I like the Bronco, too. There were still a few around when I was coming up. I always liked aircraft that seemed no-frills and purpose-built. The last Marine Corps variants were so ugly they were beautiful.

Always liked the Spad, too. But the Mitchell… Nothing sounds like a Mitchell’s radials. Talk about the sound of freedom.

I agree with you. I happen to know of a a couple of aircraft that can perform to those specifications. But let me say that the ’specifications’ themselves are somewhat arbitrary. Fighter aircraft are designed to surpass the capabilities of other fighter aircraft but ground attack aircraft aren’t. What has evolved in the industry is a gamed system. Someone has an aircraft they want to sell and they get their senators behind it and the specifications are written so that aircraft is one of only a couple that can meet them. But we still have an aircraft in mothballs that was designed for these specifications….probably these EXACT specifications. And, as mentioned it is the OV-10. If you step back a bit, an A1D Skyraider does everything but haul passengers. If you want a medium aircraft that is mission-capable with a turboprop mod look no further than the B-25 and B-26.

I happen to be a great OV-10 fan. In 1969 they cost the military $480,000 each. They were funded as OV (ObserVation) aircraft but they were really light attack. Let’s make them OV-10X glass cockpits and charge the government $5 MILLION each that’s 500 million for a hundred. 2 BILLION is excessive. We don’t have it to spend but no one has quite got the message yet.

I am not seriously touting 182s for the role but something is seriously wrong with the specification and procurement process.
For instance…where are we planning to use the new aircraft? Do we actually HAVE a mission for them or is this the sort of deal that if you don’t spend the money you have to toss it back in the pot?

But Air Combat Command’s RFI document seeks capabilities a 172 or 182 just can’t deliver. No argument that the 172 and 182 are great aircraft. But when the RFI seeks a 180 knot cruise minimum, which is 5 knots over the 182’s do not exceed speed, the writing is on the wall.

Some other requirements from the RFI:

Carry at least two 500-pound bombs, one or two minigun pods, laser designator, onboard sensors, flares, 2.75-inch rockets and other “rail-launched weapons” on at least four weapon stations to an altitude of 10,000 feet AGL. Again, a 182 has a useful load of, what, 1100 pounds? It must also have an operational altitude of 30,000 feet AGL. I won’t even go into required takeoff and climb-out performance, but, clean, it will be required to be capable, at least, an “aileron roll, barrel roll, chandelle, cloverleaf, Cuban eight, Immelman turn, lazy eight, loop, and split-S.”

So there’s no chance there for a Cessna 172 or 182. They’re good little aircraft, but they’re just not strong, fast, or powerful enough for the requirements.

Granted, a glass cockpit 182 isn’t an OV10 and isn’t going to come screaming out of the clouds firing rockets…but I have seen Piper Cubs come screaming out of the clouds firing rockets and Some CAP 182s are sporting predator pods under their wings.

http://www.suasnews.com/2009/10/92/there-are-not-enough-predators-in-this-world/

182s are flown as military aircraft in ten countries. So we have those and we have OV10s and we still have some Skyraiders..and for a cheap thrill, we still have a lot of A4s rotting at Davis-Monthan. Why not use what we already paid for and have sitting out there?.

I may be biased. If we need something new I think a small, fast airplane with laser illumination and sensing capabilities would work nicely and my choice, from having flown all of these is a Vari-Eze. I understand that it does not meet ANY of the specifications but maybe the specifications are wrong.

A beefed-up Vari-Eze is almost invisible to radar, as hard to hit with groundfire as a hummingbird, and could EASILY carry ordinance. And it flies like a P51 on steroids. If you remove the pilot, you can buy hundreds of them for the cost of a few Predators.

We have to stop wasting money we don’t have. We have simple solutions available but no way to implement them over the influence of lobbyists.

As far as development costs, the Super Tucano already flies in several South American air forces, and as the article mentions, is now flying for NAVSPECWARCOM. The AT-6B prototype flew last year. And of course the Bronco and Porter flew COIN missions during the Vietnam era. The hope here is to obtain something that won’t require huge development costs, which sounds reasonable enough. If we’re talking Afghanistan, though, the question is which of these would perform best in “hot and high” conditions.

The leaders at the top want the capabilities of an aircraft they dumped in favor of other more expensive toys – when they COULD have saved all of us a LOT of money just keeping it in the inventory all this time…
The OV-1 was an excellent bird, one we loved to see…. the OV-10 follows in it’s footsteps with increased capabilities and the leadership at the top needs to consider this before spec’ing out a radically new aircraft that’s going to cost all of us a lot of money to obtain and support.