What ever became of the Rutan Mudfighter(Ares)?

[maxmwill]

A few years back, Bert Rutan designed and built an experimental attack aircraft called the Ares, but shortly after went by the name of Mudfighter. Like the A10, it carried a large cannon, but unlike the A10, it had only one engine, and the intake for that was on one side of the fuselage. It made a splash in the news when he rolled it out, and since then, only the resounding chorus of crickets has been heard with regard to this.

So, asks I, what happened with it?

It seems to be a pretty bird, unlike the A10, and, even though as a designer, Bert may have designed a few dogs in his day, but the Mudfighter looked just right, as evidenced by this promotional video on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9LlHcX8lg

[JayBee]

Currently available as a research platform according to the Scaled Composites web-sight.

http://www.scaled.com/projects/ares

[maxmwill]

Ok.

I'd been under the impression all this time that Bert had made it available to the Air Force, and that they decided to bury it for some strange reason.

[Weaver]

Probably a case of Big Air Force Syndrome: "Nah, too cheap. If we admit that something cheap can do a good job, Congress will cut our budget next year. Even worse, Rutan isn't handing out directorships and consultancy posts to "retired" Air Force people...." 

[kerick]

Put this one down next to the Skyfox and the Piper Enforcer. Good ideas that were not expensive enough.
Three nice photos on the Scaled Composites site.

[perttime]

There's some pretty recent photos around. Some at flickr:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/corporateflightmanagement/sets/72157646589593967/
and http://aviationintel.com/rutans-ares-emerges-from-paul-allens-hangar-at-kbfi/
and http://deepbluehorizon.blogspot.fi/2011/12/rare-scaled-composites-ares-151-jet.html
I'm pretty sure I've seen others.

In the old promo videos, some say that they see the gun yawing the aircraft a lot. I cannot really judge.
You could argue that it is a niche aircraft, and its niche is so small that acquiring and operating a specialist type is not worth the expense in money and effort.

[Weaver]

The gun was a 25mm GAU-12: same as a USMC Harrier. The idea was that the expanding gas of the muzzle blast would press against the scallop in the forward fuselage, pushing it in the opposite direction to the recoil, and the two would cancel each other out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_ARES

It's important to point out that the idea was cheapness, not maximum capability. If it has half the capability of an F-16 at one third the cost, then it's a promising concept, IF the intended missions don't require the "top half" of the capability (i.e. radar, supersonic speed or single 3000lb stores). If the mission is to have lots of 25mm and FFARs available over the grunts for as long as possible, then it seems like a good idea because doing it with a larger number of smaller vehicles gets you more resilience and/or area coverage.

[GeorgeC]

Manned COIN mud-mover concepts, using lower-performance airframes, have lost out for 2 reasons.  One, by the time you have loaded the sensors, data links and precision weapons required by today's wars (ie try not to kill unarmed locals or our own guys)  the 'cheapness' begins to wear off.  Two, the low performance COIN niche has been seized by Reaper RPAS, which gives you pretty much the same capability plus tremendous endurance and no aircrew to risk over the target.  Being unmanned, the Reaper airframe can be smaller and cheaper, and a lot of the expensive 'stuff' ends up back in operations centers in Nevada or Lincolnshire...   

[Weaver]

True, although I wonder how long drones would survive against a more technically capable enemy? If they can jam the drones' comms then they're dead, but if they jam a manned aircraft's comms, the pilot can still fly the mission. i'd also iamgine that shooting down drones would be pretty easy for Ares pilots...

[jcf]

... and a more technically capable enemy would probably also be able to make short
work of the Aries or similar, because you probably wouldn't have the control of the
airspace that their use requires.

That's the problem with those single-purpose COIN designs, along with gunships etc.,
you can only use them if you have complete air superiority.

[Weaver]

Then get the air superiority: nobody's suggesting that Ares-style aircraft should operate in isolation any more than A-10s should. You could say the same about drones, only even more so since they have no air-to-air capability.

In any case, total air superiority isn't mandatory, just desirable. How much air superiority you need is a function of how many casualties you're prepared to take, and that depends on what's at stake. Guerilla-bashing in Backofbeyondistan with every bodybag televised? Minimum casualties mandatory. Soviets heading for Paris? Stop 'em at any price before someone gets to pushing buttons.

There was a joke going around in NATO circles in the late 1960s. Two Russian officers are sitting outside a cafe on the Champs-Élysées, watching their victory parade go past. "well that went well," says one of them, "pity we lost the air superiority battle though...."

[Captain Canada]

Neat. It sure looks from the gun camera footage that the theory didn't work so great