survivability manual (I recommend Dr. Ball's) will tell you that there is a higher probability of a critical hit by a single round on an aircraft like that. Simple and rugged is still the best means for supporting the troops in my book.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Via HP&CA:

Unmanned version of A-10 on way
by Staff Writers
Manassas, Va. (UPI) Feb 20, 2012



Aurora Flight Sciences has been selected to work on a U.S. military project for an unmanned version of the A-10 close support aircraft.

Its selection as a team member in the Persistent Close Air Support program of the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency was made by Raytheon, which is leading the effort.

Aurora, with extensive experience in robotic aerial vehicles, will be responsible for developing the demonstrator aircraft.

"Aurora's selection by Raytheon to develop critical air vehicle technologies for the DARPA PCAS program is a major step in our relationship, which began with the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle and Loiter Attack Missile programs in the 1990s," said John Langford, Aurora's president and chief executive officer.

"We are looking forward to working closely with Raytheon on a wide range of unmanned systems technologies in the future."

For the PCAS program, Raytheon envisages development of technologies to reduce the timeline for close air support with "improved coordination among controllers, airborne sensors and weapon systems.

Other members of the PCAS team include Rockwell Collins and GE Aviation.


spacedaily.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

I read in a fairly recent issue of AW&ST that an optionally manned version of the A-10 is supposed to start flying/testing circa 2014. Supposedly to allow JTACs or combat controllers on the ground to control the targeting and release of weapons from the remotely pilot A-10 for quicker support/weapon release times. Has anyone heard anymore about this?

And, what this version of the A-10 might look like, thanks to Stargazer2006 and GTX:

 

[Madurai]

I had this feeling that the QA-10 was going to happen. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised it's taken this long and that there haven't been other drone conversions proposed.

 

[Sundog]

Reportedly, there will be a replacement CAS aircraft, just not in the U.S.

Stealthy Su-25 Replacement by 2020

I haven't heard a thing about this and have yet to see any proof, so take it with a grain of salt for now.

 

[John21]

I'm glad we're still doing research into CAS and working on unmanned variants of the Warthog. With the retirement of 102 of 272 A-10s in service and the cancellation of MQ-X into a R&D program with no production, maybe the A-10 will get a new lease on life?

The retirement of some of the airframes will leave more for spares and modernization, not to mention stuff like the A10C upgrades, re-winging of aircraft and possible engine replacement in the mid-term. The Warthog is still great at what it does and I can't see it leaving service anytime soon.

In fact a press release from the company who's doing the re-winging says that the Air Force has raised the retirement date of the A-10 from 2028 to some time in the 2040s. 65+ years of service is pretty damn amazing.

 

[Lauge]

Unmanned version of A-10 on way

[...]

Aurora Flight Sciences has been selected to work on a U.S. military project for an unmanned version of the A-10 close support aircraft.

[....]

What I can't quite gauge from the quoted article is whether this is supposed to be a modification of existing A-10 airframes into un-crewed systems, or rather a new development UCAS to do the same job as the A-10?

I would think the latter option made more sense, although I hasten to add that I would love to see a "Robo-Hog" fly B)

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxemborug

 

[ouroboros]

Now if they could only merge a RoboHog with those laser guided bullets those fine people at Sandia have been tinkering with. Though we may end up with something more akin to an unmanned Bronco with a fuselage rear mounted 360 turret to be able to shoot in any direction. That would end up making it more like a scorpion...

 

[Archibald]

Oh sh*t, this is the end of mankind. Bloody Skynet took control of the A-10s - what's left for the resistance to fight the Terminators then ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT9k7mGze4I
:

 

[TomS]

What I can't quite gauge from the quoted article is whether this is supposed to be a modification of existing A-10 airframes into un-crewed systems, or rather a new development UCAS to do the same job as the A-10?

PCAS specifically refers to an "unmanned/optionally manned A-10" but that's for demonstration purposes only -- the thrust of the project is letting a ground controller directly control weapon launch from the aircraft platform.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=eeabc22a9ff8b24363da07c69146102f&tab=core&_cview=1

 

[yasotay]

Mmmm... well lets hope no one ever figures out how to jam or hack a unmanned A-10 or any Close Air Support aircraft. I mean that could never happen, right? Someone jamming or hacking the signal of an unmanned aircraft...