Building Your Stupid Ideas in Flyout: Part 1
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 05. 2024
- Can the A-10 REALLY be stealth? Probably not, but here's a fair shakedown.
Flyout Discord (JOIN FOR MORE INFO ONTHE GAME): / discord
[Join my discord!]: / discord
Twitch: / messier82ap (I never stream except maybe once a year btw)
RIPPLE TANK SIMULATION: www.falstad.com/ripple/
Thank you for watching! :) - Hry
Okay guys, to clear things up, this video is primarily a satire. The modern A-10 C can in fact carry APKWS and targeting pods. However, almost throughout the entirety of this video, I reference the earlier A-10 A. While it can in the modern age use targeting systems, the "improvement" on this one is an integrated targeting system that can be used without compromising stealth. Plus, IMO, a majority of the Friendly-Fire problems with the A-10 were due to its primary use in higher risk for friendly fire CAS missions, as well as a lack of communication between pilots. As mentioned before, the A-10 is not a poorly designed plane by any metric but fails to have a dedicated task in the modern age. While a lot of people seem to strongly dislike or like the A-10, I find myself incredibly neutral on the actual vehicle. However, in a primarily satire video, I couldn't help but make fun of it. Take it all with a grain of salt.
You are factually incorrect.
With the war on the Middle East kinda over for the US, though they may come back T some point, the A-10 is essentially a niche solution that's looking for a problem; the issue is, there are also other planes that can solve that problem.
Hello. Flyout. Thank you! I was planning on looking up mods for DCS. I could use help to quickly model something in for repairs and the time being now. Apparently, Grim Reapers, their DCS mod guy, CH, as well as Alex Hollings of Sandboxx, and others can't be bothered. I do not want to post publicly, at least until the concept is worthy of showing visually to take to the ones who could make things happen. The military industrial complex CEO types are too insulated from contact from normal folks. Imagine one craft on the sea which could hurl 10 to 13 times the attack and defense packages of an Arleigh Burke type at say, China. One unit per task group. That is just the beginning. Curious? Is there a way to contact besides this open area? Channel creators used to be able to message directly.
Okay. The A10 issue? Solved for the most part. The F35C. Why? More wing area, over double the thrust with possibly more than one type of thrust cycle and stealth. Sensors like crazy. Does it have 2 engines and a titanium bathtub? No, but it isn't supposed to really get in close, at least not until a hierarchy of needs in eliminating risks is completed. Sure, there is a 25mm gun pod, which is nearly as effective as a GAU-8, but far less ammo. I tried to get Grim Reapers, CH attention and again, too busy. I guess my idea isn't crucial, if anyone knew the attrition of Russian armor and the Chinese paper tiger. An old, canceled project of laser guided (not much as so fast) kinetic toothpicks. Looked into size and capacity/weight. 32 internal and 100 in murder mode. Over 3x the range of the GAU-8, if memory serves. Interested?
@@skyrimpro117 you could've said something of value, but all I see is opinion
Jesus dont jumpscare me like that with an a9
Therapist: American su-25 isn't real it can't hurt you
American su-25 aka A-9: 😀
@@SpartanJey1219 lmao i was coming here to say that XD
@@ndfgaming6824 lol 😆
I jumped out of my chair and through the roof
Looks better than the a10
I dont think the Wipeout from Arma is meant to be a ''Stealth A-10'' per-say, more of a ''Legally distinct American ground support aircraft''
Like everything else, it is an "extrapolation" of the A-10 life extensions and refits on the table with yeah, some shape changes to make it juuuuuust legally distinct enough.
Really the biggest difference is the air to air package it has in the plane showcase, just Why
@@destructorinatorconsider that it's really funny
(Also, it used to be the only fixed wing aircraft for NATO for years before the fighter jets dlc came out)
The equipment in that game is basically to give you a feeling of familiarity for what a future war could be while also not having to pay for expensive licensing fees.
From the description of the plane in game:
"The A-164 Wipeout is a single-seat aircraft used for close air support and air interdiction. The life-cycle of its predecessor, the A-10, ended in 2030 and the need for replacement grew more important with the rising tension in the Pacific. A limited development budget did not allow for a fresh start, instead the concept of the A-10 was improved with better shape, engines and armaments. Wipeout is armed with a 30 mm seven-barrel Minigun, Falchion-22 short range air-to-air missiles, Macer air-to-ground missiles, unguided Shrieker rockets (HE and AP variants) and GBU-12 laser guided bombs."
So no. They had 0 issue using A-10's in the OG's, and they had 0 issue using them in COD and other games.
@@Wolfstanus You really DON'T need to pay for "licensing fees" when making a video game aircraft
Otherwise every plane sim and strategy game like Warno would go bankrupt before they can release it
JFC, i sometimes honestly think you people just say stuff without even thinking about it for a second. There's TONS of games that feature modern US weaponry without needing to pay any license. World in Conflict comes to mind too. The entirety of the wargame series.
Tbf, I think Arma 3's version was less "make it stealth" and more "make an A-10 we don't have to pay a license for".
I think one of the reasons the A-10 engine sits that high on the airframe is because lower the intake duct will make engine choke on smoke the gun generated, which in this build you didn't do. So the stealth A--10 is even more impossible now.
Another reason for the high/rear positioning was protection against AA guns.
It also helps hide the exhaust from ground-based IR sensors.
It's also for protection against FOD when operating from field airstrips, and to allow the engines to be kept running while the aircraft is serviced and rearmed between sorties to reduce turnaround times.
I would have answered but folks beat me to it. There's a few advantages, including keeping dust out of the engines, and extra IR shielding from the ground to protect the vehicle from being shot down. This design did not need to worry about heat due to the typical active cooling systems of stealth aircraft, but sacrificed the high mounted intake to have s-ducting, and I moved it far enough back where it would (hopefully) not ingest high levels of gun debris. Unfortunately there isn't exactly a way to tell in flyout for sure
Would having the intake above the body (a la B-2/B-21) work? It’d fit with the austere runway requirements and reduce required ducting giving more room for internal ordinance.
It would have the high AoA problems but A-10s aren’t pulling high-G turns as it is now.
Then it would just feel like a compromised stealth bomber with a gun.
That thing would fit greatly, into the aesthetics of Nuclear Option.
I was about to say the same
@@TheRealMeowMeow01 Same 😅
No way people know about nuclear option
@@alqash6749 if they know about flyout, there's a chance they knew Nuclear option, it's still in the same "Genre circle" with Tiny combat arena, Sprocket, simpleplanes etc...
@@alqash6749 Game may explode. It plays well.
to all the people who've suggested "make a supersonic biplane" look up the ace combat X-49 Night Raven. that technically qualifies as a supersonic biplane.
it has has two staggered wing assemblies, and has supersonic capable jet engines.
*squewe voice acting*
honorable mention:
goofy ahh plen 2
The XR-900 Geopelia is a Neucom-made tailless, supersonic biplane that features lots of curvatures, aeon-dependent engines, satellite laser connection, supermaneuverability, COFFIN systems, and brain synapses systems, made by former engineers of the similar aircraft X-49 Night Raven, to improve upon the already outstanding stats from said aircraft. To obtain the-
*squewe outro*
Or look up the PZL M-15 Belphegor. It’s not supersonic, but it is, to my knowledge, the only jet powered biplane.
To all those asking why we don't have a supersonic biplane, it's because drag increases exponentially the faster you get, and eventually you reach a point where the benefits of extra lift are canceled out by all the drag and it's just more efficient to use a single wing.
A fellow connoisseur of the sacred texts I see. Good thing Renas flying a flanker
Imagine the sheer terror on the enemys face when out of nowhere, a BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT comes, they can`t lock you on radars, they can`t use MANPADS against you, and you just fly away into nowhere. Imagine using these for night raids. Radar cannot spot it, IRS cannot target it, everybody is asleep but their demise is rapidly approaching their location...
effective ? yes. worth it, not really. you could achieve the same effect with a stealth drone equiped with a dozen hellfires. all they will see is the beep of their EWS suddenly seeing missiles popping out of nowhere and raining precision fire on all of their anti-air before they even know what happened.
Btw for anyone that doesn't know, IRS is infrared radar sistem, not the tax one
⬇️the bottom comment is prob correct, I just guessed from the abbreviation.
Just a small correction. It's not IRS it's IRST and it stands for InfraRed Search and Track
Stealth doesn't mean invisible, just shorter range. The range the gun works at is way too close for radars or IR sensors to end up seeing you anyways.
or just do drones
"..this is why A-10 doesnt really have a place in modern combat..."
But it has a place in my heart ❤
This plane features some admittedly, very close design elements as other stealth aircraft of past and present. The nose section feels very reminiscent of the F-22 & F-35 to a lesser degree. The engine section is clearly inspired by the YF-23, which ultimately makes sense considering the YF-23 prioritized stealth over maneuverability though it definitely wasn't a slouch in the latter category like the A-10 is.
Ultimately I still don't see this being effective, it still retains alot of the features that make the A-10 sluggish like it's UAV-like wings while now costing an absurd amount of money being a 5th generation aircraft, ultimately the takeaway remains that this thing would be a waste of money in every way imaginable.
Still stealthier than the SU-57 though.
Maybe the real stealth A10 is a F117 with a gun pod
@@Appletank8 No, the real stealth A-10 where the (lack) of friends we made along the way.
Yes I'm making that dumbass joke.
It has way more hardpoints and bigger weapons bay than the F-35, so it's a waste of money, but not even near as much as Fat Amy is right now...
The gun is useless, though.
@@noyrz F-35 was a money dump piece of crap wannabe F-22 that should've just been the YF-23 and nobody can change my mind.
@@noyrz Technically speaking these days the F-35s are quite cheap to buy. Much cheaper than 4th gens, at I think about $80mil(F-35A), compared to 4.5th gens, which can be above $100mil(Typhoon, Rafale, Super Hornet etc... are quite expensive). Fairly expensive maintenance wise, but that's typical for 5th gens.
Also stop believing the anti-F-35 propaganda, stop pretending you know better than the many engineers who designed the aircraft, or the pilots who fly it, its dumb. By the way, not sure if you're are aware of this, but every new aircraft was slandered in the same way, with almost no exceptions, so I wouldn't believe any of it, the media knows literally nothing about aviation.
The F-15 was too complex and expensive and couldn't dogfight(now the most effective fighter jet possibly ever), the F-22 was way too expensive and unneeded, the Panavia Tornado was too expensive and too complex and too technologically reliant(served effectively for years), the Harrier was a useless air show gimmick(served effectively for years and had a perfect a2a kill ratio in the Falklands), the F-111 was quite harshly criticised and ended up being quite good etc... etc... no doubt there are many more examples(the fun way to find them is read through old aviation books). Now of course people say "Why did they retire the Tornado/Harrier so early, they could've kept flying"(Of course these were pretty great bomber aircraft, but they were harshly, wrongly criticised when the first entered service) or "Why do we need the F-35, why don't we just upgrade the F-15, and we already have the F-22"(Of course forgetting how expensive and controversial those programs were).
I would recommend "F-35" by Tom Burbage, its a fascinating book on what seems to be a very capable and impressive aircraft and program, it's very interesting.
Anyway in theory the F-35 can carry enough internally to complete its mission, whatever that might be, and in less contested airspace it can carry more externally if required. This shouldn't be shocking, because that's how stealth aircraft work, ultimately to maintain a degree of low observability weapons must be stored internally, and because you have to fit other equipment in the jet, the size of these weapons bays will be limited, that's how its supposed to work. Not to mention of course the networking, sensor, electronic warfare and reconnaissance capabilities of the F-35, which already put it above 4.5th gens in theory, which would probably have already been detected in an internal weapons bays only scenario, whatever that may lead to, because of course the range at which an F-35 can be detected is in theory significantly lower than its predecessors.
But, honestly, if you feel you can design an aircraft with the internal capacity of a fully loaded 4.5 generation fighter, with I don't know, mach 3 performance(speed is of course mostly irrelevant past mach 1 because if you look at statistics, or just read accounts aircraft almost never seem to fly supersonic, and certainly almost never at mach 2+), perfect stealth, low maintenance costs, with cheap development and production costs go and speak to the government, because they'd be very interested in what you have to say.
Just interested in what you think a currently existing, viable F-35 alternative is, and an upgraded F-15(or other 4th gens like Typhoon, Gripen etc...) obviously isn't an acceptable answer, because they are being adopted to use alongside F-35s regardless.
Until then the F-35 will probably just continue flying in increasingly high numbers, with even more air forces and continue to be upgraded to more impressive standards. Honestly the thing looks amazing as well.
In ten-fifteen years, its entirely possible that no one will remember the controversy around the aircraft, and people will say "Why do we need the FCAS/Tempest/NGAD/F-XX?, why can't we just make more cheaper fighters like the F-35?"
I like the "grin" it makes when the panel for the GAU is retracted. slightly silly, but also a bit intimidating
Its that "Ohh, you gonn' get it now, son." smirk
The A-11 “GodHog”
"Oh shit, where?!"
"Where? It's both everywhere and nowhere."
Technically is should be A-13. A-11 & A-12 were Navy stealth attack planes in the same vein of thinking as the F-117 Nighthawk that never got off the ground.
@@pyronuke4768 NAVY!?!? They were USAF and CIA planes lmfaoooo
@@StryderFi that A-12 was circa 1960 and has nothing to do with attack planes. The A-10 was first flown in the 70's, and the sequential follow on A-12 was late 80's/early 90's. If you are still unsure, look up McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II.
Radio Engineer here.
Making something more "angular" is actually making that thing more detectable by radar.
Whole reason of stealth aircraft is to avoid 90 degrees angles, make any cross section smaller and make surface as smooth as possible. Because 3, 90 degrees angles will reflect ray directly to the sender on whole area, 2 90 degrees do that in a line, and a sphere does that in a single point.
What we see irl for stealth aircraft is trading between lower cross section and air-frame strength
Four sound waves, curves with radius in the range of the wavelength allow the wave to propagate along their surface, unsure about radio. Apart from that, for stealth, you want flat surfaces at as acute an angle to the imcoming radar as feasable. Thats why nighthawk has a single flat bottom.
I hate to be that guy but the f117 wasn't and isn't now really a good plane, it was mostly a practical test bed for stealth and not a SEAD aircraft being that it was only officially armed with two hard points and mostly only carried JDAM's, laser guided bombs, and tactical nukes (though those never got used). It couldn't do the job of SEAD,CAS or most anything other then precision bombing, that's why the f-22 and f-35 exist and now the f117 serves as a trainer for current stealth aircraft.
In my opinion the real reason a "stealth a-10" doesn't and probably will never exist is simple, its designed to carry to many munitions. All of those bombs and missiles strapped to it make it very "unstealthy" so you'd go through all of the cost to make a "stealth a-10" just to functionally come out with an obese f-35 that would carry maybe slightly more weapons in its bays handle like a barge and be sent on missions that would throw away the stealth just to put all the bombs and missiles back onto hard points.
The A-10 started losing its role the day precision munitions came onto the market. You don't really need loiter time and big guns when you can drop a bomb or missile from 20 miles away and hit an ant in the butt, and be turned around and heading back home long before anyone can even dream of shooting back at you.
No that's almost exactly my point. It feels like by building a stealth A-10, we're just making a worse F-117, which was barely usable in the first place (albeit the best plane for SEAD during its conception many years ago, it got quickly replaced). The F-117 is only used in red-flag operations as an aggressor to train the military to detect stealth vehicles.
Hence why this video is ultimately poking fun at the stupid ideas of the internet
Something 99% of people forget about when it comes to stealth is, you don’t expose the aircraft to radar systems in the first place, if you don’t absolutely have to. It’s why the B2 spends all its time in the US and why it’s never sent out to do any type of strategic missions, the air force doesn’t want it getting soaked by an S-400 radar every time it goes out to do a mission because eventually it’ll get locked up, which is the exact thing that happened with the F-117. With that said, that’s the reason a stealth A-10 is not only stupid but also wouldn’t work. It would work just long enough until some radar team pulled enough voodoo magic and locked it…or waited till it opened the door to fire the GAU and the radar soaked up all that hot shiny metal.
Please give us the 100 year development part 2, please, I beg you
And 110 likes in 5 hours is shocking
I asked and he said he will
@@legosrcool3420yea I asked in the Flyout discord and he said he will definitely continue it
That video is about 2 weeks away I believe
@@messier82acthe man the myth the legend himself
@@messier82ac thank you, thank you
While the A10 doesn't really have much purpose in modern warfare, rule of cool keeps it alive in our hearts. And your Warthog II design is damn sexy.
The A-10 does have precision targeting and PGM capabilities now. They've been equipped with Sniper and LITENING targeting pods for using weapons such as APKWS, mavericks, JDAMs, paveways, and SDB I.
It's disadvantage for CAS is mainly it's lack of speed so it can't respond as quickly and it's higher cost than other similarly slow low capability platforms such as turboprops.
How sadly ironic that what was meant to be a mass-produced low-cost CAS plane is now a dying money pit only kept alive through sheer politics and PR.
Yeah I was gonna say. Sure it can't mount Hellfires, but that's only because Hellfires are a shorter range weapon than Mavericks, both of which are Precision Guided Anti Tank weapons
And the single seat nature means that the pilot has to fly and look through thermal optics at the same time, (multitasking is inherently inefficient)
The later upgrades of the A-10 can absolutely carry precision munitions, I specifically mention hellfires because of their high precision, low cost, and low explosive radius. I've found a few accounts of A-10 pilots wishing they could use them, most likely due to their modern role in COIN operations. Also, as mentioned before, the A-10 lacked an integrated targeting system. While this isn't a problem for a regular A-10, it is critical for a theoretical "stealth" A-10. Apologies for the confusion.
These are bolt on kits though, they're not integrated and internal. This means that the when he was modelling around it's airframe and systems it wasn't present as they're external features.
Its not a feature of the aircraft as much a feature of the targeting pod, which you could theoretically tape to a 737 if you wanted to.
Finally a stealth A10 video I don't feel the need to comment " 1. Not real 2. Stupid idea"
I think your version is about as accurate as a "real life" one would be. But also a glaring demonstration as to why it's never going to happen.
Well done
Stealth A-10 makes sense if it was a drone designed for high risk, high reward missions, where speed and evasion of enemy radar is of importance, and conditions (like range, and enemy counter battery ability, lack of long range fast cruise missiles) do not allow for use of artillery or missiles.
A known column of hostile armor which sits just outside of conventional armaments use, is a situation which happened just two years ago IRL. Which means it will likely happen again.
Assuming in the future we could use 3D printers to quickly produce replacable drones and *somehow* make stealth cheaper, I guess it sounds reasonable. Assuming loosing them by the dozen is acceptable given replacement time and the stealth is there so they can get to the mission area without being detected and that's it because once they start shooting half of the continent will know they're there.
You made this jet's aesthetics harmonize the boundaries between brutal, unchecked, and visceral versus elegant, versatile, and surreal. I love how intentional everything about your design feels. It's my favorite concept I've seen.
Honestly I love the fact you took the time to practically merge the A-10, F-22 and F-35 into one package and took the time to explain, within legal boundaries of cause, how stealth craft work and noting the absurd claims of the Horton based purely of an amateurs understanding of IRL stealth craft, physics and how wooden mock ups aren't a thing. Honestly would love to see this series if its like a hybrid of explaining aviation history, engineering and explaining how the physics work whilst attempting to achieve silly ideas in a fun tone. Gives me Martincitopants KSP series vibe and I mean that in the best way possible.
DC-10 interceptor
Not the Coffin Box☠
While we'd all love to imagine a stealth A-10, I'd just be happy to see a (not specifically a warthog/thunderbolt!) stealth aircraft designed to fill the same niche, but adapted more towards the modern battlefield and doctrines. Not held back by the idea that it has to follow any part of the same design language.
Like, the warthog no longer fills the niche it was designed for (effectively, at least!) but what if we made something wholly new, that *does* effectively fill that niche again.
And, like you said, stealth aircraft aren't cheap, but from another point of logic... Stealth technologies are intended to make something less likely to be shot down. And what's the most costly part of an aircraft outside of maintenance? Replacing them when they get shot down and macro part replacement when larger portions of the aircraft are hit but still make it back to base with that massive damage. If they're less likely to be shot down, shot at in the first place, or near impossible when used correctly, that's the biggest part of the expenses of maintaining a fleet effectively cut. So, by a somewhat reaching technicality, they are... TECHNICALLY less expensive to use. Just not in the long run because those maintenance costs will still add up over time.
The issue with the A-10 isnt that it no longer fills a certain niche, it still performs well in the role it was designed for.
The issue is that its role is no longer required, the F-35 can perform ground attack (including CAS) better than the A-10 ever could.
The niche of having a plane that can “roll with the punches” is just no longer required since PGM’s have made it so a plane no longer needs to be close to what it is shooting at. And this has been the case since desert storm, (the f-111 notoriously outperformed the A-10 in its own role)
Also because pilots are expensive and losing a pilot looks bad on TV.
@@koekiejam18Depending on how you define the "role it was designed for", the A-10 actually isn't performing "well", and perhaps never did.
They did some tests against armor in _ideal_ conditions, and, as it turned out, the A-10's gun just wasn't capable of reliably penetrating the heavy armor. In other words, it would mostly only be good against more lightly armored vehicles (APCs, SPGs, jeeps, etc.). Anything near an actual tank or an IFV, it just can't hurt it sufficiently.
Source: LazerPig (on the A-10).
The Air Force should tear up that memo they had with the Army about CAS, and just turn over all the A-10s to Army Aviation. The Army has plenty of experience with fixed-wing, just none of them (as far as we know) have any offensive capabilities. That'll Free up funds for the Air Force for the 6th Gen Stealth. Win-Win! Fun video - Fly Army! 🚁
Army top brass doesn't want it, and the manufacturing capabilities for replacement parts are gone. Like a classic car, it's only going to get more and more expensive as parts near their end of life.
@@FawfulDied True that, yet there are plenty of A-10s in the boneyard, so who knows how much longer that could indeed keep her flying. Wishful thinking, and fun to think about!
@@John_SlideRule_Bullay well that and the fact that air-force really wants to retain that memo they have with the army about Cas. cos if they tear it up it means less funding for them and more funding the army.
@@generalkenobi5173 Always follow the money!
@@John_SlideRule_Bullay ya
15:44 the YF 23 had RAM mixed in with the polycarbonate to help reduce its radar cross section and honestly id be surprised if other stealth aircraft didn't do something similar
*Waits for the Warthog PR Corps to start flaming the comments* :P
Don't get me wrong, , I have a sweet spot for the Thunderbolt II. It's a distinctive, charismatic (in a weird kinda way) and unique aircraft with the world's deadliest stogie sticking out of it's mouth. It's got a long and impressive (if at times controversial) combat record, and is well-loved by the troops it's supported over 40-odd years of service (despite having the worst record of Blue on Blue of any USAF strike platform).
Having said that, it's also got some serious flaws, as mentioned in the video. And it's old. From memory the last A-10s rolled off the production line in the early to mid '80s. Yes, updates and refits have amended some of the more glaring oversights of the initial design, but there's only so much refitting can do to compensate for metal fatigue and the increasing cost of spare parts.
And this is all without discussing if the design's initial role (to provide close air support over the front line against a peer or near-peer opponent in contested airspace) is viable now. assuming it was ever viable at all (and that argument's been raging since before the first YA-10A flew).
And like another plane with a porcine nickname I love (the F-111, here in Oz we used to call them 'The Pig' or 'The Razorback'), My personal affection for the plane doesn't change the reality of modern battlespaces or the physics of aerodynamics and material degradation. And again, as pointed out in the video, there's platforms that can do the jobs the A-10 has been doing, either cheaper, with greater chances of success, better accuracy, or a combination of the above.
It's time for the A-10 to make one last long BRRRT into the sunset. She will be missed, sure, but as with all things the Warthog's time has come.
We should make a supersonic CAS platform
@@Techno_Idioto It already exists.
It's called an F-16.
The stealth version's called the F-35. :P
@@malusignatius I thought it was the F-15. Ah well, the F-16 and F-35 are fine aircraft.
@@Techno_Idioto The F-16's the interdictor/deep strike version.
The biggest irony about the A10 is that it’s gun is actually it’s worst feature. The fanboys love it for the simple fact that “big gun go brrrt” but it was obsolete before it entered service. The 30mm simply cannot penetrate Soviet armour (the one thing it was designed to do). The only thing that kept it relevant was it’s ability to mount external ordnance while operating in a mostly low threat environment.
Honestly, F-35 is probably what you want from a stealth A-10. Some versions even have a 25 mm rotary cannon
F-35 fails in two categories, engine redundancy/durability. CAS, it can be as stealthy as it wants but some IR MANPADS can still smack it out of the air.. A-10 could survive a hit from one of those and may still make it home.. limping, but make it. F-35 has no such ability. Loitering capability is also an issue. Fast stealth jets are nice but when they run out of ammo fast and you have a prolonged engagement on the ground the last thing you want is your air support blowing its load early and going home, leaving you with nothing.. which is all the 35 can really do. Stealth loadout doesn't have enough weapons to keep the fire support coming. Not saying the A-10 is better, it is past its due date, but there is nothing really in the US arsenal that fulfills the CAS role really well that has any kind of stealth.
@@Grisbane
The F-16 was more than *3x more survivable* per sortie than the A-10 in Desert Storm on the same ground attack missions.
F-16: 13,087 sorties, 3 losses, ~1:4350 loss per sortie
A-10: 8084 sorties, 6 losses, ~1:1350 loss per sortie
Gulf War Air Power Survey - Thomas A. Keaney & Eliot A. Cohen
That's a single-engine, "low redundancy/durability" fast jet with no low observability modifications.
A-10 taking hits and making it back through sheer willpower/tankiness is 100% a myth. In reality, being able to escape enemy fire in the first place is way more survivable than "armor" or "redundancy". The onion exists for a reason.
@@Warriorcat49 where did the 16 come into this convo? this was between the F-35 and A-10.. 35 is not nearly as fast nor can carry nearly as much in the stealth configuration as a 16 can normally. The 16 is not a stealth aircraft and does not rely on low observability for survival, unlike the 35. 16 not being stealth also can carry external fuel with little downside (outside drag/weight increase), negating the loiter issue. I know the 16 is perfectly capable in CAS, so is the Strike Eagle and Super Hornet. Next time try not bringing a strawman argument.
@@Grisbane you missed one thing... the F35 is a stealth aircraft, no one is locking onto it with a manpad, not to mention it's much faster.
@@sneakysnake7695 Stealth on the 35 is referencing the frontal radar cross-section/observability. Most MANPAD's are IR based.. and the 35's engines don't have the heat diffusion the 117, 22, b-2 and b-21 do/did. They can very much lock onto the 35. 35 because of issues with the surfaces on it largely needs to fly below supersonic speeds, it can go fast, but typically do not because of how much higher speeds damage flight surfaces. It can be prone to MANPAD fire. the chance to hit is lower than against the A-10 for sure, but if it does get smacked, the pilot likely dies, for certain the aircraft won't survive it.
0:25
*Spiderman pointing at Spiderman meme*
I am so much in the radar right now. Maybe I need some coating
I don't think we should always assume ultra-modern warfare. Forecasts make the mistake of always assuming that our opponents are fighting with similar equipment, e.g. in the Ukraine Russia is deploying T-72 tanks, while Mig-29s and Su-27s are still often the standard in terms of flight technology. So there are still situations in which, for example, an A10 can fulfill exactly the purpose for which it was once conceived.
Despite everything, it looks extremely cool.
22:32 bro gave the civilians run for their money (also incredible looking plane you've built there :D)
I think you should make the best WW2 dog fighter. Using modern aerodynamic and engineering knowledge.
Already exists
Thanks
This Plane looks great
Great success!
Also I can't wait for the second part of the 100-years-series.
I like how you mentioned having external missiles would mess up the stealth, but still went for those in the final display.
My stupid idea: make an artificially stable, thrust vectoring, delta wing with cannards
3:15 correction it can indeed mount guided munitions especially the newer variants of the A-10 and if it has a targetting pod on it. Also I love how you said the A-10 cant carry guided munitions but in multiple photos you showed it was carrying said guided munitions...
"Decent precision munitions for COIN". I refer to the hellfire specifically in this instance due to its practical use in counter-insurgency. While they can mount precision munitions, there are many precision munitions designed specifically for those insurgency airspaces that are far better than what the a-10 can currently carry. I have found multiple accounts of pilots wishing they could use hellfires due to high mounting volume. Did I not mention some of the other precision munitions the a-10 could carry later in the video?
To be honest, the point you made at the end of the video is similar to what I was thinking, a modern stealth A-10 just seems like an F-35. It just so happens that an F-35 can somewhat fill this role but the reason it actually exists is that it can also fill other modern combat roles well too, at the compromise of objective specialised performance. It's the unholy combination between expensive stealth plane that you really don't want to lose that somehow has to do CAS right next to the enemy that makes this challenge so difficult, so props to you for making something cool with that
I think the way to win people over who cling to the A-10 is to design a new weapon for our stealth aircraft that also does what the A-10's gun does.
Intimidate.
Perhaps a modified mk-82 with medium drag and a simple ram air siren on it's tail, several dropped from high altitude could be a drawn out chorus of sirens getting closer and closer before ultimately exploding, Perhaps even above ground with a proximity fuse.
Relatively inexpensive modification to a weapon that is already in large supply.
I want to go back in time to the inventor of the A-10 and scream "JUST BUILD A FUCKING HELICOPTER!"
Because a helicopter wouldve been so much better for what it was meant to do.
They actually tried, but gun on a heli does not work. A-10 was built in an era without smart weapons and unguided bombs were the way to go. Gun was the best choice for accuracy, which makes it useless in modern combat
they chose to develop the A10 after testing the AH-56 revealed gaps in the CAS capabilities of attack helicopters. the A10 has a lot more total payload, carries substantially longer range weapons, is better protected against MANPADs, is a lot faster, has better maintenance uptime, and is a lot cheaper both to buy and maintain (you can get 4 warthogs for the price of 1 apache). it's genuinely hard to beat as a tactical bomb truck/maverick flinger.
lol no
Doubles as a stealth Su-25 as well.
Enjoyed the video brother 💯 I think your design would be highly effective for the service 💪🏾.You have my support 💯🔥
I could watch so many of these videos its crazy, thank you for making them! Really interesting and made want to buy the game. Now im trying to design things myself
The new updates of the A-10Cs are actually pretty good with datalink target acquisition, an A-10C can basically hug the ground until a JTAC or an ATAC targets an enemy vehicle or ground troops, then they can approach the target and do a pop-up attack, maybe loft bombs or CCRP them directly on the enemy without ever directly looking at them, similar to what Russians are doing in Ukraine but with near real-time remote target acquisition and way better accuracy, it's actually insane, we're not talking about GPS bombs here, we're talking about one computer giving coordinates to another computer, this can be done using the A-10C's old Inertial Navigation System, with INS drift being corrected each time the A-10C reaches the Initial Point (entry point to the target area).
Meanwhile, an F-16C is gonna get whacked instantly by the many numbers of Russian/Chinese SAMs that are gonna be in the area, and besides they'd run out of fuel just getting to the target.
Honestly, the A-10C is the best aircraft for CAS even today. It's like a helicopter that can defend itself.
You know, I was on board with you until I remembered that the F-16 has the AGM-88 HARM in its inventory and has been used extensively in anti-radar site missions since the 80's.
or an f35 that does the same thing and also everything else, better
@@emmy8517 well, I'd argue the A-10 is better at strafing, but that's only because it was literally built for that kind of mission and you really don't want to take your super expensive and delicate fifth gen plane into small arms reach except as a last resort (though I'd say the same for a lot of fourth gens as well; the gun is basically a backup these days.)
@@emmy8517 The people who say the F-35 can do all the same things an A-10 can, are talking out of their rear. Sure, the F-35 can fly as slow as an A-10.... at a 45-degree AoA without the maneuverability. The F-35 also has nowhere near the loiter time the A-10 has. It most certainly cannot do FAC-A like the A-10 can, and it's more limited in CAS with a 1/4 of the payload. The Gun still has a lot of value when dealing with Russian or Chinese tank formations.
The issues the Air-force have with the A-10 mostly have to do with it hating the CAS mission. Survivability in a modern near peer fight really isn't the big deal they make it out to be, as F35's can roll in first and perform SEAD/DEAD giving the A-10 the safety it needs to work. The only thing the A-10 really needs is a radar, and an EPAWSS survivability system like the F-15EX has, and new engines. It shouldn't be too hard to crowbar in some sort of AESA radar and like was pointed out in the video there are more efficient powerful engines that are the same size.
@@mountedpatrolman Based on your own words. The only time the A-10 is viable is when the F-35 has already came and dropped bombs right next to its Target to take out the air defenses.
Regarding cost, I don't think it necessarily needs to be cheap, just less expensive than other stealth planes. Considering irl stealth projects have wound up expending trillions this could be a selling point, even market it as inexpensive, but whether or not _that's_ feasible is yet another question. I'd still love to see it as an Ace Combat mod.
I was expecting the A12 Silent Warthog design by Cesar Rizo, since that's my current standard for what is a next-gen/stealth A-10. _But this will do just fine._
Epic work as always, Messier, keep it up
Great work. Great explanation and reasoning. Not just throwing stuff at the wall and see what sticks, like many others
Subbed
Clear answer is to just make A-10 faster. Easy answer is more thrusty engines. Hard answer is tomcat swing wing version. A-10 is not the only non stealth plane in our arsenal. Hell we just dumped a few billion into updating the F-15 again. Of course that is a great plane. That plane also has a stealth option called the F-22. Of course the F-22 is expensive. A lot of that is also due to amortizing all that stealth R&D into less than 200 total airframes. Had we produced the 750 in the proposal, the per unit cost would have been less than 100m per plane. That new F-15EX has a flyaway cost of 95m....
That's just a more expensive mudhen.
Common misconception.
The A-10, in its designated role, is a beast to any Opfor on the ground. With the US's doctrine being built around air supremacy, the A-10 was designed to be a capable Air-to-Ground attack craft. It still outperforms every "modern" US aircraft that isn't already running in it's niche. The A-10 was never meant to tale on air targets, that was what the F-15 was for. It didn't need to contend with SEAD or anti-air defenses, because that's what the F-16 was for. It didn't need to strategically hit targets... Because that's what the F-111 was for. The A-10 had it's flaws, but for its purpose, it was stellar compared to the Harrier and Su-25.
I think if you added modest stealth to it a modern version of the A10 is still viable. Presently the A10 isn't really viable because it'd get eaten alive by AA very quickly. Create a cheap vehicle with *enough* stealth and ECM to have a decent chance of survival while flying low and slow and that role of speed hump and close air support is still useful.
You honestly made a truly beautiful aircraft, I know you were trying to stay true to the original A10 design, BUUTTT a bit of wing sweep or variable sweep wings would make it even better! (yes i know there are many issues with them) as it could have a high stall speed for carrier landings, high speed maneuvers, possible air combat, and avoiding AA fire.
I don't know if anybody else pointed out, but the GAU-8 is offset to the port side on the A-10 so the firing barrel is directly in the centre of the airframe. I think from what I see in your design, it's firing out the port side of the aircraft? Very minor nerdy avgeek point and I only mention it because I always thought that was a clever feature of the original. Love your work!
I like how you combined stealth and A-10. From that stealthy part, it reminds me my beloved YF-23
As dumb as the idea is, I adore it
YAY! New video!
One proposed role to keep the A-10 relevant in a peer conflict would be as a missile truck for cruise missiles or decoys like the ADM-160. One could possibly extrapolate this to long range air to air missiles (similar to what many see the F-15EX doing). Personally, I can see this providing CAS in “denied airspace” (although the lack of high speed would hamper any attempt to rapidly exit the combat zone or escape enemy fighters).
On a separate note, a bit disappointed that you didn’t throw on forward swept wings. I can understand the use of commercial jet engines from a cost perspective but out of curiosity, would you consider variable cycle adaptive engines viable for this?
Plz continue the 100 year development series
Saw this last night, so did not watch it until the morning, but after ~30s of pre-sleep thinking about how to make a stealth A-10 I had something close to a Bayraktar TB2.
Phenomenal video. I am a huge airplane nerd but learnt quite a few things in this video!!
.
I wish I could give this multiple likes because u deserve it imo!
This is honestly the first video I've heard that explained that the replacement for the A-10 was the nighthawk. It just makes so much sense. Either you need the stealth for air-to-ground engagements, or you don't. For stealth, the gun is worthless, so a high altitude flying wing design gets the best stealth capabilities with the highest payloads. For non-stealth insurgency missions, any US fighter can fill that role, because they don't have to worry about ground launched missiles. Lots of the upgraded packages like the F-15E include a "bomb truck" configuration for increasing carrying capacity to either drop bombs or be missile haulers for stealthier reconnaissance platforms.
In a similar vein, the replacement modern air-to-ground platform is the B-21 Raider. It's designed to be the cheapest stealth platform available, and built is huge numbers, it's designed for long ranges, large carrying capacity, and low maintenance costs. It's likely going to be exclusively used for air-to-ground operations, which basically does make it the modern day analog for the A-10. A cheap platform for ground support and lots of ordinance. Except instead of a titanium tub, it uses stealth to keep itself safe.
As for the weapons, lobbing tons of high explosives towards a target is mostly done with missiles now, which removes the need to worry about many things like loiter times and survivability. Missiles relegate bombs to the "we needed something dirt cheap and we aren't worrying about being shot down" category, and guns into the "don't" category.
Also, the A-10 gun sounds incredible, but it was likely ineffective for its primary purpose of air-to-ground. It turns out, even with a large gun, it's still hard to effectively target small vehicles on the ground. Dropping a single bomb is usually much more effective.
Watched this during my lunch break. And that commercial airplane reference had me laughing way too much...
I'm really looking forward to the rest of this series. Starting off with ideas which seem like pointless money pits that would make no sense in a modern military, and maybe at some point we come across something that we kinda like. I love this one - utterly pointless but it actually works. Only problem would be cost.
I like how you included the stealth f117, and how it was shot down. "Nismo znali da je nevidljiv"(we didnt know it was invisible)
Welcome back! It is great that you have returned! Love you videos so much!
Took me until the last seconds of the movie to notice the gun smoke ingress into the engine intake.
That aside, I love this design. Very visually appealing, even if it has no place in reality.
First of all even though i dont realy got a-10 vibes from your plane. I liked it very much. And second to your question at the and why stealth would just modernizing it not be a better task? I would love to see your take on modernizing the a-10! Emotions are very strong and since this is isnt real life i think we all would feel very happy to see that even if not practical. 😁
Absolutely love this video and I'm a new sub to the channel! I sort of want to comment on what you said at the end about using this plane for SEAD - using a stealth aircraft for SEAD is sort of a waste, as the process of suppressing an air defence system involves them turning on their radar to see you and try to lock on, so you can throw a HARM and ride the lightning from there in the hopes you either kill it or they turn it off and keep it off. Stealth planes have panels that can deploy to make themselves visible, but why risk that? Now a DEAD mission would make perfect sense for a stealth plane but that's a slightly different role. That's just my 2 cents and I'm not an expert by any means, so I'm always open to talking about it! Thanks for making these videos man I'm going to have gun watching them
Your design is SO COOL, well done !
Holy shit this guys narration is absolutely amazing!
Congratulations, you’ve reinvented the F35. The stealth bomber that also has a gun and air to air capability
Here’s two ideas I’ve come up with, with no regard to feasibility or practicality. Either a laser cannon or a tri-barreled rotary shotgun with a larger bore than the current one. Even at a slower rate of firing, it could output more projectiles due to it doing shotgun blasts. This would also probably increase its friendly fire though, and likely decrease its penetrative capabilities. Except against soft targets, that is.
Not sure that beats the High Explosive rounds it already fires, each one is about the equivalent of a hand grenade going off. I think Ill take my chances with the shotgun before 30+ hand grenades alternating with 30+ AP rounds every second.
@@ncrshane1919 It’d be firing grapeshot or larger caliber tungsten balls, thinking about this with my brain actually activated I can only see this being effective against either large scale infantry formations or against fictional megafauna like fairly squishy dragons. And at that point switching to slug rounds might work better, honestly I just think about how versatile man portable shotguns are said to be and go “well why don’t they scale it up then?”
As for the laser, while it won’t have any immediate usability in a few years or closer to a decade with improvements to laser and battery technology having a large bore laser on an a-10 might start getting proposed as a way to keep the a-10 relevant, if not by military brass then at least by armchair enthusiasts. Actually, maybe this would work as a weapons testbed? How well do you think the warthog could work as a weapons testbed for new technologies?
Loved the smirk the gun door gave the aircraft.
The biggest kicker about the A-10 is that tests done around the time it was introduced showed that it would have sucked at its intended roll, knocking out Soviet armor columns, even under perfect conditions, with the tanks sitting stationary out in the middle of a field during a bright day with no antiaircraft fire enabling them to make the multiple passes needed to empty the main gun.
To be honest I think you did well with this design and I think your design specifically COULD be effective in modern combat IF you replaced the engines with more modern engines from say the F-35 or F-22 Raptor. Then you would simply have a standard stealth aircraft with a few missiles as most designs do, the only difference would be that you managed to get that A-10 Gatling in there. So then if you need to light up the ground with a gatling, you can do so along with also being able to launch missiles as any currently-built stealth aircraft could.
I'd love to see this design built out as an RC airplane just for shits and giggles. It looks pretty cool as designed by you. I also agree it would be far too expensive to build a real one, for the very limited (if any) role it could perform on the battlefield that other airframes can already do. But as an RC plane.. that would be worth the fun of building it.
first upgrade i could think of was to go from one engine in each pod to two if equal or greater thrust with overall the same or better fuel efficiency along with some avionic and control surfaces upgrades to make it more maneuverable al low speeds and perhaps a upgrade to the current system that allows interlinking of sensor data and weapons targeting between land air and sea forces, so that the a-10 can use ECM from other assets in the area and perhaps ai assist for the aiming or the a-10's weapons systems
Cool design! To me it makes me wonder if the YF-23 silhouette could have been a good shape for a CAS aircraft. At the very least, I'd have figured the V-tail from the 23 would fit your design quite well. As for under-wing stores, I'd imagine the low-observable weapons pods designed for the FA-18 would suit it fairly well.
Poeple talk about American military airplanes.
The fighter mafia: Hello there!
Love that you´re back! Say hello to Bo my beloved.
Maybe making it stealth is the wrong idea, maybe making it loud and scary could do something... altering the radar and heat cross-section to look like a weird, broken up cluster of shapes and give it some towed glider drones and ECM rockets that render the airspace a noisy mess of flares, chaff, smoke, balloons, drones and the rumble of an angry GAU 8. It's role would transition from merely a gun platform to an aerial escort and jamming platform for obscuring friendlies and distracting the enemy. I bet SF would love a plane that can make the battlespace a smoggy mess of radar reflections, radio interference, flares, choppy drone propellers and scary plane shapes while their evac sneaks in and out. A real table flipper.
Before the game had launched, I made a whole blueprint and thing that was based off the P2V Neptune but I up engined it, Improved Radials and booster jet engines for higher speed dashes, It could carry 6x20mm 4x30mm, twin 50mm guns or a single 77mm. The aircraft even have a FLIR controlled 20mm turret on the Belly, OV-10 style.
I think a big part in keeping the A-10 relevant would be upgrading the GAU-8 to have more precision. Compared to modern CAS weaponry the A-10 has the precision of a sledge hammer. A combo of newer engines, a GAU-8 precision upgrade, and a targeting/avionics package like what is in modern attack helicopters would likely keep the A-10 useful for a while. That said, I don't think it will ever happen since Congress already wants to retire it. I still wish we could see more modernization of old planes just for the cool factor, planes like the A-10 & F-14 are some of my favorites because of the retro style points.
Also even though you didn't remark on it, I appreciate the tilting of the vertical stabilizers to eliminate that 90 degree angle. People think angles = stealth, but 90 degree bends end up being retro-reflectors and are about the only thing worse than a cylinder, besides the compressor wheels of course. At the end of it a stealth A-10 is a bad idea due to the lack of supersonic capabilities, and you can't really go supersonic without swept wings due to mach tuck and other airflow issues. Without supersonic flight you would sneak in, dump a few hundred rounds of 30mm, and then immediately get intercepted since you alerted everyone to your presence with a brrrrt & have the ground speed of a VW Beetle.
In my mind as a non-avionics enthusiast, "stealth A-10" means a stealth jet with the GAU-Avenger. Give me modern stealth and give me the song of my people. Ngl it could work for psychological warfare, like that fly that will never leave you alone but it just carved a canyon through your caravan. And now it can surprise you at night.
The gun is the GAU-8 Avenger machine gun made by General Electric, they do really like stuff that spins
I feel like the rounded look of the Warthog is a big part of its unique appearance so it is a little saddening that it has to lose that for stealth purposes. Unfortunately not really any way to keep the look while making it work lol.
......also give the gun a suppressor. I just feel like that's hilarious. Minigun suppressors are (somehow) a thing and putting that on a loud ass jet sounds funny.
That's the A-11 "Pumbaa" 😂❤
Gotta say dude you made one beautiful Aircraft regardless of its feasibility or practicality 🙏
dude how do you not have more subs this was impressive on so many levels
I think there are role considerations for the A10, which your plane would work well for. CAS and explicit armour-suppression are still important and - like for like - fixed wing will always be cheaper than rotory-wing aircraft. in the long run. Given the size and plan-form of the A10 - or your Warthog 2 - it can serve additional roles either as a manned sensor and networked-battlefield platform, like a low altitude in-theatre AWACS, or alternatively it can use it's extreme payload capacity to be a bomb-bus dropping munitions designated by partner aircraft or infantry. If I wanted to make a case for it, I would consider giving it ride-along recon UAVs which could be deployed to scan for/lase targets for the main vehicle.
One important consideration with the A10 in it's current state is that, while it's incredibly popular with troops, and liked well enough by it's drivers, it has consistently been hated by upper-echelon beaurocracy. The lack of engine upgrades is a perfect example of this, as a near-like-for-like off the shelf upgrade would seem like an obvious purchase to any air ministry that cared about keeping the aircraft operational. Upgrades like Mav-cam, where operators used the guidance system of their payload to compensate for the vehicles lack of IR in the first Gulf War, wouldn't have been necessary if the government hadn't had an apparent policy of 'A10 bad, build more F16s'.
Setting that aside, your design reminds me of my own idea - the modernised Blackburn Buccaneer. Not to say I have worked on it much, but it's similar in itself.
The problem is that it takes an unbiased approach to determine the current value. That’s kinda hard unless they also bring in the RTOs, JTACs, and Forwars observers into the design concept.
Our request? More loiter time. This means a jet engine isn’t going to be the best option. Like I said in another comment the Gau is ferocious sounding, but I need effect on target and spraying bullets isn’t providing me the effect of say a hellfire or small diameter bomb or 2.75” rocket. Especially with the targeting packages that all of these have now.
The A10 is a 57 Chevy Bel Air. Absolutely mean looking, elegant in its own way, but made for a time that’s passed.
@@fathead8933 I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion, but I do think your logic is fair generally. Frankly I do think everyone should get input on the design of something intended to operate in an integrated battlefield (though, I'll add, not all feedback is equally valuable). Also, I think part of the problem is chasing 'what is the current value' versus 'what capabilities does this platform give us? For instance, I've seen a case made for the A10 being used in an anti-shipping role (I think it was the original Hunt for Red October, actually), certainly not part of it's 'current value' calculation.
As for the GAU, while in geneal I'm kind of an A10 fanboy, I do *somewhat* agree with your point there.
I think there are better options for area suppression, antipersonel, anti-soft-target etc. However, I also think that a direct, non-guided, kinetic-kill weapon has it's place, and volume of fire has it's own value, particularly as mesh-defenses and ERA packs become ubiquitous. As such, if it was me, I would be looking at potentially switching the GAU for a swappable pack, with multibarrel MGLs, howitzer and variable-ammunition cannon options.
A GBU-12 is far more effective against a T-72 than the GAU-8. F-111s in the Gulf War killed more tanks than A-10s ever did.
I love it, but I would have mounted the engines above the fuselage to protect them more, maybe something like an upside-down Eurofighter in terms of looks, but without the engines integrating into the fuselage like that. That would mean you could shorten the fuselage, or use the additional space for ordnance, fuel and/or armour - weight limits notwithstanding.
The A-10 is a tank melter mainly, used to take out enemy convoys by surprise in areas that have limited to no protection. For that reason alone I see use for a stealth A-10 type plane. It's even harder to detect the thing that's about to make that tide-turning tank convoy into scrap
Its...its glorious! I take two!! Perfect for the CAS, SEED missions and home defense!!
Honestly if it had the F35 biocular helmet-mounted display system and some more automation to keep the plane low as the ground possible to avoid AA fire, it could run trough the area while already having locked into targets (via drone link), shooting away and disappearing before AA can engage it, this might have potential. Its hella expensive and drone warfare will be the future... and turning enemy drones against their previous owners being the worry some aspect of this, hence its not likely this goes anywhere, but troops would love to see hog around the battlefield, hitting targets with more firepower and more accurately than artillery or drone can do.
I like how, after all the redesigning and modeling, he ended up making an extra-chubby F-35. Now, with the smaller wings, the stealth A-10 would be a true penguin.
I believe the main complaint that's preserving the A10s presence in the arsenel today is that ground forces calling for help from speedy planes can never seemingly arrive fast enough as they are not near the front maintainig a presence.
I understand why pilots don't feel safe in the A10 it's low altitude enough that mounted weapons could pose a real threat and it's ability to counter threats from all angles at those hights is an insanely smaller window than the high in the sky planes.
A modernized warthog would likely demand a new frame thats simply lower cross profile in general, intergrated battle network electronics to help guide the fire and avoid firendly fire incidents, maintain loiter capabilities, and have some incredible defenses for the eventually getting shot at. As this plane is forced to operate in that defense onion layers of getting shot and and trying to survive that shot.
A more insane feature that might help in the in the role of close air support is VTOL capacity allowing it the flexibility if maintaining fire and presence a simple strafe cannot provide. But VTOL alone increases vulnerabilities and we're talking not having enough room for it all at that point.
Also price tag gets to become a serious issue at that point when cheaper helicopters can do the job. Sure speed is nice but forward help based fix that and is cheaper to move those bases closer than it is to likely procure a warthog II of any upgrade route outside of just straight up newer better performance parts.
There's a problem of needing cash but cheap considerable solutions are not an easy solve. This is likely why armed drones these days are rather appealing for that role as they can seemingly answer it including the large armored vehicle threats.
ah56 cheyenne but a 2.0( all the fixes the army said it needed) please this is my favorite concept never to come to life thank you keep it up!
OMG, it is amazing! Add the thrust-vectoring and it will be perfect! :-D
Btw, isn't it better for CAS and FAC than an unborn high-speed helicopter?
It's not about turning it into stealth plane, it's about mitigating weaknesses and adding targeting capabilities.
There is a point on the continuum between a brick and a blackbird, that is the point that needs to be identified.
Everything else about the video aside, god damn, that stealth A-10 is a sexy looking aircraft
I think that it would be better to spend money on making the A-10 harder to detect than to make a whole new airframe for the specific purpose of being stealthy. An A-10 with cooler engines and perhaps some radar absorbent paint would be harder to detect and thus increase survivability without the need to construct a whole new aircraft
I love the redesign of the A10 to make it stealthy but let all the ordinances outside xD
I don't think a next-gen A-10 is as much of a dumb idea as some CZcamsrs or the upper brass at the Air Force would have you believe it is.
My reasoning for a next-gen A-10 being viable is that the issues that it suffers from in its current state are all technical and not conceptual.
The A-10 as conceived is meant to operate in contested airspace with its primary targets being soft and lightly armored vehicles in convoys. Additionally, the real-world applications it has seen have proved that it also can excel at providing aid to front-line forces who require front-line support as fast as possible.
If I were to create a next-gen version of the A-10 aside from updating the frame of the plane ever so slightly I would lower the caliber of the main gun to something like 25 mm, add more shielding to the engines, and increase the number of flairs and countermeasures it could carry.
Idk, i think a stealth air to ground attack plane is something we could certainly need in a hypothetical modern war. Something that can support ground troops without setting off alarms and bringing in enemy air support/ long range anti-air.
Note that your 2D ripple simulator also shows edge diffraction as well, which is why that back of that triangle wedge will actually light up much brighter than the front on radar.
Love the idea of a "commercial ad" type for the presentation of the plane
"You can't make a stealth plane cheap" Cackles in Night Witches
But anyways great video. And I never really though much about planes (at least this indepth). So the idea of a Stealth A-10 never occurred to me.
But if you HAD asked me if it was a good idea, I'd probably end up saying no. Because it's party piece in the GAU-8 and BRRRRRT. And trying to make a stealth version of that is counter productive. It's like having Van Halen, but asking them to play quietly to not wake the neighbors.