Duke Nukem
Hail to the king baby
Make the A10 bigger and give it 120mm rotary cannons
Nah lets give it rotary atomic annie cannons.If you really want more Dakka, 'just' made a Gattling from the 406mm guns of the Iowa class. Must be enough even for you, right ? But, i'm afraid the plane is going to be 'just a bit' too big...
No they are not. Current drone designs are replacing strike-fighters on over-watch.As others have said, drones have pretty much replaced the A-10. The only real reason it's still around is a) inertia and 'fanboyism' from certain elements in the US armed forces, and b) it's useful against opponents in the Middle-East that use 60's or 70's era Soviet equipment and ad-hoc military solutions (like technicals and gun-trucks)... which the A-10 was designed to blow the shit out of anyway, when it was first envisioned.
Which is risky and very inefficient.No they are not. Current drone designs are replacing strike-fighters on over-watch.
The A-10 is designed for low altitude approaches, flying under the radar in the original meaning of the term, and engaging targets in gunfire.
Per-sortie price tag, in other words because it is efficient, even if it's slightly more risky. A gattling strafe is going to be a couple hundred rounds at most. Each of those two missiles costs a sizable fraction of the platform firing them. Hell, a fighter-bomber is quite able to carry ordinance that costs half the damn jet! And in close fire support, where you want to keep hitting things over and over if things are serious, that cost adding up gets very, very stupid.But when two missiles can do the same job a gattling strafe can do with pinpoint accuracy? It's obsolete.
To be fair the A-10 wasn't really designed with anything larger than 23mm(aka the standard Warsaw pact mobile AA gun size) in mindA-10 survives well while the insurgents use HMGs and 20 / 23 mm Flak. When they start to use 30 / 35mm (with modern ammo) flak with decent radars that can see better at the ultra low level - software can filter the ground clutter now much better - the survivability of the A-10 goes down very fast.
No one in their right mind sees a missile strike and goes "That's it boys, they used all their stores! We've got this!" or in reverse, where your own troops go "Shit, we're done for, they launched everything!"Also when you fire pinpoint missile strikes, they other guys on the red team have reason to believe that you shot your load. With a gun attack, you might be coming back for another pass. Morale is important, there is rarely a war that has been won by attrition.
I'm talking about human reactions to combat. You are talking about theoretical attrition in an environment that only exists in the cult of the missile. I'm half expecting you to argue that we should take the guns out of strike fighters to save on the dead weight.I'm starting to wonder if you even have any clue as to what you're talking about, like, at all.
Even against a peer, if you use only missiles, while the enemy also uses gun, you will have the worse logistics. PGMs need lots of rare earth elements and exotic metals you need to import.Missiles are ridiculously expensive for the enemies we usually face.
That's my point - while the insurgency use old weapons is fine, is designed to survive then (more or less). But when (not if) the adversary starts to receive more modern weapons, is number is called.To be fair the A-10 wans't designed with any larger than 23mm(aka the standard Warsaw pact light mobile AA gun size) in mind
Which is risky and very inefficient.
Hellfire drones can carry more accurate ordinance in a lesser amount, have little-to-no risk of being shot down (and losing a pilot's life), and can be deployed more expediently from forward bases. They can also return and reload far more quickly, and they can remain at high altitude for hours at a time with no-one knowing they're there.
I like the A10. I think it's cool. But when two missiles can do the same job a gattling strafe can do with pinpoint accuracy? It's obsolete.
Best thing they can do with it now is stick one or two in a museum, then make the remaining air-frames disposable, remote-controlled drones until they're used up (shot down, crash, no-longer air-worthy, et cetera) to squeeze as much life as possible out of them.
Per-sortie price tag, in other words because it is efficient, even if it's slightly more risky. A gattling strafe is going to be a couple hundred rounds at most. Each of those two missiles costs a sizable fraction of the platform firing them. Hell, a fighter-bomber is quite able to carry ordinance that costs half the damn jet! And in close fire support, where you want to keep hitting things over and over if things are serious, that cost adding up gets very, very stupid.
The big thing is that the A-10 as is fucks with anti-air doctrine from everyone because it's not reasonably going down to gunfire, it flies low enough that the big SAM platforms have an ass of a time locking on because they're not supposed to aim that low, it's got good enough handling to make low-guidance missiles shit in general, and MANPADs have a number of usage issues from that same handling at low altitudes, mostly surrounding them being line of sight weapons.
The aerodynamics of ultra-low-altitude flight and realities of trying to work with radar in that situation provide a great variety of complications with putting down an A-10 that the raw specifications don't give a single hint of. Its survivability is contingent on its radically different usage, such that where the Hellfire Drone derives viability from more direct stealth measures, altitude, and disposability, the A-10's predicated on low operation cost and more bluntly hiding from things.
Notably, the A-10s being out of production for decades and full of systems only they use means their operational costs have been escalating, because maintenance of the things has become nightmarish. But they're fundamentally doing things that missile drones are really bad at, because the missile drones rack up vastly more inherent operational costs due to guided munitions, making them horrible at dealing with plentiful light vehicles or attempting to compromise scattered infantry.
Essentially, as long as counter-insurgency operations are a mainstay of the US military, the A-10's role will be kept unless the deadlock leads to maintenance costs escalating to true absurdity, because it's simply not practical to be launching million-dollar missiles every time you need to deal with a pick-up that had a machine gun bolted on.
A-10 survives well while the insurgents use HMGs and 20 / 23 mm Flak. When they start to use 30 / 35mm (with modern ammo) flak with decent radars that can see better at the ultra low level - software can filter the ground clutter now much better - the survivability of the A-10 goes down very fast.
So as someone who knows RADARs and weapon systems associated with them. An A-10 is low level AAA biggest worry, especially if they are doing their proper sort of flights. Low close to the ground. Radar generally is not good unless it is flat ground for such a thing, mainly because of the way the radar waves work is they bounce off and return, at different frequencies and the like, to allow a way to hit it. THey work at different frequencies and some are better then others, some are worse hen others.That's my point - while the insurgency use old weapons is fine, is designed to survive then (more or less). But when (not if) the adversary starts to receive more modern weapons, is number is called.
SAM are less liekly to fire at something so low, but AAA can fire without radar, but like you said the time it takes to acquire is a death sentenceThe attack profile for an A-10 against an ADA emplacement (SAM or gun) is to remain within ground clutter until ready to make your actual attack, pop up, acquire target, adjust and dive on target, fire GAU-8 (requires no lock on time, the velocity is high enough that there is zero ballistic drop, it is basically point and shoot), then turn sharply and drop back into ground cover.
Effectively, by the time the site can acquire, identify, target, and engage, the A-10's shells are in the air and the A-10 is dropping back into the clutter. So now said site has to deal with some BRRRTTT.
Assuming it survives this encounter with surprise BRRRRTTTT, the site now has a dilemma... which direction will the A-10 come from next, or will a fast mover at high altitude swoop in, or a stealth platform...
This makes Air Defense Troops very very unhappy with their life choices.
The attack profile for an A-10 against an ADA emplacement (SAM or gun) is to remain within ground clutter until ready to make your actual attack, pop up, acquire target, adjust and dive on target, fire GAU-8 (requires no lock on time, the velocity is high enough that there is zero ballistic drop, it is basically point and shoot), then turn sharply and drop back into ground cover.
Effectively, by the time the site can acquire, identify, target, and engage, the A-10's shells are in the air and the A-10 is dropping back into the clutter. So now said site has to deal with some BRRRTTT.
Assuming it survives this encounter with surprise BRRRRTTTT, the site now has a dilemma... which direction will the A-10 come from next, or will a fast mover at high altitude swoop in, or a stealth platform...
This makes Air Defense Troops very very unhappy with their life choices.
You do know we have systems that can help a pilot identify the target area based on various other intelligence right? We have both Imagery and Signals let alone other methods that can help identify the location of said target.The problem with that doctrine - the A-10 also needs to identify where the adversary his - for that need to expose itself to see it - during that time can be targeted. Also, modern Russian systems are designed to deal with these kinds of adversaries - very fast reaction time (less than 5 secs), a lot of effort has been done to the radar systems can see at ultra-low altitude, with or accompanied by fast firing 30mm guns, etc. As I said before, is well and good against old tech in insurgent hands for now, but against a force with more modern systems - and that is competent - not so good. Let's be fair - the US as little need to develop these kinds of defense systems, but other nations have the right incentive.