During the Vietnam War, the OV-10 Bronco served many masters. For the Navy, it flew light-attack missions. A forward air controller for the Air Force and Marines, it marked targets for fighter bombers like the F-100
(Courtesy Dennis Darnell)
Posted on 02/05/2010 6:47:12 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
During the Vietnam War, the OV-10 Bronco served many masters. For the Navy, it flew light-attack missions. A forward air controller for the Air Force and Marines, it marked targets for fighter bombers like the F-100
(Courtesy Dennis Darnell)
Possible new variant of the OV-10
Might be appropriate for the export market. However, it seems to me that the UAV is preferable.
cool
Seems like a sitting duck for a shoulder fired rocket.
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
We had a former OV-10 pilot in our VP (P-3) squadron. He liked telling us that in order to eject from the OV-10 at low altitudes the aircraft had to first be inverted.
To do an inverted bailout: Blow the canopy, roll inverted, apply maximum nose down trim (hold straight & level) then simultaneously release the stick and unfasten the seat harness. Then PRAY!
Cool pic, cv. Thanks.
The article forgot that the ov10 could carry and drop up to 5 paratroopers. I have the test photos on my screen saver rotation - wicked crazy...
BATF purchase some OV-10’s back in 95 IIRC.
Not sure that UAV’s are up to the job where CAS is concerned. The OV-10 mission was to put rockets on a threat then laze the target for the Phantoms. Theoretically you could do that with a UAV, but the infantry gets nervous when the drop is “danger-close”.
Of course none of this makes a difference if you don’t have TacAir “on call” so to speak.
“However, it seems to me that the UAV is preferable.”
Then you’d be wrong. It’s ALWAYS preferable to have LIVE EYES looking down when you are supporting the troops. No camera, no UAV can match the Mark I Mod 0 Eyeball. That’s just the way it is!
Being a STOL, craft like these could be deployed in advanced positions on a variety of missions which would be effective in combat situations by the US Army. While their speed would not allow them to outrun a jet fighter they are faster than helicopter and can arrive at a target area quicker.
Alas there is the rotary wing treaty with the US Airforce.Commnets welcome
Earlier postings of concerns by FRs such as heat seeking shoulder fired missile defence, as well as pilot/crew ejection could be compensated for with design modifications. It seems this craft could also handle the gatling type machine gun for ground support, as well as advanced transport/pickup of combat/intelligence patrols , or even medivac.
Something like this would prove of “great assistance” in Afganistan. I think if Boeing takes in these considerations in new design and can put it together quickly and cheaply its got a winner.
The eyeball is inferior to technological target acquisition.
I nostalgically recall the beauty of the original PUFF [C47] hosing down an area at night. But, it was replaced.
Anyway.......it is a fun thread.
Suitability, note a recent FR post about the Brits looking at procuring a modified Brazilian (?) trainer for FAC and COIN operations...OV10 would clean it's clock.
Personnel drops (OK, "paratroopers"), I wasn't there but knew some who tested this in OV10; said it was more fun than anyone deserves. Seems ideal for those 'hard to reach places'.
BATF using them, I do know that there were some shiny black OV10s operating in So Cal eight or ten years ago...didn't spot which agency and we largely assumed they were DEA/Immigration.
Second hand history, conflicting reports on USMC OV10s in RVN. Some have told me the Marines would shoot anything that moved (as in anything) and others that the Marines had a better affinity for ground troops and could be counted on to demonstrate it when called in.
UAVs, this 'remote versus first hand' debate has been going on for decades and I'd opt for eyeballs and on site decisions in a second. From personal experience I can state that the guys in charge can ask themselves "what the hell IS that?" only so many times before sending in someone who can actually make the determination. UAVs have a mystical attraction in that they don't cost pilots and use lots of spiffy technology. Fine for routine surveillance and border control but too slow to react and too far removed from the immediate needs of the troops. Also, real live pilots in real live airplanes, low and slow, always on call, can identify the most critical threats and prioritize their work on site.
PPS: Fixed wing versus rotary wing "agreements" (AF vs. USA) - Rest in Peace Caribou.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.