While the GAU-8 is iconic, are there other weapons that the A-10 could have been designed around to better fit its mission profile. One idea that comes to mind for tank-busting is a say 60mm single-barreled autocannon which would offer much more penetration against newer models of soviet tanks with the tradeoff of a much lower rate of fire and stowed rounds. Going in the opposite direction, a 30x113mm gatling would allow significant weight savings to be made at the cost of armour penetration.
Alternative A-10 Armament
- Thread starter quillreiver
- Start date
Both those would be quite subpar compared to the Gau-8. It was never meant to kill soviet tanks frontally as the coloring book helpfully points out and a larger caliber gun would also struggle to do this. 30x113 is just plain not long ranged enough to suit purpose. The Gau-8 has the nice combination of having enough range and penetration to kill just about any soviet tank if approached from the correct angle. It also has the nice benefit that it would kill just about everything else much more effectively than the options you suggested.
For whoever is wondering what I mean by coloring book click on the image below:
For whoever is wondering what I mean by coloring book click on the image below:
Last edited:
The desire for a more powerful gun armament than the existing 20mm was there right from the start, even when the AX was envisaged as little more than an A-1 replacement. Options actually considered were:
The 30mm WECOM gun - a bit less powerful than 30x113 - was the baseline armament for the initial (1967) RFP, whose main target was really the similarly-armed AH-56. A slightly earlier A-10 that prioritised COIN could conceivably enter service with this weapon. By the 1970 RFP that led to the A-10 which entered service, the anti-armour role had become a higher priority.
- An M61 rebarreled to use the Army's 30mm WECOM round, which was a 30x100 cartridge
- A high velocity 25mm gun, which sounds like the abortive GAU-7 planned for the F-15
- Several 30mm cannon options, including the single-barrel Oerlikon KCA
- An internal 57mm recoilless rifle
- External, podded 57mm and 152mm recoilless rifles
The 30mm WECOM gun - a bit less powerful than 30x113 - was the baseline armament for the initial (1967) RFP, whose main target was really the similarly-armed AH-56. A slightly earlier A-10 that prioritised COIN could conceivably enter service with this weapon. By the 1970 RFP that led to the A-10 which entered service, the anti-armour role had become a higher priority.
I thought it was the GAU-8 that had a plane designed and built around it, not 'what do we put in the A-10?' It seems that dicking around with other systems would mess with weight/ center of gravity, handling etc. to not be worth it.
That's exaggerated, but the GAU-8 and the A-10 were designed in parallel - the gun for the aircraft, and the aircraft for the gun. There was a proposal to put the GAU-8 in an A-7, which seemed to be at least somewhat feasible.
How about a revolver cannon, as used by various European airforces(Giat 30, Bk 27), upgunned with the cartridge used in the Gau-8? Advantages would be that the cannon itself would be lighter and smaller and that it would be immediately at full RoF. Disadvantage of course would be a lower maximum RoF - 2500 for the Giat vs. 3900 for the Gau (though that also would mean ammo lasts longer) and that it may overheat from long bursts. Main problem of course is the USAF preference for rotary guns. Maybe if one of the major European allies develops an interest in co-funding a heavy cas it is possible, though otl they were pretty wedded to their light ones.
That was the Oerlikon KCA, designated GAU-9 by the US. It was found to be unsatisfactory for several reasons, chiefly rate of fire and reliability, but was considered as a backup in case there were issues with the GAU-8.
Different purposes. Gau-8 was meant for much longer sustained bursts. RoF isn't the main concern here (its a great bonus), its the expected mode of use and amount of ammo expected to be chewed through per sortie.
The cannons you mention just aren't made for firing 1000+ rounds in relatively short succession. The aircraft using them have like a max load of 1-200 per gun.
"Cannon Fighter" Concept (sorry for the "Combat Reform" link it's the only one I could find atm) which arms a Ground Attack Aircraft with a heavy cannon (105mm) and guided munitions. (PDF link here, again Combat Reform but it's the original proposal pdf) Also proposed to 'retrofit' an A4 Skyhawk with the gun system.
There was also a late 1960s test series using an OV-10 and a pair of automatic 105mm Recoilless Rifles, fed from an internal magazine inside the aircraft.
Randy
There was also a late 1960s test series using an OV-10 and a pair of automatic 105mm Recoilless Rifles, fed from an internal magazine inside the aircraft.
Randy
I still can't imagine how a GAU-8 would fit in the A-7. The damn gun is huge! Just finding a spot for the muzzle would be a challenge, let alone that enormous ammo drum.
Putting a 105mm in a Skyhawk is just as insane, and possibly worse if they don't do something seriously impressive with the recoil.
That Ov-10 idea sounds like it could actually "work", though, in the sense that the guns could be lifted along with a useful amount of ammo, and fired without wrecking the aircraft.
The concepts specified "low" or "no" recoil type guns which the Army had developed in the 60s, (initially for helicopter artillery support, which was used operationally in Vietnam) and the 80s systems used bi-propellant variable charges. The A4 had the gun mounted externally, (single shot in the tests but planned was to use a magazine and auto-feed system in the Fuselage) to control the back-blast effects. The OV-10 was similar mounting but they didn't do it right and managed to damage the airframe with the single cannon test. (Had a lot of projects proposed for the auto-loading RR back in the 60s)
Randy
The gun is easy enough, subsonic aircraft are quite amenable to adding blisters for odd things that don't fit completely inside. The ammunition drum is a bit more of a challenge - a 391-round drum would fit in a modified trainer airframe, using the space usually occupied by the second seat, or a 650-round drum in a stretched version.
Attachments
No idea. But LTV's engineers seemed to think it was feasible, and they knew a heck of a lot more about it than you and I put together.
Have the ability to carry lots of Folding Fin rockets - I would suggest the 5" ZUNI
Just replacing the GAU 8 alone including ammo is just under 1900 KGs - a ZUNI 4 pack is about 160 KGs - so Napkin math about 48 ZUNI Rockets could be carried instead of the gun
And that is just instead of the gun the A10 can carry another 180 odd ZUNI Rockets (assuming that many rockets could be mounted etc as that is 45 4 cell launchers! )
So even if it was say a dedicated belly mounted rocket pack and 10 x 4 ZUNI Rockets you could have say 50-60 5" rockets
The Mk.32 ATAP warhead can penetrate up to 18" of steel and should be a major threat to any 1960/70s tank estate
And of course the ZUNI has other warheads including HE, Smoke, Illumination and more recently laser guided munitions.
Just replacing the GAU 8 alone including ammo is just under 1900 KGs - a ZUNI 4 pack is about 160 KGs - so Napkin math about 48 ZUNI Rockets could be carried instead of the gun
And that is just instead of the gun the A10 can carry another 180 odd ZUNI Rockets (assuming that many rockets could be mounted etc as that is 45 4 cell launchers! )
So even if it was say a dedicated belly mounted rocket pack and 10 x 4 ZUNI Rockets you could have say 50-60 5" rockets
The Mk.32 ATAP warhead can penetrate up to 18" of steel and should be a major threat to any 1960/70s tank estate
And of course the ZUNI has other warheads including HE, Smoke, Illumination and more recently laser guided munitions.