ARCHIVED
 CBR900
Member
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2001  FLK
 Posts: 10131 Feedback: 100% (7) |
Posted: 5/10/2012 2:04:32 PM
THE IMAGE ABOVE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT If the U.S. is to continue its involvment in "small wars" / interventions in places like Arganistan, Iraq, and now Africa, should the US buy these? Or buy more A-10s? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Tucano Bonus: are there ANY of these in private hands?? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2012 3:47:05 PM
CBR,
You write A-10 but refer to the OV-10. OV-10s are long gone. I would assume we sold them to banana republics. Ray |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2012 4:44:10 PM
Originally Posted By d4xycrq:
CBR, You write A-10 but refer to the OV-10. OV-10s are long gone. I would assume we sold them to banana republics. Ray Roger that - Wiki confirms. All sold off to 3rd world. 
Also noted: Hugo Chavez tried to buy Tucanos & we apparently blocked the sale! (USA for the win). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2012 5:51:00 PM
If you're comparing the vietnam era ov-10 to the Tucano, the Tucano would win hands down as a CAS platform. However, the design of the Bronco is much more versatile given it's cargo bay and high wing design. That said, Boeing has proposed a modernized version of the ov-10 that would sound promising if more specs/ a flying prototype existed.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2012 7:19:35 PM
I have a couple of hundred hours in the OV-10A from the '70s. It is a dog. Looking at the Wikipedia articles on the two a/c, the Super Tucano is a reasonable machine. I don't know how it compares to the T-6 though. I believe that is the real competition in this competitive procurement.
It looks like the T-6A is a little smaller and a little faster than the Tucano. You really would need to have a comparative fly-off, and I don't think that is going to happen. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2012 7:57:07 PM
The US Forest service uses OV-10's as Airiel spotting planes. Don't know the total sum in USDF service but would venture 10-20! They also started flying modified AH-1F Cobra Helo's this last year or so! The OV-10 suffers from a greatly underpowered engine. For it to be if any use, it would need an engine upgrade, a HS eight bladed prop would be cool too! No comparison between the A-10, and the OV-10. As far as the retirement of the A-10's announced recently. It ain't over for the A-10, until the fat lady sings.
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2012 9:50:19 PM
[Last Edit: 5/10/2012 10:00:32 PM by SoCalJames]
Hello everyone, the USDA Forest Service does not operate the OV-10. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) does. The BLM operated the type briefly years ago but the program was short lived.
The Forest Service has been flying the Cobra for a few years, it is a unique platform in Air Attack with FLIR, GIS mapping etc. CAL FIRE did recently acquire some former Dept of State Air Wing D or G model Broncos ( I forgot which one!). http://www.fire.ca.gov/about/about_aviation_history.php |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2012 12:40:30 AM
There are a number of Shorts Tucano's in private hands which were UK-built versions of the previous model. Expect to pay $1.5M+.
The Super Tuc has another 500hp and is a significant update. |
|
|
|
GLHX2112
Member
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2005  PA, USA
Posts: 11807 Feedback: 100% (2) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/11/2012 12:52:11 PM
[Last Edit: 5/11/2012 12:54:05 PM by GLHX2112]
Somebody say Bronco? (Pics taken at Hemet-Ryan Airport)
|
|
|
Screechjet1
Former ranking USN line officer-Mongolia
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2005  MNG
Posts: 23538 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/11/2012 6:07:12 PM
An OV-10X is the winner. A D model with a Predator ball vs. a P-3 FLIR would be acceptable. Replace half the OH58Ds with OV-10Xs. |
|
|
Gunnerpalace
Team Member
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2009 MI, USA
Posts: 5093 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/11/2012 6:40:01 PM
I would say more A-10's
Once you get drop tanks on the Tuc I don't think you'll be able to to carry much of a weapons payload. And despite some posters thought's I have my doubts to the OV-10's armoring. |
|
|
|
Monkey_Wrench
Florida Hurricane Dodger
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2004 FL, USA
Posts: 19710 Feedback: 100% (46) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/11/2012 6:44:56 PM
Doesn't Blackwater own some Super Tucanos?
I've seen the Super Tucanos do some demo formation flying, Brazilian Air Force guys, in Rhondonia Brazil. Cool stuff. |
|
|
GunnyG
... you can't take the sky from me...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2001 WA, USA
Posts: 9181 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/11/2012 7:03:38 PM
[Last Edit: 5/11/2012 7:15:19 PM by GunnyG]
Originally Posted By Gunnerpalace: I would say more A-10's Once you get drop tanks on the Tuc I don't think you'll be able to to carry much of a weapons payload. And despite some posters thought's I have my doubts to the OV-10's armoring.   Try this take-off and landing profile... ... with a Super Tuc's skinny small tires, and landing gear struts
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2012 8:53:26 PM
The performance of the OV-10A was marginal enough that guys like me who had flown F-4s called the OV-10 an aircraft simulator. They must be planning a pretty major rebuild with new engines and a glass cockpit with the turret gun added. It will probably still be a dog.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2012 11:08:11 PM
The OV-10 still has some bite left in her:
According to Associated Press reports today, the Philippine military has killed Southeast Asia’s most-wanted terrorist on Thursday. With U.S. support, two OV-10 aircraft bombed a terrorist stronghold, comprising militants from the al-Qaeda-affiliated groups Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI). When the dust settled, Malaysian terrorist Zulkifli bin Hir, known by his nom-de-guerre “Marwan,” was among the rubble, along with two senior leaders of Abu Sayyaf and JI.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/03/alliance-at-work-philippine-military-kills-southeast-asia-terrorist-leader/  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2012 6:07:34 AM
Maybe they are up to handling the performance level of the OV-10A. They certainly weren't up to the F-8; they crashed the only two seater in existance after we loaned it to them.
|
|
|
|
Screechjet1
Former ranking USN line officer-Mongolia
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2005 MNG
Posts: 23542 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/13/2012 5:33:34 PM
Originally Posted By ClemY:
The performance of the OV-10A was marginal enough that guys like me who had flown F-4s called the OV-10 an aircraft simulator. They must be planning a pretty major rebuild with new engines and a glass cockpit with the turret gun added. It will probably still be a dog. Of course, the F-18 guys argued that the OV10 could be done away with in the 1990s, citing the performance of the F-18, and our troops still don't have a suitable FAC(A) or helo escort ten years into a war where we could be fighting with antiques like a F-4 and it wouldn't make any difference. |
|
|
Mryenko
Sideways at eighty
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2009 FL, USA
Posts: 2250 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/13/2012 10:21:47 PM
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:
Originally Posted By ClemY:
The performance of the OV-10A was marginal enough that guys like me who had flown F-4s called the OV-10 an aircraft simulator. They must be planning a pretty major rebuild with new engines and a glass cockpit with the turret gun added. It will probably still be a dog. Of course, the F-18 guys argued that the OV10 could be done away with in the 1990s, citing the performance of the F-18, and our troops still don't have a suitable FAC(A) or helo escort ten years into a war where we could be fighting with antiques like a F-4 and it wouldn't make any difference. Thoroughbreds typically aren't very good at pulling a plow. The same tends to apply to aircraft. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2012 5:24:35 AM
When the OV-10s were committed to the effort in ’91, they got their heads handed to them and were immediately withdrawn. Way too slow for the modern battlefield. Hence, the F-18D. Back in the ‘70s, the OV-10 was intended to be replaced with something just a bit bigger and faster and have much more serious air-to-ground capability. What was eventually developed was the A-10. The A-10 would be fine for that role, but of course, the Air Force hated it and did everything they could to kill it. Up and away and wild blue yonder and all that. The Air Force hates close air support. Using an F-18D for FAC(A) works after a fashion, but if the Marines want to escort the V-22s, perhaps they should take the A-10s the Air Force wants to get rid of, and up engine them as part of an upgrade. They always were underpowered.
|
|
|
|
Screechjet1
Former ranking USN line officer-Mongolia
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2005 MNG
Posts: 23566 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/14/2012 9:27:16 AM
Originally Posted By ClemY:
When the OV-10s were committed to the effort in ’91, they got their heads handed to them and were immediately withdrawn. Way too slow for the modern battlefield. Hence, the F-18D. Back in the ‘70s, the OV-10 was intended to be replaced with something just a bit bigger and faster and have much more serious air-to-ground capability. What was eventually developed was the A-10. The A-10 would be fine for that role, but of course, the Air Force hated it and did everything they could to kill it. Up and away and wild blue yonder and all that. The Air Force hates close air support. Using an F-18D for FAC(A) works after a fashion, but if the Marines want to escort the V-22s, perhaps they should take the A-10s the Air Force wants to get rid of, and up engine them as part of an upgrade. They always were underpowered. OV10s flew from the beginning of the war until the end. The two losses were due to bad tactics, and reinforced that the OV10 should have been sole sourced from the strike community. Both losses were simply bad tactics. A10s are way too fast for the helo escort role, and their development was not connected, as far as I know, with the OV-10, but with the requirement of Air Land Battle doctrine to attack second and third echelon Soviet armor, transpo and arty assets outside of range of organic Army deep strike assets. The A-10 had more to do with the AH-64's development, than the OV-10s issues. The ultimate issue with the OV-10 was that the OV-10's core constituency wasn't the Wing. The entire US military has fought a COIN campaign without the two assets (the other being the ES-3) that would have been invaluable. Their war came 10 years too late. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2012 2:05:33 PM
Of course the A-10 is too fast to escort helos. That is what armed helos are for, but armed helos are way too slow to escort the V-22. What do you propose for that?
Way back when, when what became the A-10 was being initiated, the desire was for something like a larger, more capable OV-10. They got 6 proposals: 5 were turbo jet; one was turbo prop. They picked two jets, the North American A-9 and the Fairchild A-10. I liked the A-9, but they picked the A-10. The Russians also liked the A-9. They basically picked it and developed the SU-25. A friend of mine who was an Air Force A-10 guy went over to Russia after they fell apart and got a ride in an SU-25 and a MIG 29. He felt right at home in that SU. |
|
|
|
Warhawk
Foxtrot Oscar
Team Member
Joined: Feb 2003 TX, USA
Posts: 8117 Feedback: 100% (139) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/14/2012 2:17:27 PM
Beech AT-6, all the USAF pilots trained in the last few years already know how to fly it.
 |
|
|
Combat_Jack
Green Suited Salaryman
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2001 USA
Posts: 64246 Feedback: 100% (13) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/14/2012 2:23:45 PM
Afghanistan is hardly a modern battlefield.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2012 3:54:41 PM
Originally Posted By ClemY:
Of course the A-10 is too fast to escort helos. That is what armed helos are for, but armed helos are way too slow to escort the V-22. What do you propose for that? Way back when, when what became the A-10 was being initiated, the desire was for something like a larger, more capable OV-10. They got 6 proposals: 5 were turbo jet; one was turbo prop. They picked two jets, the North American A-9 and the Fairchild A-10. I liked the A-9, but they picked the A-10. The Russians also liked the A-9. They basically picked it and developed the SU-25. A friend of mine who was an Air Force A-10 guy went over to Russia after they fell apart and got a ride in an SU-25 and a MIG 29. He felt right at home in that SU. Mind you the SU-25 doesn't have the same survivability features or weapons effects as the A-10. I have heard from several in the AF and CAS community that the Tucano is superior to the AT-6. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2012 8:15:54 PM
A single or double seater was supposed the be developed along with the v 22. I remember seeing the pictures during the early 80s. Does anybody know the story behind it being cancelled?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2012 5:40:00 AM
Originally Posted By hercules:
Originally Posted By ClemY:
Of course the A-10 is too fast to escort helos. That is what armed helos are for, but armed helos are way too slow to escort the V-22. What do you propose for that? Way back when, when what became the A-10 was being initiated, the desire was for something like a larger, more capable OV-10. They got 6 proposals: 5 were turbo jet; one was turbo prop. They picked two jets, the North American A-9 and the Fairchild A-10. I liked the A-9, but they picked the A-10. The Russians also liked the A-9. They basically picked it and developed the SU-25. A friend of mine who was an Air Force A-10 guy went over to Russia after they fell apart and got a ride in an SU-25 and a MIG 29. He felt right at home in that SU. Mind you the SU-25 doesn't have the same survivability features or weapons effects as the A-10. I have heard from several in the AF and CAS community that the Tucano is superior to the AT-6. Because the infrastructure is already in place, even if the Tucano is superior it would be a tough sell. |
|
|
ARCHIVED
PHL
