Will there soon be a Boeing OV-10G Bronco?

[TomS]

Yeah, the idea was to insert ANGLICO or recon teams. The main insertion technique was to fly the ingress very low, pitch up hard (to around 60 degrees) and let the jumpers slide out the rear, then push over before the plane got up into a radar missile threat envelope. Last guy out might find himself in trouble as the push would be happening about the time he was trying to get out. The jumpers would still be headed upward as they exited the aircraft, and apparently they would usually be looking down at their chutes as they opened at 1000 feet or less. One hell of a ride.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The main reason I talked about the OV-10's cargo area is its flexibility.

The time, money, and pure red tape involved in certifying a new external store vs making a palletized solution is night and day. Besides mortars, imagine airborne deployment of UAVs, re-supply drops, smoke screens, etc.

 

[John21]

A modernized OV-10 seems too simple of a solution, even in these "austere" times. The Air Force has to pay for the F-35,Long Range Strike Bomber, Golf Courses some how and they'd rather do that by cutting CAS or tactical airlift rather than buying 100-200 less F-35s.

Of course you could give them back to the Marines or even...gasp, the ARMY. I'm sure those 100-200 less F-35s could EASILY pay for 10-15 squadrons worth of light weight and fairly cheap CAS/FAC/ISR aircraft along with all required maintenance material and support.

 

[cluttonfred]

Of course you could give them back to the Marines or even...gasp, the ARMY. I'm sure those 100-200 less F-35s could EASILY pay for 10-15 squadrons worth of light weight and fairly cheap CAS/FAC/ISR aircraft along with all required maintenance material and support.

Heresy, that makes far too much sense. Even simpler, rather than bring the Bronco back into production, take an existing, in-production light twin and militarize it. For example, a Viking Air DHC-6 Series 400 Twin Otter with full fuel (five hours plus reserves at 150 knots) and two crew still has 3,000 lbs left over for countermeasures, sensors and stand-off precision guided weapons. Those weapons could be palletized for release out the cargo door or you could mount a light automatic cannon (20mm, 25mm, 30mm) there to play baby Puff the Magic Dragon. That Twin Otter can operate out of anywhere even remotely resembling an airstrip. Keep the modifications to a minimum through palletized equipment packages and the unit cost would be less than $10 million (2012 price of the new Series 400 was $7 million). That means you could quite literally have a dozen of them for less than the price of one F-35 and I bet the operating costs for all twelve combined would be less than the one F-35 as well.

 

[CostasTT]

Of course you could give them back to the Marines or even...gasp, the ARMY. I'm sure those 100-200 less F-35s could EASILY pay for 10-15 squadrons worth of light weight and fairly cheap CAS/FAC/ISR aircraft along with all required maintenance material and support.

Heresy, that makes far too much sense. Even simpler, rather than bring the Bronco back into production, take an existing, in-production light twin and militarize it. For example, a Viking Air DHC-6 Series 400 Twin Otter with full fuel (five hours plus reserves at 150 knots) and two crew still has 3,000 lbs left over for countermeasures, sensors and stand-off precision guided weapons. Those weapons could be palletized for release out the cargo door or you could mount a light automatic cannon (20mm, 25mm, 30mm) there to play baby Puff the Magic Dragon. That Twin Otter can operate out of anywhere even remotely resembling an airstrip. Keep the modifications to a minimum through palletized equipment packages and the unit cost would be less than $10 million (2012 price of the new Series 400 was $7 million). That means you could quite literally have a dozen of them for less than the price of one F-35 and I bet the operating costs for all twelve combined would be less than the one F-35 as well.

There has been a prototype of a militarized Twin Otter. Maybe they can take it up from where they left off...

 

[TomS]

Dropping from 225 knots cruising (~280 knots max) in an OV-10 to 150 kts cruising (~180 knots max) on a Twin Otter is a pretty big speed hit.

 

[SpudmanWP]

There is also survivability concerns that need to be addressed. The Otter does not have ejection seats and likely cannot take damage too well.

 

[Stargazer]

There has been a prototype of a militarized Twin Otter.

Not just one. The Otter was also used by the U. S. as the UV-18A (Army) and UV-18B (Air Force Academy).

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/uv-18.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/uv-18.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-6_Twin_Otter

 

[Bill Walker]

The UV-18A and -18B "militarization" consisted of painting the word "Army" or "Air Force" on the side. DHC flew a more militarized demonstrator back in the 1970s and 1980s, but never found a purchaser. I think that is what is in the photo above. BTW, one RCAF Auxiliary Squadron fitted a door gun similar to that in a single engine Otter in the 1970s, in a locally fabricated, somewhat unofficial, modification. The closest we have to a militarized Twin Otter today is the Viking built airframes with Viet Nam. I think they have a small search radar, but not much more in the way of military equipment.

Surely the wide availability of shoulder launched SAMS has rendered both the Twatter and the OV-10 of limited use in modern warfare, because of their low speeds. There is a very narrow niche being filled by things like Cessna 208s with Hellfires, I can't see many militaries able to spend more money than that on a very narrow role aircraft.

 

[cluttonfred]

The availability of shoulder-launched SAMs is often overstated and as these applications often require mission specialists in the back, are you going to eject and leave them behind? If operating from, say, 5,000-10,000 feet to be relatively safe from small arms fire, there would be time to bail out with conventional parachutes via quick-jettison doors/hatches. I think modern IR countermeasures would provide a measure of protection, but certainly these are not aircraft for high-threat environments.

In the other direction in terms of cost and complexity, you could militarize a GippsAero GA8 Airvan. IFR equipped plus a good sensor turret, some crew and engine armor, self-sealing fuel tanks, a basic MANPADS countermeasures installation, a .50 cal door gun and about 10 air-droppable AGM-176 Griffin missiles in a modified external cargo pod and you have a much cheaper alternative to even the Cessna Caravan.

 

[CostasTT]

The UV-18A and -18B "militarization" consisted of painting the word "Army" or "Air Force" on the side. DHC flew a more militarized demonstrator back in the 1970s and 1980s, but never found a purchaser. I think that is what is in the photo above.

Bingo!