DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 5032 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 15035 times:
"We've got dozens of systems operating over there but there's a big logjam in the [intelligence] pipeline, and everyone knows it."
It certainly won't do acknowledging the effectiveness of boneyard relics when there are billion $ being spent on "state-of-the-art" and "leading-edge" ISR platforms. Besides, battlefield commanders would think several times before committing such high-value assets in high-attrition environments.
Makes one wonder what is more dispensable in their view.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it...Amazing how all the lessons about troop support learned in Vietnam have been forgotten. It is an old enough article I wonder if it happened or happening.
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 2): It certainly won't do acknowledging the effectiveness of boneyard relics when there are billion $ being spent on "state-of-the-art" and "leading-edge" ISR platforms. Besides, battlefield commanders would think several times before committing such high-value assets in high-attrition environments.
The irony is striking.
Quoting TedTAce (Reply 3): I love the OV-10, however besides weapons payload, what exactly does the OV-10 bring to the table that a Predator or two can't?
Fly low, decend itself, carrry a small cargo load, and I am pretty sure the weapons load is heavier.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 74
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 14964 times:
Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 1): Another aircraft in the category of the A-10. Low 5's on attractiveness, high 9's on effectiveness.
The problem with the OV-10s in Iraq back in 1991 was that they were fairly easy targets for MANPADS and the squadron commander of the Marine Reserve OV-10 sqn from NAS Atlanta even got shot down. They are useful when they are able to fly at low levels outside of useful machine gun range, but they can't fly above missile range, nor can they outrun a Strela or anything else.
They are tough airplanes and if used correctly they are excellent spotting/patrol airplanes as long as we're willing to take casualties. We're really not willing to do that. The only reason they were armed during Vietnam was that the Destroyers got worn out and there was not yet a real attack helo until the Snake came online.
An armed OV-10 is better than an unarmed 0V-10, but not much better than anything else available. UAV's can do the spotting job better for less casualties and they can also carry weapons for precision attacks. If we're going to bring back old airplanes for ground attack, let's bring back the Scooters and really do some damage....4 20mm cannon plus the bomb load....speed and maneuverability. They're sitting in the desert waiting to be cannibalized or scrapped...but they work. THey'd be perfect for this job.
Quoting Papoose (Reply 8): I think that when the Marines put their boots in some place, they would prefer to have the warthog over their head intsead of the AV-8.
Probably, but it's a moot point since it's not designed to operate off of carriers. The AV-8B+ is capable of amphibious operations and is the right tool for that mission. Joint operability allows the Marines to have USAF air on call when available and needed.
FBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 14931 times:
OV-10's were great planes when invented,even during their early operational carreer.They were overtaken by armed helos and almost everything else,unfortunately. Nowadays,they make excellent warbirds in civilian hands,though
Remember building a HAWK 1/48 scale kit in the late sixties.Great kit,great memories!
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 5032 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 14896 times:
Quoting FBU 4EVER! (Reply 12): Nowadays,they make excellent warbirds in civilian hands,though
They are still proving their worth in my country's south against the Abu Sayyaf. Admittedly, they are all the PAF could afford (military aid), as even A.net does not have the Philippine Air Force on its list when you do a photo search. They list Papua New Guinea though, but no photos.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12211 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 14753 times:
What would be even more effective for the Marines would be a version of the USAF RQ-1A/B Predator carrying either 2 20mm cannons, or 1 30mm cannon (from the A-10), instead of Hellfires. Isn't the USAF now flight testing the RQ-9A Preditor II that is a larger version of the RQ-1 that carries some 4X the RQ-1's payload?
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 14749 times:
The OV-10 can carry small strike force in back, could be handy at times.
The tendency to use machines for everything is part of the problem the US armed forces have today, they've become TOO reliant on technology.
In a low intensity conflict it's often better to have a man on the ground with eyes and ears than an eye in the sky.
LimaNiner From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 404 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 14664 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15): Predator carrying either 2 20mm cannons, or 1 30mm cannon (from the A-10), instead of Hellfires
The GAU-8 weighs 1,830kg, but the RQ-9/MQ-9 has a payload of about 1,700kg. I imagine that the sensor package takes up a good chunk of that payload, so even if it were possible to shave a couple hundred kgs in weight off the GAU-8, it'd be a really tight fit at best...
Also, the GAU-8 has some serious kick! Its recoil force is 9,000 lb. I seem to remember reading somewhere once that the recoil is so strong that a prolonged burst of fire can actually slow down an A-10! (I don't have a quote for that, though, so it could be 100% bogus -- sorry.)
I don't know how well the RQ-9/MQ-9's frame could deal with such a strong kick -- it kinda seems like you'd be giving a .454 Casull to a 2-year-old kid to fire...
I'd sure love to see video of a GAU-8-armed MQ-9, though!
The ability of the OV-10 to carry personnel is very limited to say the least. Two OV-10s can carry a 6 man LRS team on a jump, but it's not in any way convenient or safe. The pilot is the jumpmaster, and unless that guy really knows what he's doing as regards parachuting it can suck.
As far as taking troops in by airlanding it's pointless, because there are other more practical aircraft for that purpose.
The stated purpose of oil pipeline surveillance is probably a useful one for the OV-10, as long as they travel in pairs and conduct armed overwatch for each other.
TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14208 times:
Quoting LimaNiner (Reply 18): I seem to remember reading somewhere once that the recoil is so strong that a prolonged burst of fire can actually slow down an A-10! (I don't have a quote for that, though, so it could be 100% bogus -- sorry.)
I have heard this too, namely an issue when flying @ MCA. I recall stories of gun firing induced stalls. I also heard of gun exhaust flame outs.. Which lead to the fixed inboard slats.