Boeing considers restarting OV-10 production after 23-year

#1
I wonder would a fleet of these down in The Stan be any good?They can carry the same payload as the Harrier & have a longer loiter time.
OK they may not be as fast but if it delivers the goods,they'd be cheaper to 'run' & with the technology available today could be uprated.
Opinions?

Boing restarts OV-10 production?..

Boeing is considering the possibility of restarting production of the OV-10 Bronco turboprop, a Vietnam-era light attack and observation aircraft last produced in 1976.

The company confirms that the OV-10 could be offered as either a light attack or intra-theatre light cargo aircraft for the US Air Force. The international market is also driving interest in the slow-flying aircraft, which blends some of the observational capabilities of a helicopter with the range of a fixed-wing aircraft.

Boeing has cited recent USAF interest in acquiring a light attack aircraft as a possible reason to revive OV-10 production.

Although known for its surveillance prowess, the OV-10 remains in combat service in four countries: Colombia (pictured below), Indonesia, the Philippines and Venezuela, with a weapons load at least equivalent to the Bell AH-1 Cobra attack helicopter. Some of those countries, and perhaps new customers, could seek remanufactured or new production OV-10s as their current fleets wear out.......
 
#3
From what I can gather, they are an excellent COIN/FAC platform. Simple, rugged, cheap and can perform a variety of roles effectively. You could think of it as an 'in between' from an Apache to a Harrier. A great asset to have sitting over the top of troops for long periods with the ability to give the enemy the good news. The later versions (the OV10D for the USMC) had a really good FLIR in the nose so it could easily fit the ISTAR role too.

The only way we would ever get hold of them is if British WasteofSpace or Wasteland had an 'in road' to it. Of course, they'd want to re engine them, redo the avionics with ZX Spectrums and rip all the weapon load off them and of course quadruple the price.

tropper, I think the boxheads stuck a jet on top.
 

BiscuitsAB

LE
Moderator
#4
looks like one of these:






Arado designed this aircraft in 1936 as a heavy fighter with a short, gondola-like fuselage and the Daimler Benz DB 603 engines mounted on twin nacelle/tailbooms. The upper turret had a seat and was armed with twin 20mm Rh LB 202 cannon, while the bottom turret was controlled from the prone position using a periscope for aiming. A crew of four was projected, and a full sized mock-up was constructed before cancellation of the project.

 
#5
Did a bit of research and they seem pretty good. Can take off on a 500 ft runway, carry in theory carry 3 tonnes of weapons and ammunition, 3 hour loiter time, and according to Google, the unit cost was $480 000 (don't Harriers cost over £10 million/$20million nowadays?). Against an insurgent enemy like the Taliban, without an air force or significant air defences, they'd be excellent, especially in large numbers - which their cost would hopefully make their greatest asset, if they didn't need too much updating. The only operational concern I'd have is their vulnerability to ground fire - they are, after all, quite slow.

Of course, this is all hypothetical, since we're never going to get any :x
 
C

cloudbuster

Guest
#6
tropper66 said:
Didn't the Germans have some with some kind of mod. on the top. I remember seeing one at Alhorn........
Yes, a jet engine. They were used as target-tugs on the Baltic ranges. ISTR someone in the UK bought one to impress the impressionable at airshows.
 
#7
Betcha there's 1,000s of 'em in the "Bone Yard" at Davis-Monthan AFB... All wrapped up in cling film and sitting in the dry desert... Wouldn't take much: Take of the packaging and give 'em the once over and Robert’s yer Auntie’s Live-in Lover…... But then again, if they are at D-M AFB, why the b*ll ache of re-opening a mid 70s production line? Anyone smell a nice fat profit for Boeing?
 
#8
Circus_Pony said:
Betcha there's 1,000s of 'em in the "Bone Yard" at Davis-Monthan AFB... All wrapped up in cling film and sitting in the dry desert... Wouldn't take much: Take of the packaging and give 'em the once over and Robert’s yer Auntie’s Live-in Lover…... But then again, if they are at D-M AFB, why the b*ll ache of re-opening a mid 70s production line? Anyone smell a nice fat profit for Boeing?
Surprisingly, no. Four OV10A models and fourteen OV10D models at the Boneyard. Most of the ex USAF and USMC aircraft got flogged off to third world countries such as Columbia. I suppose we qualify now so maybe they could bung us a few.
 
#14
Boeing floated the idea in response to the possible USAF requirement for a COIN aircraft that I think the National Guard are panning to use the AT6 Texan for, in a similar configuration to the Super Tucano. It was a new build not a rebuild from te boneyard. I think they are still in use in various shitholes around the world in various roles.

I thought we covered this subject a while ago and it was thought by the grown ups to be a generally bad idea because of the speed of transit and log train issues, or was that forward air bases, not sure.

They were withdrawn after the first Gulf War because they got shot down because they had no defensive aids but I guess in an environment like Afghanistan and if they stayed quite high using precision munitions, electro optical sensors and such like it would be quite surviable, twin engines, ejection seats, low acoustic and thermal signature and very rugged.



I think they were designed to be operated with the minimum of specialist ground equipment and can even fly of a reasonable size deck, like Ocean for example. Perhaps we could flog the idea to the FAA





They even have a little cargo compartment in the back that can fit a couple of chaps in :D






Plenty of info on the web

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV-10_Bronco
http://www.warbirdalley.com/ov10.htm
http://www.boeing.com/history/bna/ov10.htm
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=305
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...estarting-ov-10-production-after-23-year.html
 
#16
iamalondoncrab said:
Did a bit of research and they seem pretty good. Can take off on a 500 ft runway, carry in theory carry 3 tonnes of weapons and ammunition, 3 hour loiter time, and according to Google, the unit cost was $480 000 (don't Harriers cost over £10 million/$20million nowadays?). Against an insurgent enemy like the Taliban, without an air force or significant air defences, they'd be excellent, especially in large numbers - which their cost would hopefully make their greatest asset, if they didn't need too much updating. The only operational concern I'd have is their vulnerability to ground fire - they are, after all, quite slow.

Of course, this is all hypothetical, since we're never going to get any :x
No doubt by the time Big and Expensive/Wastelands got their claws on it and upgraded the engines and DAS and a PFI was arranged, it would no doubt be cheaper to buy a brand new F-22 per unit :roll:
 
#20
I think that the OV-10 Bronco would be a good option for Afghanistan... IIRC the RUSSIANS had some there c. 1987 - We'll I seem remember seeing them on that air base James Bond was taken to... Oh. Hang on! Then again he escaped in a ‘Russian’ C-130 so perhaps it was not a real Russian base after all and just a Moroccan one they were using as a film set... We will need a bit more investigation into their potential worth in Afghanistan!

Scarf, Gloves, Snow mobile?