Fairchild-Republic A-10C replacement

[McColm]

The USAF intends to retire the A-10C in 2029 and has a list of potential buyers lined up. They will still need a tank-buster or are they looking for a multirole aircraft either based on the F-16, F-18 or F-35.
The AC-130U if modified could also be considered although venerable to ground fire maybe a drone.

[HarryPhishnuts]

I would be surprised if it was a manned aircraft at this point. Folks are taking a lot of different lessons from the war in Ukraine right now and, right or wrong, I think the manned FEBA type of roles (CAS, Recon, ...) are going to give way to drones of one type of the other. I think that's largely why the US Army canceled the FARA program and I think the USAF will follow similar thinking.

[kerick]

There will still be a role in lower intensity situations. This is where the A-10 has excelled for so long.

[jcf]

There will still be a role in lower intensity situations. This is where the A-10 has excelled for so long.

Based on the assumption that those future
"lower intensity situations"* are the same as the most recent examples. However even in those situations as it wore on the A-10 was being used less and had been pulled out of the low-level role as it was becoming more vulnerable.

*funny bit of double-speak as it's never lower intensity to those on the receiving end, just ask any civilians.

[zenrat]

...They will still need a tank-buster...based on the...F-35...

McColm Special Projects F-35D.  Based on the F-35B but with ammo where the fan goes and with the PTO shaft driving a rotary autocannon...

Might need forward swept wings due to shifted CoG.

Get building Mac.   

[McColm]

Something along the lines of the Northrop YA-9 or Su-25. Although the Lockheed CL-1044-9 looks familiar, just trying to remember where I have seen something familiar.

[Beermonster58]

I would be surprised if it was a manned aircraft at this point. Folks are taking a lot of different lessons from the war in Ukraine right now and, right or wrong, I think the manned FEBA type of roles (CAS, Recon, ...) are going to give way to drones of one type of the other. I think that's largely why the US Army canceled the FARA program and I think the USAF will follow similar thinking.

Well, that may be  the plan but, it may also be pertinent to remember the words of Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke : " No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the main enemy forces. " Drones played with  by computer geeks sitting safely behind a console 200 miles away may seem attractive but, what happens when the technology goes belly up and, there's no Plan B to call on? Drones assuredly have some part to play in some roles but, I think it might be very unwise to get too reliant on them.

[Pellson]

I would be surprised if it was a manned aircraft at this point. Folks are taking a lot of different lessons from the war in Ukraine right now and, right or wrong, I think the manned FEBA type of roles (CAS, Recon, ...) are going to give way to drones of one type of the other. I think that's largely why the US Army canceled the FARA program and I think the USAF will follow similar thinking.

Well, that may be  the plan but, it may also be pertinent to remember the words of Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke : " No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the main enemy forces. " Drones played with  by computer geeks sitting safely behind a console 200 miles away may seem attractive but, what happens when the technology goes belly up and, there's no Plan B to call on? Drones assuredly have some part to play in some roles but, I think it might be very unwise to get too reliant on them.

In reality, I also believe that FPV drones of different kinds and capacities will bear the brunt of any future combat, "low" intensity or not (I strongly second jcf's sentiment abocve on this matter) - BUT - drones are BORING!! I mean - really? Do I want to dream about piloting a drone? Nopers, gentlemen, not by far! Hence, in my particular little parallell universe where my models actually are real, there is no such thing as remote control. and I'm not even bothering to explain it, because I really prefer manned aircraft. Added to that, this my personal little space in fantasy also have some other most illogical features that I can't be arsed to explain or motivate, such as

• Unlimited fatigue life. No such things as max hours of flight or engine hours here!
• No proper stealth, whether depending on continuous radar development matching the stealth development, making the latter more or less immediately obsolete or stealth physics just not working as good as IRL, and
• Unreasonable economic ratio between new development and ongoing improvement/evolution of existing designs, making the latter much more viable than today

And why this, you might ask? Well - I just happen to like the postwar/cold war designs so much more than the later, post ca 1985 designs. The F-teens, the Flanker clones and their contemporaries just doesn't have the same appeal to me as a Phantom, a Foxbat or a Viggen, just to mention a few. And this is also one of the major reasons for me being so fond of the what-if concept.

All this said, let's keep discussing RW designs too, boring or not. One always learn something, and like it or not, this hobby has made me much better informed about many things related to security and international politics than I'd ever thought was possible when getting hooked on modelling back in the late seventies. As always - one never knows where a path entered will end.. 

[zenrat]

Once proper AI comes along there will be no need to have a link between a drone and an operator.  The UAV will be flown by an onboard mind.
"Fighter Jet" ( ) UAVs will have a massive advantage over piloted aircraft in that they will be able to pull much more G as there is no soft squishy human to worry about.
This is why the Cylons should have won every battle in BSG.

[Dizzyfugu]

I'd expect that the anti-tank role will be relegated to muti-purpose aircraft and rather precision-guided ammunitions like LGBs in conjunction with ground troops or designator drones than a big gun, which is large, heavy, and unflexible. I also do not think that groud attack will be taken over soon by A.I. - I rather expect air-to-air combat/dogfights to be taken over by autonomous systems, and IIRC the USAF recently made the first tests with a pilot-less F-16 againts a manned fighter of the same type (w/o revealling the results, though).

[HarryPhishnuts]

I would be surprised if it was a manned aircraft at this point. Folks are taking a lot of different lessons from the war in Ukraine right now and, right or wrong, I think the manned FEBA type of roles (CAS, Recon, ...) are going to give way to drones of one type of the other. I think that's largely why the US Army canceled the FARA program and I think the USAF will follow similar thinking.

Well, that may be  the plan but, it may also be pertinent to remember the words of Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke : " No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the main enemy forces. " Drones played with  by computer geeks sitting safely behind a console 200 miles away may seem attractive but, what happens when the technology goes belly up and, there's no Plan B to call on? Drones assuredly have some part to play in some roles but, I think it might be very unwise to get too reliant on them.

That's true, was just reading an article that alot of the new guided weapons that are being introduced in Ukraine only have about a 2-4 week effective life before the Russians start to figure out counter-measures, mainly some form of GPS jamming.  Its the old game of measure/counter-measure.

The problem with manned CAS (especially anit-tank) in the FEBA is going to be attrition, and what is "acceptable" losses. I remember reading Hacketts Third World War 1985 back then and the assumption in the book that within a month over 50% of the NATO CAS support (A-10s, Harriers, AlphaJets, ...) would be gone. And this was the exact scenario the A-10 was built for. While it was fiction is was based on the analysis and assumptions of the time. I think Ukraine is proving out to some measure alot of those assumptions, especially the vulnerability of manned CAS (both fixed wing and rotary). It can be done, just at a cost.

[Beermonster58]

I would be surprised if it was a manned aircraft at this point. Folks are taking a lot of different lessons from the war in Ukraine right now and, right or wrong, I think the manned FEBA type of roles (CAS, Recon, ...) are going to give way to drones of one type of the other. I think that's largely why the US Army canceled the FARA program and I think the USAF will follow similar thinking.

Well, that may be  the plan but, it may also be pertinent to remember the words of Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke : " No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the main enemy forces. " Drones played with  by computer geeks sitting safely behind a console 200 miles away may seem attractive but, what happens when the technology goes belly up and, there's no Plan B to call on? Drones assuredly have some part to play in some roles but, I think it might be very unwise to get too reliant on them.

That's true, was just reading an article that alot of the new guided weapons that are being introduced in Ukraine only have about a 2-4 week effective life before the Russians start to figure out counter-measures, mainly some form of GPS jamming.  Its the old game of measure/counter-measure.

The problem with manned CAS (especially anit-tank) in the FEBA is going to be attrition, and what is "acceptable" losses. I remember reading Hacketts Third World War 1985 back then and the assumption in the book that within a month over 50% of the NATO CAS support (A-10s, Harriers, AlphaJets, ...) would be gone. And this was the exact scenario the A-10 was built for. While it was fiction is was based on the analysis and assumptions of the time. I think Ukraine is proving out to some measure alot of those assumptions, especially the vulnerability of manned CAS (both fixed wing and rotary). It can be done, just at a cost.

Fair point. . I also (personally) think that if Armed Forces DO go down the Drone road to the extent that some people think  then, it's going to make wars more likely and more frequent once you remove the human element. The cost could therefore be even higher. Also, drones cannot capture territory or, flush out positions that are well dug in etc. Somebody will still have to get their hands dirty.. However, this is straying beyond the original topic!

[Weaver]

How effective drones are in the long term depends upon progress with countermeasures. Drones are only small by carrying small payloads and only cheap by being simple. If you can make small payloads ineffective and simplicty a vulnerability then you erode their effectiveness. Historically, new weapon technologies have had only a limited time window in which to become "transformative" before countermeasures and familiarity relegated them to "one more club in an ever expanding golf bag".

I think big guns on "fighter-style" ground attack aircraft are history: missiles are too cheap and much more capable now. Something I do think has possibilities is what I call the "Vertical Gunship". This is a transport-type aircraft fitted with a vertically-mounted (possible retractable), limited-traverse, smallish-calibre cannon, high-magnification optical targetting systems and a sophisticated fire control system. The aircraft sits over a low-intensity conflict zone at 15,000ft, well out of range of AAA and MANPADS. When the operators see a target, they lock, on, the FCS does the calcs and gives the pilot steering cues. The gun then fires a single round or a short burst, which lands on the target precisely, destroying a small point target with high precision but at low cost. The aircraft might also have droppable, long-endurance drones whose main job is to measure wind speeds and atmospherics between the Gunship and the ground.

Why not use a missile? Much more expensive.
Why not use a bomb? Takes too long to fall, exposing it to cross-winds, which would be particularly bad for a small bomb the size of a 30mm cannon shell.

[Beermonster58]

The aircraft sits over a low-intensity conflict zone at 15,000ft, well out of range of AAA and MANPADS. .

Not out of range of AAA guns typically larger than about 37mm calibre. The Javelin MANPAD on which I trained was effective up to 5500 metres. The current StarStreak MANPAD has an effective ceiling of 7000 metres  Also, they'd be a very juicy target for any missile larger than a MANPAD system which would also include any mobile SAM system

[HarryPhishnuts]

The aircraft sits over a low-intensity conflict zone at 15,000ft, well out of range of AAA and MANPADS. .

Not out of range of AAA guns typically larger than about 37mm calibre. The Javelin MANPAD on which I trained was effective up to 5500 metres. The current StarStreak MANPAD has an effective ceiling of 7000 metres  Also, they'd be a very juicy target for any missile larger than a MANPAD system which would also include any mobile SAM system

Yeah it's a bit of a catch-22. If you have a low-intensity zone to fly over then you probably have air-superiority over the theater which probably means that you've conducted SEAD to take out most higher altitude threats. If you've got that then you can just fly any old LGB equipped aircraft right over the FEBA above the manpad threat and go tank-plinking (ala F-111s in the 1st Gulf War, they actually took out more tanks than A-10s).

I think for anit-tank in a near-peer conflict, which was what the A-10 was built for, any non-line of sight solution will be some form of drone/missile/artillery type weapon. The lines between those three options are already getting blurry, I think as measure/counter-measure goes it will only get more so. My $.02.