Can the A-10 REALLY be stealth? Probably not, but here's a fair shakedown.
Flyout Discord (JOIN FOR MORE INFO ONTHE GAME): / discord
[Join my discord!]: / discord
Twitch: / messier82ap (I never stream except maybe once a year btw)
RIPPLE TANK SIMULATION: www.falstad.com/ripple/
Thank you for watching! :)
Okay guys, to clear things up, this video is primarily a satire. The modern A-10 C can in fact carry APKWS and targeting pods. However, almost throughout the entirety of this video, I reference the earlier A-10 A. While it can in the modern age use targeting systems, the "improvement" on this one is an integrated targeting system that can be used without compromising stealth. Plus, IMO, a majority of the Friendly-Fire problems with the A-10 were due to its primary use in higher risk for friendly fire CAS missions, as well as a lack of communication between pilots. As mentioned before, the A-10 is not a poorly designed plane by any metric but fails to have a dedicated task in the modern age. While a lot of people seem to strongly dislike or like the A-10, I find myself incredibly neutral on the actual vehicle. However, in a primarily satire video, I couldn't help but make fun of it. Take it all with a grain of salt.
You are factually incorrect.
With the war on the Middle East kinda over for the US, though they may come back T some point, the A-10 is essentially a niche solution that's looking for a problem; the issue is, there are also other planes that can solve that problem.
Hello. Flyout. Thank you! I was planning on looking up mods for DCS. I could use help to quickly model something in for repairs and the time being now. Apparently, Grim Reapers, their DCS mod guy, CH, as well as Alex Hollings of Sandboxx, and others can't be bothered. I do not want to post publicly, at least until the concept is worthy of showing visually to take to the ones who could make things happen. The military industrial complex CEO types are too insulated from contact from normal folks. Imagine one craft on the sea which could hurl 10 to 13 times the attack and defense packages of an Arleigh Burke type at say, China. One unit per task group. That is just the beginning. Curious? Is there a way to contact besides this open area? Channel creators used to be able to message directly.
Okay. The A10 issue? Solved for the most part. The F35C. Why? More wing area, over double the thrust with possibly more than one type of thrust cycle and stealth. Sensors like crazy. Does it have 2 engines and a titanium bathtub? No, but it isn't supposed to really get in close, at least not until a hierarchy of needs in eliminating risks is completed. Sure, there is a 25mm gun pod, which is nearly as effective as a GAU-8, but far less ammo. I tried to get Grim Reapers, CH attention and again, too busy. I guess my idea isn't crucial, if anyone knew the attrition of Russian armor and the Chinese paper tiger. An old, canceled project of laser guided (not much as so fast) kinetic toothpicks. Looked into size and capacity/weight. 32 internal and 100 in murder mode. Over 3x the range of the GAU-8, if memory serves. Interested?
@@skyrimpro117 you could've said something of value, but all I see is opinion
Jesus dont jumpscare me like that with an a9
Therapist: American su-25 isn't real it can't hurt you American su-25 aka A-9: 😀
@@SpartanJey1219 lmao i was coming here to say that XD
@@ndfgaming6824 lol 😆
I jumped out of my chair and through the roof
Looks better than the a10
I dont think the Wipeout from Arma is meant to be a ''Stealth A-10'' per-say, more of a ''Legally distinct American ground support aircraft''
Like everything else, it is an "extrapolation" of the A-10 life extensions and refits on the table with yeah, some shape changes to make it juuuuuust legally distinct enough. Really the biggest difference is the air to air package it has in the plane showcase, just Why
@@destructorinatorconsider that it's really funny (Also, it used to be the only fixed wing aircraft for NATO for years before the fighter jets dlc came out)
The equipment in that game is basically to give you a feeling of familiarity for what a future war could be while also not having to pay for expensive licensing fees.
From the description of the plane in game: "The A-164 Wipeout is a single-seat aircraft used for close air support and air interdiction. The life-cycle of its predecessor, the A-10, ended in 2030 and the need for replacement grew more important with the rising tension in the Pacific. A limited development budget did not allow for a fresh start, instead the concept of the A-10 was improved with better shape, engines and armaments. Wipeout is armed with a 30 mm seven-barrel Minigun, Falchion-22 short range air-to-air missiles, Macer air-to-ground missiles, unguided Shrieker rockets (HE and AP variants) and GBU-12 laser guided bombs." So no. They had 0 issue using A-10's in the OG's, and they had 0 issue using them in COD and other games.
@@Wolfstanus You really DON'T need to pay for "licensing fees" when making a video game aircraft Otherwise every plane sim and strategy game like Warno would go bankrupt before they can release it JFC, i sometimes honestly think you people just say stuff without even thinking about it for a second. There's TONS of games that feature modern US weaponry without needing to pay any license. World in Conflict comes to mind too. The entirety of the wargame series.
Tbf, I think Arma 3's version was less "make it stealth" and more "make an A-10 we don't have to pay a license for".
I think one of the reasons the A-10 engine sits that high on the airframe is because lower the intake duct will make engine choke on smoke the gun generated, which in this build you didn't do. So the stealth A--10 is even more impossible now.
Another reason for the high/rear positioning was protection against AA guns.
It also helps hide the exhaust from ground-based IR sensors.
It's also for protection against FOD when operating from field airstrips, and to allow the engines to be kept running while the aircraft is serviced and rearmed between sorties to reduce turnaround times.
I would have answered but folks beat me to it. There's a few advantages, including keeping dust out of the engines, and extra IR shielding from the ground to protect the vehicle from being shot down. This design did not need to worry about heat due to the typical active cooling systems of stealth aircraft, but sacrificed the high mounted intake to have s-ducting, and I moved it far enough back where it would (hopefully) not ingest high levels of gun debris. Unfortunately there isn't exactly a way to tell in flyout for sure
Would having the intake above the body (a la B-2/B-21) work? It’d fit with the austere runway requirements and reduce required ducting giving more room for internal ordinance. It would have the high AoA problems but A-10s aren’t pulling high-G turns as it is now. Then it would just feel like a compromised stealth bomber with a gun.
That thing would fit greatly, into the aesthetics of Nuclear Option.
I was about to say the same
@@TheRealMeowMeow01 Same 😅
No way people know about nuclear option
@@alqash6749 if they know about flyout, there's a chance they knew Nuclear option, it's still in the same "Genre circle" with Tiny combat arena, Sprocket, simpleplanes etc...
@@alqash6749 Game may explode. It plays well.
to all the people who've suggested "make a supersonic biplane" look up the ace combat X-49 Night Raven. that technically qualifies as a supersonic biplane. it has has two staggered wing assemblies, and has supersonic capable jet engines.
*squewe voice acting* honorable mention: goofy ahh plen 2 The XR-900 Geopelia is a Neucom-made tailless, supersonic biplane that features lots of curvatures, aeon-dependent engines, satellite laser connection, supermaneuverability, COFFIN systems, and brain synapses systems, made by former engineers of the similar aircraft X-49 Night Raven, to improve upon the already outstanding stats from said aircraft. To obtain the- *squewe outro*
Or look up the PZL M-15 Belphegor. It’s not supersonic, but it is, to my knowledge, the only jet powered biplane.
To all those asking why we don't have a supersonic biplane, it's because drag increases exponentially the faster you get, and eventually you reach a point where the benefits of extra lift are canceled out by all the drag and it's just more efficient to use a single wing.
A fellow connoisseur of the sacred texts I see. Good thing Renas flying a flanker
Imagine the sheer terror on the enemys face when out of nowhere, a BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT comes, they can`t lock you on radars, they can`t use MANPADS against you, and you just fly away into nowhere. Imagine using these for night raids. Radar cannot spot it, IRS cannot target it, everybody is asleep but their demise is rapidly approaching their location...
effective ? yes. worth it, not really. you could achieve the same effect with a stealth drone equiped with a dozen hellfires. all they will see is the beep of their EWS suddenly seeing missiles popping out of nowhere and raining precision fire on all of their anti-air before they even know what happened.
Btw for anyone that doesn't know, IRS is infrared radar sistem, not the tax one ⬇️the bottom comment is prob correct, I just guessed from the abbreviation.
Just a small correction. It's not IRS it's IRST and it stands for InfraRed Search and Track
Stealth doesn't mean invisible, just shorter range. The range the gun works at is way too close for radars or IR sensors to end up seeing you anyways.
or just do drones
"..this is why A-10 doesnt really have a place in modern combat..." But it has a place in my heart ❤
its hard to say that. they keep trying to get rid of them and they just keep bring them back
I like the "grin" it makes when the panel for the GAU is retracted. slightly silly, but also a bit intimidating
Its that "Ohh, you gonn' get it now, son." smirk
This plane features some admittedly, very close design elements as other stealth aircraft of past and present. The nose section feels very reminiscent of the F-22 & F-35 to a lesser degree. The engine section is clearly inspired by the YF-23, which ultimately makes sense considering the YF-23 prioritized stealth over maneuverability though it definitely wasn't a slouch in the latter category like the A-10 is. Ultimately I still don't see this being effective, it still retains alot of the features that make the A-10 sluggish like it's UAV-like wings while now costing an absurd amount of money being a 5th generation aircraft, ultimately the takeaway remains that this thing would be a waste of money in every way imaginable. Still stealthier than the SU-57 though.
Maybe the real stealth A10 is a F117 with a gun pod
@@Appletank8 No, the real stealth A-10 where the (lack) of friends we made along the way. Yes I'm making that dumbass joke.
It has way more hardpoints and bigger weapons bay than the F-35, so it's a waste of money, but not even near as much as Fat Amy is right now... The gun is useless, though.
@@noyrz F-35 was a money dump piece of crap wannabe F-22 that should've just been the YF-23 and nobody can change my mind.
@@noyrz Technically speaking these days the F-35s are quite cheap to buy. Much cheaper than 4th gens, at I think about $80mil(F-35A), compared to 4.5th gens, which can be above $100mil(Typhoon, Rafale, Super Hornet etc... are quite expensive). Fairly expensive maintenance wise, but that's typical for 5th gens. Also stop believing the anti-F-35 propaganda, stop pretending you know better than the many engineers who designed the aircraft, or the pilots who fly it, its dumb. By the way, not sure if you're are aware of this, but every new aircraft was slandered in the same way, with almost no exceptions, so I wouldn't believe any of it, the media knows literally nothing about aviation. The F-15 was too complex and expensive and couldn't dogfight(now the most effective fighter jet possibly ever), the F-22 was way too expensive and unneeded, the Panavia Tornado was too expensive and too complex and too technologically reliant(served effectively for years), the Harrier was a useless air show gimmick(served effectively for years and had a perfect a2a kill ratio in the Falklands), the F-111 was quite harshly criticised and ended up being quite good etc... etc... no doubt there are many more examples(the fun way to find them is read through old aviation books). Now of course people say "Why did they retire the Tornado/Harrier so early, they could've kept flying"(Of course these were pretty great bomber aircraft, but they were harshly, wrongly criticised when the first entered service) or "Why do we need the F-35, why don't we just upgrade the F-15, and we already have the F-22"(Of course forgetting how expensive and controversial those programs were). I would recommend "F-35" by Tom Burbage, its a fascinating book on what seems to be a very capable and impressive aircraft and program, it's very interesting. Anyway in theory the F-35 can carry enough internally to complete its mission, whatever that might be, and in less contested airspace it can carry more externally if required. This shouldn't be shocking, because that's how stealth aircraft work, ultimately to maintain a degree of low observability weapons must be stored internally, and because you have to fit other equipment in the jet, the size of these weapons bays will be limited, that's how its supposed to work. Not to mention of course the networking, sensor, electronic warfare and reconnaissance capabilities of the F-35, which already put it above 4.5th gens in theory, which would probably have already been detected in an internal weapons bays only scenario, whatever that may lead to, because of course the range at which an F-35 can be detected is in theory significantly lower than its predecessors. But, honestly, if you feel you can design an aircraft with the internal capacity of a fully loaded 4.5 generation fighter, with I don't know, mach 3 performance(speed is of course mostly irrelevant past mach 1 because if you look at statistics, or just read accounts aircraft almost never seem to fly supersonic, and certainly almost never at mach 2+), perfect stealth, low maintenance costs, with cheap development and production costs go and speak to the government, because they'd be very interested in what you have to say. Just interested in what you think a currently existing, viable F-35 alternative is, and an upgraded F-15(or other 4th gens like Typhoon, Gripen etc...) obviously isn't an acceptable answer, because they are being adopted to use alongside F-35s regardless. Until then the F-35 will probably just continue flying in increasingly high numbers, with even more air forces and continue to be upgraded to more impressive standards. Honestly the thing looks amazing as well. In ten-fifteen years, its entirely possible that no one will remember the controversy around the aircraft, and people will say "Why do we need the FCAS/Tempest/NGAD/F-XX?, why can't we just make more cheaper fighters like the F-35?"
Radio Engineer here. Making something more "angular" is actually making that thing more detectable by radar. Whole reason of stealth aircraft is to avoid 90 degrees angles, make any cross section smaller and make surface as smooth as possible. Because 3, 90 degrees angles will reflect ray directly to the sender on whole area, 2 90 degrees do that in a line, and a sphere does that in a single point. What we see irl for stealth aircraft is trading between lower cross section and air-frame strength
Four sound waves, curves with radius in the range of the wavelength allow the wave to propagate along their surface, unsure about radio. Apart from that, for stealth, you want flat surfaces at as acute an angle to the imcoming radar as feasable. Thats why nighthawk has a single flat bottom.
The A-11 “GodHog”
"Oh shit, where?!"
"Where? It's both everywhere and nowhere."
Technically is should be A-13. A-11 & A-12 were Navy stealth attack planes in the same vein of thinking as the F-117 Nighthawk that never got off the ground.
@@pyronuke4768 NAVY!?!? They were USAF and CIA planes lmfaoooo
@@StryderFi that A-12 was circa 1960 and has nothing to do with attack planes. The A-10 was first flown in the 70's, and the sequential follow on A-12 was late 80's/early 90's. If you are still unsure, look up McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II.
Something 99% of people forget about when it comes to stealth is, you don’t expose the aircraft to radar systems in the first place, if you don’t absolutely have to. It’s why the B2 spends all its time in the US and why it’s never sent out to do any type of strategic missions, the air force doesn’t want it getting soaked by an S-400 radar every time it goes out to do a mission because eventually it’ll get locked up, which is the exact thing that happened with the F-117. With that said, that’s the reason a stealth A-10 is not only stupid but also wouldn’t work. It would work just long enough until some radar team pulled enough voodoo magic and locked it…or waited till it opened the door to fire the GAU and the radar soaked up all that hot shiny metal.
I hate to be that guy but the f117 wasn't and isn't now really a good plane, it was mostly a practical test bed for stealth and not a SEAD aircraft being that it was only officially armed with two hard points and mostly only carried JDAM's, laser guided bombs, and tactical nukes (though those never got used). It couldn't do the job of SEAD,CAS or most anything other then precision bombing, that's why the f-22 and f-35 exist and now the f117 serves as a trainer for current stealth aircraft. In my opinion the real reason a "stealth a-10" doesn't and probably will never exist is simple, its designed to carry to many munitions. All of those bombs and missiles strapped to it make it very "unstealthy" so you'd go through all of the cost to make a "stealth a-10" just to functionally come out with an obese f-35 that would carry maybe slightly more weapons in its bays handle like a barge and be sent on missions that would throw away the stealth just to put all the bombs and missiles back onto hard points. The A-10 started losing its role the day precision munitions came onto the market. You don't really need loiter time and big guns when you can drop a bomb or missile from 20 miles away and hit an ant in the butt, and be turned around and heading back home long before anyone can even dream of shooting back at you.
No that's almost exactly my point. It feels like by building a stealth A-10, we're just making a worse F-117, which was barely usable in the first place (albeit the best plane for SEAD during its conception many years ago, it got quickly replaced). The F-117 is only used in red-flag operations as an aggressor to train the military to detect stealth vehicles. Hence why this video is ultimately poking fun at the stupid ideas of the internet
@@messier82ac "we're just making a worse F-117" it would be way better than an F-117 as the only reason it is that angular is that it was completely hand-designed as one of the very first stealth aircrafts. But it is a terrible aircraft in basically every regards. a new version designed from the ground up could very well fill in the niche of air-support that is currently rather lacking. The US just doesn't need that right now as most wars are just proxy-wars, small-scale fights, or supporting random warlords.
Please give us the 100 year development part 2, please, I beg you And 110 likes in 5 hours is shocking
I asked and he said he will
@@legosrcool3420yea I asked in the Flyout discord and he said he will definitely continue it
That video is about 2 weeks away I believe
@@messier82acthe man the myth the legend himself
@@messier82ac thank you, thank you
Finally a stealth A10 video I don't feel the need to comment " 1. Not real 2. Stupid idea" I think your version is about as accurate as a "real life" one would be. But also a glaring demonstration as to why it's never going to happen. Well done
While the A10 doesn't really have much purpose in modern warfare, rule of cool keeps it alive in our hearts. And your Warthog II design is damn sexy.
The A-10 does have precision targeting and PGM capabilities now. They've been equipped with Sniper and LITENING targeting pods for using weapons such as APKWS, mavericks, JDAMs, paveways, and SDB I. It's disadvantage for CAS is mainly it's lack of speed so it can't respond as quickly and it's higher cost than other similarly slow low capability platforms such as turboprops.
How sadly ironic that what was meant to be a mass-produced low-cost CAS plane is now a dying money pit only kept alive through sheer politics and PR.
Yeah I was gonna say. Sure it can't mount Hellfires, but that's only because Hellfires are a shorter range weapon than Mavericks, both of which are Precision Guided Anti Tank weapons
And the single seat nature means that the pilot has to fly and look through thermal optics at the same time, (multitasking is inherently inefficient)
The later upgrades of the A-10 can absolutely carry precision munitions, I specifically mention hellfires because of their high precision, low cost, and low explosive radius. I've found a few accounts of A-10 pilots wishing they could use them, most likely due to their modern role in COIN operations. Also, as mentioned before, the A-10 lacked an integrated targeting system. While this isn't a problem for a regular A-10, it is critical for a theoretical "stealth" A-10. Apologies for the confusion.
These are bolt on kits though, they're not integrated and internal. This means that the when he was modelling around it's airframe and systems it wasn't present as they're external features. Its not a feature of the aircraft as much a feature of the targeting pod, which you could theoretically tape to a 737 if you wanted to.
You made this jet's aesthetics harmonize the boundaries between brutal, unchecked, and visceral versus elegant, versatile, and surreal. I love how intentional everything about your design feels. It's my favorite concept I've seen.
Honestly I love the fact you took the time to practically merge the A-10, F-22 and F-35 into one package and took the time to explain, within legal boundaries of cause, how stealth craft work and noting the absurd claims of the Horton based purely of an amateurs understanding of IRL stealth craft, physics and how wooden mock ups aren't a thing. Honestly would love to see this series if its like a hybrid of explaining aviation history, engineering and explaining how the physics work whilst attempting to achieve silly ideas in a fun tone. Gives me Martincitopants KSP series vibe and I mean that in the best way possible.
DC-10 interceptor
Not the Coffin Box☠
Stealth A-10 makes sense if it was a drone designed for high risk, high reward missions, where speed and evasion of enemy radar is of importance, and conditions (like range, and enemy counter battery ability, lack of long range fast cruise missiles) do not allow for use of artillery or missiles. A known column of hostile armor which sits just outside of conventional armaments use, is a situation which happened just two years ago IRL. Which means it will likely happen again.
Assuming in the future we could use 3D printers to quickly produce replacable drones and *somehow* make stealth cheaper, I guess it sounds reasonable. Assuming loosing them by the dozen is acceptable given replacement time and the stealth is there so they can get to the mission area without being detected and that's it because once they start shooting half of the continent will know they're there.
The Air Force should tear up that memo they had with the Army about CAS, and just turn over all the A-10s to Army Aviation. The Army has plenty of experience with fixed-wing, just none of them (as far as we know) have any offensive capabilities. That'll Free up funds for the Air Force for the 6th Gen Stealth. Win-Win! Fun video - Fly Army! 🚁
Army top brass doesn't want it, and the manufacturing capabilities for replacement parts are gone. Like a classic car, it's only going to get more and more expensive as parts near their end of life.
@@FawfulDied True that, yet there are plenty of A-10s in the boneyard, so who knows how much longer that could indeed keep her flying. Wishful thinking, and fun to think about!
@@John_SlideRule_Bullay well that and the fact that air-force really wants to retain that memo they have with the army about Cas. cos if they tear it up it means less funding for them and more funding the army.
@@generalkenobi5173 Always follow the money!
@@John_SlideRule_Bullay ya
While we'd all love to imagine a stealth A-10, I'd just be happy to see a (not specifically a warthog/thunderbolt!) stealth aircraft designed to fill the same niche, but adapted more towards the modern battlefield and doctrines. Not held back by the idea that it has to follow any part of the same design language. Like, the warthog no longer fills the niche it was designed for (effectively, at least!) but what if we made something wholly new, that *does* effectively fill that niche again. And, like you said, stealth aircraft aren't cheap, but from another point of logic... Stealth technologies are intended to make something less likely to be shot down. And what's the most costly part of an aircraft outside of maintenance? Replacing them when they get shot down and macro part replacement when larger portions of the aircraft are hit but still make it back to base with that massive damage. If they're less likely to be shot down, shot at in the first place, or near impossible when used correctly, that's the biggest part of the expenses of maintaining a fleet effectively cut. So, by a somewhat reaching technicality, they are... TECHNICALLY less expensive to use. Just not in the long run because those maintenance costs will still add up over time.
The issue with the A-10 isnt that it no longer fills a certain niche, it still performs well in the role it was designed for. The issue is that its role is no longer required, the F-35 can perform ground attack (including CAS) better than the A-10 ever could. The niche of having a plane that can “roll with the punches” is just no longer required since PGM’s have made it so a plane no longer needs to be close to what it is shooting at. And this has been the case since desert storm, (the f-111 notoriously outperformed the A-10 in its own role)
Also because pilots are expensive and losing a pilot looks bad on TV.
@@koekiejam18Depending on how you define the "role it was designed for", the A-10 actually isn't performing "well", and perhaps never did. They did some tests against armor in _ideal_ conditions, and, as it turned out, the A-10's gun just wasn't capable of reliably penetrating the heavy armor. In other words, it would mostly only be good against more lightly armored vehicles (APCs, SPGs, jeeps, etc.). Anything near an actual tank or an IFV, it just can't hurt it sufficiently. Source: LazerPig (on the A-10).
Honestly, F-35 is probably what you want from a stealth A-10. Some versions even have a 25 mm rotary cannon
F-35 fails in two categories, engine redundancy/durability. CAS, it can be as stealthy as it wants but some IR MANPADS can still smack it out of the air.. A-10 could survive a hit from one of those and may still make it home.. limping, but make it. F-35 has no such ability. Loitering capability is also an issue. Fast stealth jets are nice but when they run out of ammo fast and you have a prolonged engagement on the ground the last thing you want is your air support blowing its load early and going home, leaving you with nothing.. which is all the 35 can really do. Stealth loadout doesn't have enough weapons to keep the fire support coming. Not saying the A-10 is better, it is past its due date, but there is nothing really in the US arsenal that fulfills the CAS role really well that has any kind of stealth.
@@Grisbane The F-16 was more than *3x more survivable* per sortie than the A-10 in Desert Storm on the same ground attack missions. F-16: 13,087 sorties, 3 losses, ~1:4350 loss per sortie A-10: 8084 sorties, 6 losses, ~1:1350 loss per sortie Gulf War Air Power Survey - Thomas A. Keaney & Eliot A. Cohen That's a single-engine, "low redundancy/durability" fast jet with no low observability modifications. A-10 taking hits and making it back through sheer willpower/tankiness is 100% a myth. In reality, being able to escape enemy fire in the first place is way more survivable than "armor" or "redundancy". The onion exists for a reason.
@@Warriorcat49 where did the 16 come into this convo? this was between the F-35 and A-10.. 35 is not nearly as fast nor can carry nearly as much in the stealth configuration as a 16 can normally. The 16 is not a stealth aircraft and does not rely on low observability for survival, unlike the 35. 16 not being stealth also can carry external fuel with little downside (outside drag/weight increase), negating the loiter issue. I know the 16 is perfectly capable in CAS, so is the Strike Eagle and Super Hornet. Next time try not bringing a strawman argument.
@@Grisbane you missed one thing... the F35 is a stealth aircraft, no one is locking onto it with a manpad, not to mention it's much faster.
@@sneakysnake7695 Stealth on the 35 is referencing the frontal radar cross-section/observability. Most MANPAD's are IR based.. and the 35's engines don't have the heat diffusion the 117, 22, b-2 and b-21 do/did. They can very much lock onto the 35. 35 because of issues with the surfaces on it largely needs to fly below supersonic speeds, it can go fast, but typically do not because of how much higher speeds damage flight surfaces. It can be prone to MANPAD fire. the chance to hit is lower than against the A-10 for sure, but if it does get smacked, the pilot likely dies, for certain the aircraft won't survive it.
0:25 *Spiderman pointing at Spiderman meme*
I am so much in the radar right now. Maybe I need some coating
I don't think we should always assume ultra-modern warfare. Forecasts make the mistake of always assuming that our opponents are fighting with similar equipment, e.g. in the Ukraine Russia is deploying T-72 tanks, while Mig-29s and Su-27s are still often the standard in terms of flight technology. So there are still situations in which, for example, an A10 can fulfill exactly the purpose for which it was once conceived.
Despite everything, it looks extremely cool.
15:44 the YF 23 had RAM mixed in with the polycarbonate to help reduce its radar cross section and honestly id be surprised if other stealth aircraft didn't do something similar
My stupid idea: make an artificially stable, thrust vectoring, delta wing with cannards
*Waits for the Warthog PR Corps to start flaming the comments* :P Don't get me wrong, , I have a sweet spot for the Thunderbolt II. It's a distinctive, charismatic (in a weird kinda way) and unique aircraft with the world's deadliest stogie sticking out of it's mouth. It's got a long and impressive (if at times controversial) combat record, and is well-loved by the troops it's supported over 40-odd years of service (despite having the worst record of Blue on Blue of any USAF strike platform). Having said that, it's also got some serious flaws, as mentioned in the video. And it's old. From memory the last A-10s rolled off the production line in the early to mid '80s. Yes, updates and refits have amended some of the more glaring oversights of the initial design, but there's only so much refitting can do to compensate for metal fatigue and the increasing cost of spare parts. And this is all without discussing if the design's initial role (to provide close air support over the front line against a peer or near-peer opponent in contested airspace) is viable now. assuming it was ever viable at all (and that argument's been raging since before the first YA-10A flew). And like another plane with a porcine nickname I love (the F-111, here in Oz we used to call them 'The Pig' or 'The Razorback'), My personal affection for the plane doesn't change the reality of modern battlespaces or the physics of aerodynamics and material degradation. And again, as pointed out in the video, there's platforms that can do the jobs the A-10 has been doing, either cheaper, with greater chances of success, better accuracy, or a combination of the above. It's time for the A-10 to make one last long BRRRT into the sunset. She will be missed, sure, but as with all things the Warthog's time has come.
We should make a supersonic CAS platform
@@Techno_Idioto It already exists. It's called an F-16. The stealth version's called the F-35. :P
@@malusignatius I thought it was the F-15. Ah well, the F-16 and F-35 are fine aircraft.
@@Techno_Idioto The F-16's the interdictor/deep strike version.
The biggest irony about the A10 is that it’s gun is actually it’s worst feature. The fanboys love it for the simple fact that “big gun go brrrt” but it was obsolete before it entered service. The 30mm simply cannot penetrate Soviet armour (the one thing it was designed to do). The only thing that kept it relevant was it’s ability to mount external ordnance while operating in a mostly low threat environment.
This Plane looks great
I think you should make the best WW2 dog fighter. Using modern aerodynamic and engineering knowledge.
Already exists
Thanks
Great success! Also I can't wait for the second part of the 100-years-series.
I could watch so many of these videos its crazy, thank you for making them! Really interesting and made want to buy the game. Now im trying to design things myself
Doubles as a stealth Su-25 as well.
Regarding cost, I don't think it necessarily needs to be cheap, just less expensive than other stealth planes. Considering irl stealth projects have wound up expending trillions this could be a selling point, even market it as inexpensive, but whether or not _that's_ feasible is yet another question. I'd still love to see it as an Ace Combat mod.
22:32 bro gave the civilians run for their money (also incredible looking plane you've built there :D)
Honestly the "real" way to make a modern A-10 is to slap a big gun on a drone.
The new updates of the A-10Cs are actually pretty good with datalink target acquisition, an A-10C can basically hug the ground until a JTAC or an ATAC targets an enemy vehicle or ground troops, then they can approach the target and do a pop-up attack, maybe loft bombs or CCRP them directly on the enemy without ever directly looking at them, similar to what Russians are doing in Ukraine but with near real-time remote target acquisition and way better accuracy, it's actually insane, we're not talking about GPS bombs here, we're talking about one computer giving coordinates to another computer, this can be done using the A-10C's old Inertial Navigation System, with INS drift being corrected each time the A-10C reaches the Initial Point (entry point to the target area). Meanwhile, an F-16C is gonna get whacked instantly by the many numbers of Russian/Chinese SAMs that are gonna be in the area, and besides they'd run out of fuel just getting to the target. Honestly, the A-10C is the best aircraft for CAS even today. It's like a helicopter that can defend itself.
You know, I was on board with you until I remembered that the F-16 has the AGM-88 HARM in its inventory and has been used extensively in anti-radar site missions since the 80's.
or an f35 that does the same thing and also everything else, better
@@emmy8517 well, I'd argue the A-10 is better at strafing, but that's only because it was literally built for that kind of mission and you really don't want to take your super expensive and delicate fifth gen plane into small arms reach except as a last resort (though I'd say the same for a lot of fourth gens as well; the gun is basically a backup these days.)
@@emmy8517 The people who say the F-35 can do all the same things an A-10 can, are talking out of their rear. Sure, the F-35 can fly as slow as an A-10.... at a 45-degree AoA without the maneuverability. The F-35 also has nowhere near the loiter time the A-10 has. It most certainly cannot do FAC-A like the A-10 can, and it's more limited in CAS with a 1/4 of the payload. The Gun still has a lot of value when dealing with Russian or Chinese tank formations. The issues the Air-force have with the A-10 mostly have to do with it hating the CAS mission. Survivability in a modern near peer fight really isn't the big deal they make it out to be, as F35's can roll in first and perform SEAD/DEAD giving the A-10 the safety it needs to work. The only thing the A-10 really needs is a radar, and an EPAWSS survivability system like the F-15EX has, and new engines. It shouldn't be too hard to crowbar in some sort of AESA radar and like was pointed out in the video there are more efficient powerful engines that are the same size.
@@mountedpatrolman Based on your own words. The only time the A-10 is viable is when the F-35 has already came and dropped bombs right next to its Target to take out the air defenses.
3:15 correction it can indeed mount guided munitions especially the newer variants of the A-10 and if it has a targetting pod on it. Also I love how you said the A-10 cant carry guided munitions but in multiple photos you showed it was carrying said guided munitions...
"Decent precision munitions for COIN". I refer to the hellfire specifically in this instance due to its practical use in counter-insurgency. While they can mount precision munitions, there are many precision munitions designed specifically for those insurgency airspaces that are far better than what the a-10 can currently carry. I have found multiple accounts of pilots wishing they could use hellfires due to high mounting volume. Did I not mention some of the other precision munitions the a-10 could carry later in the video?
Great work. Great explanation and reasoning. Not just throwing stuff at the wall and see what sticks, like many others Subbed
Welcome back! It is great that you have returned! Love you videos so much!
I want to go back in time to the inventor of the A-10 and scream "JUST BUILD A FUCKING HELICOPTER!" Because a helicopter wouldve been so much better for what it was meant to do.
They actually tried, but gun on a heli does not work. A-10 was built in an era without smart weapons and unguided bombs were the way to go. Gun was the best choice for accuracy, which makes it useless in modern combat
they chose to develop the A10 after testing the AH-56 revealed gaps in the CAS capabilities of attack helicopters. the A10 has a lot more total payload, carries substantially longer range weapons, is better protected against MANPADs, is a lot faster, has better maintenance uptime, and is a lot cheaper both to buy and maintain (you can get 4 warthogs for the price of 1 apache). it's genuinely hard to beat as a tactical bomb truck/maverick flinger.
lol no
Common misconception. The A-10, in its designated role, is a beast to any Opfor on the ground. With the US's doctrine being built around air supremacy, the A-10 was designed to be a capable Air-to-Ground attack craft. It still outperforms every "modern" US aircraft that isn't already running in it's niche. The A-10 was never meant to tale on air targets, that was what the F-15 was for. It didn't need to contend with SEAD or anti-air defenses, because that's what the F-16 was for. It didn't need to strategically hit targets... Because that's what the F-111 was for. The A-10 had it's flaws, but for its purpose, it was stellar compared to the Harrier and Su-25.
I think if you added modest stealth to it a modern version of the A10 is still viable. Presently the A10 isn't really viable because it'd get eaten alive by AA very quickly. Create a cheap vehicle with *enough* stealth and ECM to have a decent chance of survival while flying low and slow and that role of speed hump and close air support is still useful.
To be honest, the point you made at the end of the video is similar to what I was thinking, a modern stealth A-10 just seems like an F-35. It just so happens that an F-35 can somewhat fill this role but the reason it actually exists is that it can also fill other modern combat roles well too, at the compromise of objective specialised performance. It's the unholy combination between expensive stealth plane that you really don't want to lose that somehow has to do CAS right next to the enemy that makes this challenge so difficult, so props to you for making something cool with that
I think the way to win people over who cling to the A-10 is to design a new weapon for our stealth aircraft that also does what the A-10's gun does. Intimidate. Perhaps a modified mk-82 with medium drag and a simple ram air siren on it's tail, several dropped from high altitude could be a drawn out chorus of sirens getting closer and closer before ultimately exploding, Perhaps even above ground with a proximity fuse. Relatively inexpensive modification to a weapon that is already in large supply.
Clear answer is to just make A-10 faster. Easy answer is more thrusty engines. Hard answer is tomcat swing wing version. A-10 is not the only non stealth plane in our arsenal. Hell we just dumped a few billion into updating the F-15 again. Of course that is a great plane. That plane also has a stealth option called the F-22. Of course the F-22 is expensive. A lot of that is also due to amortizing all that stealth R&D into less than 200 total airframes. Had we produced the 750 in the proposal, the per unit cost would have been less than 100m per plane. That new F-15EX has a flyaway cost of 95m....
That's just a more expensive mudhen.
I'm really looking forward to the rest of this series. Starting off with ideas which seem like pointless money pits that would make no sense in a modern military, and maybe at some point we come across something that we kinda like. I love this one - utterly pointless but it actually works. Only problem would be cost.
Your design is SO COOL, well done !
I like how you mentioned having external missiles would mess up the stealth, but still went for those in the final display.
Phenomenal video. I am a huge airplane nerd but learnt quite a few things in this video!! . I wish I could give this multiple likes because u deserve it imo!
I was expecting the A12 Silent Warthog design by Cesar Rizo, since that's my current standard for what is a next-gen/stealth A-10. _But this will do just fine._ Epic work as always, Messier, keep it up
I like how, after all the redesigning and modeling, he ended up making an extra-chubby F-35. Now, with the smaller wings, the stealth A-10 would be a true penguin.
Thank you for educating me on why this was impractical 🤣🤣🤣 still very beautiful and great work!
This is honestly the first video I've heard that explained that the replacement for the A-10 was the nighthawk. It just makes so much sense. Either you need the stealth for air-to-ground engagements, or you don't. For stealth, the gun is worthless, so a high altitude flying wing design gets the best stealth capabilities with the highest payloads. For non-stealth insurgency missions, any US fighter can fill that role, because they don't have to worry about ground launched missiles. Lots of the upgraded packages like the F-15E include a "bomb truck" configuration for increasing carrying capacity to either drop bombs or be missile haulers for stealthier reconnaissance platforms. In a similar vein, the replacement modern air-to-ground platform is the B-21 Raider. It's designed to be the cheapest stealth platform available, and built is huge numbers, it's designed for long ranges, large carrying capacity, and low maintenance costs. It's likely going to be exclusively used for air-to-ground operations, which basically does make it the modern day analog for the A-10. A cheap platform for ground support and lots of ordinance. Except instead of a titanium tub, it uses stealth to keep itself safe. As for the weapons, lobbing tons of high explosives towards a target is mostly done with missiles now, which removes the need to worry about many things like loiter times and survivability. Missiles relegate bombs to the "we needed something dirt cheap and we aren't worrying about being shot down" category, and guns into the "don't" category. Also, the A-10 gun sounds incredible, but it was likely ineffective for its primary purpose of air-to-ground. It turns out, even with a large gun, it's still hard to effectively target small vehicles on the ground. Dropping a single bomb is usually much more effective.
The A-10 was designed for CAS, Close Air Support, and as Meister 82 noted, was designed to be rugged and cheap. Low maintenance requirements for a jet, rough field capability, stable flight envelope, massive payload, hard to kill. Stealth is neither rugged, nor cheap. But you do not need to make it STEALTH. Just, stealth-ier. The main goal is just to get the RCS down. Lower RCS, means less reliable locks. And less reliable locks means opponents must get closer to take a shot. A CAS aircraft is not going to operate alone in contested airspace. So forcing enemies to get in closer to attack it means making them risk themselves against our interceptors and air defenses. Less reliable locks also means pop-up SAM sites have a harder time denying the airspace to such an aircraft. It's a give and take calculus. Given, of course, that the goal of the aircraft is to be a heavy CAS performer, the focus on stealth should FOLLOW the rest of the design, rather than lead it. Of course, when stealth pretty much requires emphasis at every point of the design process, lest you throw it out the window, it can be a bit difficult to achieve the balance. BUT, some basic principles in design are pretty easy to pull off, and not expensive to boot. Maintaining the line elements, S-inlets, sawtooth cover doors, exhaust cooling all of that... easy. RAM coating? May cost a bit to maintain... The problem? In my opinion... Is that it isn't the stealth principles that make the aircraft expensive. It's the modernized electronics package, targeting system, and RADAR. At that point, you might as well fly a Fat Aimee. It just lacks 'Gun Go Brrrrr.'
Enjoyed the video brother 💯 I think your design would be highly effective for the service 💪🏾.You have my support 💯🔥
Holy shit this guys narration is absolutely amazing!
Watched this during my lunch break. And that commercial airplane reference had me laughing way too much...
I don't think a next-gen A-10 is as much of a dumb idea as some KZheadrs or the upper brass at the Air Force would have you believe it is. My reasoning for a next-gen A-10 being viable is that the issues that it suffers from in its current state are all technical and not conceptual. The A-10 as conceived is meant to operate in contested airspace with its primary targets being soft and lightly armored vehicles in convoys. Additionally, the real-world applications it has seen have proved that it also can excel at providing aid to front-line forces who require front-line support as fast as possible. If I were to create a next-gen version of the A-10 aside from updating the frame of the plane ever so slightly I would lower the caliber of the main gun to something like 25 mm, add more shielding to the engines, and increase the number of flairs and countermeasures it could carry.
Here’s two ideas I’ve come up with, with no regard to feasibility or practicality. Either a laser cannon or a tri-barreled rotary shotgun with a larger bore than the current one. Even at a slower rate of firing, it could output more projectiles due to it doing shotgun blasts. This would also probably increase its friendly fire though, and likely decrease its penetrative capabilities. Except against soft targets, that is.
Not sure that beats the High Explosive rounds it already fires, each one is about the equivalent of a hand grenade going off. I think Ill take my chances with the shotgun before 30+ hand grenades alternating with 30+ AP rounds every second.
@@ncrshane1919 It’d be firing grapeshot or larger caliber tungsten balls, thinking about this with my brain actually activated I can only see this being effective against either large scale infantry formations or against fictional megafauna like fairly squishy dragons. And at that point switching to slug rounds might work better, honestly I just think about how versatile man portable shotguns are said to be and go “well why don’t they scale it up then?” As for the laser, while it won’t have any immediate usability in a few years or closer to a decade with improvements to laser and battery technology having a large bore laser on an a-10 might start getting proposed as a way to keep the a-10 relevant, if not by military brass then at least by armchair enthusiasts. Actually, maybe this would work as a weapons testbed? How well do you think the warthog could work as a weapons testbed for new technologies?
The biggest kicker about the A-10 is that tests done around the time it was introduced showed that it would have sucked at its intended roll, knocking out Soviet armor columns, even under perfect conditions, with the tanks sitting stationary out in the middle of a field during a bright day with no antiaircraft fire enabling them to make the multiple passes needed to empty the main gun.
Maybe making it stealth is the wrong idea, maybe making it loud and scary could do something... altering the radar and heat cross-section to look like a weird, broken up cluster of shapes and give it some towed glider drones and ECM rockets that render the airspace a noisy mess of flares, chaff, smoke, balloons, drones and the rumble of an angry GAU 8. It's role would transition from merely a gun platform to an aerial escort and jamming platform for obscuring friendlies and distracting the enemy. I bet SF would love a plane that can make the battlespace a smoggy mess of radar reflections, radio interference, flares, choppy drone propellers and scary plane shapes while their evac sneaks in and out. A real table flipper.
Congratulations, you’ve reinvented the F35. The stealth bomber that also has a gun and air to air capability
The gun is the GAU-8 Avenger machine gun made by General Electric, they do really like stuff that spins
In my mind as a non-avionics enthusiast, "stealth A-10" means a stealth jet with the GAU-Avenger. Give me modern stealth and give me the song of my people. Ngl it could work for psychological warfare, like that fly that will never leave you alone but it just carved a canyon through your caravan. And now it can surprise you at night.
You honestly made a truly beautiful aircraft, I know you were trying to stay true to the original A10 design, BUUTTT a bit of wing sweep or variable sweep wings would make it even better! (yes i know there are many issues with them) as it could have a high stall speed for carrier landings, high speed maneuvers, possible air combat, and avoiding AA fire.
Absolutely love this video and I'm a new sub to the channel! I sort of want to comment on what you said at the end about using this plane for SEAD - using a stealth aircraft for SEAD is sort of a waste, as the process of suppressing an air defence system involves them turning on their radar to see you and try to lock on, so you can throw a HARM and ride the lightning from there in the hopes you either kill it or they turn it off and keep it off. Stealth planes have panels that can deploy to make themselves visible, but why risk that? Now a DEAD mission would make perfect sense for a stealth plane but that's a slightly different role. That's just my 2 cents and I'm not an expert by any means, so I'm always open to talking about it! Thanks for making these videos man I'm going to have gun watching them
Stealth A10: "You can't see me on radar!!" Ground troops: "I can see you are about to brrrrrr those guys clearly with my own two eyes."
YAY! New video! One proposed role to keep the A-10 relevant in a peer conflict would be as a missile truck for cruise missiles or decoys like the ADM-160. One could possibly extrapolate this to long range air to air missiles (similar to what many see the F-15EX doing). Personally, I can see this providing CAS in “denied airspace” (although the lack of high speed would hamper any attempt to rapidly exit the combat zone or escape enemy fighters). On a separate note, a bit disappointed that you didn’t throw on forward swept wings. I can understand the use of commercial jet engines from a cost perspective but out of curiosity, would you consider variable cycle adaptive engines viable for this? Plz continue the 100 year development series
I think that it would be better to spend money on making the A-10 harder to detect than to make a whole new airframe for the specific purpose of being stealthy. An A-10 with cooler engines and perhaps some radar absorbent paint would be harder to detect and thus increase survivability without the need to construct a whole new aircraft
your channel is underrated, keep up the good work 😄
A-10 was "we have the GAU-8, and requirements for a CAS plane. Let's build the plane around the gun."
one important point and kinda the reason why it wasn't retired sooner, the A10 has a high survivability due to it's high mounted engine and shell around the pilot. That's what makes it so good. You can shoot at it with small caliber or even AA, it will take a few hits and keep going
I like how you combined stealth and A-10. From that stealthy part, it reminds me my beloved YF-23
As dumb as the idea is, I adore it
I comes off to me like a terror weapon. Flying nightly raids on a besieged city and loudly announcing "AMERICA IS HERE" over and over again.
I don't know if anybody else pointed out, but the GAU-8 is offset to the port side on the A-10 so the firing barrel is directly in the centre of the airframe. I think from what I see in your design, it's firing out the port side of the aircraft? Very minor nerdy avgeek point and I only mention it because I always thought that was a clever feature of the original. Love your work!
Poeple talk about American military airplanes. The fighter mafia: Hello there! Love that you´re back! Say hello to Bo my beloved.
A believable stealth A-10 is just the F-35 lmao
Took me until the last seconds of the movie to notice the gun smoke ingress into the engine intake. That aside, I love this design. Very visually appealing, even if it has no place in reality.
To answer the question from around 5:40, the answer is simple: the F-117's extremely limited payload capacity limits what it can do to, more or less, just tactical bombing against high-value targets (effectively a modern version of WWII-era dive bombers like the Ju 87 Stuka). A bigger plane capable of carrying more ordnance could be useful...but at that point I think we'd be better off revisiting the YF-23 and modifying it more for the ground strike role (basically turning it into a stealthy version of an F-15E), instead of designing a whole new plane from the ground up. This would theoretically fill the gap between stealth multirole aircraft like the F-35 and dedicated stealth bombers like the B-2 and B-21. As for the concept of a stealth A-10's viability specifically...tbh I think I agree that the main purpose of making a subsonic stealth attacker like this would be for SEAD ops, in which case ditch the gun and add more ECM equipment and a larger payload bay, but the gun is what makes the A-10 an A-10. Otherwise you'd be better off using something like the EA-18G. There is, however, one thing the A-10 does very, very well, better than arguably any other CAS plane: psychological warfare. Knowing you've got an A-10 in the air is a huge morale boost for allied forces and horrifying for enemy infantry and light AFV crews. This is the main reason, I think, that Congress told the Air Force they can't retire it till a proper replacement is obtained. That and the Army has offered to take the A-10 if the Air Force doesn't want it, and if there's anything the Air Force hates more than having to fly CAS for the Army, it's the thought of the Army having ANY fixed-wing aviation assets at all.
Where’s our stealth bi-plane? If the po-2 was able to take out jets just imagine what an improved one could do!
I like how you included the stealth f117, and how it was shot down. "Nismo znali da je nevidljiv"(we didnt know it was invisible)
the idea of an Ground attack being in the area that's hard to detect until it's unloading is a scary one
Saw this last night, so did not watch it until the morning, but after ~30s of pre-sleep thinking about how to make a stealth A-10 I had something close to a Bayraktar TB2.
It really should be called the Thunderbolt III, continuing to carry the legacy of the P-47 thunderbolt, especially since warthog is an unofficial nuckname but Thunderbolt II is official
I'd love to see this design built out as an RC airplane just for shits and giggles. It looks pretty cool as designed by you. I also agree it would be far too expensive to build a real one, for the very limited (if any) role it could perform on the battlefield that other airframes can already do. But as an RC plane.. that would be worth the fun of building it.
I could seen this being decent in naval opperations. With missiles, bombs and even torpedos against largest targets and the gun for smaller targets
Loved the smirk the gun door gave the aircraft.
Love the idea of a "commercial ad" type for the presentation of the plane
First of all even though i dont realy got a-10 vibes from your plane. I liked it very much. And second to your question at the and why stealth would just modernizing it not be a better task? I would love to see your take on modernizing the a-10! Emotions are very strong and since this is isnt real life i think we all would feel very happy to see that even if not practical. 😁
dude how do you not have more subs this was impressive on so many levels
Well done! You nailed the cool factor!
As a kid that grew up dreaming of becoming an Aerospace Engineer, I can safely say...this is my jam.
"One could argue it provides moral support to ground troops" Is that even up for debate?? GUN GO BRRRRRRRRT
That's the A-11 "Pumbaa" 😂❤ Gotta say dude you made one beautiful Aircraft regardless of its feasibility or practicality 🙏
Before the game had launched, I made a whole blueprint and thing that was based off the P2V Neptune but I up engined it, Improved Radials and booster jet engines for higher speed dashes, It could carry 6x20mm 4x30mm, twin 50mm guns or a single 77mm. The aircraft even have a FLIR controlled 20mm turret on the Belly, OV-10 style.
Real useful upgrades the A-10 could have : -Better engines, we can make more powerful modern engines that wouldn't sacrifice loiter time nowadays. -Integrated air to ground radar with a limited air-to-air (detection and basic targeting for AIM-9, could be useful against helicopters), it would obviously work for detection and high altitude attack, not for gun run. -Integrated FLIR system, like the A-6E intruder (the A-6E with FLIR upgrade is literally older than the original A-10A) and ECM systems so you don't have to carry two pods that only add drag. -Active protection system, like laser to blind IR and optical missiles (its biggest threat, all the MANPADS) or high power laser to destroy missiles and a AN/ALE-55 equivalent against radar guided missiles. -Modernized systems for weight reduction, to makes the other upgrades less negative. -Modern, AI based, image recognition to better find hidden targets, and through the sensors, allow pinpointing the source of most IR and radar attacks. All this would make the A10 more expensive, but also greatly increase its survivability and improve a bit its capabilities. Optionally: -Drone/Loiter munition with basic imaging capabilities and late/multi-directional attack capabilities, but it would more be something external I'd guess.