geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) (08/28/90)
From: geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) In article <1990Aug17.023750.1538@cbnews.att.com> betz@marob.masa.com (Tom Betz) writes: [regarding the Rutan mudfighter] >The Army can't use it because the divorce decree between the >Army and Air Force requires it not to fly any fixed-wing >aircraft. What about the OV-1 Mohawks? Aren't they set up for some kind of limited COIN mission? Or are they strictly FAC aircraft? How does the OV-1 compare with the OV-10 in mission and performance? Geoff -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.sun.com + + + + + + + + Milpitas, California -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
johnson@amsaa-seer.brl.mil (Don Johnson) (08/30/90)
From: Don Johnson <johnson@amsaa-seer.brl.mil> In article <1990Aug28.042603.28745@cbnews.att.com> geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes: |In article <1990Aug17.023750.1538@cbnews.att.com> betz@marob.masa.com (Tom Betz) writes: |>The Army can't use it because the divorce decree between the |>Army and Air Force requires it not to fly any fixed-wing |>aircraft. |What about the OV-1 Mohawks? Aren't they set up for some kind of limited |COIN mission? Or are they strictly FAC aircraft? How does the OV-1 compare |with the OV-10 in mission and performance? The Palm Beach accord of 1948(?), which established the role and mission for the Air Force, limited Army fixed wing capability to 5000 lb take off weight. The Mohawks (and U-21s (?)) fall into this category. -- W. Donald Johnson O tempora! O mores! Operations Research Analyst johnson@amsaa-seer.brl.mil
gt0818a@gatech.edu (Paul E. Robichaux) (08/30/90)
From: gatech!prism!gt0818a@gatech.edu (Paul E. Robichaux) In article <1990Aug28.042603.28745@cbnews.att.com> Geoff Miller writes: >What about the OV-1 Mohawks? Aren't they set up for some kind of limited >COIN mission? Or are they strictly FAC aircraft? How does the OV-1 compare >with the OV-10 in mission and performance? > >Geoff >-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- >Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems >geoffm@purplehaze.sun.com + + + + + + + + Milpitas, California >-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- The National Security Act of 1947 (also known as the "Key West Agreement") provided for the formation of the US Air Force from the original US Army Air Corps. The Air Force was given responsibility for aerial bombardment, close-air support (although the drafters of the NSA didn't fiddle with Marine CAS, thank goodness), photorecon, and air superiority (although that's not what they called it at the time.) The Army was forbidden to own any fixed-wing aircraft over a certain weight; I believe the cutoff was in the neighborhood of 12000 lbs. Furthermore, they were *specifically prohibited* from arming any fixed-wing aircraft they did purchase. Armed Mohawks are somewhat of a bizarre exception; the ones here at Dobbins AFB are mostly configured as FAC or ELINT aircraft, and aren't usually armed. I haven't found a good explanation of how the Army circumvented the NSA to get their Mohawks armed. As for how the OV-10 and OV-1 compare, a sister unit to my squadron flies the OV-10A (USAF and USMC units have the OV-10D, but reserves are stuck with the old stuff). It does not carry much of the sensor gear that the Mohawk does, but it is more maneuverable and has a nifty rear hatch for dropping small cargo (i.e. boxes or up to 4-5 Marines). The Mohawk, on the other hand, is locally known as "the Widowmaker" due to the number of crashes it's suffered: 4 at last count since 1983. -Paul -- Paul E. Robichaux | "Talk about the cutting edge of high BEST: gt0818a@prism.gatech.edu | technology all you like, but remember, OK: ...!gatech!prism!gt0818a | someone's got to hold the knife." Of course I don't speak for Tech. | -Tom Maddox
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (08/30/90)
From: fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) > From: geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) > In article <1990Aug17.023750.1538@cbnews.att.com> betz@marob.masa.com (Tom Betz) writes: > [regarding the Rutan mudfighter] > >The Army can't use it because the divorce decree between the > >Army and Air Force requires it not to fly any fixed-wing > >aircraft. > What about the OV-1 Mohawks? Aren't they set up for some kind of limited > COIN mission? Or are they strictly FAC aircraft? How does the OV-1 compare > with the OV-10 in mission and performance? At an airshow at Moffet Field last year (or the year before), there was an AC-130 on display. According to the placards, it was flown by an Army special operations group. I don't think that it was attached to the Army from the AF. Maybe the fixed-wing situation with the Army is a bit more complicated than "you don't get any". Maybe they're limited to props-only. ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------