OV-10 Broncos brought out of retirement to fight ISIS.....

CDF uses them for fire spotter planes. I see them flying out of Columbia (O22) a lot.
 
You mean to tell me the $100 million dollar fighters that cost $25,000/hour that shoot million dollar missiles aren't effective at destroying goat F******'s and their tents? Don't tell me war isn't a business. For the record I am as right wing as they come, just I am tired of mortgaging our children's future on questionable ventures.
 
Seems like a good idea. I don't know why we're using state of the art multi-million dollar jet aircraft to fight people living in caves and still using horses to get around.
 
When I as in Korea we had a squadron of OV-10s replace the O-2s we had on base. Think they came from Thailand somewhere as 'Nam was winding down. They arrived one day, the whole squadron, and flew all over the place in the pattern before they landed. They then proceeded to drink mass quantities of adult beverages for what must have been a good 12-15 hours! You'd see the pack of them walking, one would yell "dead bug" and all of 'em would fall to the ground, kicking their arms and legs like a cockroach on it's back! Crazy bastards! :D
 
Getonit said:
You mean to tell me the $100 million dollar fighters that cost $25,000/hour that shoot million dollar missiles aren't effective at destroying goat F******'s and their tents? .
Click to expand...

Hell just look how good the A-10 is for that mission and the USAF still wants to retire them! No way an F-35 will replace it.
 
Gee, I remember someone on here saying that the OV-10 / OV-1 would be perfect for fighting ISIS.:rolleyes:
 
This can't be allowed to happened, because it would prove we could still have the most effective military in world for a fraction of what we're currently spending.
 
Eisenhower warned about the Military-Industrial Complex. Was equals big bucks for companies. Sad.
 
Their weak link is their landing gear.

 
Maneuverable too. Watched them doing the break plenty of times in the Marines and they could turn on a dime. Talked to some of the last ones on GCA just before they retired. Think their call sign was "Sunny."
 
Sac Arrow said:
I didn't have the sound on, but that looks like some sort of clipped wing version.
Click to expand...

Yeah an early prototype to operate on small strips / roads. Wingspan was increased in later versions
 
Sac Arrow said:
I didn't have the sound on, but that looks like some sort of clipped wing version.
Click to expand...
Not much wing to clip on the early prototypes; only a 30'3" span ... OV-10A span was 40 feet.

OV-10_zpsgdmzzke4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
Not much wing to clip; it's only a 30'3" span ...

OV-10_zpsgdmzzke4.jpg
Click to expand...


That is the clipped wing version from the vid. Production "A" models increased the wing span to 40 ft because of poor performance on the 30 ft wing span. They dropped the requirement to operate on roads (20 ft) as well...though I do have pics of Marines using them from roads.
 
Sounds like a great idea...until ISIS realizes all they need for an airforce to knock them out is a fleet of 310's!
 
Fighting individuals fighters and small groups with modern technology jets are a waste of money and munitions. The OV 10 worked well in Vietnam and will work well now. Add the c130 gunships,and some wart hogs,and go get them.
 
I was also a fan of the "Spad", the A-1. Maybe they could bring a few of those back. An immense payload, and a loiter time of 6-8 hours. They were actually 40kts faster than the OV-10.
 
Wonder why the army doesn't push for a turboprop light attack aircraft. Throw some hellfires some reconnaissance stuff and maybe some 500lb guided bombs... cheap to operate, able to get under weather that reapers and such can't. I know big blue would throw a hissy fit that the army would be using fixed wing aircraft but its not like they're contributing anything like it. They'd rather spend 35,000 dollars an hour to operate a shiny jet than a dual turboprop burning 150gph operated by warrant officers.
 
falconkidding said:
Wonder why the army doesn't push for a turboprop light attack aircraft. Throw some hellfires some reconnaissance stuff and maybe some 500lb guided bombs... cheap to operate, able to get under weather that reapers and such can't. I know big blue would throw a hissy fit that the army would be using fixed wing aircraft but its not like they're contributing anything like it. They'd rather spend 35,000 dollars an hour to operate a shiny jet than a dual turboprop burning 150gph operated by warrant officers.
Click to expand...

Because of the Key West Agreement along with the Pace-Finletter policy, the Army can't operate offensive fixed wing aircraft. The OV-1 was the last airplane that kinda blurred those lines and the AF didn't like that they had it either. That and the fact the Army prefers the flexibility of helicopters in supporting the ground troops, they'll never go the attack fixed wing route. Plus, they barely have money to operate their current fleet and still have enough left for their Future Vertical Lift aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Might have something to do with the drone thing too. Why spend all that money on piloted 50 year old turboprops when you can spend twice as much on computerized electronic toys that carry almost as much. Toys to build an empire instead of serfs.

Just a thought.

Frank
 
Well, we could take care of the Army/Air Force "who gets fixed wing" aircraft by returning to a strict reading of the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 lists the things that Congress may do, including creating an Army and Navy. It doesn't say anything about an independent Air Force. Put the zoomies back in the Army and you've fixed the problem. :)
 
I don't think the concept of aircraft allocation between services existed when the Constitution was drafted. But I could be wrong.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I don't think the concept of aircraft allocation between services existed when the Constitution was drafted. But I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Probably not. Manned flight had occurred, however. Hot air balloon in France. If the Navy can have fast fixed wing aircraft, why not the Army? Not that I'm really interested in continuing this argument, but it seemed like a "simple" solution to the problem. Regardless, we need "fast" ground attack aircraft. The ground pounders love them and if the AF doesn't want to operate them, let the Army support their own. The Marines don't seem to have a problem with the concept. Just saying... :)
 
Ghery said:
Probably not. Manned flight had occurred, however. Hot air balloon in France. If the Navy can have fast fixed wing aircraft, why not the Army? Not that I'm really interested in continuing this argument, but it seemed like a "simple" solution to the problem. Regardless, we need "fast" ground attack aircraft. The ground pounders love them and if the AF doesn't want to operate them, let the Army support their own. The Marines don't seem to have a problem with the concept. Just saying... :)
Click to expand...

The Army does actually operate fixed wing aircraft, just not ground attack aircraft. But you're right though, it would make sense for the Army to fly Broncos and Hogs. I was a ground pounder myself, you know.
 
I know the Air Force was looking at a turboprop CAS platform with the AT-6 II and Super Tacano. I don't think the Air Force is totally opposed to the Army flying fixed wing considering we gave all our MC-12s to them and SOCOM. I'd give my left nut to go fight ISIS with that OV-10!
 
Army Aviation budget is being cut from $5.9 billion in FY2016 to $3.6 billion in FY2017. They can barely maintain their present fleet and keep pilots current. Even if they wanted attack FW, which they don't, they couldn't afford it.

It's not like there's a shortage of FW CAS out there anyway. 24/7 overhead you have A-10s, F-18s, F-15s, F-16s, B-1s, AV-8s & AC-130s. That doesn't even include our coalition partners. The service providing the CAS doesn't matter. They operate in joint operations all the time, so a JTAC can work with all the above.

For the vast majority of CAS, the Apaches provide adequate support to their ground comrades. Outside of that, FW support is a 9 line request away. Even then, it's more about getting them into the game than any real benefit over RW CAS.
 
Huh...I know one of the OV-10 test pilots...small world! :cool:

I find it interesting that the Marines were to use the airplane for close air support, while the Air Force would use it to guide close air support. ;)
 
Best weapon against these people is to just take away their ammunition, and by that I mean leave the Middle East alone, this kinda takes the wind out of their causes sails, it's not the most profitable option, but it's the safest for everyone and allows the public to not have to watch their dollars further wasted and devalued.

Let's say you somehow did take out ISIS, which is impossible because they are a religious nut job cause not a army, well you're just going to have another group fill the vacuum left by ISIS and rinse and repeat.

Military industrial complex profiteering on both sides IMHO.

I say take the OV10s and put them on wild land fire duty, it will save more American lives having them fight fires then fight some dude with a poorly maintained rifle and a busted up pickup half a world away.
 
James331 said:
I say take the OV10s and put them on wild land fire duty, it will save more American lives having them fight fires then fight some dude with a poorly maintained rifle and a busted up pickup half a world away.
Click to expand...

As per....post #2?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top