Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 07/07/2025 View Sun 07/06/2025 View Sat 07/05/2025 View Fri 07/04/2025 View Thu 07/03/2025 View Wed 07/02/2025 View Tue 07/01/2025
2025-07-07 Science & Technology
A-10 Warthog Already Has The Capability To Use Laser-Guided Rockets To Shoot-Down Drones
A taste:
[TWZ] The A-10 could be a uniquely capable drone hunter and they already have the ability to use APKWS rockets to do it, but its career is set to end before it gets the chance.

We have just learned that one of the most successful adaptations of an existing weapon in recent memory — morphing laser-guided air-to-ground rockets into counter-drone weapons — can be accommodated on three USAF aircraft, not just two. First, the F-16 got the version of the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System II (APKWS II) that takes 2.75 in. (70mm) Hydra rockets and turns them into drone and cruise missile busters, followed very recently by the F-15E Strike Eagle. Now we have learned that the A-10 Warthog has also received at least the ability to employ these weapons in the air-to-air role, although the type’s remaining service is now measured in months, not multiple years.

In the recently released budget request for 2026, the Pentagon documentation states that APKWSs featuring guidance sections with specialized Fixed-Wing Air-Launched Counter Unmanned Aerial Systems Ordnance (FALCO) software installed are cleared for use on the F-16, F-15E, and the A-10. The rockets use laser guidance and a proximity fuze to explode near subsonic, low-maneuverability targets like drones and cruise missiles. TWZ was first to report on the testing of this configuration of APKWS back in 2019. APKWSs were first used operationally as anti-air weapons in the surface-to-air role, with Ukraine receiving the VAMPIRE system that has proven to be highly successful.

Since then, APKWS II has entered operational U.S. service in the air-to-air role, and has become a standout in the Middle East, where F-16s swatted down Houthi drones with it at a fraction of the price of an air-to-air missile, the cheapest of which costs nearly half a million dollars. The anti-air APKWSs cost less than a tenth of that. In May, we learned the F-15E — the USAF’s most celebrated aerial drone hunter — could employ them, too. The rockets also dramatically expand the air-to-air magazine capacity of the aircraft they are mounted on (over six times the number of potential engagements in the F-15E’s case).

The A-10 as a drone hunter is an interesting prospect. The aircraft’s loiter time, slow and low-flying capabilities, and even its unique air-to-air dogfighting agility, could come in as a real benefit for taking out long-range one-way attack drones, especially the most prevalent propeller-driven type. Where the A-10 would be less effective is in rapidly taking out faster-flying drones and cruise missiles. This is due to its lower speed, with less ability to ‘run-down’ multiple targets in a short time period during incoming saturation raids. Still, AH-64 Apaches have become critical counter-drone weapons, providing screening for lower-performance, long-range one-way attack munitions, particularly in Israel. The U.S. Army is also expanding its use of the Apache in this role, and helicopters, including in Ukraine, are playing a larger role in counter-drone defense, in general. The A-10 has far superior speed capabilities over helicopters, so it does sit inside something of a sweet spot, performance-wise, for dealing with lower-end, long-range drones.

The A-10 also lacks a radar, which would make it harder for it to independently spot an incoming aerial target at distance, lock its targeting pod onto it, and successfully engage it. This could potentially be overcome with a podded radar system, at least to a degree. Leveraging datalinked target tracks from off-board platforms could also significantly offset this deficiency.

On the other hand, the A-10 can also carry a lot of rockets, and I mean a lot. Extra magazine depth would be beneficial during combat air patrols that have to confront a sustained drone onslaught. Above all else, the A-10 paired with FALCO APKWSs would be most effective at defending a certain installation or limited geographical areas, such as an island outpost or forward staging area, against long-range one-way attack drones and even some cruise missiles. The same weapons can also be used against surface targets, especially long-range unmanned surface vessels. These are roles the U.S. military will have no shortage of as it prepares for a fight in the Pacific.


Posted by Skidmark 2025-07-07 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| ||Comments [109 views ]  Top

#1 Using the GAU as a Phalanx would be cool.
Posted by Skidmark 2025-07-07 04:28||   2025-07-07 04:28|| Front Page || Comments   Top

#2 A10s cost $19,000 per block hour to operate not including munitions expenditure. It’d be economic against some of the larger prop drones that run about 20k each but without significant airspace control they are a big target for enemy ADA. And it’s not like the USAF is going to allow the production line to ever be fired up again to replace them. Great aircraft for COIN but not for contested airspace
Posted by Gloluns Turkeyneck4904 2025-07-07 05:56||   2025-07-07 05:56|| Front Page || Comments   Top

#3  And it’s not like the USAF is going to allow the production line to ever be fired up again to replace them.

...Tell ya a story.

Normally, when a USAF aircraft ends its production run, the tooling is carefully packed, sealed, and sent out to Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona (the famous 'Boneyard') for storage at USAF expense, in the event that production should start again. For how long really depends on the aircraft - for instance, the F-4 tooling stayed out there until about 2010.

But in the case of the A-10, USAF dug in its heels about reopening production, and actively (and in at least one instance, threateningly) dissuaded allies from buying any. The result was that the tooling was maintained for only about five years after production ended, then they told Fairchild that if they wanted it stored they'd have to pay for it.

To their credit, Fairchild kept it up for a couple years, but then - already in financial trouble - they proceeded to screw up a project called the T-46...and in their death spiral from that, one of the first things they did was scrap the tooling.

It was gone by the mid-90s.

Mike
Posted by MikeKozlowski 2025-07-07 06:40||   2025-07-07 06:40|| Front Page || Comments   Top

#4 Mike K., how hard/expensive would it be to take one apart and make a mold for each part using a 3-D printer?
Posted by trailing wife 2025-07-07 11:22||   2025-07-07 11:22|| Front Page || Comments   Top

12:58 Anguper Hupomosing9418
12:56 trailing wife
12:56 Regular joe
12:56 Abu Uluque
12:54 Abu Uluque
12:51 Abu Uluque
12:49 mossomo
12:47 mossomo
12:39 trailing wife
12:35 mossomo
12:33 Grom the Affective
12:30 Lord Garth
12:30 Skidmark
12:28 mossomo
12:28 Skidmark
12:26 mossomo
12:22 Anguper Hupomosing9418
12:21 mossomo
12:12 Matt
12:09 Abu Uluque
12:08 trailing wife
12:04 Grom the Affective
12:03 Grom the Affective
12:02 Bobby
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com