Building Your Stupid Ideas in Flyout: Part 1

[@messier82ac]

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.

[@skyrimpro117]

You are factually incorrect.

[@Eis_]

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.

[@ShootBlueHelmets]

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.

[@ShootBlueHelmets]

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?

[@DanTheTan]

@@skyrimpro117 you could've said something of value, but all I see is opinion

[@MrSurrealKarma]

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".

[@mrsherman5012]

ye it was called a16 wipeout if i remember

[@chaddamharkness7119]

also set in the year 2035 so future a-10?

[@thejackal5099]

@@chaddamharkness7119 The description explicitly say it's developed from the A-10.

[@combustionberg3303]

@@mrsherman5012 a-164 wipeout

[@mrsherman5012]

@@combustionberg3303 dame i was 1 number off sadg

[@skiboi]

Fun fact: during many modern conflicts the A-10's primary role was to remoralize ground troops. A-10s would routinely be sent out to areas where troops were bored and given the task to blow shit up

[@Flipdagoose]

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''

[@Jonnyg325]

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

[@iuulia9245]

​@@Jonnyg325consider 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)

[@Wolfstanus]

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.

[@RazorsharpLT]

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.

[@RazorsharpLT]

@@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.

[@voin5371]

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.

[@bornonthebattlefront4883]

Maybe I miss understand your comment But Wooden mockups are 10000% a real thing They aren’t built to full scale anymore, but to make the basic shape for engineers to work with, they are absolutely used It was a lot more common in the past, as the XF-108 had a full wood mockup built before it was cancelled Computer simulations have replaced wooden mockups for the most part, but small wood or wood and steel mockups are still used in wind tunnels to verify the simulation’s accuracy

[@voin5371]

@@bornonthebattlefront4883 Yeah that was my bad there, I didn't represent the fact that it was common practice for wooden mockups to be made for prototyping and test flight models before the investment of more expensive materials were at use. However from what I heard people thought the wooden mock up was the intentional design of the hull with wood being seen as some kind of stealth materials of the likes.

[@simpli_histori]

@@voin5371the misconception comes from the mosquito, which technically had ‘reduced visibility’ to early radar, but what people miss is that the ho 229 was a very late war design where radar was more powerful and could detect it, and the use of a jet engine increased radar return. Sure the very earliest radars might not be able to see x or y biplane made off wood, but that doesn’t mean a fucking biplane is stealth.

[@Yayeet2603]

Jesus dont jumpscare me like that with an a9

[@SpartanJey1219]

Therapist: American su-25 isn't real it can't hurt you American su-25 aka A-9: 😀

[@ndfgaming6824]

@@SpartanJey1219 lmao i was coming here to say that XD

[@SpartanJey1219]

@@ndfgaming6824 lol 😆

[@harrisonlichtenberg3162]

I jumped out of my chair and through the roof

[@Amy-dq2lg]

Looks better than the a10

[@guts60]

I love the idea of a stealth A-10 because it flies in undetected but is immediately detected the second it starts firing because of the GAU-8 Avenger… because knowing us we’d keep it on the stealth fighter so it can still rain down depleted uranium freedom rounds for whatever necessary purposes and the pilot can’t help but use the big ol’ freedom gun because it’s just there, begging to be used

[@ManOfChaiTea]

On the contrary, we have stealth missiles, so we could put a sheath of stealth material around the barrels, and just leave a hole for the tip, just the tip.

[@林家崴]

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.

[@tachyon8317]

Another reason for the high/rear positioning was protection against AA guns.

[@My_initials_are_O.G.cuz_I_am]

It also helps hide the exhaust from ground-based IR sensors.

[@zuthalsoraniz6764]

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.

[@messier82ac]

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

[@Armour_CS]

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.

[@retroicdescent]

I like the "grin" it makes when the panel for the GAU is retracted. slightly silly, but also a bit intimidating

[@RoxyGotMoxy.]

Its that "Ohh, you gonn' get it now, son." smirk

[@thebeaniestbeanboys5735]

Well you cant paint a shark nose on it and you gotta have some kind of mouth

[@FarSeeker8]

​@thebeaniestbeanboys5735 Hmm, maybe put a line across the nose and teeth inside the gun recess. that way you'd only see the teeth when the gun fires.

[@thebeaniestbeanboys5735]

@@FarSeeker8 a true visionary

[@theBlankScroll]

So just a guy on KZbin designed an entire functional stealth fighter. We really do live in the future.

[@jacplac97]

That thing would fit greatly, into the aesthetics of Nuclear Option.

[@TheRealMeowMeow01]

I was about to say the same

[@yestermonth]

​@@TheRealMeowMeow01 Same 😅

[@alqash6749]

No way people know about nuclear option

[@OnxGrid]

​@@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...

[@MagicMahn]

@@alqash6749 Game may explode. It plays well.

[@MrX-un8cz]

cool now make KC-135 stealth because it would be so funny to hear the pilot scream WHERE THE HELL IS THE DAMN TANKER. while their aircraft is running on gas fumes

[@UchennaKema]

There are propsals for the Stealth Tanker

[@RhodesianSuperiority]

Would probably still have a smaller RCS than the su-57 😂😂

[@Kumyar]

"..this is why A-10 doesnt really have a place in modern combat..." But it has a place in my heart ❤

[@MRsolidcolor]

its hard to say that. they keep trying to get rid of them and they just keep bring them back

[@MohammedKhan-bt7el]

@@MRsolidcolor They bring them back because Congress likes them, even though there isn't a reason too.

[@tckailliss]

look at my comment i just posted.

[@landonluebke7627]

@@MRsolidcolorpolitics, not practicality

[@itzxdarkzgamingbg6082]

No​@@tckailliss

[@CalPhotoGuy]

I appreciate the tongue in cheek angle on this video because otherwise the idea of building a stealth aircraft to do a job that is entirely within visual range of the enemy would drive me nuts.

[@Beef3D]

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.

[@maxydapurp11210]

*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*

[@SerialBallsniffer]

Or look up the PZL M-15 Belphegor. It’s not supersonic, but it is, to my knowledge, the only jet powered biplane.

[@pyronuke4768]

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.

[@yaboikungpowfuckfinger7697]

A fellow connoisseur of the sacred texts I see. Good thing Renas flying a flanker

[@weaselwolf8425]

Why people care about biplanes when everybody is trying to build 6th Gen aircraft is wild

[@patrikcath1025]

This actually does a great job at teaching what makes an aircraft stealthy, I always wondered how you could possibly cover up the intake. I'll include these features in my own mediocre designs.

[@vilkillian]

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

[@egoalter1276]

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.

[@darkhorse3535]

What about the F117 which is nearly all angled but has a tiny radar cross section?

[@woutergrob8587]

​@darkhorse3535 That was the case based on limitations of computing power at the time. Remember it was designed over 50 years ago. The radars it encountoured during its service life were also way weaker than the currrent stuff, so it wasn't that big of a problem.

[@darkhorse3535]

@@woutergrob8587 oh, okay. Why does it still have a relatively small cross section, shouldn‘t it now have ended up looking massive?

[@p_serdiuk]

Making something angular shifts the radar return into one particular angle instead of those surfaces being reflective from many angles at once.

[@lukefuller7610]

1:22 Fun fact: if you are the target you will not hear the brrrrrt. This is because the rounds travel faster than the speed of sound

[@nuggetmcsus]

Some random dude: oh thanks for the tip -15 minutes later- "BRRRRRRRRTTTT"

[@zackarysmith1520]

Yeah most rifle bullets are supersonic They're bullets

[@peterrudenko4496]

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...

[@danilooliveira6580]

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.

[@yurichtjuatjawidjaja4133]

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.

[@jhadorn1]

Just a small correction. It's not IRS it's IRST and it stands for InfraRed Search and Track

[@Appletank8]

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.

[@darugdawg2453]

or just do drones

[@batshit36]

Congratulations, you’ve reinvented the F35. The stealth bomber that also has a gun and air to air capability

[@eiite4578]

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.

[@Appletank8]

Maybe the real stealth A10 is a F117 with a gun pod

[@noyrz]

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.

[@eiite4578]

@@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.

[@imperialinquisition6006]

@@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?"

[@koboldparty4708]

Not as stealthy as a SU-76, though. They’re soo stealthy, that not even Russia can find any.

[@Wynn_Silver]

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.

[@loganbaileysfunwithtrains606]

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.

[@jeskler]

not to mention that stealth technology only works at range, if you get close enough even the most basic of radar is eventually going to pick you up even if it's easier to just look at the thing with your own eyes, and at the range and distance the A-10 is meant to be fighting radar won't even be needed since it's gonna be swooping in at only a few hundred feet, if that, right above you.

[@Freakashoni]

Wouldn’t the way to solve it would to make it act more like a f35? Use at range than close up? I would see this being logical if we could develop a system to track ground targets 10s of miles away from were it is then it’s just a flip of a switch and a bunch of rockets take them out. but then the Gatling gun becomes useless. it would be more of b21/f16/f35 cross. Only other way I see it is if they mounted a shit ton of the imitation missiles that imitate being an aircraft and mount a lot of them on the stealth variant and then use the gatling gun when the air defenses run out of missiles. Other than that there is no practicality of even spending the money to make it stealthy. I think a more logical thing to do is make a whole new aircraft that has hell of advanced targeting systems from miles out and can take out enemy air defenses before they get in range to shoot back. or yk just make a smaller b21 that’s more inclined to strategic ground attack. Kinda like a ho 229 but better

[@kiritotheabridgedgod4178]

The F-117 was locked because the base they flew from had poor OP-Sec and they flew the same path every night. LaserPig has a brilliant video on this, but a TL;DR of it is: Serbian spies where living in a house that had line of sight to the runway. They radio'd that only F-117's had flown that night, no SEAD aircraft. Thus informing the radar operators on the Serbian side that the only aircraft they'd pick up, would be F-117's, and they didn't have to move after two passes like normal. Serbian radar SAM commander does a third radar sweep, and gets lucky, getting a return during the 1 second period where the F-117's bomb bay was open. Seeing an extremely fuzzy return, combined with his Intel, he orders two missiles to fire. F-117 dodges the first, gets hit by the second. Key part of this, the F-117 already completed it's mission before being detected and shot down. F-117's also continued to fly for the duration of the conflict, without another being shot down.

[@kiritotheabridgedgod4178]

​@@Freakashoni With that self adjusting, laser guided airburst round that DARPA was testing a few years back, and given that squads already use a laser to paint targets for the A-10, theoretically, you could still keep the gun and use it for the same purpose, whilst being further away. Widen the view cone on the rounds sensor a bit, and change the angle for the gun run, and you've essentially got a few hundred rounds from a laser guided mini-mortar, coming in at a ballistic trajectory.

[@Freakashoni]

@@kiritotheabridgedgod4178 dope the only thing is would it be practical?

[@RexSu-n7e]

Its like someone took a case of beers and a F35 and said "Yk I miss em warthugers" then started to go insane with it

[@Jaqoum_The_Wizard_King]

The A-11 “GodHog”

[@RoxyGotMoxy.]

"Oh shit, where?!"

[@carl8194]

"Where? It's both everywhere and nowhere."

[@pyronuke4768]

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.

[@StryderFi]

@@pyronuke4768 NAVY!?!? They were USAF and CIA planes lmfaoooo

[@pyronuke4768]

@@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.

[@alfredo42o]

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.

[@thermusaquaticusPCR]

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.

[@kingsnakke6888]

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.

[@InvictusByz]

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

[@Meyer-gp7nq]

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)

[@messier82ac]

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.

[@pluemas]

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.

[@dukeynukey6725]

The A-10 is a tank melter mainly, used to take out enemy convoys by surprise in areas that have limited to no protection. For that reason alone I see use for a stealth A-10 type plane. It's even harder to detect the thing that's about to make that tide-turning tank convoy into scrap

[@jamesbisset9891]

That’s what they designed it for yes, but when they actually tested it they found out that it struggled to take out soviet tanks and never mind the modern tanks of today

[@dukeynukey6725]

@@jamesbisset9891 so I looked this up and, no it didn't. They destroyed a crazy amount of Soviet made tanks during the Gulf war That was the only time it was ever used against Soviet tanks, but I found nothing about them struggling

[@jamesbisset9891]

@@dukeynukey6725 that was done with missiles not the gun. I was talking about the gun.

[@dukeynukey6725]

@@jamesbisset9891 you got sources?

[@MH-dy8it]

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.

[@ChristopherGriffin-ee2ol]

1:09 Also known as 'the warthog' and 'the flying gun with wings', the A-10 Thunderbolt II is meant to take out tanks with the General Electric GAU-8 Avenger 30mm Gatling cannon, it only takes a single shot to doc to have death in front of you to say "I would like to talk to you about your life's extended warranty"

[@galm14ever]

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.

[@messier82ac]

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

[@ABaumstumpf]

@@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.

[@enclave9497]

​@@ABaumstumpfwe arent lacking in the niche of air support. its called the f35. It can carry as many munitons with outer pilons used (while still being more stealthy then the a10) and is a better aircraft overall. the f35 is a multirole aircraft. and that is why there is no aircraft filling the niche of blowing up allied vehicles with a shitty gun in the age of pgms

[@ABaumstumpf]

@@enclave9497 "And that is why there is no aircraft filling the niche of blowing up allied vehicles with a shitty gun in the age of pgms" So the F35 cant do ground-support, cant hit the enemies, and costs more than just paying your enemies to leave - ok,

[@z3r0_35]

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.

[@FalconsLedge]

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

[@jakesto]

Wow! You did an amazing job preserving the look of the A-10 while modernizing its entire frame and hull. I think the best way the stealth A-10 could be improved in the future would be to simply invent better munitions for it to carry. Smaller munitions with the same effect on target would be able to fit in its small internal storage more easily, and it could carry more of them. I think the A-10 could still serve a combat role in ground operations like it does in asymmetrical warfare today. After SEAD clears the anti-air and multi-role and dedicated fighters clear the skies, the A-10 could destroy mobile ground targets and clear the way for the infantry. Obviously, that could also be done by multi-role fighters, but using A-10s would free them up for other tasks. However, the A-10 definitely doesn't need to be stealthy for this! This is a really fun video, though.

[@kazmiz01]

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.

[@mister-BH]

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.

[@nnnnwwww00]

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."

[@TheIrishTexan]

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.

[@koekiejam18]

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)

[@FawfulDied]

Also because pilots are expensive and losing a pilot looks bad on TV.

[@mnxs]

​@@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).

[@tylerbain8873]

I feel like a true stealth successor to the A-10 would be something more akin to the A-12 upgraded to have parity with the B-21, a smaller flying wing with extra room for internal ordinance, low and slow but still very stealthy so it can just loiter in an area semi-unobserved.

[@YourAverageChristianCommunist]

Please give us the 100 year development part 2, please, I beg you And 110 likes in 5 hours is shocking

[@legosrcool3420]

I asked and he said he will

[@nsnoahstudios2890]

@@legosrcool3420yea I asked in the Flyout discord and he said he will definitely continue it

[@messier82ac]

That video is about 2 weeks away I believe

[@LegionHd2]

@@messier82acthe man the myth the legend himself

[@YourAverageChristianCommunist]

@@messier82ac thank you, thank you

[@guts60]

A random Chinese/Russian/North Korean soldier watching a stealth A-10 fly past their defenses undetected and turn everyone around them into red mist and craters.

[@TheRealFernancoTachanka]

0:25 *Spiderman pointing at Spiderman meme*

[@TheRealFernancoTachanka]

I am so much in the radar right now. Maybe I need some coating

[@pocketchange3543]

Stealth A-10 defeats the whole point. The fear of knowing an A-10 is operating in the area is one of the best deterrents out there.

[@tjaake]

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.

[@nade5557]

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

[@kman2747]

Honestly, F-35 is probably what you want from a stealth A-10. Some versions even have a 25 mm rotary cannon

[@Grisbane]

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.

[@Warriorcat49]

​@@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.

[@Grisbane]

@@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.

[@sneakysnake7695]

​@@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.

[@Grisbane]

@@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.

[@Allegheny500]

The A10 loses most of its effectiveness as a stealth version. Part of what makes it so fearsome is the massive amount of ordnance it carries under the wings. The real problem as you pointed out is identifying the correct target and masking the noise of the engines on approach to the target. These are solvable without major modifications to the aircraft.

[@wasdwazd]

Despite everything, it looks extremely cool.

[@MohammedAnisHOUAM]

"Maneuverability" Bro pulls a photo of F-18 HARV 💀 🙏 🔥 He took that personally ig...

[@EvanNyameyeTachie-Menson]

This Plane looks great

[@adamhlali8106]

Watched this during my lunch break. And that commercial airplane reference had me laughing way too much...

[@John_SlideRule_Bullay]

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! 🚁

[@FawfulDied]

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.

[@John_SlideRule_Bullay]

@@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!

[@generalkenobi5173]

@@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.

[@John_SlideRule_Bullay]

@@generalkenobi5173 Always follow the money!

[@generalkenobi5173]

@@John_SlideRule_Bullay ya

[@jeffreyrook8073]

3D modeling? Aerodynamics? Thermodynamics? Big guns? Good lord, you've managed to trigger roughly 9/10 of my autistic traits

[@malusignatius]

*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.

[@Techno_Idioto]

We should make a supersonic CAS platform

[@malusignatius]

@@Techno_Idioto It already exists. It's called an F-16. The stealth version's called the F-35. :P

[@Techno_Idioto]

@@malusignatius I thought it was the F-15. Ah well, the F-16 and F-35 are fine aircraft.

[@malusignatius]

@@Techno_Idioto The F-16's the interdictor/deep strike version.

[@CharlieNoodles]

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.

[@judemarsh4587]

This seagull like bird is a beauty, and the science and research behind it’s making is the cherry on top, I applaud

[@PTB_BE]

DC-10 interceptor

[@narenprince1318]

Not the Coffin Box☠

[@anthonycochran6492]

well the intro to this video aged like milk. as nearly all of the drawbacks listed have been remedied with the update currently underway.

[@ArdmorWest.1]

My stupid idea: make an artificially stable, thrust vectoring, delta wing with cannards

[@-Minuano-]

4:52 I think the A-164 Wipeout is considered more of a low-observability aircraft than a stealth aircraft. I love the aesthetics of the A-164 wipeout in ArmA 3, but this thing you made is so pretty it’s no longer recognizable as an A-10. The A-10 is a rugged plane (I refuse to call it ugly) and that is what gives it its character. Nevertheless, I love this plane you created. This is a whole new animal.

[@RichardNixon420]

I think you should make the best WW2 dog fighter. Using modern aerodynamic and engineering knowledge.

[@maxmachac9756]

Already exists

[@RichardNixon420]

Thanks

[@rick3461]

Canadians tend to flinch when hearing an A-10. Op Medusa September 2006, for reference. It was used in Afghanistan pretty effectively. Saw it first hand.

[@Frost-01]

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...

[@messier82ac]

"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?

[@theexchipmunk]

As is often said, what the A10 really excells at, outside of friendly fire incidents, is psychological warfare. While not an exceptionally effective physical weapon, it´s definitely very good of putting the fear of god into enemy soldiers and landing hit´s straignt into their morale. And I could see the stealth A-10 being even better at that, because you get no warning. Cant locate it, but you can hear the brrrrrt and the projectiles just tearing apart the surroundings. Mix in the stealth aspect and you get soldiers living in the constant awareness that it could always be cirlcing around where they are ready to rain death from above. Still unlikely to ever happen, but it would do a great job in that regard.

[@leetheeagle7264]

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.

[@salce_with_onion]

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

[@henlostinky273]

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.

[@festungkurland9804]

lol no

[@Thecatholicorder]

The gun is the GAU-8 Avenger machine gun made by General Electric, they do really like stuff that spins

[@samuelbee3250]

Theoretically, could a stealth A-10 have a “Beast Mode” similar to the F-35, where it uses external weapons if stealth isn’t needed. I know this was shown, but not discussed in the video.

[@hellbent375]

I feel as though this concept would be better suited for space, like you have a good number of missiles for anti-fighter and the gun for more robust but slower target like a space c-130.

[@watdeneuk]

For extra stealth it should have had a silencer.

[@LeW_42]

I like how you mentioned having external missiles would mess up the stealth, but still went for those in the final display.

[@alexlowe2054]

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.

[@samcarpenter_]

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.

[@mpr6486]

The next one needs to be the Aerogavin

[@solidsnake-er9ik]

Oh no you monster

[@IKnowStuff]

I love it, but I would have mounted the engines above the fuselage to protect them more, maybe something like an upside-down Eurofighter in terms of looks, but without the engines integrating into the fuselage like that. That would mean you could shorten the fuselage, or use the additional space for ordnance, fuel and/or armour - weight limits notwithstanding.

[@Power5]

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....

[@andrewmoore7022]

That's just a more expensive mudhen.

[@jeremylefevre9828]

I did a little bit of analysis to determine the cost feasibility of a stealth A-10. Changing its metal components to composite appeared to be cost feasible. Then coating the composites with a radar absorbent material would not prove to be a problem. However, as you brought it up here, the challenge would be hiding the giant turbofans. I wondered how that would affect RCS, and it turns out that's probably the main limiting factor that would keep an inexpensive rebuild from happening, as the propulsion system would have to be completely redesigned to keep that part of it better hidden. The angled redesign of the A-10 that is popular is not 100% unrealistic, as the idea is to specularly reflect the radar in a direction other than its source (that's how the F-117 works). However, simply adding angled cowling to the turbines would not keep the blades from lighting up like radar disco balls as they end up sweeping through a wide range of angles and reflecting a significant amount of radar waves back at the detectors presumably near the radar source.

[@karmatic2793]

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.

[@zyeborm]

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.

[@arm279145]

Honestly that seems like a great aircraft for hellfire dumps. Need to remove a mountain but the Wisconsin can’t shoot far enough inland to do it? Send up a squadron of these with ejectable hardpoints. They get in, let loose, drop hardpoints, and are now a squadron of supersonic bumblebees for exfil.

[@MeAndMyFriendBovineTapeworm]

Doubles as a stealth Su-25 as well.

[@Wordsman]

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.

[@leotenenbaum6806]

"The A10 haas no place in modern air combat" My brother in christ, it chews through convoys

[@Kingdomkey123678]

Often times friendly convoys

[@antonberkbigler5759]

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.

[@ncrshane1919]

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.

[@antonberkbigler5759]

@@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?

[@OfficialUSKRprogram]

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.

[@pyronuke4768]

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.

[@emmy8517]

or an f35 that does the same thing and also everything else, better

[@pyronuke4768]

@@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.)

[@mountedpatrolman]

@@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.

[@andrewmoore7022]

@@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.

[@AlbandAquino]

16:53 When I saw the thermal picture a little afterward, I almost threw up my coffee. 😂😅 That FLIR picture tho... 😏 (I have a CAT S62 Pro phone with a FLIR optic)

[@klumhru]

Seeks stealthy A-10. Finds F-35. A+ modelling btw.

[@RATTL3R186]

As someone that was saved many times by an A-10. They are generally let off the chain once air superiority has been established.

[@yoface2537]

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

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

The main reason the A-10 got stuck around is that it's status as the USAF's answer to preventing the Army from becoming completely self suficant in CAS with helicopters, and this status also seemingly spared the A-10 of the USAF's purges against other tactical bomber airframes (most notably the F-111) as the type sits in a ground zero against the two major political viewpoints of the USAF (the infamous Bomber and Fighter Mafias)

[@The_cgull]

7:37 My man just compared the A-10 to the Cessna O-2...

[@obama9862]

Holy shit this guys narration is absolutely amazing!

[@CrachOveride57]

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

[@brbk4498]

KZbin algorithm has dropped me off and it didn’t let me down. Great video.

[@lordfirebeard8569]

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.

[@Scott.E.H]

I feel like the rounded look of the Warthog is a big part of its unique appearance so it is a little saddening that it has to lose that for stealth purposes. Unfortunately not really any way to keep the look while making it work lol. ......also give the gun a suppressor. I just feel like that's hilarious. Minigun suppressors are (somehow) a thing and putting that on a loud ass jet sounds funny.

[@wallacengineering8096]

To be honest I think you did well with this design and I think your design specifically COULD be effective in modern combat IF you replaced the engines with more modern engines from say the F-35 or F-22 Raptor. Then you would simply have a standard stealth aircraft with a few missiles as most designs do, the only difference would be that you managed to get that A-10 Gatling in there. So then if you need to light up the ground with a gatling, you can do so along with also being able to launch missiles as any currently-built stealth aircraft could.

[@kelborhal2576]

When supersonic biplane.

[@AINGELPROJECT667]

Had a buddy from the army who'd been in his share of CAS scenarios and had a decent handle on how those scenarios typically went down. The advice he gave me is "The best way to handle CAS is to ensure there's no need for CAS in the first place -- basically, if you're close enough to the enemy that any ordinance dropped on them will be 'danger close', then someone's already fucked up."

[@TheNotSoRealAdachi]

Any time there is a mention of something dumb in media related to the A-10 I remember the time they used the A-10 as a fighter jet in Terminator: Salvation, that whole scene was just painful to watch (most of the movie was tbh)

[@ironwolfsaber2739]

I believe the main complaint that's preserving the A10s presence in the arsenel today is that ground forces calling for help from speedy planes can never seemingly arrive fast enough as they are not near the front maintainig a presence. I understand why pilots don't feel safe in the A10 it's low altitude enough that mounted weapons could pose a real threat and it's ability to counter threats from all angles at those hights is an insanely smaller window than the high in the sky planes. A modernized warthog would likely demand a new frame thats simply lower cross profile in general, intergrated battle network electronics to help guide the fire and avoid firendly fire incidents, maintain loiter capabilities, and have some incredible defenses for the eventually getting shot at. As this plane is forced to operate in that defense onion layers of getting shot and and trying to survive that shot. A more insane feature that might help in the in the role of close air support is VTOL capacity allowing it the flexibility if maintaining fire and presence a simple strafe cannot provide. But VTOL alone increases vulnerabilities and we're talking not having enough room for it all at that point. Also price tag gets to become a serious issue at that point when cheaper helicopters can do the job. Sure speed is nice but forward help based fix that and is cheaper to move those bases closer than it is to likely procure a warthog II of any upgrade route outside of just straight up newer better performance parts. There's a problem of needing cash but cheap considerable solutions are not an easy solve. This is likely why armed drones these days are rather appealing for that role as they can seemingly answer it including the large armored vehicle threats.

[@yaboinines7583]

If you decide to revisit or revise this plane at any point you should try to add a camera to the nose similar to the F35 and potentially change the tail to have a combined rudder and elevator similar to the YF-23 to be stealthier. Very cool plane nonetheless!

[@heirofaniu]

Well the good news about the 190th friendly fire incident is that those guys aren't stuck driving Warrior IFVs anymore. That is a net positive.

[@Aymon825]

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