A Canadianized OV-10D NOGS?

[adam561]

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]

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:

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:

Tasks and roles to be conducted.
Aircrew training requirements.
Aircraft maintenance lifecycle.
Number of airframes required, based on your assessment of tasks.
Expected lifespan of "new" airframes, compared to expectation of available manufacturer and principal nation support.
Requirements and costs to retrain and retool all required maintenance facilities and maintainers.
Infrastructure costs to support new aircraft in all Wing locations.

As you can see, simply comparing statistics or unit costs doesn't quite scratch the surface of what you are proposing....

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

 

[adam561]

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]

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

 

[aesop081]

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]

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

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

Aircraft maintenance lifecycle: 15 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: 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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[adam561]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Michael OLeary]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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