Looks good, but let's be realistic: it doesn't exist, whereas the Super Tucano - which can do pretty much everything the proposed new Bronco can - does exist and can be bought quite cheaply. So why spend billions re-inventing the wheel?
By: SpudmanWP
- 2nd February 2010 at 14:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looks good, but let's be realistic: it doesn't exist, whereas the Super Tucano - which can do pretty much everything the proposed new Bronco can - does exist and can be bought quite cheaply. So why spend billions re-inventing the wheel?
They would not have to spend billions, tens of millions maybe.
Besides, the OV-10 is the most versatile COIN aircraft flying. Making an "X" version is a no-brainer.
By: Distiller
- 2nd February 2010 at 14:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looks good, but let's be realistic: it doesn't exist, whereas the Super Tucano - which can do pretty much everything the proposed new Bronco can - does exist and can be bought quite cheaply. So why spend billions re-inventing the wheel?
The whole LAAR thing is drafted by the Air Force in a way to make sure it will never take off or be of any use. The fact alone that they split the old LARA-style requirement into LAAR and LIMA tells everything. And that is also the answer to your Super Tucano remark. - How to kill and pervert a requirement. Another exercise in "jointness". Like they did with JCA. :mad:
And nothing will change as long as the Air Force has its hand on CAS and tactical transport and akin missions. An Army Aviation Corps is *so* overdue!
By: MadRat
- 2nd February 2010 at 14:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One of the reasons I would want a 2000hp class warbird is endurance. The fuel fraction of the A-1 Skyraider gave it a 1300 mile combat range with the 2700hp gasoline engine. Imagine using something that burns a more efficient fuel. You might be able to eek out a 1500 mile combat range with today's engines and lightweight weapons. Hellfire is a lot lighter than walleye or maverick.
An Army Aviation Corps is *so* overdue!
So true. And no artificial 250 knots limit. Quite frankly if its propeller driven its probably an asset the army is dependent upon, therefore they'd largely love the control of them.
By: Ja Worsley
- 2nd February 2010 at 15:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ja Worsley -
Good information. Ja Worsley's idea of a catamaran would fill the role nicely.
Thanks mate, I had a friend serve on Jarvis Bay in Blue crew, he said it was odd having a ship that had two crews and was always at sea- given the events of the day (East Timor) you can understand why they did that, and now it's becoming the norm for all ships!
Bring in the OV-10X
I remember this- Boeing launched it about 18 months ago, lets have a quick look at some of the competition while we are at it ;)
OV-10X
AT-6B
But seriously, if you want to go retro, why not bring these back :diablo:
At least they are already carrier capable :)
Oh and finally, here is a pic showing what I mentioned before about the paras in the back
By: MadRat
- 3rd February 2010 at 04:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't like the Garrett engine of the OV-10, mainly because it requires a new line of parts to manufacture and supply. Rather you would want something common to the helicopters or aircraft already in the inventory of the USN or USMC. I'm thinking something based upon T700-GE-401 (approx. 1900hp; UH-60), T58-GE-16 (approx. 1900hp; CH-46), Lycoming T53-L-703 (1800hp; AH-1), Allison T56-A-14/425 (overkill at approx. 4600hp/4800hp; P-3/C-2), T64-GE-413 (approx. 4000hp; CH-53; another overkill), or some variant of the T700/CT7 in the 2500hp range. The engines for the presidential eh101 fit the bill the best imo.
The reason the AH-1 wouldn't really work is that its supply line isn't tenable. The engine is too labor intensive anymore and the parts aren't exactly at the local napa. You're better off with something already out there, or at least close to something out there. That is why the T700/CT7 option appeals to me. The 900-mile range Enforcer program was right up this alley. If they couldn't navalize something like that then a layout like the Focke Wolfe 281 or Saab 21 would look pretty fearsome.
On the other hand one could argue for using something more in the Allison T56-A-425 powered and 2200-mile range A-2 Skyshark mold. The Skyshark was the turboshaft-powered A-1 Skyraider descendant. The skyshark was developed specifically for 500-foot deck CVE operations.
By: Ja Worsley
- 3rd February 2010 at 10:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't like the Garrett engine of the OV-10, mainly because it requires a new line of parts to manufacture and supply. Rather you would want something common to the helicopters or aircraft already in the inventory of the USN or USMC. I'm thinking something based upon T700-GE-401 (approx. 1900hp; UH-60), T58-GE-16 (approx. 1900hp; CH-46), Lycoming T53-L-703 (1800hp; AH-1), Allison T56-A-14/425 (overkill at approx. 4600hp/4800hp; P-3/C-2), T64-GE-413 (approx. 4000hp; CH-53; another overkill), or some variant of the T700/CT7 in the 2500hp range. The engines for the presidential eh101 fit the bill the best imo.
Mate if you want a common engine in a turbo prop power class- then why not settle for the PT6A-68, a very common engine on the market in both civilian and military sectors- it powers the T-6A Texan II and you know how many of those there are. It also powers many other aircraft and I'd rather this engine over an adapted helo engine!
The reason the AH-1 wouldn't really work is that its supply line isn't tenable. The engine is too labor intensive anymore and the parts aren't exactly at the local napa. You're better off with something already out there, or at least close to something out there. That is why the T700/CT7 option appeals to me. The 900-mile range Enforcer program was right up this alley. If they couldn't navalize something like that then a layout like the Focke Wolfe 281 or Saab 21 would look pretty fearsome.
On the other hand one could argue for using something more in the Allison T56-A-425 powered and 2200-mile range A-2 Skyshark mold. The Skyshark was the turboshaft-powered A-1 Skyraider descendant. The skyshark was developed specifically for 500-foot deck CVE operations.
Hmmm Skyshark- Nah too ugly!
The FW-281- Interesting but production would be nasty to set up and too many refinements would need to occur before you get a decent working platform!
The SAAB System 21- lovely- first production fighter with a working ejector seat! Now are you after the Prop model (J-21A)
Or the Jet powered J-21R
But I'll see your collection there and raise you the PZL-230 Skorpion!
I wish I could find the pics of the original Turbo Prop powered version!
By: Distiller
- 3rd February 2010 at 11:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't like the Garrett engine of the OV-10, mainly because it requires a new line of parts to manufacture and supply. Rather you would want something common to the helicopters or aircraft already in the inventory of the USN or USMC. I'm thinking something based upon T700-GE-401 (approx. 1900hp; UH-60), T58-GE-16 (approx. 1900hp; CH-46), Lycoming T53-L-703 (1800hp; AH-1), Allison T56-A-14/425 (overkill at approx. 4600hp/4800hp; P-3/C-2), T64-GE-413 (approx. 4000hp; CH-53; another overkill), or some variant of the T700/CT7 in the 2500hp range. The engines for the presidential eh101 fit the bill the best imo.
The reason the AH-1 wouldn't really work is that its supply line isn't tenable. The engine is too labor intensive anymore and the parts aren't exactly at the local napa. You're better off with something already out there, or at least close to something out there. That is why the T700/CT7 option appeals to me. The 900-mile range Enforcer program was right up this alley. If they couldn't navalize something like that then a layout like the Focke Wolfe 281 or Saab 21 would look pretty fearsome.
On the other hand one could argue for using something more in the Allison T56-A-425 powered and 2200-mile range A-2 Skyshark mold. The Skyshark was the turboshaft-powered A-1 Skyraider descendant. The skyshark was developed specifically for 500-foot deck CVE operations.
The MQ-9 uses the TPE331, so it wouldn't be a stand-alone engine.
Also PT6 would be an option, as it's already on the T-6, C-12, and the M28 (SOCOM).
By: Ja Worsley
- 4th February 2010 at 00:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well if you want to get into theoretical- What about the ATG Javelin then?
Notice the military style codes on the tail!
I subscribe to the ATG Javelin news letters and I have known for some time that a military customer has bought the Mk-20 version- no specifics have been reveled except that the customer is in Europe. Some think it's the French Navy as they lost their training capabilities back in the early 90's with the retirement of their Zephyer jets.
The Mk-30 is said to be a full spec military jet trainer while the Mk-40 has the capability to take ordinance.
By: matt
- 6th February 2010 at 20:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I heard recently that they Black Hawk will soon fly remotely without pilot. Could you not use a similar method to control the Bronco or even the Cobra?
By: Housecarl
- 15th February 2010 at 21:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A more sensible route than a dedicated COIN carrier is a normal aircraft carrier that can carry and reasonably operate aircraft that are ideal for COIN. Yes I know that I'm almost certainly stating the blindingly obvious.
One option here in the case of the USN would be to take out of "mothballs" the JFK or the Kitty Hawk and re-condition them (big dollars) to operate as afloat forward operating bases. That would give you the space and tonnage to cover the full range of COIN/OOTW missions without pulling a CVN out of some other high priority area. That being said, any ship with that much mobile sovereign acreage is a strategic asset and would still require a quality escort force.
As for the OV-10/PC-9|T-6/Tucano debate, I'll throw another option into the hat, a militarized BA-609 tilt-rotor. The USMC has already suggested this as an escort gunship for their MV-22s. In its current guise it has a usable payload of about 5500 lbs with a range of 750 nmi. With the added flexibility of range, speed and hover, and the smaller size, the utility of this airframe in other roles, like ASW, SAR and small team insertion, shouldn't be discounted either.
FYI, Boeing at the Singapore Air Show on 3 Feb 10 said that there was enough overseas interest in restarting production of the OV-10, that even if the USAF 100 plane order didn't materialize, they'd be working on the program themselves.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 2nd February 2010 at 06:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bring in the OV-10X
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/Technical/boeing_ov-10%28x%29_super_bronco_info_card_2009_01.pdf
Posts: 517
By: flanker30 - 2nd February 2010 at 11:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looks good, but let's be realistic: it doesn't exist, whereas the Super Tucano - which can do pretty much everything the proposed new Bronco can - does exist and can be bought quite cheaply. So why spend billions re-inventing the wheel?
Posts: 604
By: Stan hyd - 2nd February 2010 at 11:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
US company US jobs.
Unless some one's talking about producing them locally under license, which I think is the best way. Super Tucano is a great aircraft.
Posts: 65
By: marage1 - 2nd February 2010 at 12:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree but will have 5 bladed props.
the OV-10x no but OV-10 has operated in combat from ships from the 60's till the mid 90's by the US and is still operated by some asian country's.
I cant see the super tucano doing have the stuff the OV-10 could.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 2nd February 2010 at 14:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They would not have to spend billions, tens of millions maybe.
Besides, the OV-10 is the most versatile COIN aircraft flying. Making an "X" version is a no-brainer.
1. STOL
2. Twin Engine
3. Ball turret gun system, aka mini spooky
4. Best visibility
5. Proven combat track record
6. Internal cargo capability
7. Paratroop insertion capability
8. Demonstrated carrier capability
Posts: 4,674
By: Distiller - 2nd February 2010 at 14:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The whole LAAR thing is drafted by the Air Force in a way to make sure it will never take off or be of any use. The fact alone that they split the old LARA-style requirement into LAAR and LIMA tells everything. And that is also the answer to your Super Tucano remark. - How to kill and pervert a requirement. Another exercise in "jointness". Like they did with JCA. :mad:
And nothing will change as long as the Air Force has its hand on CAS and tactical transport and akin missions. An Army Aviation Corps is *so* overdue!
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 2nd February 2010 at 14:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One of the reasons I would want a 2000hp class warbird is endurance. The fuel fraction of the A-1 Skyraider gave it a 1300 mile combat range with the 2700hp gasoline engine. Imagine using something that burns a more efficient fuel. You might be able to eek out a 1500 mile combat range with today's engines and lightweight weapons. Hellfire is a lot lighter than walleye or maverick.
So true. And no artificial 250 knots limit. Quite frankly if its propeller driven its probably an asset the army is dependent upon, therefore they'd largely love the control of them.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 2nd February 2010 at 14:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BRAVO.. and give them their C-27s while your at it.
Posts: 6,208
By: Ja Worsley - 2nd February 2010 at 15:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks mate, I had a friend serve on Jarvis Bay in Blue crew, he said it was odd having a ship that had two crews and was always at sea- given the events of the day (East Timor) you can understand why they did that, and now it's becoming the norm for all ships!
I remember this- Boeing launched it about 18 months ago, lets have a quick look at some of the competition while we are at it ;)
OV-10X
AT-6B
But seriously, if you want to go retro, why not bring these back :diablo:
At least they are already carrier capable :)
Oh and finally, here is a pic showing what I mentioned before about the paras in the back
Posts: 244
By: vajt - 2nd February 2010 at 16:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I like the idea of a small UCAV aircraft carrier. UCAVs can be a great option for COIN and low-intensity warfare.
Check out BAE's proposal:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/09/18/216843/bae-systems-stealth-ship-concept-to-operate-unmanned-systems.html
-----JT-----
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 3rd February 2010 at 04:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't like the Garrett engine of the OV-10, mainly because it requires a new line of parts to manufacture and supply. Rather you would want something common to the helicopters or aircraft already in the inventory of the USN or USMC. I'm thinking something based upon T700-GE-401 (approx. 1900hp; UH-60), T58-GE-16 (approx. 1900hp; CH-46), Lycoming T53-L-703 (1800hp; AH-1), Allison T56-A-14/425 (overkill at approx. 4600hp/4800hp; P-3/C-2), T64-GE-413 (approx. 4000hp; CH-53; another overkill), or some variant of the T700/CT7 in the 2500hp range. The engines for the presidential eh101 fit the bill the best imo.
The reason the AH-1 wouldn't really work is that its supply line isn't tenable. The engine is too labor intensive anymore and the parts aren't exactly at the local napa. You're better off with something already out there, or at least close to something out there. That is why the T700/CT7 option appeals to me. The 900-mile range Enforcer program was right up this alley. If they couldn't navalize something like that then a layout like the Focke Wolfe 281 or Saab 21 would look pretty fearsome.
On the other hand one could argue for using something more in the Allison T56-A-425 powered and 2200-mile range A-2 Skyshark mold. The Skyshark was the turboshaft-powered A-1 Skyraider descendant. The skyshark was developed specifically for 500-foot deck CVE operations.
Posts: 6,208
By: Ja Worsley - 3rd February 2010 at 10:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mate if you want a common engine in a turbo prop power class- then why not settle for the PT6A-68, a very common engine on the market in both civilian and military sectors- it powers the T-6A Texan II and you know how many of those there are. It also powers many other aircraft and I'd rather this engine over an adapted helo engine!
Hmmm Skyshark- Nah too ugly!
The FW-281- Interesting but production would be nasty to set up and too many refinements would need to occur before you get a decent working platform!
The SAAB System 21- lovely- first production fighter with a working ejector seat! Now are you after the Prop model (J-21A)
Or the Jet powered J-21R
But I'll see your collection there and raise you the PZL-230 Skorpion!
I wish I could find the pics of the original Turbo Prop powered version!
Posts: 4,674
By: Distiller - 3rd February 2010 at 11:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The MQ-9 uses the TPE331, so it wouldn't be a stand-alone engine.
Also PT6 would be an option, as it's already on the T-6, C-12, and the M28 (SOCOM).
PS: It's Focke-Wulf. :D
Posts: 508
By: Nils - 3rd February 2010 at 11:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
another possible low-cost carrier based COIN aircraft could be a navalised version of Bert Rutan's ARES.
Posts: 6,208
By: Ja Worsley - 4th February 2010 at 00:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well if you want to get into theoretical- What about the ATG Javelin then?
Notice the military style codes on the tail!
I subscribe to the ATG Javelin news letters and I have known for some time that a military customer has bought the Mk-20 version- no specifics have been reveled except that the customer is in Europe. Some think it's the French Navy as they lost their training capabilities back in the early 90's with the retirement of their Zephyer jets.
The Mk-30 is said to be a full spec military jet trainer while the Mk-40 has the capability to take ordinance.
Posts: 4,674
By: Distiller - 6th February 2010 at 18:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/Legends-of-Vietnam-Broncos-Tale.html
Posts: 4,441
By: matt - 6th February 2010 at 20:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I heard recently that they Black Hawk will soon fly remotely without pilot. Could you not use a similar method to control the Bronco or even the Cobra?
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 11th February 2010 at 14:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Seems like the Predator already has that role pretty well taken. What do you gain by a pilotless Bronco?
Posts: 3,609
By: Wanshan - 11th February 2010 at 21:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fokker D-23
Posts: 65
By: Housecarl - 15th February 2010 at 21:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One option here in the case of the USN would be to take out of "mothballs" the JFK or the Kitty Hawk and re-condition them (big dollars) to operate as afloat forward operating bases. That would give you the space and tonnage to cover the full range of COIN/OOTW missions without pulling a CVN out of some other high priority area. That being said, any ship with that much mobile sovereign acreage is a strategic asset and would still require a quality escort force.
As for the OV-10/PC-9|T-6/Tucano debate, I'll throw another option into the hat, a militarized BA-609 tilt-rotor. The USMC has already suggested this as an escort gunship for their MV-22s. In its current guise it has a usable payload of about 5500 lbs with a range of 750 nmi. With the added flexibility of range, speed and hover, and the smaller size, the utility of this airframe in other roles, like ASW, SAR and small team insertion, shouldn't be discounted either.
FYI, Boeing at the Singapore Air Show on 3 Feb 10 said that there was enough overseas interest in restarting production of the OV-10, that even if the USAF 100 plane order didn't materialize, they'd be working on the program themselves.