A-10 upgrades

>>23081895
Another GAU-8 facing rearwards so pilots can continue to fire after they pull out of a strafing run.

>>23081913
I want a GAU-8 attached the already existing gun, so we can fire twice as many rounds

and while we're at it, can we infuse the rounds with crab meat?

>>23081913
>>23081926
Honestly though everyone is so focused on trying to find money and organizing our dwindling resources that no one is even looking at upgrades in the unit. Figured /k/ is the place to look.

>>23081926

Now you're just being silly. Crab meat...really?

Have you seen market prices lately?

>>23081895
The C upgrade was pretty extensive. More important is an upgrade to the Congress so that when they mandate an aircraft be kept in service they also mandate the funds.

File: 2014_News_Web_F35B_14P00412_12_1267828237_4511.jpg (51KB, 1200x757px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1200x757px

>>23081895
Here's an upgrade I'd like to see for the A-10.

>>23081913
about the most logical post youre gonna get from this thread, OP....

>>23081974
Triple the price, shorter range and no loiter. Inability to get in low and currently without combat experience. It's only double the price per flight hour too. Bargain!

The USAF should either buy Brimstones or rejoin the JAGM program, and integrate either onto its fixed wing aircraft.

>>23081895
Needs a carrier variant.

Make the main gun modular, so it can be pulled out and switched for a 120mm repeater as necessary. That should address the often mentioned issue of 30mm not being able to reliably shred modern MBTs. Add more hardpoints on the wings for more extra load capacity as well.

Cut the wings off, give it tank treads and a hydraulic gimbal to pivot.

Scariest anti-infantry weapon imaginable...

>>23082010
>shorter range and no loiter

except that's wrong, jizzbeard

File: 1411782975243.jpg (710KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

710KB, 1280x1024px

The only major limitation I've heard is that the A-10 can't take off with a full load on some runways :(

I heard the air force is buying mini brrrt pictured here. Are they getting the kind with internal .50s? Needs more ammo for those .50s IMO. And a little more armor.

>>23082027
>Add more hardpoints
nigger, its got 11 already, how many more do you need???

>>23082046
How to get the right answer:
1. Post incorrect information
2. Wait

>>23081895
The problems with the A-10 are:

-It is underpowered as fuck, slow to climb once its bled off it's smash.

-It cant carry that many AGMs. From all I have seen, they pretty much NEVER use the 3 missile per hard point configuration due to problems with it. If OP is legit maybe he can weigh in on that.

-Does it have FLIR, other than on the mavs? If not, it needs real FLIR


So, obviously, I would say:

-Give it upgraded engines. I mean how hard can that be, its not like the new engines have to fit inside anything

-Wire it up to be able to fit more missiles

-Give it FLIR and all the new techno goodies.


Im not an A-10 hater, I think it CAN be relevant on the modern battlefield. But you people need to realize that it HAS been made slightly outdated. But with upgrades it still can be valuable.

What Haters fail to mention about it:

-It has outstanding loiter time, straight wing, lotsa fuel and fuel efficient high bypass engines

-It has great handling at slow speeds

-That giant straight wing can fit lotsa ordinance

>>23082059
All of them.

File: 20140110_FTU13_10_weaps_14J00011_1267828237_2218.jpg (150KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1200x800px

>>23082010
F-35A has a 613 NM combat radius which is huge, it doesn't need to get low and slow to drop JDAMs or LGBs, the cost per flight hour is actually lower, in addition to the fact that it has a much reduced radar cross-section and can exceed 450 knots.

Not to mention the fact that it has 1.125 times the payload of the A-10.

>>23082080
>Four Avengers
Needs more dakka

File: 32677.jpg (49KB, 850x465px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 850x465px

>>23081895
>>23081895
The Gau-8 is fucking garbage. It can't even pierce a t-90

They need to put a 120mm on that motherfucker instead.

>>23082128
>neva ben dun b-fo
see
>AC-130C

>>23082027
>Add more hardpoints on the wings for more extra load capacity as well.
People understand that the A-10 (like every other aircraft) doesn't actually carry anywhere close to its maximum load on actual missions, and that a typical loadout is like 2 Mavericks and 2 500lb JDAMs?

>>23082098

So, they haven't fixed known problems with the A-10 and are looking for more things they can pretend to consider fixing?

>>23082098
Munitions is done slightly separate but I can say that it's not cleared for full TER-9s on every pylon, just 4 and only 2 at once.

The engines are just fucking old. They can very much be upgraded to more fuel efficient and higher thrust even if they just use a newer model of the same engine. Housing a completely different engine, however, may cost a pretty penny though.

Thanks for the legitimate answer though. Writing this down.

File: e68737c6.jpg (85KB, 1280x856px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1280x856px

>>23082116
it needs a 25mm Equalizer on a turret on top of the fuselage to orbit targets like an AC-130.

Why not a larger caliber like 40mm or bigger

>>23082101
Cost per flight hour
A-10: $17k
F-35: $33-$34k

Close but not quite on the money.

>>23082128

They could just redesign the weapon. The gun needs to be modernized, IDK how. Stronger barrels and chamber, more powerful ammunition... whatever..

But as it is, should be fine against Toyota technicals.

File: m5ABSam.jpg (232KB, 1022x643px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1022x643px

did we ever find out what DARPA did to this poor A-10?

>>23082213
PCAS

File: 1395383712757.png (2MB, 1440x810px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x810px

>>23082193

>>23082213
>poor A-10
>DARPA

nigga it probably breaks physics to start the turbines

in b4 some E6 gets laughed out of an office after bringing in a list of what he thinks would be "totally radical" upgrades for the A-10

>>23082155
This is theoretical, of course we aint go the fucking money. Im just saiyan if we NEEDED a better A-10, we should do those things.

>>23082154

We dont prepare for fighting goat herders, we prepare for buttfucking russian/Chinese tanks.


>>23082159
Basically I had heard the launched missile's exhaust fucks up the seekers on the other missiles still on the rail. But I know only certain hardpoints have the wiring for missiles.

>>23082242

This, they still haven't fixed known issues

from what I've heard

File: GBU-39-Defense-Industry-Daily-ORD_GBU-39_SDB_Concept_Color_lg.jpg (53KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 640x480px

>>23082242
they should ditch the GAU-8 entirely on some A-10s and replace the gun and ammunition drum with an internal rotary bomb-bay to carry 8 or so GBU-39s.

there i said it.

>>23082259
>We dont prepare for fighting goat herders, we prepare for buttfucking russian/Chinese tanks.
Then we should be preparing for combat from reasonable distances and with less extensively available tanker support, both of which also make the theoretical values for maximum payload theoretical.

40mm cannon. idk

>>23082275
they should replace the GAU-8 with a Glock 18

>>23082242

Despite what I said a minute ago, genuine suggestions are always appreciated

However odds are someone else will pat him on the head then cherry pick the e6s lists and submit them as his own

That's life though

>>23082289
Like I said, it has outstanding loiter, like a big, manned UAV.

Just rig it up to carry more mavricks, and give better engines so it can outrun manpads for godsake. Boom, flying missilebus

>>23081895
I never thought I'd say this but pls be DOD

Better electronics and avionics
Different specialized types of ammo for the GAU-8

>>23082321
>Like I said, it has outstanding loiter,
Not when it has to fly significant distances, and not with very heavy combat loads.

>Just rig it up to carry more mavricks,
Again, in the real world, in combat like Desert Storm where there were plenty of targets, A-10s frequently flew with less than 6 Mavericks already, and would remove pylons, not demand more.

Thanks for the help guys. Good thread.

>>23082321
>Like I said, it has outstanding loiter, like a big, manned UAV.

No, no it doesn't. It's carrying around a lot of extra weight in the form of a titanium bathtub and a giant gun, and as a consequence the A-10's range and loiter performance doesn't exactly match up to /k/'s expectations.

>>23081895
>what upgrades we can do for the A-10
Add another BRRRRRRTTTTT, and 2 more engines because why not.

>>23082406
>Not when it has to fly significant distances, and not with very heavy combat loads.


It has the wing of a goddamn glider, can carry a large amount of fuel, and has fuel efficient engines.
Explain to me how you can get a more fuel efficient manned CAS plane?


>Again, in the real world, in combat like Desert Storm where there were plenty of targets, A-10s frequently flew with less than 6 Mavericks already, and would remove pylons, not demand more.

And again, I say that in a very bad worst case scenario, like putin ordering T-90s across the fulda gap, it would be useful to have a high amount of AGMs to kill tanks with.

It is easy to refuel at a tanker; it is not easy to re-arm at a tanker.
Just because the gulf war was a cakewalk doesnt mean the war we fight in 2024 will be.

And yes, OK, I know they will not need the added pylons all the time, but its esy to remove them. Better to have and not need than need and not have.

>>23082513
>And again, I say that in a very bad worst case scenario, like putin ordering T-90s across the fulda gap, it would be useful to have a high amount of AGMs to kill tanks with.

in that situation, the A-10 would be shot down before it even had a prayer of getting within firing range. Speed is much more important than armor for surviving a modern anti-air environment.

>>23081895
Drone it. I know it has already been done before, but drone it again.

>>23082599
too obsolete for that

>>23082607
How come? A dangerous CAS sounds like the perfect role for an old A-10 made drone.

>>23082513
>Explain to me how you can get a more fuel efficient manned CAS plane?
Not have thousands of pounds of weight in a 30mm gun and armor.

>And again, I say that in a very bad worst case scenario, like putin ordering T-90s across the fulda gap, it would be useful to have a high amount of AGMs to kill tanks with.
Well that's great, you haven't looked at a map in 20 years.

>It is easy to refuel at a tanker; it is not easy to re-arm at a tanker.
So you're imaging that in this real war the US is also going to somehow still enjoy the same level of tanker support it does now.

>Just because the gulf war was a cakewalk doesnt mean the war we fight in 2024 will be.
The Gulf War involved more armored vehicles in a more confined space than any future war is going, from bases closer than you're going to get in a future war, with more tanker support than you're going to get in a future war, and still they wanted less, not more.

Meanwhile in the real world if you desperately want more tank killing power, the answer is to stop using a 450 pound missile to kill tanks and adopt a 100 pound one.

>>23082629
>UCAV
>in contested airspace

I wasn't using these sides anyways...

>>23082659
Who said anything about contested airspace?

>>23082683
you did

>>23082629
>dangerous CAS

>>23082549
> Speed is much more important than armor for surviving a modern anti-air environment

I agree. But it can currently do 450kias, ~0.66 Mach It doesnt need to be TOO much faster than that. How fast do F-16's normally fly around with mavericks and wing bags? Not a hell of a lot faster than that.

The thing is, imo, the A-10 takes forever to accelerate to that speed. Hence, the upgraded engines.

>>23082433
>no it doesnt

Well pardon me, but everything I have read, says it does. You are gonna go ahead and need to prove statements like that.

>giant titanium bathtub

If you have a meatbag in there( and I think we might for awhile) , he needs to have the protection.


Though I am suggesting it should operate higher up now, and be a flying missile bus, and thus perhaps could do without said armor.

...and the gun too, for that matter. Sorry /k/, the A-10s best weapons have been the AGM-65 and LGB for a while now.


Im just not sold on drones in a future war where out satellites might get shot to shit. Goathearders, fine. Russia/China, maybe no.

>>23082513
If Putin has made it to the Fulda Gap it's probably long since past the point of using the A-10

File: FC_Wipeout.jpg (552KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

552KB, 1280x800px

>>23081895
Pic related

>>23082709
>The only threat for CAS are other aircraft.
OK.

>>23082641
>Not have thousands of pounds of weight in a 30mm gun and armor.

Dtich the gun, ditch the armor. (but really, is the "bathtub" THAT heavy?)


>Well that's great, you haven't looked at a map in 20 years.

Im glad you know what the maps will look like in 20 years. Putin hungry.

>So you're imaging that in this real war the US is also going to somehow still enjoy the same level of tanker support it does now.

...which is exactly why I have been saying the A-10 is still relevant. It is massively fuel efficient. Straight wing, fuel sipping engines ( and could be better). Ditch weight and that only gets better.

1. New and/or upgraded engines. This should be pretty self-explanatory.

2. New avionics. Preferably some that can tell US Marines apart from towelheads (why is it A10's only ever seem to friendly-fire Marines?). Basically a total cockpit/sensor suite redesign. Should save a good bit of weight, pictures make it look like the cockpit's 99% analog.

3. Many will consider this heresy, but completely scrap the GAU8. It's overkill for IFV's and not enough for modern MBT's. It sits right smack between 2 niches. Either go with a high ROF 20/25mm (mini-BRRT) or forego a gun entirely in favor of rocket pods for light-skinned stuff. This will save a TON of weight and open up a lot of space for other stuff (like a turreted FLIR or other ground sensing pod).
Alternatively, mount something like the Apache's 30mm autocannon on its gimbal inset in the nose where the GAU used to be.

The A10 had an excellent design philosophy, one that is still relevant for modern warfare (either COIN or symmetrical). It just needs a few updates.

>>23082802

The A-10 needs that armor.

It fucking needs it.

>>23082732
The A-10 has a bit more loiter time and a bit less range than the F-16. The F-35A will have at least double the range and equal, if not more, loiter time. The A-10 was only efficient relative to other military aircraft in the '70s; 40 years of advancements in aerodynamics and engine technology, combined with the extra gun and armor weight it has to carry around, makes it nothing special today.

tl;dr - the Warthog's efficiency is pretty overstated by most aerospace casuals

>>23082802
>Dtich the gun, ditch the armor. (but really, is the "bathtub" THAT heavy?)
Then if you want a long loitering aircraft just use a MQ-9.

>Im glad you know what the maps will look like in 20 years. Putin hungry.
So you're a complete shitposter.

>...which is exactly why I have been saying the A-10 is still relevant. It is massively fuel efficient.
No, it is fuel efficient if you want low speed loitering at a close in combat radius. If you want deep strike missions, which is what "real war" scenarios involve, other aircraft are superior.

>>23082826
This post is absolutely correct. Small arms to the wings could mean death without it.

>>23082820
>2. New avionics. Preferably some that can tell US Marines apart from towelheads (why is it A10's only ever seem to friendly-fire Marines?). Basically a total cockpit/sensor suite redesign. Should save a good bit of weight, pictures make it look like the cockpit's 99% analog.
Why do people post shit when they have no idea what they're talking about? The A-10 just go finished an avionics and cockpit upgrade.

>>23082769
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "contested"

>>23081895
A second GAU.

>>23082876
I do. Sorry, not googling it for you.

>>23082732
>it should operate higher up now
>450kts

Yes, we need to have a slow-flying, high RCS plane against modern antiaircraft systems.

I just thought of this, but why not give it a variable sweep wing like the F-14?

you still get decent loiter, but it can get into position much faster

>Help a 62 out.

How about you both retire.

File: Implying.png (10KB, 442x151px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 442x151px

related