A-10 replacement

[Velocity173]

The Messerschmitt 263 is here and ready for work!

http://worldwarwings.com/successor-10-warthog-no-one-used-yet/

 

[Velocity173]

 

[masloki]

The Messerschmitt 263 is here and ready for werk !

http://worldwarwings.com/successor-10-warthog-no-one-used-yet/

Ftfy

 

[Seanaldinho]

Too attractive, would never work.

 

[PilotRPI]

Looks like something out of a bad 80s movie/show and I really want one.

 

[Dr. O]

He is the most original thinker in airplane design since Orville and Wilbur.
Maybe the ARES should be the replacement for the Warthog, or maybe not - I don't know.
But what I do know is that he failed to install the most critical weapon component.
And that is the alcohol, caviar, and hooker assault on lots and lots of Senators, Congressmen, and their staffs - without which a weapons system is dead on the end of the runway.

 

[Velocity173]

He is the most original thinker in airplane design since Orville and Wilbur.
Maybe the ARES should be the replacement for the Warthog, or maybe not - I don't know.
But what I do know is that he failed to install the most critical weapon component.
And that is the alcohol, caviar, and hooker assault on lots and lots of Senators, Congressmen, and their staffs - without which a weapons system is dead on the end of the runway.

Well he had a few hurtles with this aircraft. First, he went on a study done by the Army for a light CAS aircraft when they had no authority to receive one in the first place (Key West Agreement). Second, the AF has never been big on the CAS role but they were quite happy already with the A-10 in the 80s. Finally, I think there were those worried about Scaled's ability to produce the aircraft in large numbers. Could have been just bad timing as well. Like the T-46, if it were built today, it might have a chance.

It's the age old argument, quantity over quality. Guys like Boyd and Burton (Pentagon Wars) were big on a small, lightweight, cheap CAS platform. With the O-AX study out, looks like they're revisiting the idea.

 

[kyleb]

Is a 25mm cannon big enough to do the job? Beyond that, I'd question damage resistance, armor protection, load carrying, and whether it has an ejection seat. IMO, might have been better to refit a bunch of T-33's.

 

[Velocity173]

Is a 25mm cannon big enough to do the job? Beyond that, I'd question damage resistance, armor protection, load carrying, and whether it has an ejection seat. IMO, might have been better to refit a bunch of T-33's.

Against armor? Doubtful, it would have much effect on a T-72, T-80, T-90 variant. I'm thinking more soft targets such as used in the last 2 wars with the 20mm Vulcan in current aircraft.

Yes, it has some serious survivability issues but again, it would have been useful in the last two wars were there wasn't a high ADA threat...after the initial stages.

Of course I posted this as mostly a joke. It could never replace an A-10 in a high intensity, high ADA threat, heavy armor battlefield. Now, the OA-X requirement? Something like this would be a good fit.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Interesting wing configuration. I didn't watch with the sound turned on but it looks like a true canard, vs. a typical delta wing with a canard winglet fighter jet arrangement. I guess it has enough power that a main wing stall could be flown out of.

 

[OkieFlyer]

Doesn't look rugged enough to replace the A-10, but I reckon some low budget government that didn't care if it's pilots made it home could build a crap load of them for cheap and probably wreak some havoc.

Looks fun though. I'll take one.

 

[kyleb]

Against armor? Doubtful, it would have much effect on a T-72, T-80, T-90 variant. I'm thinking more soft targets such as used in the last 2 wars with the 20mm Vulcan in current aircraft.

Yes, it has some serious survivability issues but again, it would have been useful in the last two wars were there wasn't a high ADA threat...after the initial stages.

Of course I posted this as mostly a joke. It could never replace an A-10 in a high intensity, high ADA threat, heavy armor battlefield. Now, the OA-X requirement? Something like this would be a good fit.

Wouldn't a turboprop be a better approach for an "inexpensive" low altitude platform? You lose speed, but should gain in endurance, load carrying, and field requirements.

 

[TCABM]

Not a CAS platform. Too many reasons to list why.

 

[Velocity173]

Wouldn't a turboprop be a better approach for an "inexpensive" low altitude platform? You lose speed, but should gain in endurance, load carrying, and field requirements.

I agree, an AT-6 or A-29 would fit the bill. I've been saying the OV-10 should never have been retired and the Navy proved me right in Iraq.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Wouldn't a turboprop be a better approach for an "inexpensive" low altitude platform? You lose speed, but should gain in endurance, load carrying, and field requirements.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/...-802u-surveillance-and-light-attack-aircraft/


http://www.iomax.net/archangel/

 

[35 AoA]

I agree, an AT-6 or A-29 would fit the bill. I've been saying the OV-10 should never have been retired and the Navy proved me right in Iraq.

Just went back to the boat for a re-qual with a guy who flew the OV-10 on his disassoc........cool stories

 

[Art VanDelay]

It's sort of like the old argument with the AH-64 - for the cost of one Apache I could get 4 armed MH-6s. Not as technologically advanced as the 64 nor as much protection but I could inundate the battlefield with them and win thru sheer numbers.