A-10 + F-16 =

[elmayerle]

Also, I dont think the GAU-8 has ever been podded.  It's just too big.  IIRC the pods on CAS F-16s were much smaller 20 or 25mm, and without DU penetrator ammunition.  Either way GAU8 equipped F-16 were not deployed to Iraq.

Actually, there was a podded four-barrel derivative, called the GPU-5 or GEPOD-30, and it was deployed on the F-16 during Desert Storm.  It just didn't meet anyone's expectations.

The USAF was rather reluctant to let the idea of a dedicated CAS F-16 go, and planned to replace its A-10's with F-16s fitted with a version of the Warthog's Avenger cannon. In November 1988, the 174th TFW of the New York ANG began transitioning from the A-10A Thunderbolt II to the F-16A/B Block 10, becoming the first unit to operate the F-16 in a close air support role.

During Desert Storm, their 24 F-16A/B aircraft were equipped to carry the General Electric GPU-5/A Pave Claw pod on the centerline station. The pod houses a 30mm GAU-13/A four-barrel derivative of the seven-barrel GAU-8/A cannon used by the A-10A, and 353 rounds of ammunition. The aircraft received the new designation F/A-16, and were the only F-16s ever to be equipped with this weapon, intended for use against a variety of battlefield targets, including armor.

If the tests were successful, there were plans for a fleet of F/A-16C's with the same armament. To demonstrate the concept, the AF installed Pave Penny avionics, 30mm gun pods and European One paint jobs on 7 F-16C's (#83128, -129, -130, -131, -132, -144, -2??). F-16B no. 2 (#75752) was given similar treatment except for a Falcon Eye system. These aircraft flew from Nellis with the 'WA' tailcode.

The F-16s from the 174th were deployed to the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm, but the project proved to be a miserable failure. Precision aiming was impossible for several reasons:

The pylon mount isn't as steady as the A-10's rigid mounting;
The F-16 flies much faster than an A-10, giving the pilots too little time approaching the target;
Firing the gun shook the aircraft harshly and made it impossible to control;
Essential CCIP (continuously computed impact point) software was unavailable.
Pilots ended up using the gun as an area effect weapon, spraying multiple targets with ammunition, producing an effect rather like a cluster bomb. It took only a couple of days of this before they gave up, unbolted the gun pods, and went back to dropping real cluster bombs - which did the job more effectively.

The F/A-16C plan was quietly forgotten. The USAF still has plans to replace the A-10 with F-16s, but they no longer involve 30mm gun pods (or, apparently, a designation with an "A" in it).

I'd love to see the fit and form factors of a GAU-13/A compared to those of a Vulcan with the idea of a "pull and replace" on the F-16.  Failing that, perhaps a four-barrel version of the 25-mm GAU-12 on the USMC AV-8B's.  For the F-16, the interesting thing is that the ammo drum and handling chutes etc. fits right in the splice area between the forward and center fuselage sections, making assembly a pain if something's just a little bit off.

[Gary]

Ummmm, wasn't there a version of the F-16 with a bigger caliber internal gun?

[Ollie]

Aeroplane, I beat you to the push about the tail and the engine, almost 2 years earlier...

He he he.

Great minds think alike!

 

[Captain Canada]

I'm thinking of changing the tails, and the blast from the cannon won't be a problem....it'll be the blast from the TWO cannons in the former intake/engine !

Besides, it'll all be balanced out by the rearwrd firing 105mm Howitzer !

 

[Jschmus]

Ummmm, wasn't there a version of the F-16 with a bigger caliber internal gun?

As part of the aforementioned program, there was a plan to build a CAS version of the F-16 (A-16) with a 30mm internal gun.  The program fell through before any prototypes were built.

[Tophe]

I'm thinking of changing the tails

What-if you used as basis the great JHM F-16T with her T-tail?

[Captain Canada]

Yeah, that might work, Tophe !

 

[AeroplaneDriver]

Again Capt. C, dont take this as criticism, just pointing out issues to address.  Sparking your creativity, you might say!

1-With straight A-10 engines this plane would be a pig.  The F110-132 in the F-16 is about 32,000lb thrust.  The A-10s TF34s are around 7.000.  This means going from 32,000lb max thrust to 14,000!  That will make for quite the takeoff roll.

You could swap out the TF34s for CF34s.  The CF34 is a civilain engine developed from the TF34.  It powers the Bombardier CRJ series.  I think the version on the CRJ700/900 can put out closeto 13,000lb.  That would give you 26,000lb.  Still not up to the F110 performance, but much better than 14,000!

2-The engine installation itself is going to limit performance.  Combine the fact that the TF34/CF34 is a subsonic engine (not designed for supersonic airflow) and the drag from the nacelles and you lose the benefit of the F-16s aerodynamics.  The plane would do maybe Mach .8 tops.

3-The A-10 was designed around the gun.  Its whole raison d'etre is to fly low and kill tanks with the gun.  Putting the gun in an F-16 airframe implies the same mission; killing stuff down low.  The A-10 designers accepted that this mission profile had certain drawbacks, ie you're gonna take a lot of ground fire!  

To overcome this they built the A-10 like a tank.  I'm sure we've all seen the footage from the Gulf Wars of A-10s coming home with massive holes in the wings, tails shot off, etc.  The aircraft made it home because it is designed simply.  The controls are all mechanical and redundant.  One half of the tail will get it home.  The MLG tires protrude from the wells to minimize damage during a gear-up landing, etc.  The thing is designed to survive!

The F-16 just isnt designed to take that much punishment. An F-16 with the left or right horizontal tail missing is going down.  

Now get to designing!!

[AeroplaneDriver]

I honestly dont see how the bigger gun and better software are going to prevent an F-16 from taking ground fire.  The issue is the inevitability of ground fire in this role and the aircraft's ability to withstand it.  Taking out tanks with a cannon means getting low.  Getting low means being exposed to lots of unfriendly people trying to kill you.  No matter how big the gun is and how well it is aimed you can't shoot everyone at the same time.

I'm not suggesting the F-16 is fragile, just not designed to take the same beating as the A-10.

A second crewmember isnt going do much either.  In a CAS role where there is no real need for a 2nd crewmember adding one only means a tougher job for the CSAR folks when one goes down.

[Jschmus]

CAS aircraft also tend to be used as armed FAC aircraft.  In the FAC role, an extra set of eyes is a definite plus, if not a requisite.  I've read a number of letters in the Air Force Journal and other publications wherein assorted pilots, officers and others have griped about the Air Force not getting the two-seat A-10.  That's a legitimate gripe.  The A-10A is a formidable airplane in any role, but adding a WSO to the equation would improve its performance in a number of areas.  I know a guy who flew the OV-10 in Vietnam and the A-10 in Desert Storm.  He's said once or twice that a two-seat A-10 would have been the best of both worlds.

Remember, this is the What If Forum.  By necessity, this genre sometimes includes material that in other environments might be regarded as "silly".  It doesn't have to be 100% feasible to work as a model.

[WeeJimmy]

Ummm... its only a ... no .. its not even a model yet


Good show CC  

[nev]

Remember, this is the What If Forum.  By necessity, this genre sometimes includes material that in other environments might be regarded as "silly".  It doesn't have to be 100% feasible to work as a model.

Hey, if half the countries in Europe can buy the F-104 as a strike aircraft, then anythings possible!    

[Captain Canada]

Hey, if half the countries in Europe can buy the F-104 as a strike aircraft, then anythings possible!  

Yeah, but in the hands of us Canadians, those same 104s could haul donkey at low level.....and it had the rest of you shitting your pants !

 

[nev]

Well, it could fly very very fast in a straight line for a few minutes.......and, er.....thats about it!    

[Captain Canada]

Well, it could fly very very fast in a straight line for a few minutes.......and, er.....thats about it!  

Hey, we're talking about the 104 here, not the EE Lightning !

:dum: