Return of Turboprops to CAS role?

[PropAddict]

If Boeing starts up production of the OV-10 again, they could make modifications to make it more ship-friendly, couldn't they?

Either bigger motors, better high lift devices for LHD ops, or a tow bar and tailhook for CVN ops? I imagine the tow bar and tailhook might be stretching it, even though it seems to have pretty beefy gear.

Seems reasonable, no?

From an engineering standpoint, these mods are very much non-trivial.

You can't just have a monkey with a welder tack on a tailhook and some bigger tires. Making any of your proposed changes means a massive re-design and test effort.

Seems to me that if we're bringing back a 40 year old design, it's to save money, not take it and essentially make a new aircraft from it anyway.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Making a COIN/FAC(A) plane carrier-capable is kind of a waste of effort anyway. If we're operating somewhere low-threat enough to have light observer airplanes, then odds are we also have fields ashore to operate from. Otherwise, we'll probably revert to drones and/or fast-moving FAC(A).

Is there still a Bronco fan club within the Marines? High-rollers who would support a Marine buy-in if AFSOC pushes for it?

 

[HackerF15E]

Y'all seem to be forgetting one of the most significant points of this whole COIN aircraft effort: the idea is to eventually give the airplanes as military aid to our Partner Nations.

What would the point be of having all this great carrier-capability if none of the countries we'd be giving it to even had carriers?

 

[MasterBates]

Catapult gear and launch gear has more uses than just CV ops.

http://sats-eaf.org/History.htm

http://usmcskyhawkers.org/5e/g149959/html/150057a.htm

 

[nittany03]

Question for the Marines. How much do you train to that sort of thing (shore-based catapult/arrestment)?

 

[HeyJoe]

Don't give us to hard of a time; you know the Army isn't allowed to play with fixed-wing.

Oh yeah, what do you call this besides ugly?

US Army RC-12 Guardrail

They also had lead service role for its successor (and Navy EP-3 replacement), the Airborne Common Sensors (ACS) program that false-started and Navy decided to get its own way with EP-X.

 

[Harrier Dude]

Question for the Marines. How much do you train to that sort of thing (shore-based catapult/arrestment)?

Answer: Catapults....zero. Arrestments....a little.

Each MWSS has arresting gear that is expeditionary that can be installed and operated at austere sites. Some of it is more or less "permanently expeditionary installed" at the 29 Palms EAF and Bouge field.

The units at Yuma, Camp Pen, Beaufort, and Japan have their arresting gear stored and ready to deploy. It takes awhile to install and get certified for use, but can be done.

We have no expeditionary catapult capability anymore. Haven't had it for years.

 

[A4sForever]

Answer: Catapults....zero. Arrestments....a little ... We have no expeditionary catapult capability anymore. Haven't had it for years.

With the demise of the Phantoms, Skyhawks, and Intruders and the advent of Harriers ... who WOULD use that capability today in an expeditionary scenario ... ??

I mean, sure ... F-18's COULD ... but then we have Harriers ...

 

[Harrier Dude]

With the demise of the Phantoms, Skyhawks, and Intruders and the advent of Harriers ... who WOULD use that capability today in an expeditionary scenario ... ??

I mean, sure ... F-18's COULD ... but then we have Harriers ...

Exactly. That's why we bought these things in the first place.

Also, the Hornet doesn't need all that much room to take off. So it's not like we couldn't use them as well.

When we build an expeditionary runway, our constraints should be takeoff roll. Then you can have arresting gear on each end for takeoffs (aborts) and landings. Probably 3 or 4 thousand feet would do it. Maybe less. Take the takeoff roll of a fully loaded Hornet and add about 10% for abort reaction time. That would do it. Less, even, if you didn't launch them fully loaded.

Everybody wants a 10k' runway. They don't need one, though.

In the end it's just easier to build more runway than it is to build and maintain some Wylie Coyote expeditionary catapult (as cool as they may have been to use back in the day).

 

[skidkid]

Is there still a Bronco fan club within the Marines? High-rollers who would support a Marine buy-in if AFSOC pushes for it?

Not that I have ever heard. First thing I hear from the old guys is how F'd up the community was in regards to mishaps etc and second how unsurvivable it was when sent down range (before my time but some very strong opinions voiced by both F/W and R/W guys). Anything a Bronco could do an F-18D and or skids can do without being a one trick pony.

 

[BlkPny]

Not that I have ever heard. First thing I hear from the old guys is how F'd up the community was in regards to mishaps etc and second how unsurvivable it was when sent down range (before my time but some very strong opinions voiced by both F/W and R/W guys). Anything a Bronco could do an F-18D and or skids can do without being a one trick pony.

Except loiter for hours, place Zunis five meters from our guys, carry flares for lighting up extractions, work targets under a very low overcast, cover dust-offs and helo extractions, get to troops in contact faster that helos, act as a FAC, act as a convoy escort, stuff like that.

The Marines didn't like their a/c because of the role they were limited to. They went out as lightly armed FACs and observation a/c, and everyone shot at them. Navy went out armed to the teeth, cleared to fire, and more than happy to do so. The bad guys seem a little more reluctant to shoot at someone who will immediately shoot back.

 

[Harrier Dude]

Except loiter for hours, place Zunis five meters from our guys, carry flares for lighting up extractions, work targets under a very low overcast, cover dust-offs and helo extractions, get to troops in contact faster that helos, act as a FAC, act as a convoy escort, stuff like that.

The Marines didn't like their a/c because of the role they were limited to. They went out as lightly armed FACs and observation a/c, and everyone shot at them. Navy went out armed to the teeth, cleared to fire, and more than happy to do so. The bad guys seem a little more reluctant to shoot at someone who will immediately shoot back.

The threat world is different now.

This would be a great aircraft for the current Iraq/Afghanistan war, but not for anything else these days. By the time we could get those planes back in service, those conflicts will be settled and they'd be obsolete (again).

Nobody is going to spend the money to develop an aircraft for the current war that won't be able to work at the next level.

The OV-10 was an outstanding aircraft for its day, but that day has passed. Desert Storm (along with some questionable tactical decisions made during DS by the VMO guys) showed us that.

 

[Uncle Fester]

The threat world is different now...The OV-10 was an outstanding aircraft for its day, but that day has passed...

So much so that AFSOC is clamoring for an a/c that can do the same thing?

I think the "all future wars will be COIN"/"all future wars will be peer-competitor Chinese Hordes" arguments present a false dichotomy. While we need to be developing our 4th-gen high-speed stuff as well, I find it hard to believe that we'll never fight an insurgency or low-intensity war again after we finish with Iraq and Afghanistan. Assuming we're done with Afghanistan in the five or six years we might need to bring the Bronc or AT-6 on-line.

 

[nittany03]

So much so that AFSOC is clamoring for an a/c that can do the same thing?

I think the "all future wars will be COIN"/"all future wars will be peer-competitor Chinese Hordes" arguments present a false dichotomy.

Perhaps it is the funding issue which turns a false dichotomy into a real one? The President has already called on DoD to cut 10% of the budget. What is going to happen if paying off this so-called "stimulus" clobbers the budget and more cuts are called for? What if we are made to choose between being a COIN force and a force fielding the billion-dollar, world-beating, nation-wrecking equipment?

Politically, everyone would like to believe that we're never going to fight another major theater war again. What if a majority of those in Congress decide that this is true and refuse to fund said billion-dollar gear?

 

[Harrier Dude]

So much so that AFSOC is clamoring for an a/c that can do the same thing?

I think the "all future wars will be COIN"/"all future wars will be peer-competitor Chinese Hordes" arguments present a false dichotomy. While we need to be developing our 4th-gen high-speed stuff as well, I find it hard to believe that we'll never fight an insurgency or low-intensity war again after we finish with Iraq and Afghanistan. Assuming we're done with Afghanistan in the five or six years we might need to bring the Bronc or AT-6 on-line.

I see what you're driving at, but I don't think that we can have both sets of gear. Our "fighting the Chinese hordes" gear will work in COIN. Our COIN gear will not work against the Chinese hordes.

It would be great to have both, but that isn't what we buy anymore. We buy the "does it all, but not as well" package.

I would LOVE to fly an OV-10 in Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm not throwing stones at its capabilities. I just don't see it happenning.