Instead of the A-10, USAF buys a 'fast' attacker with a smaller cannon?

tomo pauk

The term 'fast' from the title is Mach 1.5+, clean - sorta what Jaguar, MiG-27 or F-5E was capable for. The smaller cannon is perhaps the KCA - still a powerful 30mm gun, but less of a brute then the GAU-8 was, and with lower RoF. A 20mm gun will no cut it, tank plinking is still a requirement (regardless of reality of that requirement). Armor protection for the pilot is also a requirement - note that both Jaguar and MiG-27 have had armor for pilot - so is the redundancy of most critical systems. Preferably 2 engines per aircraft, preferably turbofans. I'd also add the requirement for laser range finder & designator - not what A-10 had in the 1980s. No radar required (even though it would've been great for the weather conditions of Europe). A fixed wing design, ie. no swing-wing.
Without the requirement for true Mach 2 capability, design of intakes, nozzles etc can be much simpler, lighter and cheaper, again as per MiG-27 or Jaguar.

Aircraft might be a clean-sheet design, or a spin-off from an existing aircraft, while being suitable for good low-speed handling, good/excellent payload capability, and operation from less than ideal surfaces. Good visibility, 1-pilot operation, but suitable for having 2 crew members in the 'B' version, mostly for training though.
 

Bougnas

tomo pauk said:
The term 'fast' from the title is Mach 1.5+, clean - sorta what Jaguar, MiG-27 or F-5E was capable for. The smaller cannon is perhaps the KCA - still a powerful 30mm gun, but less of a brute then the GAU-8 was, and with lower RoF. A 20mm gun will no cut it, tank plinking is still a requirement (regardless of reality of that requirement). Armor protection for the pilot is also a requirement - note that both Jaguar and MiG-27 have had armor for pilot - so is the redundancy of most critical systems. Preferably 2 engines per aircraft, preferably turbofans. I'd also add the requirement for laser range finder & designator - not what A-10 had in the 1980s. No radar required (even though it would've been great for the weather conditions of Europe). A fixed wing design, ie. no swing-wing.
Without the requirement for true Mach 2 capability, design of intakes, nozzles etc can be much simpler, lighter and cheaper, again as per MiG-27 or Jaguar.

Aircraft might be a clean-sheet design, or a spin-off from an existing aircraft, while being suitable for good low-speed handling, good/excellent payload capability, and operation from less than ideal surfaces. Good visibility, 1-pilot operation, but suitable for having 2 crew members in the 'B' version, mostly for training though.
Click to expand...
The Oerlikon KCA (304RF) was actually licensed produced by Hugues as the GAU-9, a backup in case the GAU-8 failed. I also know of at least the Navy financing in the 70s (I saw a January 75 report https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b002789.pdf) an improved F-4J with a conformal carriage to carry a truckload of ordnance, one or two conformal GAU-9 gun pods (or a permanent, internal GAU-9) and ECM equipment (and this thing could fly BETTER than the base F-4J due to better aerodynamics and maybe other improvements when carrying that much weaponry).
Could carry laser guided bombs and AGM-65.

There was also in 1964 a proposal for a ground attack version of the F-4C with an internal M61 20mm cannon (before the F-4E existed), armor, and adapted avionics such as a laser rangefinder.

It should be possible to either get the F-4B/J (that Navy thing above) or a 70's evolution of the ground attack F-4C, which would be pretty nasty and should fill most of your requirements although the airframe is still a F-4 one with intakes intended for Mach 2.


For absolute memes, you could combine that with the wing improvements of the 1966-67 F-4 FV (larger F-4 wing) or the FVH (high wing ala Jaguardized F-4)
 
Last edited:

Canuck Wingnut

The problem with 'fast', from a ground attack standpoint, is that you generally won't get high-maneuverability/ low stall speed into a supersonic airframe, and in general the value of a ground attack aircraft (rather than, say, a cruise missile) is the pilot's ability to identify and attack high-value targets on his own while in the air. That task is more difficult the less time you can take to do it, and in a fixed wing aircraft how long you have is defined almost entirely by your stall speed (also fuel efficiency, also not helped by a supersonic airframe.)

That's why most ground attack proposals from the 1980s, liked the Scaled Composites Ares, the IML Addax 1, the PZL-230 and the BAe SABA are subsonic- note that this is true even though three of those are paper designs trying to sell to militaries that aren't the US military.

On the other hand, there's no technical reason that a fast ground attack jet can't be built- my worries aren't about technical failures for the USAF developing the aircraft. I'm more worried about the effect on the USAF doctrinally- even OTL they've never been notable fans of the ground attack mission. I suspect in an ATL where a slow fast jet replaces the A-10 on the drawing board there's a decent chance that the aircraft end up being used more as trainers for pilots trying to make the step 'up' (in service prestige terms) to fighters. When the US next gets sucked into a small conflict in such a timeline expect even more interservice complaints from the army directed at the quality of their air support than OTL- if you can imagine that!
 

Father Maryland

Seems like the simplest choice instead of the A10 would be for the airforce to adopt a version of the A7. Doesn't check all the boxes but it's already in use by the USN and already in production.
 

Riain

Banned
I don't think the USAF had any shortage of other attack aircraft in its inventory when the A10 was being designed and produced, fast or otherwise; F4s, A7s, F16s come to mind. I think that unlike other countries the USAF can go 'all in' to design and operate a specialised attack aircraft like the A10 because it has so many other options.

I doubt a more powerful gun would make the F16 or similar a much better attack aircraft, it isn't really suited to wielding such a powerful gun, whereas the A10 was specifically designed around it in an era when guided weapons were scarce and expensive.
 

Monk78

tomo pauk said:
The term 'fast' from the title is Mach 1.5+, clean - sorta what Jaguar, MiG-27 or F-5E was capable for. The smaller cannon is perhaps the KCA - still a powerful 30mm gun, but less of a brute then the GAU-8 was, and with lower RoF. A 20mm gun will no cut it, tank plinking is still a requirement (regardless of reality of that requirement). Armor protection for the pilot is also a requirement - note that both Jaguar and MiG-27 have had armor for pilot - so is the redundancy of most critical systems. Preferably 2 engines per aircraft, preferably turbofans. I'd also add the requirement for laser range finder & designator - not what A-10 had in the 1980s. No radar required (even though it would've been great for the weather conditions of Europe). A fixed wing design, ie. no swing-wing.
Without the requirement for true Mach 2 capability, design of intakes, nozzles etc can be much simpler, lighter and cheaper, again as per MiG-27 or Jaguar.

Aircraft might be a clean-sheet design, or a spin-off from an existing aircraft, while being suitable for good low-speed handling, good/excellent payload capability, and operation from less than ideal surfaces. Good visibility, 1-pilot operation, but suitable for having 2 crew members in the 'B' version, mostly for training though.
Click to expand...
A7 Corsair II ? I started a thread some moons ago about that
Not sure if that would be helpful here
A7 is slow though
 
Last edited:

Blue cat

tomo pauk said:
The term 'fast' from the title is Mach 1.5+, clean - sorta what Jaguar, MiG-27 or F-5E was capable for. The smaller cannon is perhaps the KCA - still a powerful 30mm gun, but less of a brute then the GAU-8 was, and with lower RoF. A 20mm gun will no cut it, tank plinking is still a requirement (regardless of reality of that requirement). Armor protection for the pilot is also a requirement - note that both Jaguar and MiG-27 have had armor for pilot - so is the redundancy of most critical systems. Preferably 2 engines per aircraft, preferably turbofans. I'd also add the requirement for laser range finder & designator - not what A-10 had in the 1980s. No radar required (even though it would've been great for the weather conditions of Europe). A fixed wing design, ie. no swing-wing.
Without the requirement for true Mach 2 capability, design of intakes, nozzles etc can be much simpler, lighter and cheaper, again as per MiG-27 or Jaguar.

Aircraft might be a clean-sheet design, or a spin-off from an existing aircraft, while being suitable for good low-speed handling, good/excellent payload capability, and operation from less than ideal surfaces. Good visibility, 1-pilot operation, but suitable for having 2 crew members in the 'B' version, mostly for training though.
Click to expand...
I'm curious about the need for Mach 1.5+ clean speed for this application ? Is it an absolute must have, or something that would be nice to have if other must haves (ie. a high power to weight ratio for other reasons) make it fairly simple to get.

Maybe the ability to fly at Mach 1.5+ without significant external stores might be of some value in escaping from or evading hostile fighters or perhaps serving as a backup interceptor in a WW3 type of setting ?

I like the idea of the KCA seeing more use.
 

Father Maryland

Monk78 said:
A7 Corsair II ? I started a thread some moons ago about that
Not sure if that would be helpful here
A7 is slow though
Click to expand...
Yeah when I'd posted above I had forgotten that the USAF had actually used the A7. The upgraded version capable of a max of Mach 1.2 seems like it would fit the role. The Smaller gun is less important for ground attack work by the 1980s. More important are dumb rockets, dumb bombs, cluster bombs, napalm, and ground attack missiles and guided bombs.

Things like say AGM 65 Mavericks are way more important then cannons by then.

Now that I think about it it would be interesting if the USAF, or at least the ANG had acquired a mix of the upgraded A7s and F20s in TL.
 

Carl Schwamberger

Politically ASB, but give the Army the money so it can build more fire support choppers. Hardened high firepower birds, so every division has at least a battalion & every corps HQ one or two more. If the USAF wants to fly high, faster, further let it & let the Army have its own proper CAS.
 

racevedo88

Dont forget one of the most important aspect of CAS aircraft is combat loiter time or time on station. An A-10 has a time on station of 2 hours, an F-16 is about 30 minutes. Both aircraft can refuel to extend their time on station, so to keep an A-10 on station for 4 hours you will need 1 refueling for a fast attack or F16 you will need 8 Refueling's with its impact on pilot fatigue and the requirement for more tankers
 

CV12Hornet

That was in fact the driving force behind the A-10 - while the Super Sabre, which did most of the heavy lifting in South Vietnam early in the war, was remarkably accurate, ground troops were not fond of its lack of loiter capability.

racevedo88 said:
Dont forget one of the most important aspect of CAS aircraft is combat loiter time or time on station. An A-10 has a time on station of 2 hours, an F-16 is about 30 minutes. Both aircraft can refuel to extend their time on station, so to keep an A-10 on station for 4 hours you will need 1 refueling for a fast attack or F16 you will need 8 Refueling's with its impact on pilot fatigue and the requirement for more tankers
Click to expand...
Worth noting that the Block 15 F-16s had an hour of loiter time at a combat radius of 100 miles. This is about the same as the A-7K. If the F-16 lacks suitable loiter time, then so does the A-7.
 

Monk78

racevedo88 said:
Dont forget one of the most important aspect of CAS aircraft is combat loiter time or time on station. An A-10 has a time on station of 2 hours, an F-16 is about 30 minutes. Both aircraft can refuel to extend their time on station, so to keep an A-10 on station for 4 hours you will need 1 refueling for a fast attack or F16 you will need 8 Refueling's with its impact on pilot fatigue and the requirement for more tankers
Click to expand...
Wow did not realize how thirsty supersonic jets are
It’s like my lab vs my moms chihuahua
 

DougM

My truck is not very fast. My friends Corvette will win in any race. But when you attach my 27’ trailer to them both my truck is going to win.
This is the problem with fast supersonic jets. They typically slow down a LOT when you start adding weight to them (and drag) from bombs and extra fuel and such.
And the clean speed is not of use when you are not clean.
I seam to recall an artical where they pointed out that a Hornet with max fuel tanks/bombs was not really any faster or maneuverable then an A6 and had a shorter range. And if it had to fight it would drop all that to be able to fight and thus you could intercept and stop the ground attack just by showing up you didn't need yo shoot it down, So you end up with Hornets escorting hornets. Not much different then Hornets escorting Attack aircraft. So unless these things can carry a big load, stay around a long time and all while still be able to go super sonic then most the time they wont yo supper sonic. Or knowing the US Airfirce most the time they will go supersonic but will mot carry many weapons or stay around very long because the USAF LOVES its fast jets.
The point of ground attack is to hit a target on the ground often one that is hard to hit and disturbingly close to friendlies. Accuracy lots of weapons to hit many targets and the ability to stay around as ling as possible are important for ground support. Going fast does not help with any of that.
 

Canuck Wingnut

I had forgotten about this, an option that was considered at the time which might be able to meet all of your requirements.

In essence, it was an F-16 variant, designed for ground attack and carrying a 30mm gun pod.

If they hadn't been so insistent on ammo compatibility with the A-10's gun the project might have succeeded. Whether the benefits of higher speed and commonality with the USAF's F-16 fleet would have been worth less armor and loiter time is left as an exercise to the reader- though they did look into some impressive (for the time) avionics upgrades to try to limit the effects of the latter.
 

tomo pauk

Throwing in some numbers about respective aircraft.
A-10 carried ~ 11K lbs of fuel, F-16A/C about 7k lbs, the A-7K some 9260 lbs (all internal fuel tankage).

People said that F-16 has much worse loiter time than A-10. It does - 1 hour at 100 nmi, with 6 MK 82 bombs, when cruising at above 30000 ft and at 490 kt (all per SAC sheets). The A-10 was cruising at 300 kt and at 15000 ft with same payload in order to reach 130 nmi distant 'kill box' (as per NATOPS manual) with 1500 lbs of fuel used to get there; it will also use 470 lbs of fuel for take off anc climb to 15000 ft, covering 18 nmi in process. We can bet that an A-10 that attempts to cruise above 30000 ft and at 490 kt will be burning it's fuel at much greater rate. Conversely, a 'fast attacker' that cruises at leisurely pace at 15000 ft will be burning less fuel than the aforementioned F-16.

So our A-10 drops down to 500 ft, still at 300 kt speed when searching for targets and not making itself a predictable target for the enemy AA defenses. 300 kt at SL with bombs attached requires power setting at maximum, with fuel consumption of ~7100 lbs/hr for both engines. 30 min time on station + combat = uses 3550 lbs of fuel. It also expands all ammo, deploys all flares, so the weight after those 30 min is almost 31000 lbs. It climbs to 15000 ft while making 12 nmi and using 320 lbs of fuel. It will use 1484 lbs of fuel to cover 138 miles left to the base. NATOPS manual specifies 2000 lbs of fuel reserve.

NATOPS manuals are free for download, eg. here for the A-10A.

tl;dr: the 4 hour loiter time for the A-10 requires the use of drop tanks above battlefield, or in-flight refueling within a spitting distance from enemy forces. How much drop tanks are compatible with swanning above the firing zone is anyone's guess.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top