PDA

View Full Version : New build OV-10 Bronco's


tonker
3rd Feb 2009, 18:46
An article from Flight Daily news........



Boeing considers restarting OV-10 production after 23-year hiatus (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/01/321730/boeing-considers-restarting-ov-10-production-after-23-year.html)

Double Zero
3rd Feb 2009, 19:16
I suppose it might make a natural progression for the newly fledged Iraqi air force, but the last time that was suggested here, people who ought to know reckoned it would be shot out of the sky.

Funnily enough British Aerospace came up with the 'Small Agile Battlefield Aircraft, SABA, proposal around the late 1980's.

That was a relatively powerful pusher turboprop job, with a high-tech guided gun turret under the chin.

Whether it was a serious proposal, or a smoke-screen as a sop to Kingston / Dunsfold having the very exportable Hawk's production lines taken to Warton to keep it afloat, is another matter.

New-build A-10's with all the whistles & bells might be more useful, at least to the USAF, I'd think, and cheaper than a whole new programme unless they want something really light & vulnerable ?

As no defensive aids that I know of will fend off RPG's & AAA, ( and even Colombia has, I believe, a snag with the bad guys being well armed with G-A weapons ), can't see much hope for the Bronco ?...

Evalu8ter
3rd Feb 2009, 19:34
Double Zero,
The OV-10's vulnerability depends upon what role it would fulifill. A manned sensor platform would happily work above the RPG/Small Arms threat, and a modern MWS/CMDS (coupled with a relatively low IR signature) mitigate somewhat the MANPAD threat. If the plan is to do low-level RW escort/FAC/CAS then, yes, the threat is higher. For intra theatre comms / light cargo role it would do the job between fixed sites quicker and cheaper than a RW platform.

The OV-10s biggest problem is that it's not a jet...and many people cannot get past that fact, much the same as the A10 has always suffered because it can't go supersonic...

As a low cost platform in a low tech war, a warmed-over OV-10 could make a lot of sense. The final decision will no doubt revolve around Congressional districts.

ianp
3rd Feb 2009, 19:39
Whatever happened to, and inded how succesful was the Pucara the Argentinians had?

CirrusF
3rd Feb 2009, 20:11
Those that weren't destroyed by D-Sqn are still in service with the Fuerza Aerea Argentina and with Uruguayan Air Force, in counter-insurgency role. I expect you could buy a squadron of them from either country, together with stacks of spare parts, for the cost of half a Typhoon. If the MOD needs a Spanish-speaking Arthur-Daley wannabe to go and buy them on the cheap send me PM. I'll even give back their picture I borrowed from FAA HQ in 1986 if they wish!

http://i417.photobucket.com/albums/pp254/cirrusf/IMG.jpg

NutLoose
3rd Feb 2009, 20:14
Never fear we Brits to have a cunning plan LOL :ok:

Petition to: Resurrect the TSR2 Strike Bomber. | Number10.gov.uk (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ResurrecTSR2/) :D:D:D:p

Melchett01
3rd Feb 2009, 20:27
The OV-10s biggest problem is that it's not a jet...and many people cannot get past that fact, much the same as the A10 has always suffered because it can't go supersonic

A relatively low speed shouldn't really be an issue. After all, the Apaches are hardly what you might call fast air, but you don't hear anyone complaining that they are too slow. Getting ordnance onto a target area should be the priority, probably with persistence to cover troops and a relatively high degree of accuracy to deal with danger close scenarios. Whilst a supersonic ac would bring lots of noise - good for shows of force - and the ability to get to a TiC quickly, both of which are v useful characteristics, they are about the only pluses over something like the Bronco.

As no defensive aids that I know of will fend off RPG's & AAA

Without delving too much into this here, a well flown platform adhering to the correct tactics and with a bit of luck thrown in should be fine against unguided systems. The development of hostile fire indicatoris for use against these sorts of systems should also be a help, and would hopefully be an automatic fit for any slow / low platform operating in this role.

All in all, I think there is a quite sizeable market for a Bronco or similar platform.

CirrusF
3rd Feb 2009, 20:48
Super-Tucano already filling the niche.

Chile’s Air Force Buys Super Tucanos (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Chiles-Ar-Force-Buys-Super-Tucanos-05038/)

Argentina FAA probably going to buy them too to replace Pucará. Hence we could get Pucará really cheap on a UOR lol!

BEagle
3rd Feb 2009, 21:05
Last time I saw an OV-10 was at a certain USAF base in Florida where they were being prepared for long-range anti-drug operations on behalf of the US State Department....

Using herbicide, rather than weapons.

Finnpog
3rd Feb 2009, 21:07
IIRC wasn't there a version of the Bronco which had a turret mounted gun / cannon?
I think that with some modern avionics & sensors, uprated engines and a defensive suite added to a decent turretted cannon and then rig it for CVR-7's and / or a couple of Hellfires (well...they do hang them off UAVs) for long range punch and bunker-busting it could be a hell of a good option.

taxydual
3rd Feb 2009, 21:15
Someone on here suggested fitting A-G kit to the shed loads of Tucano's languishing in storage here in the UK.

Serious questions.

a. Is it feasible?

b. Can the Tucano do 'hot and high'?




Oh, that 'someone' was me.

I think it can be done, but I'd like the experts' opinions before I make a bigger fool of myself with an very annoying ex-JP/Strikemaster 'armchair Air Marshal' who pontificates in my local!

Who's probably reading this and, hopefully, will take a subtle hint.

Double Zero
3rd Feb 2009, 21:20
I know a little ( emphasise little ) about G-A detection systems of various types, but what with AAA beyond 'small arms', + as you say Manpads...don't recall fast, jamming Tornados doing too well against unguided stuff; though they of course were so low a lobbed brick might have been a problem !

What with all the various options available, from Pilatus to Appache to A-10, not to mention UAV R/W stuff supposedly in the pipeline, can't really see a need for the Bronco.

How does endurance compare to say, the Pilatus ? Of course 2 engines is always a nice touch.

As I recall, one of the objectors to the idea last time was an ex-Bronco pilot...

Shame, as I do actually quite fancy the aircraft, apart from the prop's next to the cockpit !

Evalu8ter
3rd Feb 2009, 21:30
Melchett,
I've got no problems with the OV-10's speed - my comment was directed at the FJ-Centric hierarchies who run most Western airforces, and who continually plan to fight the war they want to fight (shuffling F-22s and Typhoons against a hypothetical enemy in 2020) than adjusting doctrine, procurement and priorities to fight the war(s) we are fighting. The OV-10 simply isn't "punchy", and the USAF has been trying to kill-off the A-10 to buy more F16s for ages, only recently, reluctantly, funding an upgrade. For an area the size of the current AoR the OV-10's speed isn't really an issue.
In the UK we hear rumours of attempts to kill of the Harrier. Apart from removing a high pitched whining noise from the front line (and their aircraft..:E) it threatens the only dedicated CAS aircraft we currently field.

Taxydual, I believe we ticked the "delete all hardpoints and wiring" option when we bought the Tucanos and it is prohibitively expensive to retrofit. A DESO chap I once spoke to moaned about this saying that we could sell them all in an instant if they were armed as they have useful extra grunt over the PT6 version.

Double Zero, if the Tally-Tubbies start lighting up fire control radars for AAA I'd guess that they'd get a visit from Mr HARM quite quickly...also large calibre weapons are hard to conceal and "shoot and scoot" with. A DSHKa is about as big as you'd want to try to move and hide - ask the IRA. I'm guessing that the Bronco would be much cheaper per unit cost than A10/AH64 and is already designed for the role. I'd also wager that the operating costs are far smaller. If we're in for the long haul then these costs are important.

taxydual
3rd Feb 2009, 21:40
Evalu8ter

Thanks for that. Another 'foot in mouth' moment avoided.

GreenKnight121
4th Feb 2009, 00:00
Finnpog...

The U.S. Marine Corps OV-10 Night Observation Gunship (NOGS) program modified four OV-10As to include a turreted forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensor and turreted M197 20 mm gun slaved to the FLIR aimpoint. NOGS succeeded in Vietnam, but funds to convert more aircraft were not approved. NOGS evolved into the NOS OV-10D, which included a laser designator, but no added gun... just the 4 x 7.62mm machine guns mounted in the stub-wing-roots.


Each of the Marine Corps' two observation squadrons had 18 aircraft, nine OV-10As and nine OV-10Ds night observation aircraft.

The OV-10 was finally phased out of the Marine Corps in 1995, and the decision to decommission the aircraft was in large part due to two USMC Broncos being shot down during Operation Desert Storm due to a lack of effective infrared countermeasures equipment.

OV-10 NOGS:
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/database/aircraft/showimage.php?id=10052

USMC OV-10D aboard USS Saratoga CV-60 for trials 1985:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/OV-10D_CV-60_1985.jpeg/800px-OV-10D_CV-60_1985.jpeg

Jackonicko
4th Feb 2009, 00:35
I wonder whether the OV-1 Bronco wouldn't make an even better basis for an aircraft of this type?

Trojan1981
4th Feb 2009, 00:58
Using herbicide, rather than weapons.
Sound familiar, Vietnam, drugs, counter-insurgency. It just goes on...

Solid Rust Twotter
4th Feb 2009, 04:34
Shove an extra fuel tank up the rear, upgrade the wing mounted guns to .50 cal and fit a few rockets to hardpoints under the wing and you have a useful type with good loiter capability for the Somali problem. Cheap to run and able to patrol the coastline and offshore danger spots in daytime to give a heads up of suspicious activity to ships in the area to enable them to avoid it or change course for night transit. FLIR equipment will give them reasonable use at night. Adapt as needed for similar roles.

May be worth a PMC taking a look at that option operating from shore bases in neighbouring countries with helicopter backup.

Light Westerly
4th Feb 2009, 06:32
CAL FIRE operates the type nowadays. Link to main page with links to specific aircraft type info, and photos.

CAL FIRE - Air Program (http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_protection/fire_protection_air_program.php)

StbdD
4th Feb 2009, 08:35
Jackonico

I think you will find that the OV-1 was in fact the Mohawk. A recon aircraft which had an extremely limited weapons capability and was a somewhat problematic flier. Have a look through their serial number listing and see the inordinantly high losses due to mishaps.



On the other hand, the last OV-10 lost was frankly fighting where it shouldn't have been and outstayed its time there It had dodged numerous IR SAMs before they ran out of luck. I never understood why they were retired except that they weren't very sexy and didn't have a strong political backer.

OV-10Bronco.Net - Start Page (http://www.ov-10bronco.net/index_desert_storm_10th_anniversary.cfm)

Given proper countermeasure and targeting system updates, the Skyraider may well be an answer to some current requirements - 4 x 20mm Cannons, 8000 lbs of ordnance and fuel for days. Even a few Mig kills to its credit.

A-1 Skyraider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-1_Skyraider)

The Official A-1 Skyraider Site (http://skyraider.org/)

Infantry officers today would cheer at the opportunity for a support aircraft like that. Low, slow, heavily armored, heavily armed, with enough fuel to hang around a very long while.

Yeoman_dai
4th Feb 2009, 10:56
Always made me chuckle. I've show and told a few Infanteers I know about the skyraider, and most already know about the A10 and they all love it! Its ugly as hell, but it just looks tough in the way FJ's don't. Doesn't look or sound as deadly as FJ's, but then again when it gets closer and you see the amount of ordnance hanging off the wings...

Buuuuut, as it's been mentioned, the FJ enjoys so much support, because its 'cool' - lets face it, if you asked a class of potential pilots which they would rather fly into combat, an F22 or an A-1, guess which way they'd vote...


(In my defence, i'm a wannabe pilot, just doing my FAT's in March, and if I was given a choice I would honest choose the A-1 ;) but that could be my ground based experiences)

brickhistory
4th Feb 2009, 15:21
Besides 'sexy,' there is the little matter of battlefield survivability.

Why do you think Spads were withdrawn in Vietnam?

Hint: it had little to do with curb appeal and a lot to do with being low, slow, and unable to keep up with MANPAD technology.

It's all fun and games until someone gets shot down.

With a finite budget, what Air Force would go with even new OV-10s vs. something that is relatively multi-role - F-35/F-16, etc, etc?

OFBSLF
4th Feb 2009, 17:32
Buuuuut, as it's been mentioned, the FJ enjoys so much support, because its 'cool' - lets face it, if you asked a class of potential pilots which they would rather fly into combat, an F22 or an A-1, guess which way they'd vote...
These days, no matter how they vote, yank pilots will probably end up living in Las Vegas and flying a UAV.

XV277
5th Feb 2009, 11:52
Is this not just Boeing seeing a number of operators looking at light ISTAR/Transport type aircraft (Twinstar, Defender, Beech 350 etc) and thinking that they need to get a piece of that pie - and having a design in one of their purchasees that might juist fit the bill?

After all, the 787 is not progressing as well as hoped....

PPI Zulu
5th Feb 2009, 18:27
....this cab reminds me of the question a colleague was asked by some Roof Rat after he'd landed a Lynx on the expansive deck of the USS Enterprise - 'Gee Son, d'ya build it yourself?' :hmm:

The answer, of course, was - 'No, Westland Helicopters, but then that's pretty much the same thing!' :E

Also - hasn't a similar thing been tried out on the Kaman (Super) Seasprite? I didn't think that went so well...for the Aussies at least...?

Modern Elmo
6th Feb 2009, 02:03
After all, the 787 is not progressing as well as hoped....

Yes, that that's the plan. Very clever: 787 sales canceled due to delivery delays and slow economy, make up for that with OV-10's. Uh, no.

The original, mid-1960's concept of use for the aircraft that became the OV-10 was that the aircraft would fulfill a dual role: (1) STOL close air support, (2) STOL light utility/transport.

The OV-10, or at least its fuselage, is too small to be much good in the second role.

West Coast
6th Feb 2009, 18:15
One aspect that hasn't been addressed (and I guess would make it a multi role platform) is special ops insertion. The Marine Corps used to insert Force Recon and SEAL's via the Bronco. Remove the back of the pod and you could drop a few of your inquisitive, absolutely have to know type of guys in. Pretty dramatic to see it at airshows. The Bronco would ingress low altitude and over the insertion point would climb in the vertical or so it looked while the meat bombs fell/launched themselves out of the back. The Bronco pushed over and was gone quickly.

CirrusF
6th Feb 2009, 19:12
The U.S. Marine Corps OV-10 Night Observation Gunship (NOGS) program modified four OV-10As to include a turreted forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensor and turreted M197 20 mm gun slaved to the FLIR aimpoint. NOGS succeeded in Vietnam, but funds to convert more aircraft were not approved. NOGS evolved into the NOS OV-10D, which included a l@ser designator, but no added gun... just the 4 x 7.62mm machine guns mounted in the stub-wing-roots.



Putting on my anorak here, do you happen to know if the OV-10 used conventional or reverse counter-rotating props?

Previous ground-attack twins such as the P-38 lightning and Henschel HS129 used reverse counter-rotating props due to the greater stability the configuration afforded as a gun-platform (even though it made both engines critical failures).

Looking at the photo, I'd guess the OV-10 used conventional counter-rotation - but the props may have been in reverse thrust just after landing in that photo.

OFBSLF
6th Feb 2009, 19:18
It appears they did use counter-rotating props:

Rockwell OV-10 Bronco - CombatAircraft.com (http://www.combataircraft.com/aircraft/fov10.aspx)
OV-10Bronco.Net - NASA Broncos (http://www.ov-10bronco.net/nasa.cfm)

CirrusF
6th Feb 2009, 20:04
Neither article mentions which way they counter-rotated.

Modern Elmo
7th Feb 2009, 01:34
Remove the back of the pod and you could drop a few of your inquisitive, absolutely have to know type of guys in. Pretty dramatic to see it at airshows.

Crowded back there ... Not a comfortable ride.

SNS3Guppy
7th Feb 2009, 02:16
CAL FIRE operates the type nowadays.


Sort of. CDF owns the aircraft, but they're maintained and flown by pilots contracted and trained by Dyncorp. CDF OV10's are A models. Dyncorp also subcontracted through another company, until recently, the operation of D models in Colombia, for the US Department of State, International Narcotics Law Enfocement program.

Light Westerly
7th Feb 2009, 03:03
Thanks for the clarification Guppy. Dyncorp is everywhere!

West Coast
7th Feb 2009, 05:19
Crowded back there ... Not a comfortable ride.

Yeah, but the view...

larssnowpharter
7th Feb 2009, 06:15
We regularly have OV 10s operating from the local airport. One of the pilots comes around for a beer and a gossip occasionally. He tells me the aircraft have undergone a major mod programme including zero timing them, propellors have been replaced with a 4 bladed Harzell job, lots more bells and whistles and a new gun system.

He rates them for the job which is counter insurgency operations.

GreenKnight121
7th Feb 2009, 23:22
From what I see on this pic regarding the blade pitch/twist, both props rotated inboard at the top, outboard at the bottom.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/OV-10A_USS_Nassau_1983.jpeg/800px-OV-10A_USS_Nassau_1983.jpeg

For larger version, click here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/OV-10A_USS_Nassau_1983.jpeg

BEagle
8th Feb 2009, 07:52
4 Marines with all their kit would no doubt have had rather a cosy ride in the back of an OV-10:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/Bronco_boot.jpg

Somwhat 'Rendition Class' seating - no wonder they would be keen to jump out:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/Bronco_paras.jpg

sycamore
8th Feb 2009, 11:01
Brick-Don`t think the Spads were withdrawn,it was the major `Force' that `withdrew` and gave the `Spads` to the SVNAF.

Evalu8ter
8th Feb 2009, 13:08
And it wasn't just the Spad & OV10 that were impacted by the rapid proliferation of MANPADs; Israeli FJ aircrew received a nasty shock, as did fast movers at low level, and helicopters, over SEA. Let alone the Sovs in Afghanistan....

Since the introduction of the Strela (and it's progeny) IR DAS has become a top priority for low flying ac -esp RW and CAS platforms, and, using a combination of suppression, jamming, detection, decoys and tactics they can be dealt with. There is no reason at all why new-build OV10s wouldn't benefit from these advances and thus be more survivable in the low 'n slow environment.

Brian Abraham
9th Feb 2009, 01:07
it was the major `Force' that `withdrew` and gave the `Spads` to the SVNAF
The SVNAF flew the A-1 long before the pull out having begun operations in 1963. Some grunts regarded the SVNAF A-1 as being the air support of choice as some of the jocks were reputed to have 10,000 hours on the A-1. Question: what would be the IR signature of an A-1 piston compared to a turbine?

aseanaero
9th Feb 2009, 04:02
Indonesia upgraded their OV-10s to 50 cal (12.7mm) guns so they could stay above the 7.62mm rebel ground fire.

I didn't realise the Bronco was fully aerobatic until talking to some of the engineers at the base a few months ago.

All the Indonesian Broncos are now grounded (since 2006) and the Air Force is/was? planning to replace them with Super Tucanos however with the Indonesian Rupiah falling 30% in the last 3 months this may be some time off.


I think the old Broncos would make good SAR aircraft , long range , lots of hard points for dropping supplies etc

What do you think ?

StbdD
9th Feb 2009, 04:34
In a previous life I was one of those guys falling out of the OV-10. I say falling out because 4 jumpers (3 if heavily equipped), one at a time, climbed into the fuselage and sat facing aft, between the legs of the one before. The last man in was the stick leader and only had about 2 inches of deck to sit on, held in only by his safety belt with his legs and much of his body actually outside the aircraft.

Ingress to the target was almost always at very low altitude and more than one stick leaders legs struck tree branches. At the IP just prior to the drop zone the pilot would 'pop up' to approximatly 75-80 degrees nose up. The stick leader would be fighting some Gs trying to focus on the green jump light, which was located in a fairly awkward spot and came on at approx 200 feet AGL. At that instant he would release the belt and leave the aircraft. Due to his momentum he would continue his upward trajectory following the aircraft and his static line parachute would actually open underneath him. You haven't lived until you have watched your parachute open below your feet and been somersaulted rather vigorously into proper position for impact (landing) which occured seconds later.

If the conditions were right it was actually possible to swing completely OVER your chute.

The rest of the jumpers would scramble for the door on their backsides and push clear of the aircraft as fast as possible. An important tip was to avoid at all costs being the 4th man as the aircraft would generally run out of 'pop' and into a radar threat environment just as you arrived at the door. A wingover/dive for the ground would soon follow. Many #4 jumpers have literally dove out that door just in the nick of time.

Over in seconds but all in all, a fun way to go to work!

More info on current Bronco events: OV-10Bronco.Net - Start Page (http://www.ov-10bronco.net/index.cfm)

aseanaero
9th Feb 2009, 11:47
[qoute]At the IP just prior to the drop zone the pilot would 'pop up' to approximatly 75-80 degrees nose up. The stick leader would be fighting some Gs trying to focus on the green jump light, which was located in a fairly awkward spot and came on at approx 200 feet AGL.[/quote]

I :mad:t myself reading this , fun for the pilot for sure and typical on the edge fun for the 'meat missiles' , hat's off to you :ok:

rigpiggy
9th Feb 2009, 12:52
Sycamore, the withdrawal of the AD1, and A26 and all the gas powered apu's, tugs etc..... we're an attempt to reduce the logistics train more than anything. Not for lack of effectiveness. Many aircraft have been removed from service due to maintenance, spare parts issues, and other logistical reasons. The fact that there is no aerial opposition allows the use of lower performance, but more effective COIN craft. As such the increase in UAV flying, is due in part to a longer loiter time, pilot switching etc... that would be unfeasible in manned aircraft. However most UAV's have a reduced weapons load, reducing combat time. A new build OV10 w/ -12's a GAU19 and upgraded sensors would probably be a fantastic Coin System. I dare say they could even put in an autonomous pilot system, and increase the fuel load for increased loiter.

BEagle
9th Feb 2009, 14:45
StbdD, many thanks for that fascinating account. You and your colleagues deserve enormous respect for the bravery needed to do something like that!

'Jumping upwards' from 200 ft - that takes a very large pair indeed!

andyy
9th Feb 2009, 14:59
AC-130 anybody?

US Herk
9th Feb 2009, 20:13
AC-130 anybody?

How 'bout AC-27J ??

reynoldsno1
9th Feb 2009, 22:57
AFAIK the RTAF still flies them out of their base at Chiang Mai - used for spotting illegal logging and illicit herbaceous borders - or preparing business reports for the shareholders...:ok:

BlueWolf
12th Oct 2016, 09:13
Apologies for waking such a venerable old thread from its slumber, but I have a genuine question and I can't think of a better place to ask it than here; how come the concept of twin-turboprop attack aircraft has never really taken off beyond the likes of the Bronco and the Pucara?

Is there an aeronautical reason or reasons, or military ones, or engineering reasons, or is it more down to politics and fashion?

I ask because of course nowadays the likes of the Super Tucano and the Texan are leading a bit of a turboprop renaissance where lower and slower and less techy and thus cheaper aircraft are finding favour, in roles where big flash expensive fast jets are either unnecessary, or overkill, or too costly to run, or just not best suited for the job, as the job or at least the approach to it has evolved.

Genuinely curious.

NutLoose
12th Oct 2016, 11:04
The US Military have been trialling the Bronco again of late, see

Decades-old OV-10 Bronco planes used against ISIS - CNNPolitics.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/decades-old-planes-used-against-isis/)

airborne_artist
12th Oct 2016, 11:15
I'll bite.

You still need top cover, unless it's totally asymmetric.

You need runways, armourers etc fairly close to the area of operations. No chance of operating from a safe carrier/friendly nation's airfield even if a tanker is needed to get you to the action.

So while they are cheap per hour they are limited in application. That's why they not been used since I was in very short pants.

And drones have the loiter capability, increasingly good munitions and are much the same price per frame.

BlueWolf
12th Oct 2016, 11:26
Thanks aa but it was more a question of why not more twins, than of why not more turboprops per se.

I mean I guess it's all been thought through, I would have thought the Russians at least would have experimented with the idea if it was a goer, but it appears not; and I'm curious as to why not.

NutLoose
12th Oct 2016, 12:15
Russian concept see

Clean Sheet Designs: Swarms of Lightweight Scout/Attack Aircraft (http://www.combatreform.org/killerbees2.htm)

TBM-Legend
12th Oct 2016, 12:35
So while they are cheap per hour they are limited in application. That's why they not been used since I was in very short pants.


I guess that this is why the Afghan Air Force is getting 24 A-29 Tucano types for the COIN role there..

sandiego89
12th Oct 2016, 12:50
BlueWolf: Thanks aa but it was more a question of why not more twins, than of why not more turboprops per se.

I mean I guess it's all been thought through, I would have thought the Russians at least would have experimented with the idea if it was a goer, but it appears not; and I'm curious as to why not.


Perhaps a bit of it is cost and the capability of aircraft of limited utility.


A twin generally costs more than a single. Engines are one of the most expensive pieces of less complicated aircraft. Generally more expensive to design, purchase, fuel, train and maintain than singles.


A capable twin turboprop is going to be larger, more expensive and have more performance, getting you closer to pure jet costs and capabilities, and many air forces seem to be willing to spend a bit more to get pure jet performance/capability. A modern turboprop with good sensors, ejection seats etc. is not going to be cheap.


Capability. A turboprop is going to have some limitations and many air forces would prefer something that can perform both in limited wars and full, near peer or peer level wars. The US and western forces have traditionally been reluctant to invest in limited war capabilities, and have been more focused on near peer adversaries. An aircraft that can not survive and operate on a modern battlefield is of little utility. When these powers find themselves in a limited war, they may find themselves with overly complicated equipment- killing trucks with multi-million dollar jets...we seem to forget this lesson over and over....


Now if we knew we were going to be in a limited war for decades, with a permissive environment (very limited air to air or ground to air threat) a turboprop would make great sense. A modern Bronco would be perfect for many of the conflicts over the past decades. Again we tend to forget this lesson. A twin would offer good performance and reliability.


Finally if you are a believer in the dangers of the military/industrial complex in the US- a simple turboprop does not generate the same level of interest as does a complex order with a multitude of contractors and congressional districts.

airborne_artist
12th Oct 2016, 13:49
So while they are cheap per hour they are limited in application. That's why they not been used since I was in very short pants.

I guess that this is why the Afghan Air Force is getting 24 A-29 Tucano types for the COIN role there..

I guess the AAA isn't expecting to become a global super-power needing to project power across much of the globe, so an airframe with a limited application that closely fits their needs and budget works well for them, but for a very few others.

Haraka
12th Oct 2016, 14:30
S.A.'s Paramount ( supported in part by Boeing) reckon they already have two launch customers for their AHRLAC turboprop.

KenV
12th Oct 2016, 18:37
I gotta wonder if Textron's Scorpion wouldn't be better and maybe even cheaper.

pettinger93
13th Oct 2016, 09:25
How about a re-manufactured Mosquito with turbo props?

melmothtw
13th Oct 2016, 09:45
...or a DC-3 with turboprops




Basler offers BT-67 gunship to Philippines | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/64580/basler-offers-bt-67-gunship-to-philippines)

tartare
13th Oct 2016, 21:58
That Janes story is indicative of a very interesting phenomenon.
As weapons and systems evolve, increasingly it's not the airframe or powerplant that's of utmost importance; it's the weapons it carries and sensors, counter measures it has.
An airframe first manufactured in the 1930s - now kitted out with turboprops, night vision, FLIR, EFIS etc.
Incredible.
Just like a certain big ugly fat f*cker of a 1950s cold war bomber...

nomorecatering
14th Oct 2016, 00:47
A re-manufactured Mosquito, in carbon fiber, a pair of 3000 Hp turbo props. Interesting concept, but the Air Force types wont be interested. Not flash enough, not suitable to fight their imaginary war.

pettinger93
14th Oct 2016, 09:39
The last version of the Mosquito was 'Winkle' Brown's favourite propeller aircraft, as I recall. Was apparently fully acrobatic capable on one engine only. As originally made of wood, it would possibly have had a very low radar signature, though I guess that carbon fibre would be much better structurally, and easy to make. Plenty of expertise around in the boat industry for example.

pettinger93
14th Oct 2016, 09:40
And if the 'air force types' are considering remanufacturing Bronco's they can't be that flash!