Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Was The OV-10 Bronco Retired?  
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4453 posts, RR: 5
Posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7494 times:

Why was the OV-10 Bronco retired? It seems to me that the military could have continued using this aircraft as it was not outdated. In fact, we could have saved money by putting the sensors of the "Predator" drone in the Bronco.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7363 times:

Perhaps because the Predator is unmanned and is much more expendable than the 2 crew OV-10. The drone is probably cheaper to operate than the OV-10 as well.

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7331 times:

Could be 2912, but the OV-10 is more versatile.
It can for example mark targets with flares for other aircraft to attack, provide realtime BDA and provide reattack instructions while the attack aircraft are loitering overhead.
It can even carry a small team of paratroopers to assist in combat SAR missions (to be airlifted out in a helicopter later).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7329 times:

Sod being in one of them when AAA and SAM's are coming at you, but was the FAC role taken over by A-10s?
I think the Bronco's last war was the 1991 Gulf Conflict.


User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7326 times:

I agree with the versatility but...Survivability has much to do with it. FAC roles have been taken over by other a/c that have greater survivability at low altitudes, and with LGB's and other precision munitions the down and ddirty role does not seem as important.

The OV-10 carried 5 jumpers in the back. You would basically slide out to jump from it. In truth not much of a way to get a team into combat. Either a HALO jump or helo insertion works much better. Tho it is a fun jump.  Smile


User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7244 times:

The development phase of the Bronco was a controversial, protracted, and expensive bit of aviation history that went on for about 8 years. In the end, I believe that USAF and USMC ended up with a rather vulnerable platform. The fact that the Marines developed the OA-4M Skyhawk, very late in that design's service life serves as evidence there were misgivings about the Bronco.

USAF never assigned the Bronco to Reserve or ANG units, further proof that they wanted it out of the inventory quickly. Having served in a Warthog unit I am biased, but there is no better USAF FAC platform than the Warthog. I do not know what the Marines use in that role these days, maybe inter-service cooperation means the A-10 is more busy than ever covering some of their needs also.


User currently offlineTechRep From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7264 times:

I worked on the OV-10 at Patrick AFB in Cocoa Beach Florida for three years. I was assigned to the 549th TASTS Tactical Air Support Training Squadron. I do not know if this is common but we were a half Marine/Air Force training squadron.

We had assigned, it memory serves me, 12 OV-10A Bronco's and the Marines had the same number but they were OV-10C models with the mini-gun on the nose. That was my best assignment ever and working with the Marine Corp "zoomies" proved to be an awesome experience.

The unit and squadron were deactivated in 1988 and I wen't off to Korea.

TechRep


User currently offlineTechRep From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7243 times:

The aircraft was supposed to be an XB-3 aircraft. This term, I have no idea if it is still in use, mean simply, a throw away aircraft. It was designed to be thrown away after Vietnam or given away to foreign nations, I believe Pakistan was getting our hand me downs.

BTW it was reported that Ted Nugget also owned an OV-10 and would big game hunt with it.

TechRep


User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7249 times:

Are there any pictures of the "cargo hold" of an OV-10 where the jumpers would sit...I would love to see that, I imagine its quite small and cramped...no Spacebeds there!!!!!

Greg



Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7215 times:

Hmm I remember some pictures from an airshow with two OV-10s dropping jumpers. I believe I saw them here on a.net too.


At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7193 times:

Here is one of the photos in the series of an OV-10 jump


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank J. Mirande



If I remember correctly you could jump 5 people out of one. The tail cone was removed I think and the troops would sit on the floor. When it came time to jump the pilot would pick the nose up and you would "slide" out the rear end. (Yes, brings some gross images to mind.) Yes, it was cramped stuffy and nosiey. But a different way to go...  Smile


User currently offlineTechRep From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7144 times:

The Air Force versions couldn,t accomidate jumpers, reason, there was too much avionics equipment for FAC duty in the cargo area.

TechRep


User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7116 times:

Wait a minute! That's an amazing photo but I doubt they jumped from the low altitude shown in that shot. Look at the buildings in the background. They are probably only 50 meters off the ground.

User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7089 times:

Tom...it is actually one in a series of shots. Pull up the others and you see them kick it into a climb and go up to a drop altitude. Actual jump altitude is probably about 1200 to 1500 feet.

User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7026 times:

Thanks, 2912n. Your description sounds like a tactical drop approach from low altitude. Makes sense now.

I must admit I don't recall the Bronco being used in this role by USMC. I guess Frank's photos are pretty rare. I wonder if the USMC Bronco ever did any paradrops in actual combat? Vietnam, Panama, anywhere?


User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7005 times:

The Bronco was supposed to be used with the Force Recon folks and ANGLICO for rapid insertion. (ANGLICO being guys who are forward observers for naval gunfire.) They would only drop a small team in who would go to groundd and set up their radio network etc in an observation post.

I don't know about any actual insertions being done. Usually easier and safer to do a helicopter insertion.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7004 times:

Quite a few OV-10's ended up in the hands of the Forest Service to serve as spotter aircraft for forest fire tankers.

BATF also had some for a while but they where not legal for them to own so those went to the USFS too.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 7005 times:

California operates several OV-10's as the "fire boss" a/c. Good loiter time, visibility and manuverable in tough places to fly (like over a mountain forrest fire...)


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tony Zeljeznjak




Why was it not legal for the BATF to operate the OV-10?


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7000 times:

Just fair warning, We are getting really close to those "Black helicopters" when we start talking about the 22 Broncos that BATF bought.

But what is known was that they where purchased through a dummy corporation called, "American Warbirds". They where located in a industrial park building in Gaithersburg Maryland. Their neighbors in the park claimed that the facility was a radio shop for the BATF. They also had no phone number listed in the phone book. All this cloak and dagger was apparently meant to conceal the aircraft acquisition by the BATF

What really got the BATF in trouble was that they retained their hardpoints and capability to carry weapons. Although the internally mounted cannon where removed. A definite no-no for civilian law enforcement aircraft.

The outcry over this purchase, which was in 1995 when the BATF was under fire for their part in burning alive several dozen kids in Waco, Texas under orders from then attorney general Janet Reno. She has never been prosecuted for her role in this. It was enough to get congress to refuse to fund the airforce and force it's disposal by the BATF.

All have since been transferred to the US State Department where they are used as crop sprayers on the Coca Fields in South America.

They are still shot at too.

http://www.ov-10bronco.net/us-state-batf.cfm



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7151 times:

I should also add that this happened during the investigation of the reported theft or misappropriation of $1.5 million in agency funds. The chief of BATF’s aviation division has been accused of submitting false invoices on aircraft leases and maintenance services over a five year period.

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES, JULY 18, 1995]

ATF Gets 22 Planes To Aid Surveillance

WEAPONS-CAPABLE AIRCRAFT REPAINTED

(BY JERRY SEPER)

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has obtained 22 counterinsurgency, heavy-weapons-capable military aircraft.

The 300-mph OV-10D planes--one of several designations used by the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War for gunfire and missile support of ground troops, and by the Air Force during Operation Desert Storm for night observation--have been transferred from the Defense Department to ATF.

The turboprop aircraft, which will be used for day and night surveillance support, were designed to locate people on the ground through their body heat.

When used by the military services, the planes were equipped with infrared tracking systems, ground-mapping radar, laser range-finders, gun sights and 20mm cannons.

ATF spokeswoman Susan McCarron confirmed yesterday that the agency had obtained the aircraft but noted they had been stripped of their armament. She said that nine of the OV-10Ds were operational and that the remaining 13 were being used for spare parts.

`We have nine OV-10Ds that are unarmed; they have no weapons on them,' Ms. McCarron said. `They are being used for surveillance and photography purposes. The remainder are being used for spare parts.'

Ms. McCarron said the aircraft were obtained by ATF from the Defense Department `when DOD was getting rid of them,' and that other agencies also had received some of the airplanes.

General Service Administration records show that some of the unarmed aircraft also were transferred to the Bureau of Land Management for use in survey work, while others went to the California Forestry Department for use in spotting fires and in directing ground and aerial crews in combating them.

Other models of the OV-10 also are being used by officials in Washington state for nighttime surveillance of fishing vessels suspected of overfishing the coastal waters.

The transfer of the aircraft to ATF comes at a time of heightened public skepticism and congressional scrutiny of the agency's ability to enforce the law without trampling on the rights of citizens.

The ATF's image suffered mightily in the aftermath of its 1993 raid and subsequent shootout at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, during which four agents and six Davidians were killed. It sustained another public-relations blow after it was revealed that ATF agents helped organize a whites-only `Good O' Boys Roundup' in the Tennessee hills.

Hearings of the Waco matter begin tomorrow in the House. A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the racist trappings of the roundup is scheduled for Friday.

One Senate staffer yesterday said there was `some real interest' in the ATF's acquisition of the aircraft, and that questions `probably will be asked very soon of the agency' about the specifics of their use and locations where they have been assigned.

According to federal law enforcement sources and others, including two airline pilots who have seen and photographed the ATF planes, two of the combat-capable aircraft--known as `Broncos'--have been routed to Shawnee, Okla., where they were painted dark blue over the past month at an aircraft maintenance firm known as Business Jet Designs Inc.

Michael Pruitt, foreman at Business Jet Designs, confirmed yesterday that two of the ATF aircraft had been painted at the Shawnee site and that at least one more of the OV-10Ds `was on the way.' Mr. Pruitt said the aircraft were painted dark blue with red and white trim. The sources said the paint jobs cost the ATF about $20,000 each.

The firm's owner, Johnny Patterson, told associates last month he expected to be painting at least 12 of the ATF aircraft but was unsure whether he could move all of them fast enough through his shop. Mr. Patterson was out of town yesterday and not available for comment.

According to the sources, the ATF's OV-10Ds, recently were overhauled under the government's Service Life Extension Program and were equipped with a state-of-the-art forward-looking infrared system that allows the pilot to locate and identify targets at nights--similar to the tracking system used on the Apache advanced attack helicopter.

Designed by Rockwell International, the OV-10D originally was outfitted with two 7.62mm M-60C machine guns, each with 500 rounds of ammunition. It also was modified to carry one Sidewinder missile under each wing, Snakeye bombs, fire bombs, rocket packages and cluster bombs.

The OV-10D can carry a 20mm gun turret with 1,500 rounds of ammunition.

During the Vietnam War, two OV-10Ds were used for a variety of missions during a six-week period and flew more than 200 missions in which they were credited with killing 300 enemy troops and saving beleaguered outposts from being overrun by the communists.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Was The OV-10 Bronco Retired?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Was The A-6 Intruder Retired? posted Sun May 5 2002 15:11:32 by AFC_ajax00
Why Was The F-111 Not Called The B-111 posted Fri Feb 3 2006 19:40:15 by 747400sp
Why Was The F-15 Built. posted Thu Dec 15 2005 18:16:18 by 747400sp
Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10? posted Sat May 7 2005 01:59:49 by LHMARK
ES-3A Shadow - Why Was It Retired? posted Wed Feb 9 2005 09:35:34 by Ghostbase
Why Is The Phantom A Twinseater? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 23:31:58 by TheSonntag
The VC-10: posted Wed Jun 14 2006 05:55:39 by ZE701
When Was The Last KC-135A Rengined posted Sun Mar 12 2006 19:38:24 by 747400sp
Why Hasn't The B52 Been Reengined? posted Sat Oct 22 2005 20:02:20 by Highpeaklad
Blackburn Buccaneer: Why Was It So Popular. posted Fri Jun 10 2005 20:08:35 by DIJKKIJK

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format