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

F-14D said:
Looks like this is being punted, anyway:

http://defensetech.org/2010/02/02/coin-attack-plane-not-til-next-year/
Click to expand...

I think the Chief of Staff USAF has gone further and elected not to pursue the initiative at all.

Link to article on DoD Buzz: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/05/06/schwartz-shoots-down-light-fighter/#comment-25020
 
You know, personally I like the idea of some sort of light COIN aircraft, but the lack of any serious armor on the proposals worries me. Perhaps I am being a bit foolish in imagining something like a modern A-1 Skyraider, but I can't imagine a T-6 would hold up to well to HMG fire.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
You know, personally I like the idea of some sort of light COIN aircraft, but the lack of any serious armor on the proposals worries me. Perhaps I am being a bit foolish in imagining something like a modern A-1 Skyraider, but I can't imagine a T-6 would hold up to well to HMG fire.
Click to expand...

I have to wonder how much a Skyraider would cost. I mean that is a lot of metal. OK so you could do some of the aircraft out of composite material, but that does not give you really a lot of cost benefit (look at V-22) and if not done right can be worse protection than good ol' metal. Plus does anyone in the west still make radial engines? Someone would start but I can't imagine it would be as cheap as everyone thinks. So how much would a no kidding A-1Z Skyraider II cost?
 
yasotay said:
Plus does anyone in the west still make radial engines?
Click to expand...

Why go for radial? I guess a Skyraider-like aircraft with turbine engine would be a fine design.
 
No one in the west still makes radial engines. They're just too damned expensive and maintenance hogs. As SG said above, a turboprop would do just fine. Hell, that's what they tried with the Cavalier Mustang/PA-48 Enforcer.
 
The turboprop engine, with its higher power to weight ratio, buys you more ordnance for a given gross weight. They are however thirstier...
anyway, Ed Heinemann did design a successor to the A-1 (A2D), as we know, and it was turboprop-powered (nevermind that the powerplant itself caused its undoing!).
 
AeroFranz said:
The turboprop engine, with its higher power to weight ratio, buys you more ordnance for a given gross weight. They are however thirstier...
anyway, Ed Heinemann did design a successor to the A-1 (A2D), as we know, and it was turboprop-powered (nevermind that the powerplant itself caused its undoing!).
Click to expand...

They also had problems with sideward forces caused by the propellor, which Curtiss-Wright used to it's advantage in the X-19 design; well, at least the demonstrator, since it's gearbox didn't come apart. CW used that same effect to generate lift from the propellors themselves in forward flight.

But I think planes like the Skyshark and the Westland Wyvern are closer to the A-10 than the lower cost, slower COIN aircraft being sought.
 
Fair enough about the turbine, although for the most part I think if you get a hole in the wrong part of the engine it's E ticket time. I have read a lot about radials with whole cylider heads shot off still working, albeit poorly. I think another reason everyone away from the fight is so hot over trainer/COIN is that weight is a standard metric of cost. More weight = more expense.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
yasotay said:
Plus does anyone in the west still make radial engines?
Click to expand...

Why go for radial? I guess a Skyraider-like aircraft with turbine engine would be a fine design.
Click to expand...

There are a few good reasons. Apart from engine survivability which was pointed out by Yarostay in response there is performance. Yes a reciprocating engine can provide better performance than a turbine.

In particular at low altitudes in hot and dirty air. High temperature and smoke and other stuff in the air severely degrades the performance of a turbine. But a reciprocating engine hardly notices it. The RAN Fleet Air Arm went from the turbine Gannet to the reciprocating Tracker in the 1960s in part because their primary operational zone – low altitude over water in SE Asia – was too demanding for the Gannet’s engines. There wer many cases of a Gannet unable to make headway trying to cruise on half of their Double Mamba into a head wind at low altitude over the South China Sea.

Now if your primary operating zone is low level over hot and smoky Iraqi battlefields then you would get better performance from an uprated reciprocating Skyraider than a turbine Skyshark. The downside is of course cost of operating an increasingly rare
 
Yeah, that's very true, the recip is much better at low alts and much more survivable. I guess they'll just have to use one of those Russian radial engines. Of course, I don't know of any modern radial engine being produced that makes over 500hp. High power piston engines simply haven't had a reason to exist for years.
 
Thanks, Abraham, for stating the case of the radial engine so clearly and concisely. Makes a lot of sense... ;)
 
Stargazer2006 said:
Thanks, Abraham, for stating the case of the radial engine so clearly and concisely. Makes a lot of sense... ;)
Click to expand...

I’m not quite stating the case for a radial engine, rather the advantages of a reciprocating engine – which can be inline, V, inverted V, radial, rotary and others – compared to a turbine. Of course the turbine has the advantage of considerably better power to weight ratios and uses safer heavy fuels.

The whole argument for a reciprocating engine is in hot and dirty air that can be found at low altitudes. I don’t see the need for a low altitude close air support aircraft with the kind of target acquisition and self protection suites available to contemporary aircraft. Networked with low altitude ISR platforms a high flying CAS aircraft can have the advantages of being low combined with the safety and efficiency of staying high.
 
I know this is kind of an older topic and not too active, but just wanted to pass this along: As part of its unwavering commitment to Close Air Support, USAF has reduced their requirement for this aircraft to 15.
 
I'm not sure what you're considering 'hot & dirty' air, but for about 25 or more years, the main powerplant for ag-planes has been a turbine, either P & Ws. Garretts or even Walthers. Southern USA's summers are definitely hot & humid, tho I don't know what you mean by dirty, but it can be quite dusty at times too. All the ag-pilots I've known who've gone from a radial to a turbine, won't go back. There is just too much benefit to a turbine.



Abraham Gubler said:
Stargazer2006 said:
Thanks, Abraham, for stating the case of the radial engine so clearly and concisely. Makes a lot of sense... ;)
Click to expand...

I’m not quite stating the case for a radial engine, rather the advantages of a reciprocating engine – which can be inline, V, inverted V, radial, rotary and others – compared to a turbine. Of course the turbine has the advantage of considerably better power to weight ratios and uses safer heavy fuels.

The whole argument for a reciprocating engine is in hot and dirty air that can be found at low altitudes. I don’t see the need for a low altitude close air support aircraft with the kind of target acquisition and self protection suites available to contemporary aircraft. Networked with low altitude ISR platforms a high flying CAS aircraft can have the advantages of being low combined with the safety and efficiency of staying high.
Click to expand...
 
frank said:
All the ag-pilots I've known who've gone from a radial to a turbine, won't go back. There is just too much benefit to a turbine.
Click to expand...

So please tell what does the generational change in ag-planes have to do with re-engineering Skyraiders? Even with output loss for hot & dirty air you are still going to get a lot more power from an engine that has 3-4 times the output by weight than a comparable radial.

But can you re-engine a Skyraider with an AE2100 for a comparable performance differential to your re-engined Ag-Cat/Thrush/etc? Your engine/prop will be twice as long… and while that may be OK for an Ag-plane it isn’t for a Skyraider. The only feasible turboprop re-engineering would be for a much shorter engine to fit in the existing structure. Something like twin CT7s would fit BUT you wouldn’t have a power boost over the R-3350. You’d save 1,000 lbs of weight but you’d need that to armour the far less battle damage friendly turbines and gearing.

So when you don’t get a big increase in power thanks to going turboprop you have to start worrying about hot and dirty air. If going turboprop was easy the Skyshark would have fought VietNam in place of the Skyraider.
 
Just my two cents worth, but this turbine vs radial discussion seems to be mostly looking at power at low altitudes, certainly a consideration. What I think is missing is acknowledgement of a few other turbine advantages as required horsepower goes up: weight, simplicity, reliability ( a very big thing there) and simpler to fly.
 
I might add: who will maintain a radial engine? AFAIK there are no radials in AF use, only gas turbines. So you would have to train all the maintenance people on a totally different type of engine.
Worse yet, radials, to the best of my knowledge would have a hard time running on Jet-A. Now you need a separate fuel supply chain.
 
AeroFranz said:
I might add: who will maintain a radial engine? AFAIK there are no radials in AF use, only gas turbines. So you would have to train all the maintenance people on a totally different type of engine.
Worse yet, radials, to the best of my knowledge would have a hard time running on Jet-A. Now you need a separate fuel supply chain.
Click to expand...

Spot on. Logistics. The ulimate validation is the total burden cost for the weapon system (like it or not number crunchers not tacticians are the ultimate decider for weapon systems) and this includes EVERYTHING. Number of people to operate, amount of new equipment that has to be introduced to support the weapon, infrastructure modifications (from hangers to training, etc). So any weapon that fits into the existing capabilities across the board is less costly in the whole, and therefore more likely to see the flightline.
 
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/combat-dragon-ii-demonstrates-ov-10g-bronco-capabilities/

In recent months, the U.S. special operations community has been quietly evaluating two North American OV-10G+ Bronco light combat aircraft at Naval Air Station Fallon, Nev., and at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev.

The Combat Dragon II program is aimed at demonstrating that a small, turboprop-powered warplane can be effective in “high end/special aviation” missions of the kind encountered in Afghanistan. The program is a follow-on to an earlier demonstration program called Imminent Fury, which used a leased A-29B Super Tucano. The current effort is also called Phase Two of Imminent Fury

Congress tried to kill Combat Dragon II 18 months ago. The Navy’s special operations community – specifically, its Irregular Warfare Office headquartered in the Pentagon – was able to resurrect the effort with help from Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC).
Click to expand...
 
Great news for all the Bronco lovers around! (which, needless to say, I'm part of!)

Thanks a lot for sharing.
 
Some of the earlier posts talked about a radial engine in an AD Skyraider or similar. The good news about that route is that once you dis-assembled a R-3350 in a museum and made tracings from all the parts, you would be very close to having what you need to build a fully developed engine. Down side is that a current source of 130 grade aviation gasoline is almost more rare than the engine.

But what if instead of a spark ignition / gasoline radial, the mythical 'we' decided to go for a compression ignition / diesel radial? A diesel could run on NATO standard JP-8 fuel eliminating one (big) stumbling block, not to mention improving the odds of survivablity after battle damage.

My vision is something like a Bristol Centaurus converted to two stroke diesel operation. I am still conflicted on whether it should be a uni-flow cylinder with sleeve valves, or slightly larger but simplier piston ported loop charged cylinders, but both could wind up in about the same horsepower range.

As far as mechanics to service such a beast, we are not starting from zero. Many young men before getting to the military will have worked on or studied the engine in one of those Japanese 'tuner' cars. There is far more commonality between those engines and a military sized radial (mostly a difference in size) than a gas turbine.

While I am expounding, I might as well go whole hog. I feel that the Hawker Typhoon (see wiki for pictures of the Centaurus powered Tornado prototype) or the basic P-47 airframe would be better fit with a ground attack airplane than the P-51 / Piper PA-48 airframe.

I think that 'pucker factor' for those on the receiving end of a Typhoon / Tornado with 4 x 20mm cannon and a brace of rocket projectiles or bombs would be just as high in 2013 or 2020 as it was in 1944 hedgerow county. Maybe more so. Even as diluted and as thread bare as the German army was by 1944, we are still talking about soldiers trained in German tradition, not the rable that play as soldiers in most of the current world hot spots.

That is all I think i know.
 
Another thought about a engine for a COIN aircraft.

Continental (still) makes the AVDS 1790 air cooled V-12 diesel engine for tanks. On their website they tout the latest 1500 HP version. Again, Jet-A or JP-8 fuel is no problem. Here the issue would be 'sweating' this (5000 lb !!) engine down to a weight suitable for aircraft use. Some of the weight reduction would be easy, like being able to discard the included cooling fan package (surely sized to keep it cool while pushing 45+ tons of tank across the burning sands of Karjackastan) and changing the (assumed) cast steel crankcase for an aluminum casting. The downsize is that likely many other parts would need to be slimmed down / thinned to sizes more in keeping with aircraft paradigms and an assumed 1000 hour overhaul life.

Assuming a successful weight reduction program, that would be the right amount of HP for something like the Piper PA-48 airframe. That would bring us full circle to the first US use of that airframe, as the 1943 vintage A-36 Dive bomber / ground attack airplane.
 
Combat Dragon II Demonstrates OV-10G+ Bronco Capabilities

Written by: Robert F. Dorr on June 13, 2013

In recent months, the U.S. special operations community has been quietly evaluating two North American OV-10G+ Bronco light combat aircraft at Naval Air Station Fallon, Nev., and at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev.

The Combat Dragon II program, a Limited Objective Experiment (LOE), is aimed at demonstrating that a small, turboprop-powered warplane can be effective in “high end/special aviation” missions of the kind encountered in Afghanistan.
The experiment seeks similar information as Imminent Fury, which used a leased A-29B Super Tucano.

Congress tried to kill Combat Dragon II 18 months ago. Today, CENTCOM’s Science and Technology Division is running the LOE in cooperation with SOCOM.
 

Attachments

  • OV10G.jpg
    OV10G.jpg
    118.9 KB · Views: 500
  • OV10G1.jpg
    OV10G1.jpg
    109.1 KB · Views: 488
  • OV10G2.jpg
    OV10G2.jpg
    107.9 KB · Views: 473
With the Textron AirLand Scorpion garnering headlines, it's perhaps worthwhile to see what was already possible flying low and slow at night with props and relatively low technology back in 1970. Here is a promotional film for the original YOV-10D NOGS with the 20mm cannon in a turret that could be slaved to the FLIR. Even the relatively slow Scorpion is likely too fast for this type of operation. Unfortunately, the production OV-10D had some of systems but no gun.

http://youtu.be/P6iI9NfNTpk
 
The production OV-10D did have the option of carrying the gun, but it was not widely used. Per a former OV10 squadron commander I used to work for, the gun just didn't offer much value for their main mission of Forward Air Control. And when they did look to go back to CAS, Hellfire was much preferred. At least some Brocos were equipped for Hellfire by the time of Desert Storm, but the Marines' available inventory all went to the Cobra helicopter units.
 
I wonder if they are looking at alternative PGMs like APKWS, LOGIR, LZUNI, etc?

On the gun side, how about swapping the "spray & pray" 20mm? It would allow for more ammo, a lighter gun, less recoil, and (IMHO) a better overall CAS solution.
 
SpudmanWP said:
I wonder if they are looking at alternative PGMs like APKWS, LOGIR, LZUNI, etc?

On the gun side, how about swapping the "spray & pray" 20mm? It would allow for more ammo, a lighter gun, less recoil, and (IMHO) a better overall CAS solution.
Click to expand...
Guided .50cal is on the way. The 30mm on the AH-64E is impressively accurate these days.
 
Even if that guided .50cal does pan out (I'm not holding my breath) it's going to be a munition for sniper rifles, not aircraft cannon.

Boeing was talking about a 30mm cannon (as in the AH-64) as an alternative to the M197 on their OV-10(X) proposal. Seems plausible for commonality.
 
Another reason why I like the OV-10 platform is the flexability that having a large cargo bay can give you.

Besides cargo, extraction, paradrop, etc, you can use it to deploy PGMs that normally are not used from aircraft. Tests have already been done in dropping PGM Mortars. The benefit of these is more bang for the lb. With a rocket munition, 1/2 to 3/4 of the weight is propellant where all the weight is warhead with a mortar.
 
The cargo space in the OV-10 is incredibly small. It's not like there would be a loadmaster sitting back there chucking rounds out the rear door. When parachutists were carried, they sat on the floor one behind the other, with the first man out literally dangling his feet out the rear hatch. The tailcone was removed for this operation -- I don't think it could be opened in flight.
 

Attachments

  • North-American-Rockwelll-OV-10-Bronco-015_preview.jpg
    North-American-Rockwelll-OV-10-Bronco-015_preview.jpg
    45.4 KB · Views: 479
I suspect that the laser-guided 70 mm will be an important weapon for CAS. Accurate, more standoff than a gun, multiple warhead options and easy to integrate.
 
There is room for 5 guys in the back of the Bronco.

North-American-Rockwelll-OV-10-Bronco-023.preview.jpg


My point wit the space is that it adds flexibility for future capability.

On the mortar front, it would not be a person chucking them out but some sort of pallatized solution that should handle storage, programming and dropping of the mortars.
 
Sure, you could put five guys in there, if they were skinny (more usual load was four). But it's crazy tight.

You could come up with something like the weaponized "Derringer door" on the KC-103J. Maybe a bank of pneumatic launch tubes that replace the rear tailcone. Not a crazy idea. Might be worth thinking about if the OV-10 were still around. But I'm not sure it woudn't be easier to just hang those weapons from the external pylons. The aircraft is likely to run out of weight before it runs out of pylon space.
 
IIRC, there was some mention of once carrying paratroopers in the back of an OV-10 in "A lonely kind of war" (BTW, great book, highly recommended). As far as i can tell, the capability was very rarely used.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom