Indonesian OV-10s
 

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 ?

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

[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:

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.

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!

AC-130 anybody?

How 'bout AC-27J ??

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:

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.

The US Military have been trialling the Bronco again of late, see

Decades-old OV-10 Bronco planes used against ISIS - CNNPolitics.com

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.

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.

Russian concept see

Clean Sheet Designs: Swarms of Lightweight Scout/Attack Aircraft

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

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.

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.

S.A.'s Paramount ( supported in part by Boeing) reckon they already have two launch customers for their AHRLAC turboprop.

I gotta wonder if Textron's Scorpion wouldn't be better and maybe even cheaper.

How about a re-manufactured Mosquito with turbo props?

...or a DC-3 with turboprops




Basler offers BT-67 gunship to Philippines | IHS Jane's 360