A-10 Thunderbolt II

[coolpop6307]

I made a pic of how I would think it would work, the red is the end of the thing that houses the drogue.



Thanks
  Joshua

[Weaver]

Interesting article on the A-10's future, and that of it's possible replacements:

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/08/04/the_light_attack_trickery_111967.html

[Snowtrooper]

Interesting article on the A-10's future, and that of it's possible replacements:

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/08/04/the_light_attack_trickery_111967.html

The suspicion seems reasonable, because the entire Light Attack requirement is questionable. The platform is not able to withstand even small arms fire, much less light AA, unlike the Hog. So if the chosen Light Attack plane would practically have to fly above small arms range to be survivable, then what would it be for, as Predators and Reapers already exist for cruising at height and the Hog can still go down and dirty?

Sure, airborne forward air control is nice to have and visibility from a manned platform is better than from a drone's camera (for now). However, FAC planes have taken disproportionate losses in any conflict (due to the need to fly low and slow but not being particularly armoured), and A-10 would still be the more survivable platform for this mission (of course, the fact that the twin-seater A-10 was killed hampers the mission, but a live FAC with too a high workload is infinitely better than a dead FAC).

Of course, it's possible that sensor-fused F-35's cruising above light AA range supplemented by swarms of drones could do FAC too, in which case the Light Attack is again unnecessary.

[Weaver]

How about a Su-39 type version of the A-10B:



Regards,

Greg

So I got thinking about what a U-2 replacement, designed to the same requirement but with a clean sheet of paper, would look like. What I noticed was that every configuration I came up with looked rather like an A-10 of all things, so I got both kits out of the stash to have a look. This is going to sound crazy but hear me out.

How about a modified A-10 as a U-2 style high-altitude recce aircraft?

The A-10 is only 10ft shorter than the U-2. It has a transport joint just outboard of it's u/c fairings and the standard wing can carry an enormous payload, so it would be easy to fit extended U-2-style wings with no pylons to it. Note that the U-2 wing's root chord is only a smidgen larger than the A-10's It would be equally easy to extend the A-10's tailplanes, although in fact the standard ones have more area than the U-2's so it probably wouldn't be necessary.

Performance of both aircraft is in the same ballpark where it matters, and adding the extended wings to the A-10 would resolve most of the points where it falls down. The A-10's twin engines would be a useful survivability bonus, and their podded installation would make it easy to upgrade them with modified versions for high-altitude work. Development of the civil (CF-34) version of the 9000lb thrust TF-34 has increased thrust to 14,500lb with only a modest increase in size and weight, while later, and more radically different versions go even higher. Range is an issue: you could make the new outer wings wet (which would helpfully span-load them: use the wing fuel last) but I still don't think it would be enough on it's own. However, see below.

Removing the gun leaves you with 4000lb of internal payload in a big unitary 'Q-bay' behind the cockpit, just as per the U2, with big, non-structural panels on it's underside that can easily be converted to camera ports. However, if you use the N/AW two-seater airframe, remove the rear cockpit interior and blank the rear canopy off (as per Maverick's drawing above), you now have a Q-bay which is not only big but tall, which is exactly what you want for long-focal-length, high resolution cameras. The tall canopy helps solve the fuel problem too: you can put a big, fat saddle-tank in it's 'shadow', right over the top of the fuselage tanks.

In short, a clean-sheet-of-paper U-2 replacement with conventional aerodynamics would have twin podded engines, a slim fuselage for most of it's length but a deep 'tadpole' front end to accommodate cameras. The only thing significantly different from an A-10 would be that it would only need a single fin, but even then, the twin fins would still help shield the engine exhausts from IR detection. A moodified A-10 would be so close to this that it probably wouldn't be worth re-engineering it any more.

[PR19_Kit]

The U-2 had a very lightweight structure, mainly to help it get way up there, and its weight may count against the A-10 as it was designed to be essentially bulletproof.

Modern day long focal length cameras tend to be horizontal with a pivoting mirror on the end to look down, but the capability to carry a tall version without the mirror could be a weight saving idea. 

[Weaver]

A-10:

Empty weight: 24,959 lb (11,321 kg)
Loaded weight: 30,384 lb (13,782 kg)
CAS mission: 47,094 lb (21,361 kg)
Anti-armor mission: 42,071 lb (19,083 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 50,000 lb (23,000 kg)
Internal fuel capacity: 11,000 lb (4,990 kg)

U-2S:

Empty weight: 14,300 lb (6,486 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 40,000 lb (18,144 kg)

Data from Wikipedia.

They're in the same ball park for MTO (the A-10's 50,000lb is with a non-relevant huge load of bombs). You can see the effect of the U-2's lightweight structure easily enough there though. Maybe you'd just have to accept that the PR.10 would have less range and compensate by using AAR and/or drop tanks that actually get dropped.

I did think of a clean-sheet-of-paper design that used a horizontal camera. It was basically a long tube with the pilot at the front, Ar.234 style, the camera at the back with it's mirror in a rotating tail cone, and fuel in between. It would have high-aspect ratio tandem wings, one set at each end, which gets you the advantages of high aspect ratio without getting too many of the structural problems that come with excessive span. Control would be by four small, all-moving surfaces located one at each wingtip, the control inputs for pitch and roll being mixed to use all four. This gets you low-drag trimming, full span flaps and all four can also be deflected for flap-effect. Given that it's not an agile fighter, a single tail fin is probably best for simplicity.

The pair of A-10-style engines would be on an external 'saddle' that could be moved fore and aft to different sets of mounting points to compensate for CofG changes brought about by different equipment fits. This wouldn't be something you'd do at squadron level, please note: it's more to make things easier for the designers producing different sub-variants. You'd only move the engines if you were re-building an existing aircraft to a new configuration. Landing gear would be four-wheeled, all within the inboard wings. It would land in a flat attitude (because the wheels are long way from the CofG) much like a B-52.

[PR19_Kit]

I like it, especially the tandem wing idea. 

What are you waiting for? Start cutting plastic. 

[zenrat]

I like the idea of engines mounted on a motorised trolley which gradually move forwards to maintain the CoG position as fuel is burnt off.

Doesn't the A10 driver sit in an armoured bath-tub?
That could go to save weight and you'd also want to do something to make the landing gear more aerodynamic as crash landing survivability isn't something you necessarily need on a spy plane.

Do they still use film cameras or is it all digital these days with instant download back to base?

[PR19_Kit]

Do they still use film cameras or is it all digital these days with instant download back to base?

Mostly it's all digital these days, and they can download via satellite. The lenses still need to be pretty hefty to see all the way down from 60-70000 ft though. The System III camera that the RAF Canberra PR9s carried toward the end of their lives just about took up the entire length of the bomb bay! 

[Weaver]

I like the idea of engines mounted on a motorised trolley which gradually move forwards to maintain the CoG position as fuel is burnt off.

Heh - I'll leave you to engineer the fuel/electrical connections and a system that can both move the engines AND take the thrust loads....

Mine is simply unboltable, with multiple sets of mounting bosses on adjacent fuselage frames. Wiring and piping run in an external multi-section spine which you adjust to fit by swapping bits around or just cutting a length off: it's only a half-round tube, after all.

Doesn't the A10 driver sit in an armoured bath-tub?
That could go to save weight and you'd also want to do something to make the landing gear more aerodynamic as crash landing survivability isn't something you necessarily need on a spy plane.

Yes, but you've already lost 4000lbs forward of the CofG by taking the gun out: you might need the bathtub for ballast! Also, if you're being shot at from below with SAMs armed with fragmentation warheads, you might be glad of that bathtub....

[leptiprince]

[Old Wombat]

I like both of them!

[AS.12]

In addition to the export offers / requests listed here, Kuwait also requested an A-10 package around 1977 / 78 but was denied.

[rafi]

Hi,

Republic of Saudi Arabia have A-10 too...



Regards

[NARSES2]

That's nice