For all the a10s greatness, building new ones would be a waste. Improvements can be made. New material and design mean the airframe is now less than ideal. Improvements in ffars (the ones made in canada now fly straiter then bullets and nearly as fast) make even the iconic gun, around which the airframe is wrapped, less than ideal. Google the texco scorpion for what a modern a10 might look like.
Ya, that's the one I meant. It looks very different but operationally is very similar to the a-10. Two turbofans rather than jets, relatively strait winged, significant loiter time, cheap to run, and plenty of extra capacities. Dump the second seat, add some steel protection here and there, and you've got a new warthog.
A low-wing / high-engine version would be closer to the a-10, but that is almost style over function imho.
Low-wing / high-engine makes it somewhat harder for IR MANPADS to correctly seek on a A-10, especially on approach. The horizontal stabilizers help shield the IR signature as well. It also protects the engines from direct hits from AA guns. And last, it lets maintenance crews refuel and rearm an A-10 on the ground without waiting for the engines to spool down (and spool back up afterward), which can take some time. Faster rearm and refuel means faster mission turn-around.
Low-mounted wings also give the A-10 a very low stall speed, improving its ability to loiter over a battlefield.
But high wings give better clearance on approach/takeoff, allowing for greater crosswind and rough runway ability. Depending on where the hatches are, a high wing can mean not having to climb over the wing to reach things. The higher wing allows for more sweep without the tips hitting the ground on landing (high aoa) and a little sweep means better ground sightlines, over the shoulder, for the pilot.
Technically yes but the ratio between the air going through the jet (the hot part) and the fan (the cold part) draws some lines. The A10, like modern airline engines, is more fan than jet. This makes them efficient but limits top performance. It boils down to the shape of the engine. Wider engines with bigger fans/intakes become a liability above mach1. But a wider fan means better low-speed power, more surface area to "grip" on the slower air, allowing for better acceleration and shorter take-off. The f22 might technically have a fan, but it is extremely small in comparison to the jet that powers it.
The strange thing is that at extreme speeds the SR71 engines were high-bypass, with most air bypassing the blades altogether to be burnt in the afterburner as a ramjet.
Thats what i meant. I was listing similarities. Turbofans are rare on small combat aircraft. See the soviet/russian Frogfoot, the supersonic take on the a10, that doesnt have fans.
