View Full Version : "Bronco II" armed overwatch candidate for SOCOM
Interesting modular concept. Might possibly find some sales success outside of the US:
https://www.bronco-usa.com/bronco-ii/p/1
The size and belly bay are interesting. Even if this doesn't go far, its an interesting concept that will probably be built upon.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-05-20, 15:09
Engines are like Playboy models, you really need two of them to keep things purring. Be it this or the Texan or the other one, one engine doesn't seem like the best idea for CAS.
Wasn't this known as something else first?
Engines are like Playboy models, you really need two of them to keep things purring. Be it this or the Texan or the other one, one engine doesn't seem like the best idea for CAS.
Wasn't this known as something else first?
The original Bronco was the twin engine, two seat OV-10 Bronco. They keep trying to re-hash the same idea when the platform already exists.
Grand58742
05-05-20, 15:33
The size and belly bay are interesting. Even if this doesn't go far, its an interesting concept that will probably be built upon.
Kind of reminds me of the camera bay on a U-2.
Whiskey_Bravo
05-05-20, 15:36
The modular design is pretty cool.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-05-20, 15:54
The original Bronco was the twin engine, two seat OV-10 Bronco. They keep trying to re-hash the same idea when the platform already exists.
Oh, I know, My family got sick of me taking pics and talking about the OV-10 at the Air Force Museum in Dayton. I meant more that this plane had another name? I've seen it before. Maybe they called it the Bronco back then, but I remember some video of it flying over a desert sea shore, looked like Namibia???
Seems to me the real modularity would be the pilot compartment swappable for a remote control package. Then you could have manned and unmanned ones flying around an the BGs wouldn't know which was which and if it was worth taking a shot at.
Ned Christiansen
05-05-20, 16:10
Touch screens. I wonder if they have them now that work with gloves, of have gloves without fingers finally found a reason to live?
That configurable under pod needs the third crew member / bubble turret / twin .50's option.... just for old times' sake :-)
Cool though, I like it. Big fan of the Super Tucano, too.
The_War_Wagon
05-05-20, 16:22
https://media-s3-us-east-1.ceros.com/leidos/images/2020/04/27/240d8297ee1aa3d83cde0435505270e7/bronco-web-cover.png?imageOpt=1
Geez... why am I suddenly reminded of the Rhodesian Air Force?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8lVCDbJ---g/maxresdefault.jpg
Diamondback
05-05-20, 17:25
I don't see Boeing letting this fly when they on the Bronco trademark and last I knew were still trying to sell their own next-gen "OV-10X Super Bronco."
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/Technical/boeing_ov-10(x)_super_bronco_info_card_2009_01.pdf
Does the plane in the photo with 2 props, have 1 or 2 engines?
Diamondback
05-05-20, 20:14
Does the plane in the photo with 2 props, have 1 or 2 engines?
Cessna 337 Skymaster, two engines push-me-pull-you like a WW2 Dornier Do335.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_O-2_Skymaster
When I was stationed at Davis-Monthan AFB in the late 1970's, we would see the O-2A's take off every morning for their training sorties (27th TASS, IIRC). We also imagined what a death trap those things would probably be over a European battlefield.
Cessna 337 Skymaster, two engines push-me-pull-you like a WW2 Dornier Do335.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_O-2_Skymaster
My dad was a member of a flying club when I was a little kid that had a 337. Nobody liked it, so it was always available. When we could afford it we'd go fly it. It burned a bunch of fuel compared to other small planes and it was noisy, but my dad loved it.
Got to fly an original bronco. What a great ride and interesting concept.
Why haven't push, pull planes been more popular. From a training stand point they make a lot of sense to me.
Diamondback
05-07-20, 09:06
Why haven't push, pull planes been more popular. From a training stand point they make a lot of sense to me.
It may be vestigial from the days of "manual bailout," I suspect a hostility toward pushers in general--the Do335 had two redundant systems, both an ejection seat and a rear-prop jettison, to ensure a Raiders of the Lost Ark-style meatgrinding didn't happen. A surprising number of things in a lot of sectors are more "psychological" than "functional," like how many architects refuse to designate a 13th floor or the Pennsylvania Railroad refused to put a number ending in 13 on any of its locomotives--while I don't *know* it to be the case here, I know pilots tend to be conservative, change-averse sorts who want to "stick with what they know" so I would consider it a plausible theory. (Similarly, it's widely suspected that its more "traditional" layout was why the F-22 was chosen over the YF-23.)
Engines are like Playboy models, you really need two of them to keep things purring. Be it this or the Texan or the other one, one engine doesn't seem like the best idea for CAS.
They are running a PT6... that thing has got to be one of the most bullet proof motors on the market today... been out since 1963 with like 500 million hours on them combined and has a shut down rate somewhere around 1 every 700k hours. I think the only motor with a better inflight shut down rate is the GE90 which is touted at 1 shut down in 1 million hours or something dumb like that.
sundance435
05-07-20, 09:43
Everything old is new again. I get the advantages of a "clean sheet" approach for advanced aircraft, but for something like the roles the Bronco served, and now the CAS mission that the air force refuses to accept a prop plane for, there are perfectly good designs out there. You'd be wringing very marginal performance gains out of a completely new design.
Boeing might be so desperate for a win that it could resurrect the OV-10X. It's exactly the kind of aircraft we need in permissive environments and a seemingly low risk project for a company that desperately needs low-risk revenue.
They have also been looking at the A-29 Tuscano:
https://www.airforcemag.com/socom-announces-plans-to-buy-75-armed-overwatch-planes/
I fondly recall watching the old OV-10s flying over Jacksonville/Lejeune as a wee lad... a great aircraft that seems to come back around...
Grand58742
05-07-20, 23:08
They have also been looking at the A-29 Tuscano:
https://www.airforcemag.com/socom-announces-plans-to-buy-75-armed-overwatch-planes/
I fondly recall watching the old OV-10s flying over Jacksonville/Lejeune as a wee lad... a great aircraft that seems to come back around...
Too bad the USAF killed the program it had and SOCOM had to pick up the slack.
Too bad the USAF killed the program it had and SOCOM had to pick up the slack.
Agreed. To me it often seemed the AF did the CAS role holding its' nose so as to not get a bad taste in its' mouth, never really wanting to do it.
With the proliferation of drones, I'm almost surprised that aircraft like this are in the picture any more.
Agreed. To me it often seemed the AF did the CAS role holding its' nose so as to not get a bad taste in its' mouth, never really wanting to do it.
Yeah well, the Key West Agreement, although seen by some as misinterpreted, pretty much denies the Army a fixed-wing attack role. That was in 1948, so it's been 72 years and still hasn't been officially undone.
With the proliferation of drones, I'm almost surprised that aircraft like this are in the picture any more.
That's where the future lies no doubt. Maybe beef 'em up a little so they can pack more ordnance but the loiter times are really attractive to a unit needing CAS.
Mauser KAR98K
05-08-20, 12:20
Bring back the Mohawk!
Yeah well, the Key West Agreement, although seen by some as misinterpreted, pretty much denies the Army a fixed-wing attack role. That was in 1948, so it's been 72 years and still hasn't been officially undone.
Bring back the Mohawk!
As I recall the Mohawk was one of the AC that made the air force shit its' collective pants over the Key West Agreement. The air force wanted it both ways: the army not have armed fixed-wing AC, but really didn't want to do CAS, either (but when they did it, did it well a la A-1, A-7, A-10....). As I understood it the army had armed Mohawks in VN "for defensive purposes only" or something like that (wink wink), but was on station as CAS when needed.
My comments are not to say that the AF CAS pilots weren't/aren't great at what they do; everyone I needed, or met in person, embraced getting low and dirty.
The Army's AH-56 Cheyenne program, although unsuccessful, nudged the USAF into the A-X study which later became the A-10.
Diamondback
05-08-20, 15:39
As I recall the Mohawk was one of the AC that made the air force shit its' collective pants over the Key West Agreement. The air force wanted it both ways: the army not have armed fixed-wing AC, but really didn't want to do CAS, either (but when they did it, did it well a la A-1, A-7, A-10....). As I understood it the army had armed Mohawks in VN "for defensive purposes only" or something like that (wink wink), but was on station as CAS when needed.
My comments are not to say that the AF CAS pilots weren't/aren't great at what they do; everyone I needed, or met in person, embraced getting low and dirty.
This is the problem with the Pointynose Mafia culture ruling the post-Nam USAF... when the path to AFCS was through being CINCSAC first, the bomber guys tried to take care of everyone but as soon as TAC got on top it was "Screw everybody but us," and that included their fighter brethren at ADC.
Even though everyone remembers the contributions of B-52 units in Vietnam (Arc Light, Linebacker II, etc.), SAC had to be dragged kicking and screaming into that conflict. They saw their Cold War nuclear mission, with some justification, as paramount.
I'm currently reading the "new" de-classified version of BAT 21. Very interesting.
I'm currently reading the "new" de-classified version of BAT 21. Very interesting.
The Rescue of BAT 21 is a great book, they really moved heaven and Earth to rescue that man....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.