I understand what you are saying but you are thinking only one side of logisitics logistics logistics. Logistics are important to the enemy as well. That means trucks and cars and Toyota Utes. A 50 cal burst might damage it, but a Hellfire is overkill. Fit your UAV with (Russian version) two 20 shot 80mm rocket pods and a 23mm single barrel cannon firing moderate 23 x 115mm relatively low velocity shells (ie low recoil, compact, but with much greater terminal effect than 50 cal HMG at not that much extra weight).
With Laser guidance kits fitted like Ugroza that means 40 individual targets could be engaged at ranges of about 4km plus anything you can hit with the cannon. With aiming equipment, and ranging equipment the difference between a 50 cal and a light cannon in price, in weight, in volume/space, would not be very different, but the performance would show the cannon about 3-4 times more effective. The US version could use a 40mm grenade launcher and two 19 shot 70mm rocket pods with whatever guidance kits they come with… Any really hard target you could fly around behind and hit from the rear and above.
Even just relaying back target info would enable various long range anti tank weapons to be used via tube and rocket artillery etc.

I see your point. We can always customize the end product to fit what the customer wants; in this case what General GarryB wants – I shall manufacture. 🙂
Okay here is what I have for GarryB Specifications:

4 ATGMs
1 23mm cannon with 100 rounds
2 80mm rocket pods

Did I get it right? sounds awesome looking back..

Actually I though myself if a turbo-prop would make sense for close air support, reconnaissance and inderdiction close behind the line. Surely not the way the USAF wants to do it, but most air forces don’t have the ability to field extremely expensive supersonic jets for tasks of an A-26 Invader.

The loss rate would be higher, surely, but it means limited effective striking power. Such an aircraft would definitely not be the shining Lockheed Martin ad. But war is war and the tendency to build a new marvel for each tactical situation seems waste of ressource.

Actually, I would rather tend to mobile artillery. Either a tracked or wheel-based device can cover at least ~15km from its position, change its location. It is cheap, training is easy and when you don’t need it you park it under a tree and switch of the engine (which practically hides it from any sensor).
For example a PzH2000 can fire 3 rounds in 10 seconds (fire blast) or 8 in 60 seconds. A column of 4 vehicles can get fire ready in 30 seconds (out of the move), fire its three round burst and move on. That delivers 12 155mm rounds within a 40m radius of the target after very short time. Which aircraft can deliver such a firepower?

I love artillery as much as I love CAS. I however think that a true synthesis lies in combining all the various arms (and legs) together. Amongst my other military theories I am attempting to figure out what the ideal caliber would be for my “mobile armored division” and how mobile it can be. There of course is no “ideal” as such, it all depends on who your opponent is and a myriad of other considerations. Nevertheless, given certain premises, how best can we solve the mobility problems of the artillery component? I wish I could answer that, i haven’t figured that one out yet. I just have a vision, of an armored formation built around base standardized platforms – chief amongst which is an APC platform – that tows artillery, that converts to a light tank, that performs more vanilla duties, acts as tankers, acts as the primary logistics unit, acts as the CAS aircraft support units, act as the primary troop carrier, these in turn form the core mobile motorized infantry. One single base artillery (only a single caliber can be chosen), one single base MBT, one single CAS aircaft type..

Between the modification of the four basic weapons platforms you have an entire construction for a mobile army.

Your weapons seem to be biased towards what could be carried by a UAV.
A quick look at what most gunship helos carry will tell you that unguided rocket pods and cannon fire still have a place on the modern battlefield. With laser guided kits for unguided rockets you can have an appropriate weapon for most CAS targets. The reality is that most ATGMs have too much penetration and not enough blast and fragmentation effect for most targets on the battlefield other than tanks. Most countries in the world today don’t have a large supply of well armoured tanks and those that do are not likely to be using their forces against an enemy well equipped with such vehicles. Therefore having ATGMs that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars is a waste of money. A guided rocket that costs a few thousand dollars and has a warhead able to deal with a wider range of targets makes much more sense.
Equally the 50 cal HMG with 50 rounds is just silly. To effectively use such a weapon you need to get within 50 cal range, and once you are in 50 cal range of them they are within 50 cal or 57 cal or 23mm range of you… they will always win that fight.
At least with a cannon on board you can rely on shell power rather than kinetic energy. For example the HE shell for most 20mm cannon is effective at any range because it relies on HE power for effect rather then velocity. This means you can start firing at area targets at long range, which makes your fire platform safer and more likely to survive.

Dear GarryB, I realize what you are saying about the limited weapons range. But for me, the paramount issue is logistics, logistics, logistics and logistics. To use a common ATGM and a common 12.7mm ammo would greatly simplify logistics. Unguided rockets would not fit this well, however, they require you to get closer to be accurate, and that could be fatal. The 12.7 is the equivalent of the soldiers side-arm, you don’t want the soldier to really use it but it can be handy in unprecedented situations.

Further, the purpose of my “Phantom” 😀 is to destroy the armor and the artillery of the opposition, let the other arms of my army handle the soft bodied pieces of the chess board. Without its core armor and artillery, the enemy will be far easier to defeat. I am not trying to create a “cure all” but a cure “something”. Attempting to try to destroy a wider variety of targets would result in a great deal of tactical complications. Attempting to create a cure all will result in a weapons platform that is neither one thing or the other, lets all take a moments pause to remember what they did to the beautiful concept the original A-10 Warthog was built on and what they managed to churn out in the end, all because they wanted it to be a “super weapon”. Well, thats my opinion anyways.