Vintage(OV-10 Bronco) planes used in Vietnam out of retirement to help US special forces in Iraq

Daily Mail ^ | Lydia Willgress

[protest1]

Two vintage planes used in the Vietnam War have been brought out of retirement to help US special forces in Iraq.

A pair of OV-10 Broncos completed 120 combat missions over the Middle East between May and September last year, it has been revealed.

The turbo-prop jet is thought to have carried out 134 sorties over 82 days in May, acting as cover for the soldiers fighting ISIS terrorists on the ground.

[Outlaw76]

Yeah it is. Tiny little jet engines.

[equaviator]

Here's one for you- SPAD XIII of the 17th Pursuit Group at Selfridge Field, Michigan- early 1920s

[protest1]

Just about every article, about anything military, describes anything with wings as a "jet" anything painted grey that floats is a "battleship" and if it has tracks it is a "tank"

I guess that's what happens when they employ poorly educated children as "reporters"

[equaviator]

Wait a second...Isn’t the OV-10 a “JATO” plane with Jet Assisted Take-Off capabilities? Are you saying that the props are strictly jet engine-driven via turbo shaft output?

[PIF]

You are welcome.

What has been asked before but not answered and I wonder also - is why these planes and not A-10s? What is the advantage of Broncos over the more modern jet?

[Little Ray]

I had this in 1/48 by Hawk.

It is about time the military figured that we don’t need jet fighters to do COIN.

[USNBandit]

Stealth delivery of 2000 lb class JWEPs into areas defended by "double digit" SAMs.

The Bronco and and the A-10 are both successful in permissive environments.

[Little Ray]

I wonder if they’re trying to feed it ‘biofuels?’

[AppyPappy]

A-10 doesn’t have an observer. It costs more to fly and is overkill for many missions. A Bronco can loiter for longer.

[equaviator]

The A-10 is not a fighter, it’s an attack aircraft. That’s what the “A” in A-10 stands for.

[USNBandit]

No, he is saying that it has turbine “jet” driven props. The term “prop-jet” is commonly used to describe turboprop aircraft. Mostly by people with an inferiority complex because they are still flying a prop driven aircraft.

[mcshot]

Looks to be perfect for the bush. I want two and parts.

[equaviator]

Bring back the Dragonfly

[taildragger]

Hmmm...

GE ATP ( Advanced TurboProp ) greater shaft HP than current engine with probably a dramatically lower fuel burn. Coming in 2018. I wonder if they will limp this program along enough to retrofit a Broco with this new engine which will be here in 2018

[pepsionice]

I think the airframe could be brought back into a factory, upgraded slightly, and sold.

It’s not for close-air-support....although you could sensor the thing up...do recon...but I think for delivery of supplies into remote areas with only a 1,000 ft runway...it’s the best solution around.

[Little Ray]

The A-10 is a superb aircraft for ground support, but only avaliable in limited numbers and with a limited loiter time. It requires pretty good airfield for operations. All things considered, the A-10 is a bit ‘overqualified’ for COIN operations.
Lots of cheap ‘armored cropdusters’ are a good alternative. Perhaps an even better one would be dedicated drones, with each company assigned one for close support.

[puppypusher]

There is nothing wrong with the OV10 bronco couldn’t cure.Just mount some 2.75 inch Willie Pete rockets on it and a couple of M60’s and you have a great aircraft for foreward air controllers.

Just what it was designed for back in the seventies.

[taildragger]

Yes replace the J85's with the small Turbofan of your choice, either in the same thrust class with dramatically lower fuel burn or go bigger(?).

FWIW someone has a retrofit kit for the old L-39's to a new Williams Intl engine. Same thing, older airframe, new engine....

http://www.l39ng.com/#about

[DaxtonBrown]

“The turbo-prop jet”

[Why did we build the F-35, again?]

It makes zero sense. What we really needed was a bunch of F22s for air superiority and then tons of slow/cheap/big payload planes to do CAS (close air support). The F35 isn’t superior at anything.

[equaviator]

Wow, yeah! A pair of those in the OA-37's air frame might be a good idea. In addition to those engines, they could modify the cockpit to make it a single-seat version. It has great visibility with the canopy that it already has and they wouldn't need a T-37 for training, either. I'm fairly sure the wings and air frame are strong enough for carrying and launching Mavericks...among others.