Stealth 'Hog Might Save A-10?
 

Does this seem to be a viable and practicable design upgrade?
A-14 Wild Wolf
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1a83a71b1d.jpg

- Ed

Hard to imagine it could be very stealth with all that ordinance hanging off the wings and that big cannon protrusion on the nose.
Need to get that stuff inside the external airframe...

Gives a new meaning to the term "upgrade".

Why make the A10 stealthy, it just blasts the **** out of anything that threatens it anyway. Nice to see 10 of them in at Prestwick earlier this week.:ok:

Since it operates in the close range VFR battlefield - no. If you can see it, you can shoot it - as Mx like Starstreak demonstrate, and that’s ignoring the start of the roll-out of tracked laser systems.

An autonomous A10 might have the edge over conventional though.
Programmed to fly at zero feet at night and with the ability to pull substantial G. That's a very scary prospect.

So a high performance car?

Or it just taxi’s everywhere?

Nap of the earth flying was what A10 was all about.

They just get new wings. No need for some "upgrade" phantasy like this that is certainly not "stealthy".

If it ain’t broke………

Perhaps your understanding of “zero” feet is somewhat different to the rest of us fools who flew between 10’ and 100’, depending on terrain/obstacles and threat. The only “zero” feet component was during taxi, take off and landings. Happy to learn /hear about the zero feet technique.

The A-10 is underpowered as is, reengining it would probably improve its survive-ability more than adding 'stealth' features that are entirely negated by the stores festooning the aircraft's wings.

Ike warned us.....the military and industry work together to keep both employed and well paid....especially after leaving government service.

After all it is only Tax Money that is getting spent.

Never mind the cost.

Just looks like the fantasy of one of those people who always has to write ‘BBRRRTTT!’ in the comments section of any A-10 video/article.

LMAO, thanks. :ok:

As much fun as it is to doodle, giving a system stealth is a relatively well established concept, which is breached in the wishful thinking image at least 16 times, which begs the question as to what is it supposed to be, as it isn't stealthy or stealth like. Luke Skywalker's X fighter was probably more stealth like, and more likely to see the light of day. RCSR by shaping alone scrubs out most of the fun stuff in the pikky. RCSR by RAM is frequency specific, so that gets workarounds.... AMC and FSS methods are equally tuned, so don't like any agility in the signal. Shaping remains one of the best methods but not only method to reduce RCS, by reducing incident ray backscatter. All well n' good, but not altering optical detection. We are still removed from turbulence and wake/efflux thermal detection as far as I am aware but that could be out of date, in other areas they are used effectively for tracking. Down in the weeds where there is a need to be, the other team gets to see the wagon and can plink away with optional aimed stuff, like an AK or star-streak style welcoming mats, which can be very effective in spoiling social calendars.

If the intent is to drop stuff from mid levels, then use a reduced RCS MQ-x, "with internal load". Some smart messing about with props can give purty nice RCS reduction along with occasional variation of RPM... or change the MQ design to be a bit smarter with the prop set up than it has been. ( back in the 90's there was this design... had some stability issues, but dang, if in retrospect Charles had some good ideas, pity it all stopped with a nosedive into the planet from said stability issues, but... we worked later with the thrust system and that would be interesting to put in the chamber down Eglin way... a stealth MQ would be "summit grand, eh!"

And a good illustration (npi) of why aircraft designers don't tend to rely on Photoshop. :O

"If it ain’t broke………"

What is sad is the way that people forget just why this type of aircraft might be needed - we have a war and we need something that can support ground forces with lots of cheap ordnance - and we need A LOT of them.

We build a Stuka, Typhoon, SkyRaider or an A-10... then time drifts on and we drift back to faster, more complex, much more expensive and LESS airframes. We forget that however advanced the aircraft it can't be in two places at once.

The doubt is to their survivability on the battlefield against a peer opponent - look at the Russian SU-25 loss rate and multiply in several fold.

In the Fulda Gap scenario it was expected they would all die in 1-2 days, as was expected of Harriers etc…

But times move on and EO pods, UAVs and SATCOM together with both air and ground launched extended range PGMs (whether Air, truck, ATACMS or artillery launched) enable effects based instant targeting from a safe range - there is no need to put a multi-million pound platform and pilot at risk.

The only role left for the A-10 is COIN in a benign environment - and there are cheaper airframe options, repeatedly explored.

A10 v pilotless A10.
Can perform manoeuvres and pull more G than an A10 giving it better survivability.
Smaller employing stealth tech to make it less visible on radar,
Cheaper to produce. Almost a throw-away asset like a drone.
If shot down no crew to extract, to be paraded on tv, used as bargaining chip.
Can loiter for longer periods than a human, perhaps even indefinitely with in flight refuelling.
No crew to train.

I guess this discussion really centres on can we remove the pilot?

"In the Fulda Gap scenario it was expected they would all die in 1-2 days, as was expected of Harriers etc…"

That's what happens in all out war - - casualty rates on the Somme for example - or on the Eastern Front in WW2 - similar to the US Civil War or the Waterloo Campaign.

A lot of people die in any all out battle