Legendary aircraft designer Burt Rutan reveals the secrets of his Model 151 ARES turbofan “Mudfighter” developed for US Army Close Air Support (CAS).
In 1981, the US Army requested a design study for a Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft (LCBAA). Scaled Composites made the ARES testbed aircraft which used a single Pratt and Whitney Canada JT15D-5 turbofan engine (same as in the Beechjet / T-1A Jayhawk trainer), and a GAU-12/U 25mm Gatling gun. www.scaled.com The ARES Mudfighter is cleverly designed so its 25mm GAU-12U 25mm autocannon is on one side of the aircraft fuselage while the turbofan engine intake is on the other–this also puts the nose of the plane forward to prevent birds from going into the engine! Burt Rutan is a genius! The ARES can also carry 2.75″ Hydra 70mm rocket pods, small unguided and guided bombs and guided missiles on 4 underwing hardpoints–this could be air-to-air missiles like AIM-9 Sidewinders and conceivable additional than-visual range (BVR) AMRAM AIM-120s to sweep the low-level skies of enemy aircraft ...
7 Comments
siftbotMoving this video to kulpims's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.
chicchorea*promote
siftbotPromoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by chicchorea.
DaldainI wonder if was an alternative to the Warthog, or it had a different role?
oritteropoSimilar role, similar gun, but cheaper and not as tough.
I wonder if was an alternative to the Warthog, or it had a different role?
AeroMechanicalsays...Pretty cool. I don't see it being too useful, but it's a very cool plane. It has nothing like the payload of an A-10, so the big question I'd have is what sort of endurance does it have? Given that they're planning on replacing A-10's that can stay on station for hours with F-35's that will only be able to for a matter of minutes, I guess it isn't considered a priority anymore (which could be right... might be better to get there fast, expend your weapons, then leave to rearm and come back fast). And then there are drones, of course, cheaper and with better endurance yet to back that up. Meh.
Anyways, it's always interesting to see the clever designs that never panned out. I wonder what this was developed for. The A-10 was already in service by then, so there is probably an interesting story behind it. Although, at the time I think the A-10 was intended as an anti-tank weapon and it wasn't until later (maybe when this was developed), that they figured out it could be good for close support too.
SFOGuyWould have made an ideal cheap export weapon for our then "friends" to use in counter-insurgency.
Low countermeasures, not bulletproofed, one engine---anywhere where the pilots were a relatively cheap commodity, it would have been a useful add on.
Anywhere else, for US Forces, given the cost of training pilots---
Probably not really economical.
If the Army was allowed to have fixed wing aircraft (it's not; that's part of the deal with having the Air Force)---then I bet they'd would have wanted it for a counter-insurgency role, where the other guy had no airplanes and no SAMS/heavy anti aircraft---but that doesn't describe the world of the 1980s and the Fulda Gap very accurately lol
I wonder if was an alternative to the Warthog, or it had a different role?
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.