Old designs with modern engines

[kerick]

Another similar aged type that's proven incredibly useful is the WB-57, if in very small numbers. What might that get re-engined with if NASA wanted it to carry on indefinitely? At least there should be plenty of TF-33 spares now.

We've already seen pilots flying their father's planes: we might yet see somebody flying their grandfather's B-52. 

Martin Baker also have kept two Meteors running due to them being really well suited as an ejection seat testbed and nothing newer being quite right for the niche role. So what might replace the Derwents if they needed to keep them going?

A pair of Williams FJ-44-4s would work. They're short enough to fit between the fore and aft wing spars, produce exactly the same thrust as a Derwent 8, and are about 30% lighter.

And far more fuel efficient too I'll bet!

[Mossie]

Bet there isn't an original part on the Derwents. It would make an interesting whiff, tiny nacelles on a Meteor.

I remember MB had been looking for a replacement many years ago and found there was nothing fast enough with the intakes placed far enough away (to prevent gas injection) for reasonable purchase and running costs. The only other type that offered a similar spec was the MiG-21.

[Weaver]

Bet there isn't an original part on the Derwents. It would make an interesting whiff, tiny nacelles on a Meteor.

I remember MB had been looking for a replacement many years ago and found there was nothing fast enough with the intakes placed far enough away (to prevent gas injection) for reasonable purchase and running costs. The only other type that offered a similar spec was the MiG-21.

They'd probably leave the nacelles alone to avoid messing with the aerodynamics: just fit the new engines with new internal ducts.

The other thing to do would be to adopt Me 262 style underwing pods, as in the Metrovick test aircraft. In that case, the length of the new engine wouldn't be so critical, but it's diameter would be, since ground clearance would then be an issue.

[Rick Lowe]

Especially with next year's Defense Budget getting rid of the last A-10s.

That's sad to hear... I'm not convinced the F-35 is truly enough of an MRCA for Air-to-Mud.
There again, Missiles and Drones seem to be taking over that niche, at least in part.

(Pre-emptive Disclaimer emphasis for those of you who have a better knowledge base - it's just my personal opinion.)

[Weaver]

Especially with next year's Defense Budget getting rid of the last A-10s.

That's sad to hear... I'm not convinced the F-35 is truly enough of an MRCA for Air-to-Mud.
There again, Missiles and Drones seem to be taking over that niche, at least in part.

(Pre-emptive Disclaimer emphasis for those of you who have a better knowledge base - it's just my personal opinion.)

I think the first things drones have killed off is attack helicopters, and slow-flying CAS can't be far behind. Ground-based line-of-sight recce vehicles can't be far behind them.

[zenrat]

Especially with next year's Defense Budget getting rid of the last A-10s.

That's sad to hear... I'm not convinced the F-35 is truly enough of an MRCA for Air-to-Mud.
There again, Missiles and Drones seem to be taking over that niche, at least in part.

(Pre-emptive Disclaimer emphasis for those of you who have a better knowledge base - it's just my personal opinion.)

Can't wait to see an F-35 with a GAU-8.

[jcf]

Especially with next year's Defense Budget getting rid of the last A-10s.

That's sad to hear... I'm not convinced the F-35 is truly enough of an MRCA for Air-to-Mud.
There again, Missiles and Drones seem to be taking over that niche, at least in part.

(Pre-emptive Disclaimer emphasis for those of you who have a better knowledge base - it's just my personal opinion.)

The A-10 requires an environment where the operator has total, or near total control, control of the air and the opposition has limited AAA/SAM capability. Which ain't going to happen against any force other than something along the lines of the Taliban or the Iraq insurgency. The war in Ukraine is demonstrating the reality of trying
to operate low level aircraft and helicopters in a contested environment. During the Gulf War in '91 the A-10s had to be pulled back because of losses due to the
Iraqi air defenses. Their on station waiting point was moved to 20 miles offshore. Which is one of the reasons that so much care was taken to take out control and air defense systems in the 2003 invasion.  This also applies to any "Light CAS" types and the AC-130. They're dead meat in any situation where control of the airspace is contested. The A-10s are also old and heavily used airframes. Multiple strengthening programs, and changes on the production line, were required when they were new, I can't imagine what shape they're actually in now.

[kerick]

IIRC the wings have been replaced twice now. The gamble is will we end up in a peer to peer war which has not happened since Korea or another insurgency situation like we have been in for twenty years. Reality vs potential. Being ill prepared for either is costly.

[jcf]

IIRC the wings have been replaced twice now. The gamble is will we end up in a peer to peer war which has not happened since Korea or another insurgency situation like we have been in for twenty years. Reality vs potential. Being ill prepared for either is costly.

Drone technology has advanced so quickly in the last five years that I doubt that something
like the A-10 would be required in an "insurgency" situation.

[Weaver]

IIRC the wings have been replaced twice now. The gamble is will we end up in a peer to peer war which has not happened since Korea or another insurgency situation like we have been in for twenty years. Reality vs potential. Being ill prepared for either is costly.

Drone technology has advanced so quickly in the last five years that I doubt that something
like the A-10 would be required in an "insurgency" situation.

Also, small, cheap, super-accurate missiles are here, so the big gun is basically redundant now. Why do you need it when you can have multiple Hellfires and APKWS pods on pylons?

[Diamondback]

IIRC the wings have been replaced twice now. The gamble is will we end up in a peer to peer war which has not happened since Korea or another insurgency situation like we have been in for twenty years. Reality vs potential. Being ill prepared for either is costly.

Drone technology has advanced so quickly in the last five years that I doubt that something
like the A-10 would be required in an "insurgency" situation.

Also, small, cheap, super-accurate missiles are here, so the big gun is basically redundant now. Why do you need it when you can have multiple Hellfires and APKWS pods on pylons?

There is that... even if you were modernizing the Hog, it might be better served to replace the GAU-8 with an equal-size drum magazine full of APKWS launching out a single barrel in place of the Gatling assembly. Does APKWS have the range or precision to try to ram one down a fighter's intake and FOD-out an engine?

[kerick]

There were lots of times that the presence of A-10s over a convoy resulted in lots of peace and quiet. Being a former JTAC we loved the A-10 because it could hang around the target area so long.
In an insurgency conflict the 30mm could be overkill until the ragtag armor shows up. Or the insurgents go deep and you have to light up some hardened site. I know it sounds like I'm defending the out of date system but I would hate to show up at the fight with only one weapon if I could help it.

[Weaver]

IIRC the wings have been replaced twice now. The gamble is will we end up in a peer to peer war which has not happened since Korea or another insurgency situation like we have been in for twenty years. Reality vs potential. Being ill prepared for either is costly.

Drone technology has advanced so quickly in the last five years that I doubt that something
like the A-10 would be required in an "insurgency" situation.

Also, small, cheap, super-accurate missiles are here, so the big gun is basically redundant now. Why do you need it when you can have multiple Hellfires and APKWS pods on pylons?

There is that... even if you were modernizing the Hog, it might be better served to replace the GAU-8 with an equal-size drum magazine full of APKWS launching out a single barrel in place of the Gatling assembly. Does APKWS have the range or precision to try to ram one down a fighter's intake and FOD-out an engine?

APKWS fires out of standard 70mm rocket pods, so you get 19 shots per pod. No reason to have the complication of a drum+launcher system, just lots of pylons. As for air-to-air, it's already being touted as a cheap anti-drone weapon, so if it can hit a tiny drone, it can certainly hit a fighter.

Replacing the gun on a modernized, de-gunned Hog would entail finding 4000lb of pretty dense payload to fill the gun+ammo bay in order to maintain CofG. From an operational point of view, I'd rather fill it with defensive and all-weather avionics, but they're likely to bulk out before getting anywhere near the neccessary weight.

[jcf]

You can modernize and update the weapons from here to eternity but that won't change that it's still an old outdated design. It wouldn't survive in contested airspace. Even upgrading the engines would not change that reality.

Replace the weight, and bulk, of the gun system with batteries for a hybrid propulsion system. Fly on batteries alone in "Whisper mode".
🤣

[Weaver]

You can modernize and update the weapons from here to eternity but that won't change that it's still an old outdated design. It wouldn't survive in contested airspace. Even upgrading the engines would not change that reality.

Replace the weight, and bulk, of the gun system with batteries for a hybrid propulsion system. Fly on batteries alone in "Whisper mode".
🤣

Oh I agree - I only wrote about what would be involved to show that it's a hiding to nothing.