NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Warplanes Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Combat Props Get Some Respect

September 17, 2009: The U.S. Air Force is evaluating prop-driven aircraft, with the intention of forming a squadron of suitable aircraft for "light attack" duties. One of the aircraft being presented for consideration is an updated (electronics and weapons systems) OV-10, whose design is now owned by Boeing. The OV-10 was originally developed, early in the Vietnam war, to provide what the air force is looking for now. Unlike other aircraft used, the OV-10 was designed specifically for irregular warfare. That's a big reason why it is still used, and is being considered for reintroduction by the U.S. Air Force.

The OV-10 is a 6.5 ton, twin prop aircraft that could carry over two tons of weapons and stay in the air for three hours per sortie. Wingspan is 40 feet (12.2 meters), and length is 41.6 feet (12.7 meters). The first one was delivered to the U.S. Air Force, for use in Vietnam, in 1968. The last one was produced (for export to Indonesia) in 1976. The U.S. Air Force and Marines were the primary users of OV-10s, and the last of these was retired, by the marines, in 1994. Over a hundred were exported to Germany, Thailand, Colombia, Venezuela and Indonesia. Several dozen of these are still in use out of over 300 manufactured. In Vietnam, the OV-10 was used more for reconnaissance and directing air and artillery strikes, than in using its own firepower. But that's what irregular warfare was all about, finding an elusive enemy, and killing him. That's what the OV-10 was designed to do, and did it well.

Resurrecting the OV-10 is a side effect of the success the air force has had with large UAVs, especially the Predator. Prop driven aircraft are much cheaper to operate than jets. A Predator costs less than a tenth, per hour in the air, that an F-16 does. The OV-10 would provide similar economies, especially since it could also carry 500 pound JDAMs and hundred pound Hellfire missiles. Smart bombs make an aircraft like the OV-10 a lot more useful, and economical. The OV-10 could also carry a targeting pod, like the Sniper XR, which weighs about 450 pounds. This gives the air craft superb reconnaissance capability, backed by smart bombs and guided missiles to immediately attack targets found.

The air force is seriously investigating aircraft like the this because money has become a big issue these days. If you currently have jet fighters and bombers spending over 10,000 hours a year over Afghanistan and Iraq, at a cost of over $40,000 an hour, when you could have OV-10s do it for a few thousand dollars an hour, what would you do? We're talking some serious money here, and the air force, and even the navy (which used dozens of OV-10s off carriers during the Vietnam war) is definitely interested.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article ATTRITION: Air Force Weaklings Cast Out


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
Rick9719    OV-10 & Competitors   9/17/2009 10:38:44 AM
I'm glad to see an American aircraft is now being considered.  I wonder if they will also consider an updated Skyraider and other designs.   
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       9/17/2009 11:52:32 AM
I still think a modernized version of A-26 is better. However, in the end, it's probably better to design a new aircraft from scratch.
 
The primary theater of operation would be Afghanistan, and those  prop-driven types are supposed to be loiter-monitor-hitters. It should have long endurance, which means long mission time. It should have good FLIR and other surveillance systems so that it can monitor the situation. It should be able to drop LBG, JDAM, Maverick, laser guided Hellfire or even guided Zuni rockets.
 
It means the aircraft had better have pressurized cabinet and a toilet. A flight attendant  would be better. Two FLIRs are better than one, and two stations require two operators. Larger aircraft with a bomb bay means more SDB. Hellfire and LG-Zuni capability compensate for lack of guns and reduce the need for the aircraft to go in the harms way.
 
Quote    Reply

TheSarge       9/17/2009 3:18:28 PM
I'd rather see them put into service a modern version of the F-51D (rebuilt/redesignated P-51Mustangs). It could get on station quicker and deliver quite a bit of devastation.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/17/2009 4:10:01 PM
Not sure why the noise on the OV-10.  All the aircraft submitted by US companies such as Beechcraft and NG are new modern platforms.

eg the AT-6B and King Air 350.  Both are extant, already operational doing COIN and employed in high double digit volume.

the King Airs are on double utility as they're doing ISR and battlecoms and in some cases are already paired with the shooters in sniff and shoot roles.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    FWIW...   9/17/2009 4:34:55 PM
Not talking down the capabilities of the OV-10,
the Hawker Beechcraft T-6 series has been making great strides as well.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Several key points to see here:
 
"The Navy is expected to acquire more than 260 T-6B aircraft to replace the aging T-34 fleet..."
 
"The T-6B provides primary pilot training with enhanced capabilities in air-to-air and air-to-ground mission areas."
 
"The AT-6 has tremendous commonality between the USAF T-6A and the U.S. Navy (USN) T6B, and Lockheed Martin-developed missions systems avionics commonality with the combat-tested A-10C."
 
"In addition to the bigger engine, the aircraft [AT-6] will get the mission system from the upgraded A-10C,..."
 
 
On the OV-10, I was always most impressed by the -10D with the redesigned nose housing the NOS equipment, which would be an ideal starting point for a newbuild aircraft design, allowing any number of newer-generation FLIR turrets and other sensory systems.
Those four .30-cal M60 MGs would have to go, though (range limited).
Boeing's history of it is here (showing the modified nose),
with a pdf on their conceptual OV-10X here  (which, for reasons beyond me, was apparently scanned in sideways,...).
 
Boeing suggests replacing the four sponson-mounted .30-cal M60s with four .50-cal M3s instead...and that appears in addition to the three-barrel 20mm turret in the belly turret,
with the suggestion that a 30mm gun can fit in there instead (M230 as seen on Apaches would be my guess),
but it could also be interesting to try mounting a fixed 5-barrel 25mm GAU-12 (Harrier, Rutan's ARES)
or the new 4-barrel 25mm GAU-22 (F-35) in a fixed, forward-firing belly bulge
(taking out the four .50-cals and their ammo altogether could free up additional weight and room for a larger main gun magazine capacity).
 
Definitely not hurting for firepower, although I am surprised they hadn't considered an additional outboard underwing pylon.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    Yes, maybe...   9/17/2009 6:42:40 PM
But THIS is way kewler than all the aforementioned platforms.
Are Stavatti for real, or are they just a creative internet fiction?
 
Quote    Reply

kirby1       9/17/2009 11:25:49 PM
OV-10 has two great strengths that most the other contenders don't have. Side by side seating, and twin engines. Having the crew side by side is just better ergonomics. Having two engines outboard means that weapons can be boresighted down the center line of the aircraft, no worry about converging angles of fire, no worries about prop synching your guns. Having those two engines mounted high gives your sensor, (and maybe even weapon) turrets a better field of motion.  The OV-10s layout looks like it would handle a crash landing better too, no worry about flipping when the prop strikes the ground. 

The Tucs and Texans are great trainers, and great light attack aircraft. But they can't pack as much gear, they can't pack as many sensors, and they aren't laid out in a good intelligent manner for two guys trying to strip search the terrain for baddies, when they're not coordinating fast movers or trying to keep track of where the friendlies are.  
 
COIN mission is a lot more then just lower and slower CAS.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       9/18/2009 12:38:23 AM

OK, I've sent in a petition to have Bluewings removed from the forum for aggravated trolling (flames, unsubstantiated statements and outright falsities reducing the quality of the board consecutively for years). Regardless of whether you find him entertaining or not I encourage you to a great degree to join this measure.

I was actually starting to see reasonable conversations about the Rafale and other topics on French matters until he reappeared.
 
Quote    Reply

bcspace       9/18/2009 1:08:30 AM
While not made in the USA, I think perhaps the Embraer Super Tucano should also be considered for this mission.  I also think it would make a great aircraft to outfit the fledgling Iraqi and Afghani Air Forces.  Cheap and easier to fly, maintain, and train on than a sophisticated jet.  Perfect for the typical COIN and light attack missions in those countries as well as the limited logistical support available there.  Seems to have replaced the OV-10 in Indonesia.
 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       9/18/2009 7:11:15 AM

OV-10 has two great strengths that most the other contenders don't have. Side by side seating, and twin engines. Having the crew side by side is just better ergonomics....

Ummm, are you really sure about?
I've seen numerous pics that show it to be tandem seating, one behind the other, and various other websites suggest tandem seating.
...such as this article from MilitaryFactory.Com,..."The pilot and co-pilot sat in tandem in a full-windowed "greenhouse-style" cockpit with generally great visibility from any direction but to the rear. "
 
Are you sure you're not confused with the OV-1 Mohawk,
or even the A-37 Dragonfly?
 
Sorry to be a stickler, but...
 
Quote    Reply

Bob Roberts       9/18/2009 11:57:04 AM
How difficult will it be to restart production on a 1960s era aircraft that hasn't been in production sense the late 70s?  I would imagine that the tooling and such to build the actual airframe are long gone.
 
Quote    Reply

Sty0pa       9/18/2009 12:12:20 PM
That's really quite cool, and the pictures got me thinking...if you designed from the ground-up today, you could build a loiter/COIN system like this with a REMOVABLE cockpit module.  That way you could swap the cockpit (human) module with a much smaller, lighter UAV control module to gain endurance, range, payload, and probably performance on a common platform, simplifying deployment, maintenance, and certainly improving tactical options while deployed.
 
Further, in a more 'contended' airspace, an enemy wouldn't be able to tell UAV from human-piloted systems from any but extremely close ranges.
 
On second thought, perhaps it isn't workable.  I'd imagine that human-piloted systems require a much higher amount of redundancy than would be needed for a UAV, and that wouldn't really be easily removable.  Ah well.
 
Quote    Reply

flyingarty    M-134   9/18/2009 1:33:51 PM
How about arming it with a couple of M-134 Dillon gattling guns and putting them on a swival  like the Cobra or Apache with the same helmet display,  a pod of hydra rockets on a hard point, and some hellfires on other hard points. I also think that this should also be able to handle the Viperstrike munitions comming on board as well as JDAMS.
 
Flyingarty
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       9/18/2009 2:35:29 PM

How difficult will it be to restart production on a 1960s era aircraft that hasn't been in production sense the late 70s?  I would imagine that the tooling and such to build the actual airframe are long gone.


But what we need to consider here is,
there have been a lot of manufacturing and fabrication techniques developed since that era.
So we don't nevessarily have to build the same stock model just with modern avionics.
 
If anything, Rutan's Scaled Composites has shown the world that aircraft can be built with a lot of composite materials, exotic alloys, and still achieve quite impressive capabilities for a given flight regime (the SpaceShip One program sings to that).
 
How superior an OV-10 could we make using today's building know-how, but just only keeping the original overall lay-out of the OV-10's planform?
Redesigning it to be built out of a lot of newer processes and materials surely couldn't be any more expensive than tooling up a production line with 1970s' technology...
The latest in CNC machines and composite-forming mandrels and curing autocalves can lessen a good amount of metal construction, and certainly save in weight by reducing a lot of panels, pieces, and rivets.
 
Lockheed Martin certainly has enough faith in that kind of technology assembly for the F-35, an aircraft whose flight envelope will pretty much exceed any COIN/LAAR (Light Attack Armed Reconnaissance) type by a considerable margin.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       9/18/2009 3:41:34 PM

How about arming it with a couple of M-134 Dillon gattling guns and putting them on a swival  like the Cobra or Apache with the same helmet display,  a pod of hydra rockets on a hard point, and some hellfires on other hard points. I also think that this should also be able to handle the Viperstrike munitions comming on board as well as JDAMS.

 

Flyingarty


There is logic in your suggestion,
if the point is using the aircraft's guns as an area suppression system more than a point target system.
But what is still run into when using .30-cal weapons, even if as awe-inspiring as the miniguns,
is that you're still firing small arms-caliber ammunition at targets which, to accurately engage, you kind of have to be within the adversary's small arms fire range as well (coming up from the ground).
 
It takes a lot of extra weight just to armor modern aircraft to be protected against small arms fire: adding such protection to protect pilots, engines, avionics, fuel, ammunition magazines, and any other critical structures can easily add several hundred pounds in weight to the airframe (which could also be looked at as several hundred pounds less of ordnance carried).
 
For comparison, during the Falkland Islans campaign, there was at least one Argentinian Pucará said to have been damaged beyond use when it was sitting on the ground and shot up by British troops armed with assault rifles (FAL/SLR?), and chances are better than good that they only had ball ammunition, not some dedicated solid-cored AP ammo.
 
So even protecting any new COIN/LAAR from small arms (rifles, MGs) which are just using ball ammo is going to add a weight penalty.
And even though modern laminate armor "sandwiches" can add much more protection at less weight than solid metal armor panels, that weight increase can still be a penalty to an aircraft's performance.
 
For armament, I think Boeing was wise in suggesting .50-cal guns to replace those four .30-cal MGs, as the .50-cal does offer a little more "immunity range" from small arms-caliber ground fire (but still doesn't help if you still must fly directly at the target to strafe it).
A better option than two Dillon M134s might have been suggesting a single 3-barrel GAU-19 .50-cal in each sponson rather than two single M3s in each.
But the question there is, which is the heavier alternative?
-a), two single 3-barrel guns each with a single ammunition magazine and feed chute system, or
-b), four single M3 single-barrel guns each with their own magazines and feed chute systems?
 
Is an extra barrel and a drive motor a comparable weight exchange by meaning of not needing an extra two guns' worth of feed chute systems and magazines (big metal box) if we used four separate guns instead of just two?
In the end, the rate of fire of two GAU-19's (2000rpm per gun system)
still pretty much equates to 4 M3s (1000-1100rpm per gun),
but an advantage to the Gatling gun design is that dud rounds are more easily cycled thru the weapon rather than jamming the gun.
 
If we want to play the commonality card, it could've just been suggested to have kept the belly turret equipped with a three-barrel 20mm M197 type, and fit another M197 (or even the lightweight XM301 ) into each sponson in place of the .50-cal guns.
Still, those three 20mm guns' combined rates of fire 4500rpm @ 1500rpm each)
still doesn't match a single M61 with its ~6000rpm.
If it is seen then that a turreted gun isn't really much advantage then, that is where it might be a better idea for either of the 25mm guns in a forward-fixed position (four-barrel GAU-22 or five-barrel GAU-12).
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy