Intersting comparo: OV-10 Bronco vs F35

https://inhomelandsecurity.com/american-legacy-aircraft-top-f-35/?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=link&utm_content=Bronco_Good_as_F-35_Dec_2017&utm_campaign=Blog%20-%20In%20Homeland%20Security%20-%20LT%20-%20AMU

I remember building a plastic model of an OV-10 way back when I was a little kid in the 60s. Now we're hearing they are better for fighting ISIS than the F35. Wonder where the A-10 would rank. Does anyone know why we'd retire the A-10 but consider the OV-10? Is it because the A-10's jet engines are more susceptible to Stinger missiles than the OV-10's piston engines?

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by madcorgi

https://inhomelandsecurity.com/american-legacy-aircraft-top-f-35/?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=link&utm_content=Bronco_Good_as_F-35_Dec_2017&utm_campaign=Blog%20-%20In%20Homeland%20Security%20-%20LT%20-%20AMU

I remember building a plastic model of an OV-10 way back when I was a little kid in the 60s. Now we're hearing they are better for fighting ISIS than the F35. Wonder where the A-10 would rank. Does anyone know why we'd retire the A-10 but consider the OV-10? Is it because the A-10's jet engines are more susceptible to Stinger missiles than the OV-10's piston engines?

OV-10 is a turboprop...jet engines driving the props.

Great aircraft. I traded flights back in the ‘80s with the Marines at Camp Pendleton. I got an hour in the Bronco, they got a few hours in the SH-60B.

There are any number of reason the Bronce does so well in close air support. Loiter time, excellent low speed flight characteristics, turboprop performance at low altitude, two seater, lots of wing stores, etc.

My company designed and built some composite fairing for the Bronco to support the missions in the article. Cool stuff.

We are also making composite components for this beast: Archangel ISR Platform | IOMAX USA, Inc.

Whippedpup has been involved in this aviation trade space as well and knows a lot more specifics than I do.

[KNS]

The Air Force is looking seriously at bringing back a light attack and close air support aircraft for places like Iraq and Afghanistan while still keeping the A10. This thinking was based on the success of the use of a couple of borrowed Broncos in theatre a couple of years ago.

Another reason being pilots could get more flight time (which they’re not getting enough of now) in the new, cheaper to operate, aircraft before moving up to more sophisticated aircraft.

[john70t]

I once had a "cost of flying/hr" chart around somewhere but can't find it.
IIRC the OV-10 is among the very cheapest.
Something like $1,000/hr vs like $35,000/hr for the A-10.

The bomb/missile is usually pricey enough.
It just needs an aircraft to carry it to the site.
Propeller aircraft can loiter slow and have the time to use guns efficiently.

Interesting stuff, gents. Thanks for the info. I think it’s cool that we are looking at lighter/cheaper/better stuff. It’s kind of like saying, “ya know, the 915 is actually a really good transmission after all.” The training time issue is also an added angle I hadn’t thought about.

Left to its own devices, Boeing tended to fall in love with new technologies and go whole hog in them. As a result, we tended to build gold plated answers to questions that nobody asked or, often, to address threats that no longer existed. The B2, and F22, both of which we built big chunks of, sort of fell into that category, IMO. The fully digital design of the 777, starting in 1990, was another example. A very cool process, but a really bumpy and massively expensive production mess.

[pavulon]

I think Super Tucanos will be the answer.

[john70t]

Originally Posted by madcorgi

I think it’s cool that we are looking at lighter/cheaper/better stuff.

It's all above my pay grade but after the major battles are over the enemy can only congregate and attack piecemeal in small groups to fight a guerilla war. A B-52 squadron is too expensive to permanently keep in the air to monitor a few bedouins. It is using the correct tool for the job. Sometimes just a little height advantage is all that is needed to tip over the scales.

During WW2 the Tiger Tank was the premier top-of-the-line indestructible monster with a ton of complicated proprietary specialized parts. But it was constantly breaking down and nobody could fix it. Any tank without infantry support is a sitting duck. And visa-versa. For every Tiger made, there were ten Shermans and T34s which could arrive to a fight faster and go almost everywhere and used less gas and were easy to fix.

[Mark Henry]

The funny bit is this isn't new, when the F-18 (IIRC) was in competition a guy/company wanted to build modern turboprop P-51's at a fraction of the cost. The powers that be didn't want to look at it, it wasn't a jet.


Canada is waffling over the F-35 (good reason IMO), then the super hornet, now ?? who knows
Meanwhile our CF-18 hornets are getting damn old.

Really we're not a big player population (budget) wise, when you have a VW budget you shouldn't be looking at Ferraris.
We should be investing in a smaller force of top line fighters and then a huge number of planes like the Super Tucanos.
Any action with NATO would be a support role only, so why not try to specialize in that role.

But turboprops don't get the chicks like jets do....

[KNS]

Originally Posted by Mark Henry

The funny bit is this isn't new, when the F-18 (IIRC) was in competition a guy/company wanted to build modern turboprop P-51's at a fraction of the cost. The powers that be didn't want to look at it, it wasn't a jet.

The Air Force came up with a lot of excuses why they wouldn't buy the Piper Enforcer (Turboprop Mustang). It'll never happen but I'd love to see it as one of the candidates right now, some of the aircraft they're looking at for the light attack role are Turboprops.

[Jim Bremner]

I like the OV10 or other 2 engine choices over the Super Torcano. That and the High wing design and tough landing gear has it's place. Now, the plane is a sitting duck from fast planes and effective missiles. So you fight a war with the OV10 down low, A wild weasel above, a Fast plane to protect from above and an AWAC system above that. Just like a Tank goes out with foot soldiers that are protected by machine gunners that have Designated Marksmen protecting them with Snipers doing overwatch for them with Drones on top of them.

[fintstone]

You can kill ISIS with almost anything that will fly since they have no aircraft or SAMs (just have to want to do it). Modern fighters like the JSF will do that role as an ancillary mission The decision was made to buy one versatile aircraft to do the mission of many. DoD and Congress thought that the economies of scale and standardization would save a lot of money (which was the only way to field enough aircraft under massive budget cuts). The decision to replace the aging F-15s, F-16s, A10s, etc. with a multirole aircraft meant that the JSF had to be nimble, fast, maneuverable, have good range and be able to carry a large payload...including a nuclear mission. Also have vertical take-off capability and carrier takeoff/landing versions. OV-10s are a good plane for killing cavemen (good aircraft to sell to our allies in the ME)...but it is not going to be that valuable in a dogfight or as a nuclear delivery aircraft.

[oldE]

I'm afraid the problem with multi role anything is the series of compromises required to cover all the missions. Wasting the cost per hour of an air superiority fighter on chasing down low profile targets in the mud is a colossal waste of resources.
Imagine the accountants said you could have only one ship design for your navy. What would it cost and could it do all you needed it to accomplish?
Different horses for different courses. The OV 10 might not be sexy but I think it is the right tool for the job at hand.
Best
Les

[kach22i]

The Amazing OV-10 Bronco Was Never Allowed To Meet Its Full Potential
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-amazing-ov-10-bronco-was-never-allowed-to-meet-its-1695837367



https://www.pinterest.com/Docbanger/rockwell-bronco-ov-10/

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by oldE

I'm afraid the problem with multi role anything is the series of compromises required to cover all the missions. Wasting the cost per hour of an air superiority fighter on chasing down low profile targets in the mud is a colossal waste of resources.
Imagine the accountants said you could have only one ship design for your navy. What would it cost and could it do all you needed it to accomplish?
Different horses for different courses. The OV 10 might not be sexy but I think it is the right tool for the job at hand.
Best
Les

Who would have ever imagined we would fight wars the way we fought ISIS for the 8 year long OBAMA administration? We could have wiped ISIS off the face of the Earth in 2014 with a few sorties. The "job at hand" could also be finished quickly and easily with the right tactics/strategy. We just need to choose to do so.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Who would have ever imagined we would fight wars the way we fought ISIS for the 8 year long OBAMA administration? We could have wiped ISIS off the face of the Earth in 2014 with a few sorties. The "job at hand" could also be finished quickly and easily with the right tactics/strategy. We just need to choose to do so.

You mean be "willing to go the distance"?

13 July 2016
Syria conflict: Russian jets 'bomb refugee camp on Jordan border'
Syria conflict: Russian jets 'bomb refugee camp on Jordan border' - BBC News

One could debate the right cause, the right strategy, the right policies, diplomacy, and tools for the job.

In this case it's air attack of small ground targets.

Unmanned drones not yet in the discussion?

April 2016
Exclusive: Afghan drone war - data show unmanned flights dominate air campaign
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-drones-exclusive/exclusive-afghan-drone-war-data-show-unmanned-flights-dominate-air-campaign-idUSKCN0XH2UZ

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Drones fired more weapons than conventional warplanes for the first time in Afghanistan last year and the ratio is rising, previously unreported U.S. Air Force data show, underlining how reliant the military has become on unmanned aircraft......................

“Remotely piloted aircraft mean more flexibility with fewer people and aircraft,” he said. “Because they are unmanned, sometimes you can accept more risk. All that is always going to be valuable.”

I see swarms of cheap Kamikaze type drones being the affordable future.

A chunk of CNC machined foam or 3D printed plastic, an electric motor, a battery pack, a cell phone type controller and explosive or irritant of choice.

Launch them like locusts by the tens of thousands into the mountains and it will change things.

A self-destruct should insure re-purposing them against friendly targets is a minimized risk.

[flipper35]

In my layman's opinion: The A-10 or OV-10 are not going to work in any contested airspace. (There is a video out now from the Venezuela conflict years ago Viper v Bronco). For ISIS or other anti-terrorist activities they work great. The A-10 is pretty efficient as jets go and carries a wide variety of ordinance and is heavily armored so if the targets on the ground have some larger guns on a technical the A-10 is more survivable. The Bronco is more efficient and slower and while a Warthog is maneuverable, the Bronco is more so. For COIN work both can do the job effectively, the Bronco is much less expensive.

As a replacement for the 'hog and Viper in contested airspace the F-35 has a lot of potential if it is carrying limited payloads internally. It has the sensor fusion and stealth the older aircraft can never have. One of the Israeli test pilots made the comment that once he was in the air in the F-35 he knew where all the aircraft in the mideast were and had very good situational awareness of threats on the ground. Paired with the F-22 you have a good chance of a successful strike. With the new missiles in development you can also have the F22 in the lead designating targets for the gen 4 aircraft to launch the very long range missiles at. Some have bounced the idea around of hanging them off of a BUFF in the back of the theater. With the range similar or better than the Meteor it may work, but I see the F15 with 8 missiles or the Viper with 4, or drones for that matter, hanging behind the F22 as the better option for air to air threats, especially with the advanced missiles we are facing in a major conflict. Once the air and ground threats have been minimized the F35 can hang ordinance off the wings for an even greater load.

All that said, the F35 will never be a great option for low and slow loiter to pick off targets here and there with cannons or rockets just as the Viper was never meant to do that.

Each tool has its use. You don't run a Ford Raptor in an autocross against a Miata and you don't run a Miata in the Baja 1000 against a Raptor.

Again, that is just my civilian opinion which probably isn't worth the electrons disturbed to post it.

[flipper35]

Oh, and you can interchange Bronco, Air Tractor, Super Tucano and all the other candidates for most of that. The Bronco does have redundant engines.

[Mark Henry]

Originally Posted by oldE

I'm afraid the problem with multi role anything is the series of compromises required to cover all the missions. Wasting the cost per hour of an air superiority fighter on chasing down low profile targets in the mud is a colossal waste of resources.
Imagine the accountants said you could have only one ship design for your navy. What would it cost and could it do all you needed it to accomplish?
Different horses for different courses. The OV 10 might not be sexy but I think it is the right tool for the job at hand.
Best
Les

Exactly the troops would have been a lot better served by an airborne tank that could stay on station for long periods of time, even being relieved by another OV-10, so that there was seamless continuous support.

In Canada's case we have a huge airspace to patrol where 99/100 times you don't need an air superiority fighter doing the work. Cheaper to fly, more planes, more trained pilots, that could also serve as fast responce CG search an rescue that could drop SAR techs, drop supplies, land on primitive strips and so on.
The middle east and afghanistan have shown close ground support would be a far greater asset to the troops.

Multi-role has always been a compromise, everything from tools, cars, trucks, boats, planes, etc., both civilian and military has proved this time and again.

For Canada both our sovereignty and NATO commitments, a smaller top tier fighter force with a much larger ground support aircraft role would be IMO a smarter choice, given the limited budget.

[flipper35]

There have been some multi-role aircraft that were pretty good compromises. The Viper, Eagle, Phantom come to mind. The Hornet and Super Hornet if it weren't for it short legs.

You probably don't want a Bronco or equivalent up there when the Bears and Backfires come over the pole unless it has a good radar and a few AMRAAM-D hanging from it.

[john70t]

Originally Posted by flipper35

Oh, and you can interchange Bronco, Air Tractor, Super Tucano and all the other candidates for most of that. The Bronco does have redundant engines.

The Cessna337/OscarDeuce also has redundancy except they are in-line with the fuselage.
Losing a single engine does not affect the flight characteristics, uh, too much for the pilot. I think.
That does make a big problem for dropping cargo and especially human cargo.

There will always be variations of everything.

The overhead engine ICON is the perfect blend of versatility but it is a very lightweight tippy scale.