The US Navy is apparently eying a new strike aircraft – one that’s “not invented here,” probably won’t costs $83 million per copy, and won’t land on an aircraft carrier:
The U.S. Navy’s new Irregular Warfare office has been looking at an agile Brazilian observation and ground-attack turboprop to provide an “organic” close air support aircraft for special operations forces.
Under the classified “Imminent Fury” program, the Navy has already leased, tested and armed at least one Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano, according to Capt. Mark Mullins, a naval special warfare officer serving as the deputy director of the Navy Irregular Warfare Office at the Pentagon.
“This is a close air support, manned aircraft with a pilot and sensor operator. The idea here is that SOF needs an organic capability that can stick with them while they’re doing their mission,” Mullins said. “We’re not buying them; we’re leasing them right now. That’s an important point.”
I wonder if they’re taking volunteers?
Are you sure it will not be operated from a carrier? How much space does it need for take-off and landings?
More than likely it could stop on a LHD.
Might take some extra slats or flaps.
I got a picture of a T-6B with ordinance laid out in front of it with pretty much the same configuration minus the gun.
Why send the business to Embraer? The A models occasionally fuel up at our airport. They look like similar aircraft and the Texan II can carry more weight.
A NAVY initiative?! You’d have thunk the USMC would have been first engine out of the round-house on this deal, n’cest pas? Right up their alley/set of tracks, seems to me. Or is the Navy now in direct competition with the USMC with this “Irregular Warfare Office” stuff?
I agree, virgil.
The Marines always prefer to use their own indigenous CAS, since every Marine pilot is trained as a rifle platoon commander first and a pilot second – and so understands the importance of close & accurate fires from a “boots on the ground” perspective. The Navy comes in a close second, since we’ve always had a close working relationship with our brothers in blue. The Air Force? A distant third, unless we’re talkin’ A-10s – those guys have a different mindset (I believe) than most of the AF pilots I’ve ever met…
I notice the office is headed by a submariner. All that time alone under-water and out of contact with, and/or control by, the “big kids” leads to independent, out-of-the-box thinking, it seems. The idea/plan to bomb Japan in retaliation for Pearl Harbor by flying AAF B-25s off carriers in WWII came “over the transom” from a submariner when everyone else was fresh out of ideas & airspeed, IIRC.
Off-topic, but I wanted to say that I appreciate all the effort you’ve put into the new comment functionality over the past few weeks, Cap’n.
Well,
I was a sensor operator.
I wonder if I were to dye my grey beard back to colour if they’d give me a crack at the back seat gear?
It’s not like I’m doing anything important at the moment…… as in: I could use the job… hint hint hint…….
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200704/r138026_470616.jpg
How about just making some of these?
Saw the same setup with my own eyes on a T-34C a month ago..Why not the Texan? Why stimulate the world economy, buy USA.
VX- the Navy has had more operational SOF than the USMC for decades now. Late to the team, they just recently joined the purple squad BTW, USMC aviation acquisition is under the US Navy and OPNAV..How the hell did you think the US Navy has cog over that stinker of a program, PresHelo?
b2
Greetings:
And the A-10 Warthog is a what???
The Warthog, magnificent tank-killer that it is, is OLD, that’s what; the production line was shut down in 1984! Even with the upgrades…
Reminds me of what we used to B.S. about during the A-12 episode.
“Bring back the Spad’s”!
4x20mm and the ordnance load of a B-17. What’s not to like about that and the huge radial? All reports I read about WWII radial equipped flying machines say they take a beating and still come back home….
Range?
Just a quick wiki check shows the “Angry Toucan” might have more range, but you never know with those numbers. Did they count external tanks on one or all? ferry or tactical?
I guess they are set on the ‘one engine thing’. I haven’t any professional experience, but I rather thought having two engines was better than having one, especially for planes that get shot at and have hydraulics and cooling lines etc.
I’ve advocated something like this before. I do wonder, though, if they’ll keep this sort of bird or gradually decide a little mission creep is necessary. They might want another engine for redundancy, maybe the ability to carry some more ordinance, perhaps a larger gun for use on both people and hardened targets, some armor protecting the pilot and observer.
Heck, next thing you know the Navy and Marines will be asking for two-seat A-10′s with tailhooks.
Which, come to think of it, wouldn’t be a bad thing.
– Max
MAX/
I’m sure Burt Rutan would be only too glad to do the mod.
Burt Rutan already has a design for a CAS, light weight armed plane. Seen it around a few years back. No time to go searching at this moment…but it exists.
He put up ARES for the job back in 1990.
No takers, though.
Here you go.
Apparently, they’re still playing with it.
Max-
I think that’d be a helluva good idea – the A-10 is about the best all-around CAS bird I can imagine. I’m surprised the Corps hasn’t gotten their hands on them yet, unless it’s b/c of the whole carrier interoperability thing.
Is the thought to also have these turboprops act in the capacity of FAC or recon. Have to agree from what I’ve studied that the A-10 does an outstanding job in CAS
So what exactly is the nfo/senso doing in the backseat?
My best guess is that he handles tactical comms between those on the ground, and other assets on standby, plus has a FLIR/LLLTV type system, camera/video, and prolly an ESM/ECM system and some sort of IR warning system.
Although it sounds like a very busy place to be (and can be, sometimes) it’s not too over much for one person to handle for a 4-5 hour TOS.
For example, on the P-3′s I crewed (P-3B and P-3CUII) the Sensor III station handled radar, FLIR/LLLTV, ESM & the BT sensor. On long missions the Sensor Operators could swap out with each other’s positions to help with fatigue, but for a 4-5 hour stretch, it is doable.
Respects,
The exact same things a WSO in today’s strike aircraft do.
The Marines used to have a fine light attack aircraft in the OV-10. It carried a couple of tons of munitions, had a 3+ hour loiter time, and could do an excellent job of the FAC mission as well as inserting Recon Marines by parachute.
They went away because of the proliferation of MANPADs made them vulnerable.
So my first question is “What’s changed?” If the MANPADs threat was viable twenty years ago, what would make a new generation invulnerable? Or did we make a mistake in getting rid of the Boncos?
It also had a back door to help 4-5 troops to insert spec ops.
I heard the way to let them out was to pull the nose up hard over the drop point and let them just slide out the back on their butts to do their HALO/HAHO tricks.
Saw this at an airshow in Pax River, 1974. OV-10 comes screaming across at around 300′, pulls almost vertical, and 5 grunts slide out the back end on static lines. Impressive…
Saw this at NAS Pensacola airshow in 1973. Also used to watch the 353rd SOW practice this at Clark AB shortly before Mt. Pinatubo blew its top.
It looked like the Bronco’s could, if necessary, be flying pretty damned close to the deck and still give the guys in back enough altitude for chute deployal. Even in training, I don’t know if they really had enough altitude for reserve chutes to be useful.
I wonder if they’re taking volunteers?
That’s EXACTLY what I thought … hmmmm
Black ponies all over again.
Marine6/
Try mistake, IMHO.
This has been a long time coming.
Word on the street is that it is a “hard-fill, disassociated shore tour” for which any fixed-wing types can apply.
It is whispered to be run by a pair of retired Tomkitty cum contractor types. Our host may have an “in”. . .or a very big “out.”
It seems to be very “don’t call us, we”ll call you”, though, like most SOF stuff.
My phone’s open. . .
A prop guy can dream. . .
xformed@14.1
Yeah, it had a seat and a gun (on a side blister on fuselage, IIRC) and lots of composites. AF rejected it mainly due to combo of NIH syndrome and that fact the fast mover drivers hated the original (A-10) anyway–not enough legs, not supersonic so too long get on station, etc.–so why spring for upgrade of same? Right?
Looks suspiciously like the T-6…. the AF is looking to buy a T-6 type aircraft to take over some of the fighter missions that require less speed and firepower and more loiter over less distance.
I wonder if they’re taking volunteers?
That’s EXACTLY what I thought … hmmmm
You guys looking to become your generations Count Carl Gustaf von Rosen?
On a more serious note, why not dust off the plans for the A-1 Skyraider? It is carrier capable….just wondering.
Where’s OldT6Flyer to act as our spiritual adviser on the requisite handling characteristics of T6 type entrants in this race/flyoff?
JamesT/
Skyraider is too logical. No one can make a career/reputation shepparding an old system to fruition. Oh, no–has to be “new” and “innovative” no matter how duplicative. None of this old wine stuff if you aspire to flag rank.
Reality tho, is that has to be in current production in order to field it in reasonable time and keep costs reasonable also.
I’d bet a dollar that these will be flown by enlisted non-Naval Aviator pilots….they do exist in NSW.
There is already talk of an OV-10 comeback. Now that would make sense.
I don’t know about an OV-10, but I know where you can get an OV-1 Mohawk – Cheap! (Click on inventory)
http://www.courtesyaircraft.com/
Note: this site has streaming audio from Flightline Internet Radio.
Not to be too much of a buzz-kill here, but isn’t the Tucano the fifty-years-later descendant of the F-51 Mustang?
I’m just sayin’…
Casey,
Take a look at the picture under reply #8. Beautiful, aren’t they?
Yes, the Spitfire will always enjoy a special niche in the warbird hall of fame, especially in the “swimsuit” competition.
Mitchell was onto something when he drew that beauty!
Blacksmith links to what I was originally trying to recall. After googling a bit after I got home from work tonight, I re-discovered the <a href=”http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/NorthAmericanP51/Enforcer.htm”Piper Enforcer.
Let’s unroll the tape, shall we?
Length: Tucano, 37.17′, Enforcer, 34.17′.
Wingspan: Tucano, 36.55′, Enforcer, 41.25′.
Weight: Tucano, 6,658 lbs empty; 9,965 lbs loaded, Enforcer 6,696 lbs empty, 14,000 lbs loaded!
Max speed: Tucano, 368mph, Enforcer 403mph.
Range: Tucano, 2,995 mi, Enforcer, 921 mi. Ok, this one has me stumped. Is the Tucano quoting maximum one-way range, while the Enforcer quoting maximum radius (“here’n'back”) range, or what?
Power Plant: Tucano carries a P&W Canada PT6 turboprop generating 1,600 hp; Enforcer carries a Lycoming T-55-L9 turboprop generating 2,535 hp.
Best of all, the Enforcer was “Made in America!” Heh.
Sad thing is we had such a plane back in the Reagan days, American-made… and for some reason it ended up here: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=614
Anyone have a guesstimate as to TOC of prop (Tucano, P-51, O-10, or similar plane) and the A-10.
I’ve often wondered why do not have a greater presence of prop planes. Less TOC, longer TOS, low, slow and much more maneuverable.
I hear/read objections as to vulnerability. Any stats to supplement the opinions?
In-flight refueling capable w/props?
Ejection seats available w/props?
Thanks,
Anything is possible. We have helos with inflight refueling capability. It could be done, just a matter of figuring it out.
As to ejection seats, the Germans pioneered that effort in WWII and there are many documented safe ejections of German pilots from various aircraft types. Most were from 1944/45.
I worked next to Mark Mullins a lifetime ago. Straight arrow and a straight shooter.
Ron, the T-6 Texan II, currently used by the USAF and USN for training has great ejection seats. The pilots can eject at 0 ft and 0 kts. I personally have two friends who had to employ them with great results. I would expect any new aircraft any of our armed forces buy would have similar seats
Leasing them, huh? Wonder what happens when the leasing government doesn’t agree with how they’re being used.
VAL-4 redux? Someone mentioned OV-10s and LPD/LPH, it certainly can be done, I’ve sen the Marines operate them from big deck amphibs during Northern Wedding a few years back.
What worries me is that armed trainers are OK for low-threat counterinsurgency, but no better than targets in a moderate threat environment.
Which is why you see “lease”, not “buy”.
“The OV-10 was certified for carrier operations. With 30 knots or so of wind over the deck and the very low stall speed allowed by the Bronco’s fowler flaps there was no need for a tailhook. They were deck launched, i.e., no cat.
The Bronco is STOL. But when you hang about 8,000 lbs of ordnance on a 8,000 lb a/c it does take a bit of a takeoff roll.” VAL-4 Plank Owner/ Aviator at: http://www.zealot.com/forum/showthread.php?t=164422&page=4
&
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV-10_Bronco
“A U.S. Marine Corps North American Rockwell OV-10D Bronco observation aircraft as it taxis clear of the landing zone onboard aircraft carrier USS Saratoga (CV-60) during testing flight qualifications off the coast of North Carolina (USA) on 10 September 1985.”
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OV-10D_CV-60_1985.jpeg
“The T-6A trainer does not have Beta (reverse pitch) capability, so it cannot be manually feathered on the ground…. In addition to improving ground operations, beta would also significantly improve landing roll distance and takeoff abort speeds.” AT-6 Interview with IP “Rudder” 10 July 2007: http://excaliburrd.com/docs/AT-6Project/AT-6Rudder.pdf
A problem with the CV based Skyraider is that we no longer carry AVGAS on carriers. In fact (going out on a limb now), I don’t think Nimitz class carriers are plumbed for AVGAS.
Sorry, never had a tour as Head Grape
I kept my wings…..
Details, details. A minor issue. Nothing that an extra hunnert (sic. by intention. just because.) mil or so wouldn’t fix during a yard run.
Scott/
Boy, your post really spotlights the old dangerous assumptions thing. It never even crossed my mind (especially being a jr. birdman) that today’s latest class of carriers might not even be plumbed for AVGAS! Goes to show a little knowledge (or maybe try non-existent in my case) can be a dangerous thing indeed.
This has been done before with the ARMY testing F-51 Cavalier’s and even a turboprop version was made, but never made it to production. A-10C might be overkill for COIN aircraft as you need a whole pyramid of support plus tankers for the mission.
F4Jock/
Not to mention hardened runways and a whole ‘nother
level of skills/tng required by maint. types to maintain/service ‘em.
The turbo 51′s were called PA-48 Enforcers as they could not get the DoD to take them seriously back in 1970 and they sold the production rights to Piper Aircraft. I think the Air Force bought two and they might be in museums.
Can Tho in the southern Nam delta region was where VAL-4 worked the river when the two YOV-10D NOGS prototypes were in-country for two months of combat evaluations in mid 1971 after MAW pulled out. These two NAA gunship prototypes worked the river with the Brownwater Navy expending 2,000,000 rounds of 20mm over a 60 day period. Most of it not clearing fire…
I am producing a documentary focus for the OV-10 Association’s museum in Fort Worth. The focus covers the YOV-10D, D, D SLEP, and D+. These evolutions of the OV-10 Bronco began with YOV-10D NOGS BuNo 155395 and BuNo 155396 and a two month evaluation tour in Nam after being updated with 20mm M-197 Gatling guns and FLIR night vision.
If you have contacts or you yourself have footage wherein your Brownwater force was accompanied by either of these two aircraft I am interested in using your footage in this production. If you ever saw them you would never forget the three barrel 20mm cannon hanging down beneath the center line of the OV-10.
I am particularly interested in aerial footage taken by a back seater during a river attack… Contact me at wmclayman@comcast.net if you can assist with this film.
Thanks,
Ed
More news (sort of).
Your next job beckons, Lex.