Not just discarding sabot parts, the Air Force wouldn't allow the gun system to discard shot cartridge cases (imagine getting hit by a spent GAU-8 case moving at 300 knots). 

A-10  and strafing run on an armored formation is obsolete, A-10 is not survivable for anything but gunning around folks with AKs , flipflops and no real anti-air capability . The battlefield is about to get even deadlier due to need to counter the drones with ever more anti-air guns and missiles than ever before. 

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

A-10  and strafing run on an armored formation is obsolete, A-10 is not survivable for anything but gunning around folks with AKs , flipflops and no real anti-air capability . The battlefield is about to get even deadlier due to need to counter the drones with ever more anti-air guns and missiles than ever before. 

Yup, it was designed as a follow on to the Skyraider with stuck on antitank ability. Something closer to the Su-25 powered by a pair of non afterburning F100s is what they really needed. 

I agree that busting MBTs in the fulda gap by hitting them in the rear with 30x173 is not a mission set that the A-10 is suitable for any longer for a variety of reasons.

I was thinking of a notional 40x180 SAPHE with timed airburst, impact, and delay modes, which along with the greater HE fill, more substantial shell, and PFF would provide significantly improved effects on the target sets they have been engaging over the last 20 years: namely, enemy personnel, softskinned vehicles, light AFVs and robust structures.

The pilot would select the mode (or predetermined mix) from the cockpit based on what he's about to engage, and a fuze setter mounted to the front of the firing barrel would set the mode electronically as it exits the barrel. To provide continuous slant range data for airburst, a small fixed phased array radar would be mounted, perhaps an Osprey 30 derivative.   This would also be able to provide CCIP data for the gun to help offset trajectory tradeoffs over the flatter shooting 30x173.

Since we're not dependent on velocity any longer, if armored vehicles are more of a problem (such as the opening stages of a conflict), a notional 40x180 HEDP (using scaled up 30x113 HEDP internals) using superquick fuzing would provide potentially ~65+mm RHA penetration with secondary HE effects similar to 30mm.

Anyway, I understand the politics behind spending a dime more on the A-10, none of that interests me since this is just a hypothetical I was kicking around in my head anyway. I just didn't know if it would be feasible to redesign the GAU-8 internals to support it, or if other issues (as Tony and others have described) would be a showstopper.

It would certainly be impressive to see.

ZailC said:

Not just discarding sabot parts, the Air Force wouldn't allow the gun system to discard shot cartridge cases (imagine getting hit by a spent GAU-8 case moving at 300 knots).

It also has CG issues if it doesn't keep the shells.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

A-10  and strafing run on an armored formation is obsolete, A-10 is not survivable

The A-10 conops was obsolete before it was built. That's why they carried triple rail Mavericks, so they could at least attempt BAI & CAS missions before dying in flames.

I cannot recommend this series enough:

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2011/07/debunking-close-air-support-myths-part.html

And this post in particular:

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2011/07/cas-myths-sidebar-a-10-and-cult-of-gun.html

Refleks said:

busting MBTs in the fulda gap by hitting them in the rear with 30x173 is not a mission set that the A-10 is suitable for any longer for a variety of reasons.

Most of them designated ZSU-23-4 & SA-7.

It was never suitable.

Red7272 said:

Something closer to the Su-25 powered by a pair of non afterburning F100

This describes the Northrop YA-9, which lost the A-X fly off to the Fairchild Republic YA-10.

Red7272 said:

it was designed as a follow on to the Skyraider with stuck on antitank ability

This is true, but it was the wrong approach altogether.

CAS is a mission, not a platform. What "they" need for it is what they have, F-16s (and, later, F-15E).

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2011/07/debunking-close-air-support-myths-part_26.html

The (A-10) killer quote is this: "to be designed for permissive environments".

DavidPawley said:

CAS is a mission, not a platform. What "they" need for it is what they have, F-16s (and, later, F-15E).

To a degree. The MiG 27 and Su-25 carried armour and had better visibility. The Su-22 had no real advantage beyond being the sexiest plane to ever fly. The current move to PGMs and drones does largely make the dedicated aircraft irrelevant, but that was not the case until this century. 

I do remember the A-10s with a load of Mk 82s flying interdiction missions in the first gulf war because the US lacked enough interdiction aircraft.  Of course they also had B-1Bs flying CAS in Afghanistan around the same time the USA spent 20 billion dollars on diesel to air condition tents in Iraq, so basically the US is just special. 

Realistically, some platforms ARE better for CAS than others. Also, CAS is several different types of missions. The love of the A-10 comes in part from the fact we've done counterinsurgency CAS for the last several decades. It's the best aircraft in our inventory for it, even though we should've been buying AT-6s or A-29s starting in the late 90s.

If your CAS mission is stop the armored battalion overrunning the FOB, then F-15/16s with PGMs are preferred.