Your Nation's Air Force [MKI]

[Antarticaria]

Looks fine on paper, go out to the field in person.

"In the field" and by field I mean a parity conflict, The A-10 would be ripped to shreds by enemy Air Defenses long before it got within range to fire off its cannon. And if you aren't firing of the Cannon, and using Stand-Off munitions to stay out of range of the enemy's short range air defenses like you should, you can carry almost as much payload with an F-16 (It actually has a slightly higher payload, but just has less hard-points), and a good deal more payload with an F-15E. There's really no good reason to keep the A-10 around other than Nostalgia. You can do its job more effectively with a mix of Attack Helicopters and Strike Fighters.

How about let bygones be bygones, Either way some sort of CAS is needed for my nation, right now I have a mix of both worlds and happy with the balance of situation readiness.

[Antarticaria]

All good points. I'm just making the argument that the A-10 isn't useless. It's outdated, yes, and a very mission specific platform. It is definitely not an aircraft you send in to unknown situations. That's what Multi-roles are for. The A-10 performs better against ground targets than multiroles (of comparable technology level, not F-35s) in the same way air superiority fighters outperform multiroles in air combat.

That said, it could use an update. What kind of things would you want in a modern dedicated ground attack aircraft for an A-10 successor? (Ignoring whether such a thing is needed or not. I'm just curious as to what a hypothetical A-10 successor would be like)

Ahh now we are getting somewhere interesting, and I am also intrigued by this idea.

[The Corparation]

I want an Fi 156 with a turbo prop, hard points for 57mm rockets, and a side mounted Mg 3. Come at me.

Side question, since this is the air force thread. Back ground information - I don't know where I want to RP yet (either North Africa or Southeast Asia,) but I do know that I won't be RPing a first world nation, and it'd be strict/hard-MT.

How feasible is it be using a copy of a pretty old bomber? Like a Lincoln or Lancaster with a ground-hugging RADAR?
Or do bombers even get used anymore, and it's not just cruise missiles, multiroles, and artillery?

If you're looking for an old bomber to use I wouldn't go back to WWII, instead I'd take a look at something like the Soviet Il-28 or Tu-22

You can do its job more effectively with a mix of Attack Helicopters and Strike Fighters.

Aren't A-10s pretty cheap and easy to run vs. attack helicopters and fighter aircraft though?

Upgraded for Inflation an A-10 and a modern new build AH-64 actually have a pretty similar price tag. Not sure about operating costs, although I believe the Apache is a bit cheaper. The Apache also has the bonus of having an active supply chain of parts being built, compared to the A-10s supply chain of spare parts which are often times only obtainable through the cannibalization of retired airframes. As for throwing in the cost of of multi-role or strike fighters into the A-10 vs AH-64 price comparison, the cost of those fighters would be something one would be paying anyways so it doesn't really enter into it. Of course one would also probably be operating attack helicopters anyways. Operating the A-10 is redundant, the capabilities it provides can also be provided by using a mix of aircraft one would probably already be operating. Those aircraft will also probably be able to do a better job than the A-10.

[Mitheldalond]

You can do its job more effectively with a mix of Attack Helicopters and Strike Fighters.

Aren't A-10s pretty cheap and easy to run vs. attack helicopters and fighter aircraft though?

Yes.
A-10 costs $18.91 in 2014 USD.
AH-64D costs $20.62 million in 2014 USD.

And I will reiterate. You shouldn't be sending aircraft into areas with heavy air defenses in the first place.. Yes, the A-10 would be slaughtered in such circumstances. So would an Apache, F-16, F-15E, and any other ground attack aircraft.

"A-10 pilots were vocal about the aircraft's superiority in its field and its frequent request by ground commanders." (Wikipedia)
A-10 pilots love the things, so apparently they're not of the opinion that the things are flying death traps. Ground troops in the field love the things. The troops do not want them for "nostalgia".
EDIT:
They like them because of things like this:

On 24 July 2013, a pair of A-10s flew over a friendly 12-vehicle convoy that had been ambushed and were under heavy fire. Three soldiers were wounded, and CAS was called in to protect casualty evacuation efforts. The ground unit was able to communicate an estimated location of enemy forces to the pilots, after which the lead aircraft, relying only on visual references, fired two rockets to mark the area with smoke before the second A-10 fired his cannon. The attackers did not flee, but instead moved closer to the soldiers. The close proximity prevented helicopter evacuation of the wounded, thus the convoy commander authorized the A-10s to provide danger close fire. The aircraft conducted strafing runs, flying 75 ft above the enemy's position and 50 meters parallel to friendly ground forces, completing 15 gun passes firing nearly 2,300 rounds, and dropped three 500 lb bombs. This engagement was typical of close-air support missions the A-10 was designed for

[Romic]

However you also have to factor what the enemy may think when they see it. Realize all warfare is how you can crush enemy moral too.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

However you also have to factor what the enemy may think when they see it. Realize all warfare is how you can crush enemy moral too.

A Soviet Motorized Rifle Battalion has on average an BTR-80 carrying dismounts with Iglas. Guess what they will be taking pot shots at out of a forest? Oops mission failed because you just lost half your rear airframe. Not so intimidating while limping home after having dumped all your payload right matey? Also I heard Pantsir S1 is coming into regimental air defence too.

[The Soodean Imperium]

All good points. I'm just making the argument that the A-10 isn't useless. It's outdated, yes, and a very mission specific platform. It is definitely not an aircraft you send in to unknown situations. That's what Multi-roles are for. The A-10 performs better against ground targets than multiroles (of comparable technology level, not F-35s) in the same way air superiority fighters outperform multiroles in air combat.

That said, it could use an update. What kind of things would you want in a modern dedicated ground attack aircraft for an A-10 successor? (Ignoring whether such a thing is needed or not. I'm just curious as to what a hypothetical A-10 successor would be like)

Ahh now we are getting somewhere interesting, and I am also intrigued by this idea.

The challenge with this is that the A-10 is more or less built for the sole purpose of carrying a GAU-8 Avenger cannon. That bulky, heavy weapon dictated all the details of its design, its role, its performance requirements, and so forth. Now, the GAU-8 can chew through T-55s and "Asad Babil" tanks with ease, but it's useless against most modern armor unless you're lucky enough to get a shot at the sides or rear.

This means that an "A-10 successor" would rely on guided anti-tank missiles rather than a gun. And here's where it becomes a problem: while a plane with a gun can only "strafe" its targets by flying toward them at low-level and close range, a plane with a (modern) anti-tank missile can hit its targets with great accuracy from afar. And what's more, so long as the targeting equipment and the missile are the same, a multirole will kill tanks just as well as a specialized ground-attack aircraft. And it can do it while staying safely outside the range of the enemy's close-range anti-air weapons.

The problem with the A-10 is like the problem with Heavy Tanks and Battleships. In its time, these designs were specialized to fulfill one specific role, and each one excelled at its role. But over time other machines' capabilities expanded, until they overlapped completely with that one, specific, inflexible role. It's not the individual airframe that's obsolete, but the design concept itself.

But I'm really in no position to talk about this. I'm still using Su-25s.

[Cote dSoleil]

If you're looking for an old bomber to use I wouldn't go back to WWII, instead I'd take a look at something like the Soviet Il-28 or Tu-22

alright thanks

Upgraded for Inflation an A-10 and a modern new build AH-64 actually have a pretty similar price tag. Not sure about operating costs, although I believe the Apache is a bit cheaper. The Apache also has the bonus of having an active supply chain of parts being built, compared to the A-10s supply chain of spare parts which are often times only obtainable through the cannibalization of retired airframes. As for throwing in the cost of of multi-role or strike fighters into the A-10 vs AH-64 price comparison, the cost of those fighters would be something one would be paying anyways so it doesn't really enter into it. Of course one would also probably be operating attack helicopters anyways. Operating the A-10 is redundant, the capabilities it provides can also be provided by using a mix of aircraft one would probably already be operating. Those aircraft will also probably be able to do a better job than the A-10.

Maybe. A-10s not being built anymore seems like much less of a problem vs. them never even having been exported to begin with though, so it's not like it can't be RPed away to begin with. And the A-10 engines are quite fuel efficient, very much so in comparison to the Su-25, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was world's ahead of an attack helicopter.

I'd also argue that the cost of the fighters and helicopters is not redundant, even though you already have them, because the life cycle costs for the attack helicopter and fighter aircraft are higher given shorter airframe and engine life, as well as more maintenance (on top of the reduced fuel efficiency.)

[The Corparation]

Aren't A-10s pretty cheap and easy to run vs. attack helicopters and fighter aircraft though?

(Image)

Yes.
A-10 costs $18.91 in 2014 USD.
AH-64D costs $20.62 million in 2014 USD.

And I will reiterate. You shouldn't be sending aircraft into areas with heavy air defenses in the first place.. Yes, the A-10 would be slaughtered in such circumstances. So would an Apache, F-16, F-15E, and any other ground attack aircraft.

"A-10 pilots were vocal about the aircraft's superiority in its field and its frequent request by ground commanders." (Wikipedia)
A-10 pilots love the things, so apparently they're not of the opinion that the things are flying death traps. Ground troops in the field love the things. The troops do not want them for "nostalgia".

The thing about the Air defenses in this discussion that I'm not sure if you understand, is that it is not about all of the enemy air defenses in the area. It's not about the big SAMs or the enemy fighters, It's only about the small short range stuff. The stuff like the Pantsir S-1 that can only kill you if you get up close. The Apache is capable of hiding behind hills from such threats, only peeking out to attack. The A-10 on the other hand can't hide. It can't get within gun range without being seen, fired upon, and put out of the fight. The A-10 can however use stand off missiles when faced with such a threat, but here's the thing, you can slap those exact same missiles onto a Multirole fighter with similar payload, or a strike fighter with a larger payload. Both of those fighters are faster, probably have better or comparable combat radius, and are much more versatile platforms.

[The Akasha Colony]

I'd also argue that the cost of the fighters and helicopters is not redundant, even though you already have them, because the life cycle costs for the attack helicopter and fighter aircraft are higher given shorter airframe and engine life, as well as more maintenance (on top of the reduced fuel efficiency.)

Except that you'd be paying these lifecycle costs anyway, because you'd still need to buy and maintain multiroles and attack helicopters. At best, the additional cost of adding this role is the extra maintenance required due to the extra flying time, but this is far cheaper than having to add an entirely different aircraft to your supply chain, with different equipment, different training, and the need to certify weapons for another platform. Especially when this additional platform doesn't actually do anything your multiroles and attack helicopters can't.

A-10 costs $18.91 in 2014 USD.
AH-64D costs $20.62 million in 2014 USD.

Inflation-adjusted prices are worthless for comparisons of relative cost.

"A-10 pilots were vocal about the aircraft's superiority in its field and its frequent request by ground commanders." (Wikipedia)
A-10 pilots love the things, so apparently they're not of the opinion that the things are flying death traps. Ground troops in the field love the things. The troops do not want them for "nostalgia".

Because Iraq and Afghanistan aren't exactly textbook examples of a competently managed air defense grid. Put another way: you could have completely removed the A-10 from those conflicts, and instead used a mixture of attack helicopters and multiroles, and the results would have been the same. And troops would be praising those platforms instead. That they praise the A-10 is because it's what the Air Force chooses to use, because the Air Force has already paid the money to design and build them and they may as well. But if you were to consider the merit of starting a new program, or maintaining the existing inventory as replacement parts get harder and harder to source and the airframes get older and older, the value proposition is no longer there relative to a combination of multiroles, helicopters, and UAVs.

EDIT:
They like them because of things like this:

On 24 July 2013, a pair of A-10s flew over a friendly 12-vehicle convoy that had been ambushed and were under heavy fire. Three soldiers were wounded, and CAS was called in to protect casualty evacuation efforts. The ground unit was able to communicate an estimated location of enemy forces to the pilots, after which the lead aircraft, relying only on visual references, fired two rockets to mark the area with smoke before the second A-10 fired his cannon. The attackers did not flee, but instead moved closer to the soldiers. The close proximity prevented helicopter evacuation of the wounded, thus the convoy commander authorized the A-10s to provide danger close fire. The aircraft conducted strafing runs, flying 75 ft above the enemy's position and 50 meters parallel to friendly ground forces, completing 15 gun passes firing nearly 2,300 rounds, and dropped three 500 lb bombs. This engagement was typical of close-air support missions the A-10 was designed for

And if just one of those attackers happened to have a Stinger on him, it would have ended very differently. Now tell me, what part of this would an Apache have been unable to accomplish?

[Vitaphone Racing]

The biggest problem with the A-10 is the F-16. Because the F-16 can do 90% of what an A-10 can do in a much more versatile package. That 10% the F-16 can't do doesn't matter, however, because it's part of the role that's since been re-assigned to the AH-64. The A-10 is no longer invincible, it's main draw card has been lost. It's had a good service, but now it's time to move on.

[Antarticaria]

We all know the A-10 is outdated but not without its uses, however what about a modern CAS, (I mean for the sake of discussion) IF we were to design a CAS, how would we want to fit large tank popping weapons onto a slower flying plane with modern day advanced countermeasures and other "trinkets". Read carefully before saying what I said is redundant this time, especially in the ()'s.

[Dostanuot Loj]

A-10 costs $18.91 in 2014 USD.
AH-64D costs $20.62 million in 2014 USD.

Inflation-adjusted prices are worthless for comparisons of relative cost.

Nonsense! Can't you see that the A-10, costing less then nineteen dollars USD is cheaper then even an M4?

I can't see there being any reason not to issue every infantryman with a dozen A-10s, so they can provide their own CAS, when it's that cheap!

[Vitaphone Racing]

We all know the A-10 is outdated but not without its uses, however what about a modern CAS, (I mean for the sake of discussion) IF we were to design a CAS, how would we want to fit large tank popping weapons onto a slower flying plane with modern day advanced countermeasures and other "trinkets". Read carefully before saying what I said is redundant this time, especially in the ()'s.

Whether or not is has it's uses is irrelevant. What matters is whether those uses can be done to a reasonable degree by other aircraft, which they can. Hence, there's no need for the A-10.

If you're going to choose a CAS aircraft with large tank popping weapons, you'd choose something along the lines of the F-35, Rafale, Typhoon, Strike Eagle etc. Because these are presently the best modern choices for CAS aircraft in the world and this is how CAS has evolved over the years.

A modern A-10 is going to be very similar to the same A-10 that first rolled off the line but with different avionics and maybe different engines because the environment such an aircraft is designed to operate in started to disappear in the 1980's.

[Cote dSoleil]

Except that you'd be paying these lifecycle costs anyway, because you'd still need to buy and maintain multiroles and attack helicopters. At best, the additional cost of adding this role is the extra maintenance required due to the extra flying time, but this is far cheaper than having to add an entirely different aircraft to your supply chain, with different equipment, different training, and the need to certify weapons for another platform. Especially when this additional platform doesn't actually do anything your multiroles and attack helicopters can't.

You'd be paying the lifecycle costs on an aircraft that is cheaper to maintain, so what I'm saying is to use the A-10 for missions where it would excel at to make the cost of those missions cheaper. I'm not throwing out any numbers, but I'm just saying it wouldn't be surprising (at least to me) if two otherwise identical airforces (one with multiroles and attack helicopters, and the other with multiroles, attack helicopters, and A-10s) found out that the one using cheaper, more efficient, potentially more survivable, more specialized aircraft did in fact, win out on costs.

[The Corparation]

Right I forgot another advantage of the Apache:

The ability to pickup and recover downed wing men.

Oh and if we're sharing neat, but completely irrelevant stories of the Aircraft being operated here's a good Apache one:

On 13 January 2007, a 200-strong British force, led by Royal Marines, launched an operation to attack Jugroom Fort, a major Taliban base in southern Helmand Province.[63][64] After several hours of intense fighting, the Marines regrouped and it was discovered that Lance Corporal Mathew Ford of 45 Commando Royal Marines was missing. A rescue mission was launched using four volunteers, Royal Marines and a Royal Engineer, strapped to the stub-wings of two Apaches.[63] The helicopters could not travel above 50 mph to ensure the safety of the extra passengers from rotor downwash. The Apaches landed under fire inside the compound, after which the rescuers dismounted and recovered the body of LCpl Ford. Ford's body was flown out in the same manner that the soldiers arrived.[63] Other Apaches hovered above, providing suppressive fire throughout.[65] None of the rescuers were injured in the recovery mission and they were later hailed for their bravery.[66]

[Vitaphone Racing]

Except that you'd be paying these lifecycle costs anyway, because you'd still need to buy and maintain multiroles and attack helicopters. At best, the additional cost of adding this role is the extra maintenance required due to the extra flying time, but this is far cheaper than having to add an entirely different aircraft to your supply chain, with different equipment, different training, and the need to certify weapons for another platform. Especially when this additional platform doesn't actually do anything your multiroles and attack helicopters can't.

You'd be paying the lifecycle costs on an aircraft that is cheaper to maintain, so what I'm saying is to use the A-10 for missions where it would excel at to make the cost of those missions cheaper. I'm not throwing out any numbers, but I'm just saying it wouldn't be surprising (at least to me) if two otherwise identical airforces (one with multiroles and attack helicopters, and the other with multiroles, attack helicopters, and A-10s) found out that the one using cheaper, more efficient, potentially more survivable, more specialized aircraft did in fact, win out on costs.

It's not going to make the missions cheaper; you're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a new aircraft alone and more tens of millions of dollars to create the logistical structure to support it. And then consider you have to maintain it on a timely basis as well, not just for x amount of hours it spends in the air.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Right I forgot another advantage of the Apache:

(Image)
The ability to pickup and recover downed wing men.

Oh and if we're sharing neat, but completely irrelevant stories of the Aircraft being operated here's a good Apache one:

On 13 January 2007, a 200-strong British force, led by Royal Marines, launched an operation to attack Jugroom Fort, a major Taliban base in southern Helmand Province.[63][64] After several hours of intense fighting, the Marines regrouped and it was discovered that Lance Corporal Mathew Ford of 45 Commando Royal Marines was missing. A rescue mission was launched using four volunteers, Royal Marines and a Royal Engineer, strapped to the stub-wings of two Apaches.[63] The helicopters could not travel above 50 mph to ensure the safety of the extra passengers from rotor downwash. The Apaches landed under fire inside the compound, after which the rescuers dismounted and recovered the body of LCpl Ford. Ford's body was flown out in the same manner that the soldiers arrived.[63] Other Apaches hovered above, providing suppressive fire throughout.[65] None of the rescuers were injured in the recovery mission and they were later hailed for their bravery.[66]

Good book/10

[The Akasha Colony]

We all know the A-10 is outdated but not without its uses, however what about a modern CAS, (I mean for the sake of discussion) IF we were to design a CAS, how would we want to fit large tank popping weapons onto a slower flying plane with modern day advanced countermeasures and other "trinkets". Read carefully before saying what I said is redundant this time, especially in the ()'s.

A bigger version of the Predator.

You'd be paying the lifecycle costs on an aircraft that is cheaper to maintain, so what I'm saying is to use the A-10 for missions where it would excel at to make the cost of those missions cheaper. I'm not throwing out any numbers, but I'm just saying it wouldn't be surprising (at least to me) if two otherwise identical airforces (one with multiroles and attack helicopters, and the other with multiroles, attack helicopters, and A-10s) found out that the one using cheaper, more efficient, potentially more survivable, more specialized aircraft did in fact, win out on costs.

But why would it? Consider for instance the US' situation, since that's what the A-10 was designed for. In order to begin combat operations abroad, it has to ship out fighters (to provide air cover), helicopters (which are attached to Army units), and A-10s. But doing so will inherently provide less flexibility for a given weight or space than consolidation to a single fixed-wing aircraft type. A squadron of F-16s can take control of the skies and then be converted to CAS duty. If the enemy suddenly buys more MiGs, they can go right back to air superiority to take back the skies as needed. A squadron of A-10s must wait for air superiority to be secured first, and cannot meaningfully contribute to this first step. If the enemy comes back, then they must once again be grounded until it is safe to fly. Thus, any deployment of A-10s would be in addition to the already-deployed multiroles. This leaves aside the danger of SHORAD, which is a threat to the A-10 when using its gun (which is the primary reason for its existence) but is not much of a threat to a multirole using standoff munitions.

This again also leaves aside the larger cost of developing, procuring, and then maintaining a completely different aircraft that will share little if anything with existing fighters or helicopters. That means developing new training programs, new maintenance facilities and equipment, a completely new supply chain of parts, and a separate network of factories to produce these parts. Compared to the relatively marginal costs of ordering more multiroles (which would likely reduce unit costs) from a supply network you have to set up anyway.

[Cote dSoleil]

It's not going to make the missions cheaper; you're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a new aircraft alone and more tens of millions of dollars to create the logistical structure to support it. And then consider you have to maintain it on a timely basis as well, not just for x amount of hours it spends in the air.

I'm not talking small scale, I'm talking large scale. A quick Google showed the airframe of a cheap modern production multirole to be 4000 flight hours, and 8,000 flight hours for an original production A-10 (note that it's not going to be accurate for the updated versions with longer frame lifes...). I don't see how it's so difficult to understand that you can take those flight hours from the multirole and put them onto the A-10 when a CAS mission is needed, and you can still be ahead.

[Vitaphone Racing]

It's not going to make the missions cheaper; you're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a new aircraft alone and more tens of millions of dollars to create the logistical structure to support it. And then consider you have to maintain it on a timely basis as well, not just for x amount of hours it spends in the air.

I'm not talking small scale, I'm talking large scale.

And what difference does it make?

A quick Google showed the airframe of a cheap modern production multirole to be 4000 flight hours, and 8,000 flight hours for an original production A-10 (note that it's not going to be accurate for the updated versions with longer frame lifes...). I don't see how it's so difficult to understand that you can take those flight hours from the multirole and put them onto the A-10 when a CAS mission is needed, and you can still be ahead. It's not like the flight hours from the multirole are disappearing.

The problem is that your analysis is far too narrow. It's not as simple as some algebraic equation where Total cost = 500x + 600y like you're implying. In order to take those hours from the multirole and put them on the A-10, you first have to completely refurbish the A-10 fleet or replace it with new aircraft because these ones are getting old and that's why they're being retired now as opposed to ten years ago when they had some life left. You still have to run an extra branch of logistical and training support tailored to the A-10. You have to add more administration roles seeing as your creating more military units instead of tapping into ones that already exist. My first explanation was pretty clear about this, I thought. I'm not sure you what you didn't understand.

[The Corparation]

One of use should really go around and collect the various reasons as to why the A-10 is no longer the best choice for CAS missions. This reminds me that I still need to finish the brief piece I wrote on why FSW aren't all that great, and that I need to polish up the OP for the next thread some more.

[Cote dSoleil]

And what difference does it make?

By concepts of scales and price comparisons, there's a point at which one version is more expensive than the alternative. All my point is that the A-10 is cheaper, and at some unknown scale, the A-10 will be cheaper.

The problem is that your analysis is far too narrow. It's not as simple as some algebraic equation where Total cost = 500x + 600y like you're implying. In order to take those hours from the multirole and put them on the A-10, you first have to completely refurbish the A-10 fleet or replace it with new aircraft because these ones are getting old and that's why they're being retired now as opposed to ten years ago when they had some life left. You still have to run an extra branch of logistical and training support tailored to the A-10. You have to add more administration roles seeing as your creating more military units instead of tapping into ones that already exist. My first explanation was pretty clear about this, I thought. I'm not sure you what you didn't understand.

Yeah, because we all know multiroles aren't logistically intensive or anything. I can buy more multiroles at 40 million each that will last 5000 hours, or I can buy A-10s at 20 million each that will last 8000+. Obviously there's a crossover point at which one crosses over the other on the graph.

You like the flexibility of multirole aircraft and are willing to pay for it. Great. That doesn't mean that it's unfeasible for the cheaper aircraft to *gasp* be cheaper. Otherwise the Su-25 and A-10 would never have been invented to begin with.

edit: and lol at the logistics, training, and administrative roles scaling perfectly inversely proportionate to the cheaper aircraft

[Mitheldalond]

We all know the A-10 is outdated but not without its uses, however what about a modern CAS, (I mean for the sake of discussion) IF we were to design a CAS, how would we want to fit large tank popping weapons onto a slower flying plane with modern day advanced countermeasures and other "trinkets". Read carefully before saying what I said is redundant this time, especially in the ()'s.

So far it sounds like you would ideally want something with the hover related mobility of an attack helicopter combined with the speed (faster response time) and payload of a multirole fighter, the ruggedness of an A-10 or Apache, a powerful gun for situations where missiles can't be used, and advanced avionics and countermeasures.

So something similar to a Harrier, maybe?

Or possibly a smaller MV-22 Osprey, say the size of a Blackhawk maybe? (I think something like that exists conceptually, but I can't remember what it's called.) Give it armor like an Apache, and a 25-30mm Gatling cannon in place of the MV-22's retractable Minigun. Possibly replace the passenger compartment with an internal bomb bay with rotary launchers for air-to-ground missiles and bombs, and maybe AIM-9s mounted on the bomb bay doors.

That should give you the desired flight characteristics of a plane and a helicopter, the armor of an A-10 or Apache, the payload of a strike fighter, and a powerful gun for very close air support.

The weight of the armor and payload would probably limit it's combat radius, unless you go with a smaller weapons bay and used the extra space to store more fuel, maybe. I also don't see a way for it to carry rocket pods, since the rotors would prevent you from mounting weapons on the wings, and rocket pods probably wouldn't work in a rotary weapons bay.

[The Akasha Colony]

Yeah, because we all know multiroles aren't logistically intensive or anything. I can buy more multiroles at 40 million each that will last 5000 hours, or I can buy A-10s at 20 million each that will last 8000+. Obviously there's a crossover point at which one crosses over the other on the graph.

Except that you don't graph capabilities. A dedicated CAS aircraft like the A-10 would be worthwhile if the target has zero air defense capability and yet still has some kind of ground capability to warrant such an aircraft. It should have sufficient numbers of semi-advanced ground vehicles that warrant the use of PGMs and the internal cannon, but not advanced enough to have any dangerous SHORAD capability. If it lacks even these basic vehicles, then you're better off using a combination of drones and perhaps light armed trainers.

This is an incredibly specific set of circumstances that the US was fortunate to find in Iraq, but even in the case of the first Gulf War, took a prolonged air campaign to fully suppress the Iraqi air defenses in their more protected areas. If you can guarantee that you will be fighting these wars often, then you might be able to justify it, but even then the relative utility must be compared to the cost of a combination of helicopters, drones, multiroles, and armed trainers.

Otherwise the Su-25 and A-10 would never have been invented to begin with.

The A-10 and Su-25 were designed to bring capabilities that at the time were considered useful yet not provided by any existing platform. Namely cannon fire, which is what really separates them from a multirole. But this is no longer as useful as it once was. Against any reasonable parity foe, standoff PGMs are going to be the order of the day, and survivability is going to mean the ability to rapidly penetrate and escape or deal with enemy fighter cover, rather than being able to take a few hits from ground fire.