GMK Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/americas-antique-planes-battling-isis/ar-AAgyucu?li=BBnb7Kz 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Well that's it settled then...just scrap the F-35 and replace it with the OV-10. Simples. And, yes, I'm joking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 Seems to unpick the "A-10 is too vulnerable" argument, somewhat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Well that looks tasty, wonder if we'll get a nice 1/48 new mold from someone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 KittyHawk would be the first ones I'd expect to do that, given they've got all that research already for their 1:32 kit. Slap the kit in the 3D photocopier, and away we go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMP2 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 KittyHawk would be the first ones I'd expect to do that, given they've got all that research already for their 1:32 kit. Slap the kit in the 3D photocopier, and away we go! Oh god no - how many doors and access hatches are there on a Bronco....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 Well that's it settled then...just scrap the F-35 and replace it with the OV-10. Well, it can operate from ships - carrier air group, anyone? Nice FAA "what-if" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I think with a lot of conflicts at the moment where there are no air to air threats, they've come to the conclusion they don't need an aircraft that cost over $100000 per hour to provide the close support role, another reason the A10 may have been given the stay of execution too Doesn't mean they no longer need the F35 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMP2 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Much the same as t'other side. Su-33/35 but the 25 is still going. I dont understand the argument for letting the Hog go at all, yes Im a British civvie, but its obvious isnt it? Keep picking on places with no air defences/take them all out and have huge air superiority and real CAS requirements and... hang on, theyre using prop driven 7.62 armed things.... so no, that gun isnt required anymore, a wee .308 can do the job apparently. Now, about those F-35s and Su-3*s.... whats the point again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 You're right - though the OV-10G+ has the 7.62mm removed. At least this one has 50 cal in the wings: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMP2 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 How little things have really changed when it comes down to the bare requirements of the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) Much the same as t'other side. Su-33/35 but the 25 is still going. I dont understand the argument for letting the Hog go at all, yes Im a British civvie, but its obvious isnt it? Keep picking on places with no air defences/take them all out and have huge air superiority and real CAS requirements and... hang on, theyre using prop driven 7.62 armed things.... so no, that gun isnt required anymore, a wee .308 can do the job apparently. Now, about those F-35s and Su-3*s.... whats the point again? Because there may well come a day (heaven forbid) when the owners of those F-35s and Su-3*s end up going toe-to-toe. If that happens, OV-10s, A-10s and even F-16s aren't going to cut it. Air forces must prepare for the worst case scenario that falls within their budgetary constraints. Structuring forces to solely do what we've been doing for the past 25 years, using equipment that was designed almost 50 years ago, will result in major losses if the worst case scenario comes to pass. Look at Britain in the late 1930s. Had we adopted your thinking, we'd have been sending Hawker Harts and Furies up against the Luftwaffe - and people think the Fairey Battle was a suicide machine. As to why the A-10 can't be retained? Because it's not affordable ontop of all the other USAF assets and requirements. Keeping an increasingly outdated one-trick-pony isn't sustainable in today's world, just like the RAF moved from single/dual role platforms such as Tornado and Jaguar to multi-role aircraft like Typhoon and the F-35. Edited March 10, 2016 by mhaselden 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) How little things have really changed when it comes down to the bare requirements of the real world. There isn't a singular "real world" when it comes to global military operations. The OV-10 is used over Iraq because for THAT theatre under CURRENT threat conditions, it's a workable solution. There are other real-world scenarios and theatres that aren't suitable for OV-10s - like Syria and the Ukraine. Edited March 10, 2016 by mhaselden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 There isn't a singular "real world" when it comes to global military operations. The OV-10 was used over Iraq because for THAT theatre under CURRENT threat conditions, it's a workable solution. There are other real-world scenarios and theatres that aren't suitable for OV-10s - like Syria and the Ukraine. These were used over Syria as well, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 We're talking, what, 4 airframes? So, at best, maybe 2 operational at any one time in a single theatre? Let's not read too much into this, interesting though it is to see the OV-10 operating again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 Two - which makes sense as this is a trial. Earlier trial work (Immenient Fury) resulted in the sales of similar aircraft to Afghanistan, Lebanon, UAE & Egypt. So they're operational (as in fighting) in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, the Sinai, and Yemen, albeit not necessarily operated by the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Which is exactly my point - countries configure their forces to meet their worst-case perceived threats within the constraints of their defence budget. As I've stated, OV-10 is an entirely viable platform for operations in low-threat environments but not for anything else. Even given its current usage, I suspect it's more of a stopgap capability simply due to the challenges (US boneyards notwithstanding) of sustaining such an old, and relatively rare type. A combat-capable trainer is probably a more viable solution for those countries that need such a capability for the long haul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 Not sure how you arrived at those conclusions about force structure off the back of my comments. UAE: new build light attack aircraft operating in an Air Force alongside the most advanced F-16 variants. Egypt: new build light attack aircraft operating in an Air Force alongside F-16 & Rafale. Afghanistan & Lebanon: new build light attack aircraft - I concede the point on constrained defence budgets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatalbert Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 How many airframes are there left in the US.Are there a load in a desert someware ready to be upgraded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 The original proposal was for new-build aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMP2 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 There isn't a singular "real world" when it comes to global military operations. The OV-10 is used over Iraq because for THAT theatre under CURRENT threat conditions, it's a workable solution. There are other real-world scenarios and theatres that aren't suitable for OV-10s - like Syria and the Ukraine. I was being somewhat sarcastic in both posts - every situation is different and as you point out - CURRENTLY the A-10 isnt perhaps the ideal for certain things, but hey, look at the wee Bronco back up and having a pop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC1966 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I think with a lot of conflicts at the moment where there are no air to air threats, they've come to the conclusion they don't need an aircraft that cost over $100000 per hour to provide the close support role, another reason the A10 may have been given the stay of execution too Doesn't mean they no longer need the F35 though. I think the threat to both A-10 and any trial OV-10 is more around A-G rather than A-A. Lets be honest, any A-A threat and you re deploying F-15 & F-22 to provide fighter support to F15E/F16/B-52/B-1 bombing the baddies. And running costs, well, depending on the source, $40000 per F-35 hour, $14000 per A-10 against $1000 for the OV-10 (which I seriously doubt) still leaves the A-10 out. Bottom line is, US likes likes Fast Air for Ground support, Fast Air ain't the A-10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan P Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I'm extremely sceptical of any talk about a dedicated ground support role. This is a FAC/INT platform with a probable mission supporting SEAL operations. Ground Teams can co-ordinate FLIR imagery and CAS through a local (human) FAC/INT platform rather than co-ordinating CAS through remote JTACs while also co-ordinating with a separate remote drone command. It may have a last-ditch Hail Mary ground role, but that would be in extremis only, for this would actually compromise its covert role and expose it to greater hazards with which it is ill-equipped to cope. I await further evaluation....! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daryl_five_zero Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Another pic I just found on a Reddit thread. Here's the source. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ov-10-broncos-were-sent-to-fight-isis-and-they-kicked-a-1764407068 Daryl. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted March 14, 2016 Author Share Posted March 14, 2016 134 sorties/ 120 combat sorties in 80 days/ 99% availability rate? Sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now