DonnieCS From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4917 times:
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 4874 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4835 times:
This the same US Air Force that hates the A-10 and has been trying since they first got it to retire the best CAS a/c in their inventory? The Army should get in on this, trade some helo pilots to fly these birds, after all, their primary mission will be to suuport troops on the ground, and since it is likely to be a turbo prop, the Air Froce would willing grant a waiver for Army flying combat a/c.
The time to deploy is pretty short, that says to me that this is an off the shelf purchase and the manufacturer has already been notified that their a/c is the winner.
No way the US military Industrial Complex can design, computer test, build a proof of concept model, prototype, etc. etc. etc. in such a short space of time without billions not already being allocated. I note that no funds are listed in the article, no funds for design, no a/c, no one uses their dime to create a military a/c any more.
ArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1255 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4811 times:
How about PILATUS' PC21, license build by Fairchild, they could install a more powerfull engine like they did with the PC6 PORTER and maybe up its external load to 3000 lbs or so.
Venus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1366 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4751 times:
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 4874 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4739 times:
Better solution would be to build the OV-10 Bronco with a more powerful engine. This a/c is going to go down in the weeds to support the troops, a proven airframe with dual engines is probably a safer bet than a single engine a/c.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9 Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4732 times:
Quoting ArniePie (Reply 3): How about PILATUS' PC21, license build by Fairchild,
That would be hard as Fairchild ceased to exist over five years ago.
LHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 682 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4573 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 5): Better solution would be to build the OV-10 Bronco with a more powerful engine. This a/c is going to go down in the weeds to support the troops, a proven airframe with dual engines is probably a safer bet than a single engine a/c.
I like that. Or even pulling them out of storage (if they haven't been scrapped) and making mods as appropriate to get them somewhat modernized and out quickly. Even though re-engining might take some time, I would think throwing modern com gear, GPS, laser designator, perhaps a special module for any particularly sophisticated ordnance that the Bronco otherwise could not launch/guide/etc, wouldn't be too difficult, at least vs. buying another a/c.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2500 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4554 times:
If a prop is what you want, you'd bIf a prop is what you want, you'd be hard pressed to beat a P-47D or an A-1 Skyraider...
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12235 posts, RR: 84 Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4501 times:
Can we predict this?
After a protracted evaluation, after lots of 'gold plating' added to the spec, a winner is chosen after costs have seriously escalated.
But the losing bidders contest it, leading to a re-evaluation, more costs, more delays.
If it survives that, by the time of operational service, the task they were mooted for has changed, or ended.
Or the bad guys got plenty of decent MADPADS, making the type too risky to use.
(Look how the OV-10 got retired, too vulnerable to MANPADS in Desert Storm).
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 4874 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 4406 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 9): (Look how the OV-10 got retired, too vulnerable to MANPADS in Desert Storm).
Any prop flying this mission will be vulnerable, it comes down to how much protection they want to place on the a/c.
Quoting GDB (Reply 9): But the losing bidders contest it, leading to a re-evaluation, more costs, more delays.
One good thing if they use it is that they do not have to request bids, in this day and age it is cheaper to go without bids, the initial tanker bid was cheaper even though a rip off.
Funny, getting ripped comes out cheaper than going through the process, go figure
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1366 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 4874 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1255 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12235 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
