# A Canadianized OV-10D NOGS?



## adam561 (6 Jan 2009)

Its been a topic before that Canada needs Attack Helocopters of sort but the total cost to keep them running seems it would be too great, why not keep it simple take someing "old" and make it work for us. The OV-10D Night Observation Gun Ship seems to be a sluation to bring firepwoer from the air at a cost that would be managible. Of course there is loss of capiblitys by operating a fixed wing airoplane compared to a helocopeter but what is gained is something that we dont have. The OV-10D NOGS was abandoned buy the U.S. because of aircraft numbers they wouldent want to loose a muliti million dollar aircraft to a twin turbo prop eapectuly on a one to one baices also because the 3 barrle 20mm tureted in the belly of the aircraft was bottming out on landing (wich can be corrected). 

As to what the OV-10D NOGS could bring to the battlefeild : higher speed then a helo, longer range, increased lorting time equles more time supporting ground operations not having to return after the transport helocopers have left (a gardian angle i would like to have waching over me) expiculy when armed with a slaved 20mm off of the Ah-1cobra or even a 25mm gain gun ( keeping ammunition tec's happy ), it all ready has four wing stations for 2 x 100 gal fule takes and 2 x rocket pods (2 x 19 rd hydra 70 rocket pods ( with up grades can be lazer guided wich is sapported by the OV-10D))

Why go high teck and fast(which is expancive) when we can't even get our firepower that we do have to where it needs to go, lets take a step back and take a new path when it comes to airborn firepower, its a system that works , its something we need and if we were to build owr owne ( hopfully not to turn out like the litis or the mlvw) but hear for wishfull thinking.


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Jan 2009)

Thank you for your proposal of a new airframe for Canada's Air Force.

Please review these threads, and present your project summary in accordance with the following guidelines:



			
				Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> The following is recovered from a number of old threads and posted here for reference:
> 
> If you want to start proposing new aircraft programs, start with these points:
> 
> ...



As you can see, it's never as simple as just choosing an airplane you like.


----------



## adam561 (7 Jan 2009)

Tasks and roles to be conducted: day/night observation, interdiiction, helocopter esscort, convoy support, reccon, close airsupport, gun ship support, Anti helocpter, FAC, soventry patoles, Anti Armor,  SAR, Traning

Cost: 3-5 mill per aircraft ,96 aircraft  = 288-480 mill

Aircrew training requirements: one pilot, one weapons operator, ground crew as few as two. 

Aircraft maintenance lifecycle: 10 years at 25% cost per aircraft = 57 mil - 120 mil

Number of airframes required, based on your assessment of tasks: 16 aircraft per squrdren (12 opreational planes,2 on maint rotation, 2 spare airfames) 4 Operational squadrens, 1 SAR squadren and 1 Traning squradren

Expected lifespan of "new" airframes, compared to expectation of available manufacturer and principal nation support: expected life of new air frimes 15 years life span expanction for airframe at 15 years 1.5 mil x 96= 144mil

Requirements and costs to retrain and retool all required maintenance facilities and maintainers.
Infrastructure costs to support new aircraft in all Wing locations:  6mil


----------



## GDawg (7 Jan 2009)

Even if the money was available...who is going to build it?


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2009)

adam561 said:
			
		

> Aircrew training requirements: one pilot, one weapons operator, ground crew as few as two.



And where do you propose we get those people ?

2 ground crews ? I hardly think so. Maybe "serviced" by 2 but not maintained by 2.




Edit : Use spellcheck please. I'm not sure what a "helocopter" or "squadren" is.


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Jan 2009)

adam561 said:
			
		

> Tasks and roles to be conducted: day/night observation, helocopter esscort, convoy support, reccon, close airsupport, gun ship support, FAC, soventry patoles, SAR, Traning
> 
> Cost: 3-5 mill per aircraft ,96 aircraft  = 288-480 mill
> 
> ...



Where's the money come from within the existing budget?  What do we give up?

What aircraft do we retire to free up airfield space and personnel for this program?

If you're going to say that we keep everything and add these, then lets go shopping with all those imaginary unlimited dollars.

"Assessment of tasks" is a military planning term: it means what needs to be done (the tasks), and what minimum forces will be needed to complete those tasks. It's not about saying what you'd like to have, it's about the real numbers needed to have the right resources to execute defined missions.

And you do know that we train more than one pilot per airframe, right?  Or does each aircraft just sit there while its pilot is on leave or on course?


----------



## adam561 (7 Jan 2009)

we all ready support an engine for the aircraft the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-68 turboprop, 1,100 shp (820 kW) used on the T-6, what we loose is the UAV (but thats a personal opinoin i.e. threat enviromet)


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2009)

adam561 said:
			
		

> we all ready support an engine for the aircraft the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-68 turboprop, 1,100 shp (820 kW) used on the T-6,



So ?



> what we loose is the UAV (but thats a personal opinoin i.e. threat enviromet)



Why remove UAVs ?


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Jan 2009)

adam561 said:
			
		

> we all ready support an engine for the aircraft the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-68 turboprop, 1,100 shp (820 kW) used on the T-6, what we loose is the UAV (but thats a personal opinoin i.e. threat enviromet)



How about providing some background so we can judge whether we might think your personal opinion is sufficient to toss UAVs and buy new aircraft just because you like them better.


----------



## adam561 (7 Jan 2009)

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/docs/97-0349.pdf    its the most i tuched on whit the uav vs manned aircraft


----------



## adam561 (7 Jan 2009)

its jest not a like, why dot we get A-10s AH-64D AH-1Z  HAWK UAVs why cost. the OV-10 NOGS is not technological advanced, its sum it up s**t simple maintance and support compared to thougs plat forms at a fraction of the cost A-10,11mil us, AH-64 18 mil us, and the hawk whats that a bout 60 MIL preators b arond 15 mil i think


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Jan 2009)

adam561 said:
			
		

> http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/docs/97-0349.pdf    its the most i tuched on whit the uav vs manned aircraft



An 11 year old paper, by an author who admits in the preface that he's not an expert on the subject.  Do you think there might have been any changes since then?

Maybe a new and more detailed assessment is required before we just junk UAVs in favour of your recommendation for OV-10Ds.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2009)

adam561 said:
			
		

> http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/docs/97-0349.pdf    its the most i tuched on whit the uav vs manned aircraft



Why dont you read that couple more times  :


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Jan 2009)

adam561 said:
			
		

> its jest not a like, why dot we get A-10s AH-64D AH-1Z  HAWK UAVs why cost. the OV-10 NOGS is not technological advanced, its sum it up s**t simple maintance and support compared to thougs plat forms at a fraction of the cost A-10,11mil us, AH-64 18 mil us, and the hawk whats that a bout 60 MIL preators b arond 15 mil i think



Ah, now there we go, you've finally expressed your "essential" criteria for your selection:



> "not technological advanced"
> "s**t simple maintance and support"
> "a fraction of the cost"



Not exactly the best factors to design major equipment acquisitions around.

Usually we start with something like "what do we want to do" and then go to "what capabilities could effectively do that job."  (Note the use of the term "capabilities" rather than specific equipments.)  Then we can start refining the requirements and comparing all of the options.  It's actually a rather complex process, and also requires good staff duties to ensure we get what we need.

And we balance it against everything else we're trying to do with limited real-world budgets and tasks.


----------



## adam561 (7 Jan 2009)

and hance why the OV-10D and its ablity to be adapted


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Jan 2009)

adam561 said:
			
		

> and hance why the OV-10D and its ablity to be adapted



OK, you win.  All hail the OV-10D.

You're obviously not able to put anything I've said into a real world context.


----------



## Strike (7 Jan 2009)

Spell check dude, seriously.  All I'm reading is bla bla bla bla bla, new helos, bla bla bla.  Maybe if you used the spell check (found a couple of buttons to the right of the "post" button) most of us would actually take the time to read your posts.

As for ditching UAVs, I admit, I'm not a fan, simply because I like to actually fly a machine, but you can't argue with success.  The products these machines are pushing out are amazing and doing a helluvalot out here in the sandbox.


----------



## Danjanou (7 Jan 2009)

Well as long as we’re in the market for a hypothetical ground support platform with an unlimited budget and personal why not consider a  few of these?







From what I’ve seen while a bit old they seem pretty effective. They also look like we could use them to assert our sovereignty in the Arctic too.


----------



## GAP (7 Jan 2009)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Well as long as we’re in the market for a hypothetical ground support platform with an unlimited budget and personal why not consider a  few of these?
> From what I’ve seen while a bit old they seem pretty effective. They also look like we could use them to assert our sovereignty in the Arctic too.



I don't think the defrost heaters are up to it.....they're fine for deep space, but put a polar bear anywhere near it and it just putts along.......


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Jan 2009)

While we are at it, why not a new ground transport?


----------



## GAP (7 Jan 2009)

Reminds me of Paul Rever's Ride......light in the belfry....

Actually, you may have a point there......when I see that picture, i envision pictures of the Leo's......kinda pointing off in all directions kinda stuff......think these will be any better?


----------



## Zoomie (7 Jan 2009)

I want my one minute back!

I couldn't get past the spelling to see what this thread was all about.

I really like the Star Wars pictures - is that what we are discussing?

FWIW the 1100 SHP version of the PT6 is not maintained by anyone in the CF -  we use it on our CT-156 Harvard 2 (not T6) and those are owned and maintained by Bombardier.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Jan 2009)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> I want my one minute back!



Sorry Lad, non-refundable. 
Mike keeps those minutes hidden away in the hopes of some sort of 'Dorian Gray' thingy...............


----------



## Danjanou (7 Jan 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Sorry Lad, non-refundable.
> Mike keeps those minutes hidden away in the hopes of some sort of 'Dorian Gray' thingy...............




Unfortunately for Mike the site’s aging porn star has figured out how to access those minutes.


----------



## GAP (7 Jan 2009)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Unfortunately for Mike the site’s aging porn star has figured out how to access those minutes.



Do tell............... ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Jan 2009)

Jeez even Babblefish could not translate what adam was saying....


----------



## MAJONES (7 Jan 2009)

Well,  I kinda like Adam's idea (granted, I am biased in that I'd love to fly one of those babys).  The OV10 would make a better escort for the Chinooks than the Griffons we sent over. (A Griffon with Gattlings is still just a Griffon).  I'm sure you can slow an OV10 down enough for a Chinook to keep up, but you can't speed a Griffon up enough to catch a Chinook.  The OV10 could also provide CAS.  I'd be willing to bet that it would be more cost effective in that role than an F-18 (I full admit that that is just a Fermi analysis).  I'm not sure how it would stack up against a UAV.
In terms of infrastructure to support the A/C the PT6 is pretty widely used.  Getting parts/overhaul wouldn't pose a big problem.  Getting routine maintainence shouldn't pose a big problem.  If worse came to worst we could just contract it out.
The only big trouble comes in getting the money for it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Jan 2009)

I'm hoping one of you flying people will tell me if anything from this thread is good enough to keep here or should I put in Radio Chatter.

[and Danjanou, you were right...except that Mike prefers to call himself Dorian Gay,.....not that there's anything wrong with that]


Sorry Majones, typed this up before you posted.


----------



## GAP (7 Jan 2009)

This definitely falls into the Radio Chatter category....


----------



## Danjanou (7 Jan 2009)

Move it Bruce, in the name of the sweet baby jesus in his high chair move it before another 5 minute cyber aviation SME shows up. :


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Jan 2009)

I propose we get these instead.








 ;D


----------



## Fusaki (8 Jan 2009)

Better idea:




Falkor the Luckdragon, with Jesus as pilot. AAATREEEYUUUUUU!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Jan 2009)

Patent issues with cloning Jesus though.....


----------



## Niteshade (8 Jan 2009)

Which reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEX4uovt8Aw

God that kills me.

Nites


----------



## Thompson_JM (8 Jan 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Better idea:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I swear... If i was drinking something when I looked at this, I would have needed a New Monitor.....  

Wonderbread for the Win in my Opinion...


----------



## Thompson_JM (8 Jan 2009)

while we're at it though...

maybe there is some merit to this one....

or does JTF-2 already use em?






Or maybe the Submacopter from this Cartoon...

http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1294


----------



## Nfld Sapper (8 Jan 2009)

Vehicle: Little Nellie

A small one-seater autogiro, just 9.5 feet in length, a weight of 250 pounds with a top speed of 160 km/h. It's maximum altitude was 18,000 feet, perfect for recon missions.



The brightly coloured autogiro was laden with the following defence mechanisms:

Dual, synchronized machine guns 
Left and right forward firing rocket launchers 
Rear firing dual flame throwers with an 80 yard range 
Dual smoke screen dispensers 
ATA heat seeking missiles 
Aerial mines, to be dropped from above the victim


----------



## brihard (8 Jan 2009)

Tommy said:
			
		

> Or maybe the Submacopter from this Cartoon...
> 
> http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1294



I never thought I'd see a QC reference on Army.ca. Today is truly a day of glory for the internet.

I love it when one of my favourite websites is referenced on one of my other favourite websites.  ;D


----------



## Loachman (8 Jan 2009)

adam561:

It is quite - and painfully - clear that you have not the slightest clue what you are going on about, or about anything in the real military world. I suggest that you read through a few threads on this site before you post again, especially on this topic.

You are also obviously incapable of taking advice, specifically several suggestions regarding use of the Spell Check feature. That characteristic, along with your atrocious spelling, needs to be corrected or else you will not, not, NOT be here for very long.

I am the patient Mod, and I have already had enough.


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Jan 2009)

.


----------



## Loachman (8 Jan 2009)

MAJONES said:
			
		

> The OV10 would make a better escort for the Chinooks than the Griffons we sent over.



Why? How?

This is a niche aircraft. It _*may*_ work in Afghanistan (but no better than what is currently in theatre), but how would it perform in a future high-threat conflict?



			
				MAJONES said:
			
		

> I'm sure you can slow an OV10 down enough for a Chinook to keep up, but you can't speed a Griffon up enough to catch a Chinook.



And what is the relevance of this? Formation flying is not a requirement.

Do you drive your car flat out all of the time?

Helicopters seldom operate at or near Vne.

A Chinook with a slung load is going to have its speed reduced considerably.

I have yet to see a CF op conducted further than 80 km straight-line from KAF, and the vast majority are far less. You can probably calculate your own distances from KAF to places where we operate with a bit of research effort. A helicopter flying at 90 kts covers 3 km per minute, or 27 minutes to that distance. One flying at 120 kts covers the same distance in seven minutes less. How significant is seven minutes when transporting bulk cargo, or even troops on an airmobile? And that's an extreme distance for here.

Significant enough to blow billions on what would be an orphan aircraft with no capability in a high-threat environment?

The Stuka suggestion would be no less capable, and far cheaper, even if that wasn't a joke.

There are good and valid reasons why neither OV10s nor Stukas are no longer in use.

And good and valid reasons why none of those with actual knowledge and experience make these suggestions.



			
				MAJONES said:
			
		

> The OV10 could also provide CAS.



So what? So can the F18, and a whole bunch of modern aircraft that can perform multiple roles, and far more effectively, in low- and high-threat environments.



			
				MAJONES said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how it would stack up against a UAV.



It doesn't.

Completely different animals.



			
				MAJONES said:
			
		

> In terms of infrastructure to support the A/C the PT6 is pretty widely used.  Getting parts/overhaul wouldn't pose a big problem.  Getting routine maintainence shouldn't pose a big problem.  If worse came to worst we could just contract it out.



This is just as true of what we currently have, and we already have it.

BUT - there's more to the OV10 than just its engines. How many other components would NOT be "pretty widely used"? Can we "just contract (those) out", too? At what cost? How long will it take?



			
				MAJONES said:
			
		

> The only big trouble comes in getting the money for it.



No, the big trouble lies with justifying it.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jan 2009)

Loachman, dont let years of experience in aviation get in the way of a dumb idea.

What is it about aviation that makes people think they are experts ? Why dont we see this to the same extent in other subjects ?

I wonder if Jane's had a personal kit section, if we would see the same in kit threads ?


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (8 Jan 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> What is it about aviation that makes people think they are experts ? Why dont we see this to the same extent in other subjects ?



Because previously they were tank experts who already sorted out the Armour Corps ref the Leopard 2.  Now they've moved on to square away the aviation world.

105
"Not the patient moderator"


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jan 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Loachman, dont let years of experience in aviation get in the way of a dumb idea.
> 
> What is it about aviation that makes people think they are experts ? Why dont we see this to the same extent in other subjects ?
> 
> I wonder if Jane's had a personal kit section, if we would see the same in kit threads ?



Hey!

Don't worry about that.  I have seen it on numerous occassions in the Armour Forums, and also in all of the other Cbt Arms Forums.  Lots of armchair experts out there with opinions.


----------



## Loachman (8 Jan 2009)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> .



That's what we _*should*_ have.

Isn't it pretty?


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jan 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> That's what we _*should*_ have.
> 
> Isn't it pretty?



I guess the back seats are all fuel bladder.


----------



## Loachman (8 Jan 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I guess the back seats are all fuel bladder.



The fuel tank has always been underneath and behind the seat. It was generally mildly amusing to tell passengers what they were sitting on. I do not believe that any additional space has been taken up by fuel. I have not looked into the back of one since I left Germany. The rear cabin area then was taken up by the avionics, which were spaced out on a scaffold system to allow cooling air to move around. It was crude, but it worked. Things got smaller later and at least one rear seat was regained.

These purr when you stroke them just right.


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Jan 2009)

It seems to me that it really doesn't matter. When we thunder in, everybody shares equally.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jan 2009)

Had quite a ride in one of Triple Four's outside of Parsberg one Fall Ex.  Now that was "flying".


----------



## Loachman (8 Jan 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It seems to me that it really doesn't matter. When we thunder in, everybody shares equally.



Not necessarily.


----------



## Loachman (8 Jan 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Had quite a ride in one of Triple Four's outside of Parsberg one Fall Ex.  Now that was "flying".



When was that?

Life _*was*_ good there...


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jan 2009)

'82


----------



## Loachman (8 Jan 2009)

Wasn't me then. I was bombing around farmland near Pet.


----------



## Thompson_JM (9 Jan 2009)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I never thought I'd see a QC reference on Army.ca. Today is truly a day of glory for the internet.
> 
> I love it when one of my favourite websites is referenced on one of my other favourite websites.  ;D



heheh... a friend got me hooked on it after checking the link on the Dr. McNinja site....

I didnt think there would be a lot of fans of it on this site... good to see there are a few! lol


----------

