Old designs with modern engines

[tahsin]

Yeah, noted down future reference.

[kerick]

The A-10 has always been too slow in my opinion. Just getting from the airbase to the target area took too long. Part of the plan was to have it based close to the front at forward bases to make the trip short but that never seemed to take hold in Europe. Being slower was deemed an asset at the time to provide more time for target acquisition and to be more fuel efficient so it could loiter longer than the fast jets of the day. One of the big complaints by the US Army was the "one pass, haul a$$" method of close air support as performed by the fast jets during and after Vietnam. Now if you could keep the good points of the A-10, long time on station, large and varied load out, radios you could actually talk to the ground pounders with, armor plating, and combine it with higher speed, better sensors and more survivability, I'd be very interested. Most of the USAF is all about the F-35 but I doubt I'll see the day where one of those rolls in for a CAS run. They are just too expensive for that. As much as some say the F-35 can do CAS just as well or better than an A-10 we all know they will be too busy performing battlefield air interdiction and taking out enemy air defense assets. As well they should be. It's the best use for all that expensive stealth technology. But then we are left with the Army facing a peer to peer enemy without effective air support. I sympathize with their attitude that the USAF is too busy being flyboys rather than destroying the enemy. While the Air Force mission of destroying the enemy before they get to the front is legit, even essential, from a soldiers point of view, they want every gun barrel possible firing at the enemy they are facing. So is there a possible "new and improved" A-10 replacement in the future? I hope it doesn't take a conflict to show the need. That's would be the kind of cost the bean counters never understand.

[kerick]

The thrust difference isn't that extreme, assuming the Speys aren't afterburning. The Avon 208s in the Sea Vixen put out 11,000lb each, while a dry Spey was good for 11,030 to 11,995lb depending on the version. THe main advantage would be massively lower fuel consumption: 0.932 lb/(lbf⋅h) for the Avon and 0.63 lb/(lbf.h) for the Spey.

It's not thrust, it's a technological mis-match. The Sea Vixen was behind the times when it entered service and lasted a relatively long time for that era, adding new engines might have prolonged it way beyond its sell by date.

Yep: from what I can see there was no plan to update the radar, and that would have been stone-aged by the time a Spey Vixen got into service.

Same thing that ultimately obsoleted the F-106, being designed around and limited to the garbage Hughes Falcon missile. IMO they could have gotten more mileage out of it if they'd converted the weapons bay into a fuel tank and gone to an F-15-style set up with two rails and a hardpoint on each wing station. Other things had room for improvement but that was the Achilles heel.

I did a bit of plastic fondling with this idea and it seems to be that there's enough fuselage below the wing to have F-15-style corner stations for Sparrows on a 106. You might have to work some fin pockets in amidships, but it seems doable. You could then have simple, single Sidewinder rails outboard, as on the Mirage III, and another pair forward of the undercarriage bays in the style of F-4 inboards.

If the corner stations didn't work out, you could replace the weapons bay with a fuel pack with F-4-style troughs for Sparrows in the bottom of it. At least 3, and maybe 4 should be possible with staggered fins, Tornado F3-style.

I've had an upgraded F-106 on my to do list for a long time. These are great ideas that I could include along with a new engine!

[Weaver]

Most of the USAF is all about the F-35 but I doubt I'll see the day where one of those rolls in for a CAS run.

The thing is, modern weapons have resulted in a situation where nothing needs to "roll in for a CAS run", and doing so in a modern, contested air defence environment is suicidally dangerous. You can do CAS effectively by dropping small smart bombs from a B-52 at 30,000ft, or firing small missiles from 20 miles away. You can get the same effects as CAS with surface-to-surface missiles, or with artillery fire directed by FPV drones, or with kamikaze drones. The F-35, and other manned air platforms, are capable of doing the job, they'll just be doing it in a different way.

[Weaver]

The thrust difference isn't that extreme, assuming the Speys aren't afterburning. The Avon 208s in the Sea Vixen put out 11,000lb each, while a dry Spey was good for 11,030 to 11,995lb depending on the version. THe main advantage would be massively lower fuel consumption: 0.932 lb/(lbf⋅h) for the Avon and 0.63 lb/(lbf.h) for the Spey.

It's not thrust, it's a technological mis-match. The Sea Vixen was behind the times when it entered service and lasted a relatively long time for that era, adding new engines might have prolonged it way beyond its sell by date.

Yep: from what I can see there was no plan to update the radar, and that would have been stone-aged by the time a Spey Vixen got into service.

Same thing that ultimately obsoleted the F-106, being designed around and limited to the garbage Hughes Falcon missile. IMO they could have gotten more mileage out of it if they'd converted the weapons bay into a fuel tank and gone to an F-15-style set up with two rails and a hardpoint on each wing station. Other things had room for improvement but that was the Achilles heel.

I did a bit of plastic fondling with this idea and it seems to be that there's enough fuselage below the wing to have F-15-style corner stations for Sparrows on a 106. You might have to work some fin pockets in amidships, but it seems doable. You could then have simple, single Sidewinder rails outboard, as on the Mirage III, and another pair forward of the undercarriage bays in the style of F-4 inboards.

If the corner stations didn't work out, you could replace the weapons bay with a fuel pack with F-4-style troughs for Sparrows in the bottom of it. At least 3, and maybe 4 should be possible with staggered fins, Tornado F3-style.

I've had an upgraded F-106 on my to do list for a long time. These are great ideas that I could include along with a new engine!

Go for it!

The other option, simpler for a rebuild of an existing airframe, would be to keep the Vulcan cannon pack and have a U-shaped fuel tank fitted into the bay around it, with weapon hardpoints on the corners.

[tahsin]

The A-10 is a B-26 replacement.

REALLY fine, so, they declare they need it to stop Russian tanks in Germany. That will truly be covered by clouds on the day they decide to come forward. A-10 is a possibility of providing close air support when fast jets can't. Under too low ceilings. Let Phantoms attack far away targets.

A-10 gets a really big gun. That might kill tanks. At least fill them with radioactive dust so that they can't be respawned instantly. If the Russians are coming there will surely be more than enough targets to fire all that rounds. As much as it can hit. No problems in getting heavily damaged because if the Russians breakthrough or it lasts more than a couple of days it will escalate to all out Nuclear War.

In case of more permissive environments, USAF which just got out a war where flak was impressively deadly quickly acquired Maverick missiles. There are a lot of people who can use slide rules to wargame.

The real A-10 is a two seater. Fighter Mafia bouyed with F-16 has political capital and they use that to trot Rudel around as a guest speaker for some undeclared aims. There are people out there who laugh at Bill Gunston and his ambitious marketing but he is really onto things when it doesn't involve the Harrier. It is Rudel's tall tales and espionage that suggest Russian problems with Doppler radars, missiles and a multitude of expectations that make the A-10 day only. Which was also fixed in due course.

[kerick]

There have been sketches here of an A-10 with turboprop engines. Get rid of the existing engines and place the turboprops well ahead of the wing and it might balance out without the gun. I don't recall who drew them.

[Diamondback]

Go for it!

The other option, simpler for a rebuild of an existing airframe, would be to keep the Vulcan cannon pack and have a U-shaped fuel tank fitted into the bay around it, with weapon hardpoints on the corners.

Shooter Sixes (half or less the fleet) had the doors notched and pod permanently racked between rear rails, your U-tank is precisely what I envisioned but have the channel be option of gun module or aux-tank module. What's the biggest thin that fits into a J79 envelope?

As for Rudel on Hogs, not even George Washington and John Adams PERSONALLY rising from the grave to speak for him would have enough political capital to let an openly unrepentant True Believer Nazi like Rudel be visibly involved in any US Gov activity.

[tahsin]

https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/rv9rtd/pierre_sprey_has_been_removed_from_the_a10/

Because of political developments of recent times. Rudel was invited to a symposium in 1978 as a guest. Questions were asked. Because he wasn't fluent in English there had to be translations. Out of this there is a whole "internet truth" that it was Rudel and Sprey though you will have to dig deep these days. The operative word here is B-26. Jack Broughton in his memoirs claims the A-10 work was on in late 1950s. Only in passing to support his idea that he would be hired to start really high and he might have been the CEO of Republic in a short time.

[kitbasher]

Anyway.....

Avro Anson C.19 or Beech 18 with PT6s.  Who then needs the B200? 😉

[Weaver]

Anyway.....

Avro Anson C.19 or Beech 18 with PT6s.  Who then needs the B200? 😉

The most powerful Ansons had 450hp P&W Wasp Juniors, so even the smallest PT-6As would add about 200hp and save over 600lb of weight! 

A pair of Allison 250s might be another good option: save even more weight rather than add power, given that a Cheetah-engined Anson only had 2 x 335hp.