True. They did good work...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
baboon6
The OV-10 was used in the dedicated attack role by the US Navy squadron VAL-4 in the Mekong Delta:
However, IIRC, they lost almost half the Squadron's birds to ground fire or accidents and had to buy replacements. Plus that was only one Squadron, 18 birds IIRC.. The Marines were the first to buy and they had two Squadrons, half OV-10A, half OV-10D, a dedicated night 'observation' variant with a 20mm M61 turret slaved to the FLIR. The Marines split the difference and used the OV-10A as a FAC bird that could do light strike and the 10D as a night attack plane.
The Air Force bought almost 200 and initially used the Bronc solely as a FAC Bird. Some FACs were more aggressive than others and those guys convinced a reluctant AF to let them to CAS missions. I think they ran a test of a dedicated squadron but ended up with most assigned as FAC aircraft. The hard charger FACs did more. People thing...:wry:
Not being an airplane type, not sure, though two old friends
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
What makes for a "hard charger" pilot? Those are the boys you need.
one Air force and one old Marine Aviator -- both fighter pilots -- agree that selection can only tell part of it; that combat experience (good or bad) can have impacts that are difficult to foretell; current in which one is serving Squadron leadership can make a difference either way; the aircraft being flown is important (the OV-10, for example was woefully underpowered and thus couldn't get out of trouble as easily as the O2/Cessna 337; and that the type of airplane one first flew operationally has a big impact. The Marine thinks that last two are by far the most significant, he contends there was a major difference in attitude (as opposed to capability, which was pretty much a wash) between Navy F8 and F4 pilots and between Marine F8 or A4 pilots and their F4 counterparts.
He also contended it was hilarious to watch an ex A4 pilot get the stick of a big fat F4 for the first time...:D
An even older Marine Aviator agreed and said he'd noticed a slight difference in attitudes and aggressiveness between Marine F4U Corsair pilots and AD Skyraider pilots during the Corps brief possession of a single Squadron of the latter in Korea. Both were great aircraft and really good for CAS but they had very different flying characteristics.
Today, there are significant political constraints in the US. Our Congress, to avoid having to respond to complaints about process, is insistent that all military selection processes be 'objective' and 'fair' -- both to the point of overruling operational capability if of not sheer idiocy. Aggressiveness today as a characteristic is more likely to be frowned upon than to find favor (We're in one of our 'nice guy' phases -- those come and go :rolleyes:). It will stay that way unless we get in a big war, then it'll go away totally until peace returns... :wry:
Probably one of the Board's airplane driver types can add more (certainly more current than the views of four ORFs, one of whom is dumb grunt :rolleyes:) and far better info.
That's done and done pretty well, it works most of the time to our great benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
...they could somehow devise an assessment of the actual pilots to see how they measure against actual performance. meaning you know who the "hard chargers" are and now are looking for common characteristics.
However, two things intrude:
Number of type pilots needed and desires of would be (and serving) pilots. Sometimes people have to do things they do not want to do and they get annoyed and leave as soon as they can legally do so -- and while they're in that job they didn't want, they will not do as good a job as might otherwise be possible.
The previously mentioned statutory requirement for 'fairness' in all things means that occasionally a marginal type must be allowed to do a job he or she may not be totally suited for. Don't read that as a slam on female pilots, some of them are more Tiger like than a lot of guys.
Add the fact that a bad combat experience can breed excessive caution, a risk averse Commander can insist on strict obedience to the 'rules.' All sorts of thing intrude during and after a really effective selection process. Selection for a specific quality is easy, maintaining that in the face of diverse requirements and situations is less so. In this case, there is an easy answer -- but the solution is not so easy. Happens when you deal with people, the pesky creatures will not always stay the way you wish them to.....