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

Salute!

Thank you, ORAC. You nailed it about mission and scenario. The plane would have been outstanding in 'nam until the A-7D came along as long as it didn't go up north or even patrol the Trail after 1968 or so. Would not have needed that huge gun, either.

Way back in 1973-74 we combat SLUF and HUN veterans tried to convince USAF to limit the A-10 buy due to survivability and lack of avionics that the A-7D already had (and used in actual combat in the CAS and interdiction roles and even a bunch of missions "downtown" in broad daylight). Only mission we had less stellar performance than the "piston powered and slower version" of the A-10 did was CSAR. We had problems with turn radius in low weather among valleys and mountains that the A-1 was simply better due to geometry and physics. Could get to and find the survivor way faster than the A-1. But had trouble escorting Jolly in poor weather, low clouds in the valleys, etc. Initially, we thot the Hawg would have something at least as good as what the SLUF had for navigation and weapon delivery, maybe just half as good, but better than the A-1 or A-37 or F-100 or even the F-4.

But nooooooo....! USAF sold it to Congress asserting it could drop a dumb bomb down the pickle barrel with no fancy avionics, could kill a tank from over a half a mile away with the huge gun and a fixed pipper for aiming, and didn't need no steenking inertial or doppler system or a projected map for navigation, or even a decent HUD. It didn't even have a crude autopilot to help the pilot while he was using his paper map and sextant for navigation!

As you can tell, I am not a big fan of keeping the Hawg around except for COIN against bad guys with a fairly low air defense capability. The cost per plane for maintenance, part replacement, and so forth will grow and grow. The political environment and potential employment scenarios have changed for CAS a lot in the last 30 years, and frankly, only CAS missions I see for the U.S. is defending its embassies. Let the other guy defend his own forces and towns and..... and maybe the big aerospace folks will build, market and sell something to help. The days of dropping nape on the fences is ovr, and has been for a long time.

Gums opines...

At this moment in time:

• Doesn't the hog find it's niche wide open to go truffle hunting'?
• What was an oversell on simplicity in the 70's, is that not now exactly what helps UF man up a platform that is simple and has a fair measure of survivability?
• Isn't lend-lease of hogs not a great way to remove them from the USAF inventory as they sure do seem to suffer from an orphan syndrome, and they have never been offered to the guys who would love them, the marines... ?

What is the ramp up time to get drivers that used to fly MiG 29s and Su-25's to go add some noise and confusion on the MSR? The UF were running choppers into the most contested spot of the war, they did lose 2 to ground fire, but they had a specific location to go to over a lot of "infected" territory (Putin being a plague on Ukraine). Going from US to UK shotgun planned cockpits is interesting, and Soviet adds some more weirdnesses, the ADI being a bit of an oddity, but otherwise, they are more logical than 50's or 60's British stuff. Going from Soviet analogue to US is mainly a pleasure. These guys are committed and driven to save their homeland from a brutal regime, there are spare A-10s out at D-M, and on poles all over, the blue suiters have wanted to see the fleet removed and replaced by shiny rides, so why wouldn't a couple of sqns worth of the hog be a good option? There is no need for US boots on the ground, just give the UF a means to go inoculate forces within the borders of Ukraine. Personally, I think they would survive quite well when operated down in the weeds, and if not, then they make the case for the blue suiters to save money by mothballing them as an ineffective fleet. I remain a fan of the hog, and suspect that the RF as they exist are not able to place an Fulda Gap scenario of airspace denial in effect anytime soon, (they would need the assistance of Ukraine to get their gear in shape, and that is not a likely scenario).

Better unmanned CAS, LO, etc... but that isn't on todays menu.

Swapping between soviet and western AI's is annoying, but not impossible, they are intuitive in their own way but it does take some thinking when stuff goes weird.

As a comparison the Stuka was useless without air superiority or just air cover. With it it was very effective and much feared.
The A10 would be no exception. A10's would be deployed as part of a combined arms strategy where they are deployed under an umbrella of air and electronic cover.
Deployed in the correct environment I think they would be particularly deadly.

The modern CAS aircraft has to deal with masses of portable air defense missiles, so even air supremacy does not assure survival.
Imho, Uxb99 has a point with his focus on unmanned CAS vehicles

You don’t need F35s for brush wars and similar in permissive airspace. Kinda like what it’s effectively doing now.

The Frogfoot's in Ukraine seem to be surviving in what is a challenging environment.
If the US was involved are we saying the A10's wouldn't survive? I think they would and be having a pretty damaging time on the Russians.

This from the DM on the subject of the Frogfoot:
Heart-stopping Top Gun-style video shows Ukrainian fighter jet evading Russian missile lock | Daily Mail Online

Ukraine is about the size of Texas, lots of open space there if one stays away from the urban spots. My guess is that one can fly freely in most of the country, even in the east, as the Russians are pretty thin on the ground.
It is mostly when one tries to attack a military target that there is trouble...

Senate Panel Allows A-10 Cuts, But Not F-22s

By Greg Hadley

After years of blocking the Air Force from retiring A-10 attack aircraft, the Senate Armed Services Committee will allow the service to proceed, but not with a new initiative to retire older F-22 Raptor air superiority jets. It also agreed to add seven more jets to USAF's request for F-35 fighters, and overruled the service on its plan to trim the HH-60 Combat Search and Rescue Helicopter buy.

- Ed