Combat Dragon II Demonstrates OV-10G+ Bronco Capabilities - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Combat Dragon II Demonstrates OV-10G+ Bronco Capabilities (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 6/14/2013 9:58:51 AM EDT

[#1]

How many for DHS / Federal Police / Barry's Gestapo?

Posted: 6/14/2013 10:00:57 AM EDT

[#2]

I don't think the A1 had the STOL performance of the OV10 either.

Posted: 6/14/2013 10:01:26 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This was tried before but the Air Force "shot it down".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer

that is a serious plane that I never knew existed.
thanks for the info.

You're welcome.

I don't know if it's true, but I was told that the Air Force didn't want to adopt this aircraft because it would show that an "older" design was viable and would put into question their high dollar procurement policy's.

It looks neat, but didn't they already have the Skyraider? What would this aircraft have brought to the table to do differently?

We couldn't even make it to page two without someone bringing up the spad. COIN, FO and Light attack are a different mission then flying dump truck dropping tons of dumb ord.

Posted: 6/14/2013 10:23:12 AM EDT

[#4]

http://www.ov-10bronco.net/Technical/boeing_ov-10(x)_super_bronco_info_card_2009_01.pdf

Look at what boeing wants to outfit it with. It will beable to do more than just take off. Hell the thing already has most of what I said minus the head tracking guns. looks like it does.

Quoted:

Quoted:
They need to remake about 1000 of these. Add the new systems AIM-9X, in helmet huds with FLIR, FFAR,helfire, 20mm, 30cal both controlable via the in helmet hud. Where the gunner looks is where the guns point.

Christ, the thing has to take off in order to be effective, you know.

Posted: 6/14/2013 10:27:32 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
My dad flew OV-10's in Viet Nam. Great A/C.

A few years ago I was out at Camp Pen on a DFT with a skid squadron and one of the Tech Reps whispered that the OV-10 might make a come back due to the altitudes in AFG. Basically the Bronco is a fixed wing Cobra.

This was sometime in 2009.

Honestly I am surprised the Corps never pulled a couple out of the bone yard.

Posted: 6/14/2013 10:43:25 AM EDT

[#6]

I was looking for something new to masturbate to

thank you.

Posted: 6/14/2013 10:52:52 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
My dad flew OV-10's in Viet Nam. Great A/C.

A few years ago I was out at Camp Pen on a DFT with a skid squadron and one of the Tech Reps whispered that the OV-10 might make a come back due to the altitudes in AFG. Basically the Bronco is a fixed wing Cobra.

This was sometime in 2009.

Honestly I am surprised the Corps never pulled a couple out of the bone yard.

The Corps killed the OV-10, esp. the Cobra and F-18 communities.

Posted: 6/14/2013 11:00:54 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

How many for DHS / Federal Police / Barry's Gestapo?

ATF tried back in the 90s

They registered them under shell company

when it hit the press they were taken away and given to customs
Sen. Grassley , an ATF scandal , and congressional hearings

Its the 90s again

just wish we had the same economy as 1995

http://www.comeandtakeit.com/fedbatf.html

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a news article in this morning's Washington
Times says the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms recently purchased
22 OV-10D aircraft from the Defense Department.

These aircraft were used by the Marine Corps in the Vietnam war for
close air support in combat. They were also used in Operation Desert Storm
for night observation.

The aircraft are heavily weapons-capable, especially from a law-enforcement
perspective. ATF says the planes have been stripped of their weapons. Their
purpose, according to ATF, is for surveillance. The planes can locate people
on the ground by detecting their body heat.

It's no secret that the ATF is undergoing intense public scrutiny. It
has done some real bone-headed things. It has been criticized for enforcing
the law while crossing the line of civil rights protections.

Posted: 6/14/2013 11:08:11 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This was tried before but the Air Force "shot it down".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer

that is a serious plane that I never knew existed.
thanks for the info.

You're welcome.

I don't know if it's true, but I was told that the Air Force didn't want to adopt this aircraft because it would show that an "older" design was viable and would put into question their high dollar procurement policy's.

It looks neat, but didn't they already have the Skyraider? What would this aircraft have brought to the table to do differently?

turboprop power and a basically proven airframe that already had aftermarket support, at a time that the Skyraiders were basically worn out.

I understand the A-1's were at the end of their life, but that enforcer is developed on an airframe that's just as old as as the Skyraider's design. They developed a turboprop version of the Skyraider for the Navy, but that program was cancelled.

I'm not being argumentative, I just don't know. This stuff is before my time. I'm looking at the specifications between the two and I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference. I'm just used to the USMC flying things until they fall apart anyway.

Posted: 6/14/2013 11:13:20 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
The need for this is so readily obvious, the fact that this program is being driven by SOCOM, and that these aircraft are not already a main part of the Convention Air Force fleet, is maddening.

Needs to be part of Army aviation in order to truly maximize the capabilities.

Posted: 6/14/2013 11:14:45 AM EDT

[#11]

I loved the OV-10's back when we had them at Bergstrom AFB...except packing the parachutes for the seats. What a HUGE pain in the ass.

Posted: 6/14/2013 11:19:08 AM EDT

[#12]

Forgive my ignorance, but why these instead of Tucanos?

Posted: 6/14/2013 11:19:42 AM EDT

[#13]

Somewhere, Sylvan is aroused.

But he's not sure why.

Posted: 6/14/2013 11:22:13 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The need for this is so readily obvious, the fact that this program is being driven by SOCOM, and that these aircraft are not already a main part of the Convention Air Force fleet, is maddening.

Needs to be part of Army aviation in order to truly maximize the capabilities.

That would require Army aviation to have a minimum desire to defend its own equities and the vision to do it.

Posted: 6/14/2013 11:22:42 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Forgive my ignorance, but why these instead of Tucanos?

Two engines > One.

Posted: 6/14/2013 11:24:13 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Thinking about throughly "weaponized" OV-10s makes me happy in my panties.

I'm starting to like you!

Posted: 6/14/2013 11:38:01 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Somewhere, Sylvan is aroused.

But he's not sure why.

Posted: 6/14/2013 11:38:13 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The need for this is so readily obvious, the fact that this program is being driven by SOCOM, and that these aircraft are not already a main part of the Convention Air Force fleet, is maddening.

Needs to be part of Army aviation in order to truly maximize the capabilities.

That would require Army aviation to have a minimum desire to defend its own equities and the vision to do it.

Yes.

Posted: 6/14/2013 11:42:02 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Forgive my ignorance, but why these instead of Tucanos?

Two engines > One.

Ok. Hard to argue with that.

Posted: 6/14/2013 12:34:00 PM EDT

[#20]

The OV-1 is a 10 year older platform. Considerably heavier, with less range (but greater top speed), and lower ceiling. Remind me again what makes it better than the OV-10.

Posted: 6/14/2013 1:01:58 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
My dad flew OV-10's in Viet Nam. Great A/C.

A few years ago I was out at Camp Pen on a DFT with a skid squadron and one of the Tech Reps whispered that the OV-10 might make a come back due to the altitudes in AFG. Basically the Bronco is a fixed wing Cobra.

This was sometime in 2009.

Honestly I am surprised the Corps never pulled a couple out of the bone yard.

The Corps killed the OV-10, esp. the Cobra and F-18 communities.

Understood. However my point was I am surprised that they did not explore pulling a few from the Bone yard for Afghanistan.

It would be great if they would drop the VSTOL F-35 and go with a Prop CAS jobber and go with all carrier versions for the 35

Posted: 6/14/2013 1:13:08 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Forgive my ignorance, but why these instead of Tucanos?

In addition to the two engines mentioned already, I can think of a few others.

The OV-10 can be used to haul ass and trash. In fact during Vietnam it was used to do this.

The high wing offers better visibility.

With no prop in front, sensors can be mounted up front.

Posted: 6/14/2013 1:41:07 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This was tried before but the Air Force "shot it down".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer

that is a serious plane that I never knew existed.
thanks for the info.

You're welcome.

I don't know if it's true, but I was told that the Air Force didn't want to adopt this aircraft because it would show that an "older" design was viable and would put into question their high dollar procurement policy's.

It looks neat, but didn't they already have the Skyraider? What would this aircraft have brought to the table to do differently?

We couldn't even make it to page two without someone bringing up the spad. COIN, FO and Light attack are a different mission then flying dump truck dropping tons of dumb ord.

I was waiting in antici.......pation. But I love the SPAD so it's cool. The SPAD was a great plane but that engine - Lawd! The Bronco is sweet. The "fixed wing Cobra" description and V-22 escort descriptions are apropos. I was lucky to have been in the service while they were still flying and thought they were über-cool.

Posted: 6/14/2013 1:42:31 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Somewhere, Sylvan is aroused.

But he's not sure why.

Posted: 6/14/2013 1:47:35 PM EDT

[#25]

Thankyou Mike my first thought exactly. I actually saw one of the Enforcer prototypes in the flesh back in the late 80's. What a great aircraft.

Posted: 6/14/2013 2:06:27 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Forgive my ignorance, but why these instead of Tucanos?

Two engines > One.

Ok. Hard to argue with that.

Two prop engines mounted on the wings means you're limited where you can put forward firing weapon systems. Hellfires, FFARs, that kind of stuff. You can't very well fire them through the props. Two props means twice as much limiting space when compared to a single prop.

You can belly mount them, or put them far outboard if you want, of course.

Plus, there's the whole "If one engine fails it'll get us all the way to the scene of the crash" thing. I'm not saying that an OV-10 won't be able to operate with just one engine, but it's not going to be as easy as flying on two.

Posted: 6/14/2013 2:08:14 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Forgive my ignorance, but why these instead of Tucanos?

Two engines > One.

Ok. Hard to argue with that.

Two prop engines mounted on the wings means you're limited where you can put forward firing weapon systems. Hellfires, FFARs, that kind of stuff. You can't very well fire them through the props. Two props means twice as much limit.

You can belly mount them, or put them far outboard if you want, of course.

Plus, there's the whole "If one engine fails it'll get us all the way to the scene of the crash" thing. I'm not saying that an OV-10 won't be able to operate with just one engine, but it's not going to be as easy as flying on two.

????
If one engine fails you're better off than if you're in a Tucano and one of it's engines fail... or a helicopter.

As to shooting through props... you can do that with a cannon at least.

Posted: 6/14/2013 2:27:34 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Forgive my ignorance, but why these instead of Tucanos?

Two engines > One.

Ok. Hard to argue with that.

Two prop engines mounted on the wings means you're limited where you can put forward firing weapon systems. Hellfires, FFARs, that kind of stuff. You can't very well fire them through the props. Two props means twice as much limiting space when compared to a single prop.

You can belly mount them, or put them far outboard if you want, of course.

Plus, there's the whole "If one engine fails it'll get us all the way to the scene of the crash" thing. I'm not saying that an OV-10 won't be able to operate with just one engine, but it's not going to be as easy as flying on two.

Broncos were armed with 4 pods of FFARs on the sponsons and often 2 double Zuni launchers on the outer wings. They also were armed with a 20mm cannon pod;the Filipinos now using one made from a gun taken from a grounded F-5 in a drop tank. The D could also carry the same quad rack of hellfires as an Apache or Cobra. 2-8 Hellfires,2 pods of 2.75s and a pair of SDBs could easily be carried and that's leaving off the M60s and leaving the centerline station open.

Posted: 6/14/2013 3:26:46 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Forgive my ignorance, but why these instead of Tucanos?

Two engines > One.

Unless cost is a major factor.

Maybe Im just used to flying a single engine combat aircraft.

Posted: 6/14/2013 3:57:54 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Forgive my ignorance, but why these instead of Tucanos?

Two engines > One.

Unless cost is a major factor.

Maybe Im just used to flying a single engine combat aircraft.

No. We have to fly B-52s, because they have more engines.

Posted: 6/14/2013 3:58:46 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Maybe Im just used to flying a single engine combat aircraft.

Out of sheer curiosity: do you ever feel under-powered?

Posted: 6/14/2013 4:06:46 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Maybe Im just used to flying a single engine combat aircraft.

Out of sheer curiosity: do you ever feel under-powered?

The Kiowa was born underpowered. And that's unladen and at sea level.

Posted: 6/14/2013 4:23:25 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Maybe Im just used to flying a single engine combat aircraft.

Out of sheer curiosity: do you ever feel under-powered?

Power management is a way of life. I am ALWAYS what most helicopter pilots would call "underpowered".

Posted: 6/14/2013 4:41:40 PM EDT

[#34]

Can you do this out of the new one?

Monk

Posted: 6/14/2013 4:56:36 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
US military need to buy a shitload of these asap. Need to make more A10s too

It would be more expensive and less capable than a MQ-9 and would last about 15 seconds against an enemy with modern air defenses. We need to get out of the Iraq/A-Stan procurement mindset and realize our next advisories, even if they aren't Russia or China, will be flying and fighting with the near state of the art equipment of the PRC and Russia.

F-35s and legacy fighters aren't going to be a match for J-20s and T-50s. Correcting that needs to be our primary acquisitions focus right now. (F/A-XX, NGAD, whatever)

Posted: 6/14/2013 4:59:29 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
US military need to buy a shitload of these asap. Need to make more A10s too

It would be more expensive and less capable than a MQ-9 and would last about 15 seconds against an enemy with modern air defenses. We need to get out of the Iraq/A-Stan procurement mindset and realize our next advisories, even if they aren't Russia or China, will be flying and fighting with the near state of the art equipment of the PRC and Russia.

F-35s and legacy fighters aren't going to be a match for J-20s and T-50s. Correcting that needs to be our primary acquisitions focus right now. (F/A-XX, NGAD, whatever)

This is for a different kind of war--one that we spend a lot of time fighting and will continue to in all likelihood for the remainder of the nuclear age.

Posted: 6/14/2013 6:14:33 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
How many for DHS / Federal Police / Barry's Gestapo?

ATF tried back in the 90s
They registered them under shell company
when it hit the press they were taken away and given to customs

Sen. Grassley , an ATF scandal , and congressional hearings
Its the 90s again

just wish we had the same economy as 1995

http://www.comeandtakeit.com/fedbatf.html

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a news article in this morning's WashingtonTimes says the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms recently purchased22 OV-10D aircraft from the Defense Department.

These aircraft were used by the Marine Corps in the Vietnam war forclose air support in combat. They were also used in Operation Desert Stormfor night observation.

The aircraft are heavily weapons-capable, especially from a law-enforcementperspective. ATF says the planes have been stripped of their weapons. Theirpurpose, according to ATF, is for surveillance. The planes can locate peopleon the ground by detecting their body heat.

It's no secret that the ATF is undergoing intense public scrutiny. Ithas done some real bone-headed things. It has been criticized for enforcingthe law while crossing the line of civil rights protections.

If my memory isn't off, the shell company was named American Warbirds. They had avionics work done on the planes at the Smyrna airport. I worked for the company next door to the avionics shop, before the news broke about who really owned and operated the planes. They had been upgraded to the OV-10D configuration, when the BATF bought them. Biggest part of the upgrade was removing the sponsons and centerline hardpoint, and replacing them with a belly mounted turret that carried two 20mm cannons. There was also a nose mounted camera pod, similar to the Apache, allowing the crew to aim the cannon turret with the nose camera, day or night.

When the BATF pilots brought the planes to Smyrna for radio work, the wings were carrying drop tanks, and the belly turret had been removed and the hole covered with a simple panel that was held in place by quarter turn fasteners (not riveted or attached with screws, so they obviously saw a need to be able to quickly remove it). The camera turret on the nose was still in place, and the controls for them appeared to be still installed in the cockpit.

ETA: As I recall, US State Department got a couple of them (when the BATF was forced to give them up), and listed them on the FAA's records as being based in Florida. The shell company was used to keep them from showing up on budget reports in Congress. When Congress asked the BATF why they had been so secretive about having the planes, even going so far as to keep Congress from finding out about them, the reply was "so the bad guys wouldn't know we had them".

Posted: 6/14/2013 6:24:29 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Can you do this out of the new one?

http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/North-American-Rockwelll-OV-10-Bronco-015.preview.jpg

Monk

Thanks for that pic. I'd read they could carry up to 5 paratroopers but I could never wrap my brain around 5 guys sitting in the space behind the pilot, let alone 5 guys with chutes and equipment.

Posted: 6/14/2013 6:35:22 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Two prop engines mounted on the wings means you're limited where you can put forward firing weapon systems. Hellfires, FFARs, that kind of stuff. You can't very well fire them through the props. Two props means twice as much limiting space when compared to a single prop.

You know it's not like the bronco has never been used in combat before. Most of the hardpoints are on the fuselage between the engines, and it has stations outboard of the engines that can be used for forward firing munitions. The props don't exactly limit it's fighting ability.

Posted: 6/14/2013 6:52:29 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Two prop engines mounted on the wings means you're limited where you can put forward firing weapon systems. Hellfires, FFARs, that kind of stuff. You can't very well fire them through the props. Two props means twice as much limiting space when compared to a single prop.

You know it's not like the bronco has never been used in combat before. Most of the hardpoints are on the fuselage between the engines, and it has stations outboard of the engines that can be used for forward firing munitions. The props don't exactly limit it's fighting ability.

I wasn't talking about the Bronco specifically, I was talking about the two engines v. one engine discussion.

People say "It has two engines" like it's some sort of be-all end to all arguments without downsides. I'm just pointing out that it has detriments, and that just because an aircraft only has one engine, doesn't mean it's less suited for the mission.

And the part of what I said that you deleted clarified that I know there was a workaround with the Bronco.

Posted: 6/14/2013 6:58:44 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
My dad flew OV-10's in Viet Nam. Great A/C.

A few years ago I was out at Camp Pen on a DFT with a skid squadron and one of the Tech Reps whispered that the OV-10 might make a come back due to the altitudes in AFG. Basically the Bronco is a fixed wing Cobra.

This was sometime in 2009.

Honestly I am surprised the Corps never pulled a couple out of the bone yard.

The Corps killed the OV-10, esp. the Cobra and F-18 communities.

Understood. However my point was I am surprised that they did not explore pulling a few from the Bone yard for Afghanistan.

It would be great if they would drop the VSTOL F-35 and go with a Prop CAS jobber and go with all carrier versions for the 35

Right. 5-6 hours over the target! Not two or three passes and then go get gas!

Posted: 6/14/2013 7:00:48 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
My dad flew OV-10's in Viet Nam. Great A/C.

A few years ago I was out at Camp Pen on a DFT with a skid squadron and one of the Tech Reps whispered that the OV-10 might make a come back due to the altitudes in AFG. Basically the Bronco is a fixed wing Cobra.

This was sometime in 2009.

My first thought when I saw this was CV-22 escort.

Posted: 6/14/2013 7:03:04 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The need for this is so readily obvious, the fact that this program is being driven by SOCOM, and that these aircraft are not already a main part of the Convention Air Force fleet, is maddening.

Needs to be part of Army aviation in order to truly maximize the capabilities.

That would require Army aviation to have a minimum desire to defend its own equities and the vision to do it.

Yes.

Double yes.

Also, that pic is in Reno!

Edit:

Beat here by the Spad and Piper/Cavalier fans.

Posted: 6/14/2013 7:04:37 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Two prop engines mounted on the wings means you're limited where you can put forward firing weapon systems. Hellfires, FFARs, that kind of stuff. You can't very well fire them through the props. Two props means twice as much limiting space when compared to a single prop.

You know it's not like the bronco has never been used in combat before. Most of the hardpoints are on the fuselage between the engines, and it has stations outboard of the engines that can be used for forward firing munitions. The props don't exactly limit it's fighting ability.

I wasn't talking about the Bronco specifically, I was talking about the two engines v. one engine discussion.

People say "It has two engines" like it's some sort of be-all end to all arguments without downsides. I'm just pointing out that it has detriments, and that just because an aircraft only has one engine, doesn't mean it's less suited for the mission.

And the part of what I said that you deleted clarified that I know there was a workaround with the Bronco.

Most people in this thread are unqualified to write in it.

Doesnt stop anyone.

Posted: 6/14/2013 7:08:48 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Two prop engines mounted on the wings means you're limited where you can put forward firing weapon systems. Hellfires, FFARs, that kind of stuff. You can't very well fire them through the props. Two props means twice as much limiting space when compared to a single prop.

You know it's not like the bronco has never been used in combat before. Most of the hardpoints are on the fuselage between the engines, and it has stations outboard of the engines that can be used for forward firing munitions. The props don't exactly limit it's fighting ability.

I wasn't talking about the Bronco specifically, I was talking about the two engines v. one engine discussion.

People say "It has two engines" like it's some sort of be-all end to all arguments without downsides. I'm just pointing out that it has detriments, and that just because an aircraft only has one engine, doesn't mean it's less suited for the mission.

And the part of what I said that you deleted clarified that I know there was a workaround with the Bronco.

Most people in this thread are unqualified to write in it.

Doesnt stop anyone.

My dad got a DFC, 22 Air Medals and a couple purple hearts in the OV-10. I was on a deployment in 1992 with VMO-1. I will keep my opinions to myself and read on........

Posted: 6/14/2013 7:11:51 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Two prop engines mounted on the wings means you're limited where you can put forward firing weapon systems. Hellfires, FFARs, that kind of stuff. You can't very well fire them through the props. Two props means twice as much limiting space when compared to a single prop.

You know it's not like the bronco has never been used in combat before. Most of the hardpoints are on the fuselage between the engines, and it has stations outboard of the engines that can be used for forward firing munitions. The props don't exactly limit it's fighting ability.

I wasn't talking about the Bronco specifically, I was talking about the two engines v. one engine discussion.

People say "It has two engines" like it's some sort of be-all end to all arguments without downsides. I'm just pointing out that it has detriments, and that just because an aircraft only has one engine, doesn't mean it's less suited for the mission.

And the part of what I said that you deleted clarified that I know there was a workaround with the Bronco.

Most people in this thread are unqualified to write in it.

Doesnt stop anyone.

We don't need no stinkin qualifications, this is arfcom GD.

Posted: 6/14/2013 7:11:58 PM EDT

[#47]

I clearly wasnt talking about you.

Posted: 6/14/2013 7:14:59 PM EDT

[#48]

I, for a wide variety of both patriotic and self-interested reasons, would love this program to go forward.

Posted: 6/14/2013 7:23:32 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
My dad flew OV-10's in Viet Nam. Great A/C.

A few years ago I was out at Camp Pen on a DFT with a skid squadron and one of the Tech Reps whispered that the OV-10 might make a come back due to the altitudes in AFG. Basically the Bronco is a fixed wing Cobra.

This was sometime in 2009.

Honestly I am surprised the Corps never pulled a couple out of the bone yard.

The Corps killed the OV-10, esp. the Cobra and F-18 communities.

Understood. However my point was I am surprised that they did not explore pulling a few from the Bone yard for Afghanistan.

It would be great if they would drop the VSTOL F-35 and go with a Prop CAS jobber and go with all carrier versions for the 35

My understanding is that there are not enough OV-10's left that have enough airframe hours left to make it useful. What's left in the boneyard is in pretty rough shape - we gave the good ones to allies 20 years ago, and they've flown the crap out of them. Enough for a demo program, but not to return to service economically.

And Boeing (who has the design now) had a minimum number to produce for them to participate in any new manufacture program. Setting up a production line isn't cheap - they weren't going to do it for a couple dozen birds.

Back when the USAF had a LAAR and a Light Air Transport program, there was some hope at Boeing that the OV-10 could bid on both. But once this became a small contract, Boeing bowed out. They were very clear to the USAF as to why.

Posted: 6/14/2013 7:31:27 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:
They need to remake about 1000 of these. Add the new systems AIM-9X, in helmet huds with FLIR, FFAR,helfire, 20mm, 30cal both controlable via the in helmet hud. Where the gunner looks is where the guns point.

No sidewinder, we don't need AA for this, maybe for other countries though.

Guided 70mm rockets and a 20 or maybe 30mm trainable gun with lots of ammo and fuel is all it needs.

The USMC had OV10s with turrets from Cobras fitted, IIRC.

Same gun, yes. I don't know how well the OV-10's handled it, though, you didn't see a lot of them equipped with it, and the same gun was in the AU-23 Peacemaker - and specifically removed because it moved the airframe around too much when shooting to be accurate. (Those Peacemakers are currently flying for the RTAF- sans 20mm's) And later OV-10D's didn't have the gun, so it could have been a similar issue.

As for AIM-9X- it's not for fixed wing aircraft. It's to kill Attack Helos. Important in an 'V-22 Escort' role that some people have talked about, and the Cobra and the Apache both have sidewinder capability for killing opposing AH's - you just don't see it often. AIM-9X has a limited air-to-ground capability, as well, and they've been testing that recently.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Combat Dragon II Demonstrates OV-10G+ Bronco Capabilities (Page 2 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us