USMC adopts OV-1 Mohawk

[Burton K Wheeler]

The OV-1 Mohawk was developed in the late 1950's as a joint service replacement for the Cessna O-1 "Bird Dog" observation aircraft. The plane was developed as a naval aircraft capable of operating from CVE carriers and even as a floatplane, but the Marines ultimately never bought into the program. It had a four-seat cockpit and carried a sophisticated aerial sensor array, so in many ways it was more of a reconnaissance aircraft than a spotter/attack aircraft. The Marines instead developed the smaller and lighter OV-10 Bronco, which stayed in service with the USMC, Navy, and Air Force into the 1990's.

The Army and Air Force operated the Mohawk in Vietnam, but the Air Force phased it out fairly quickly as a forward air control aircraft in favor of the O-2 and the OV-10. The Army used it as a flying sensor platform well into the 1990's. Its historic mission is currently carried out by the E-8 JSTARS (militarized Boeing 707) and RC-12 Guardrail (Beech King Air).

The size of the Mohawk makes it anattractive option for a wide range contemporary COIN-style missions. It's roughly the size of the Navy's EA-6 Prowler and S-3 Viking airframes, so if the Mohawk had survived as long in USMC service as the OV-10 did, one can imagine all sorts of new missions for the airframe.

https://www.defensetech.org/2010/10/28/old-school-coin-planes-keep-coming-back/

What would it have taken for the USMC to adopt the Mohawk? What would they have done with it?

 

[Just Leo]

What would it have taken for the USMC to adopt the Mohawk? What would they have done with it?

As it was, they didn't like the Mohawk because it had stuff they didn't want, but the Army did. The role of the OV-1 and OV-10 is difficult to define, and what could be done with it depends on what they planned to do with it vs. what it could do once it was built. There were other designs but the specification was vague and ill-defined. It was part Bird Dog with more speed, and part Bristol Fighter, but made out of metal. I think the Mohawk took the sensor pod the best, but that doesn't do Marines much good. Convair was into the hunt with a prototype and napkin versions, and multiple other manufacturers also had paper proposals, but if you're asking what could Marines could do with it, you obviously understand that they didn't know ahead of time, and that's not how procurement policy is supposed to work.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

As it was, they didn't like the Mohawk because it had stuff they didn't want, but the Army did. The role of the OV-1 and OV-10 is difficult to define, and what could be done with it depends on what they planned to do with it vs. what it could do once it was built. There were other designs but the specification was vague and ill-defined. It was part Bird Dog with more speed, and part Bristol Fighter, but made out of metal. I think the Mohawk took the sensor pod the best, but that doesn't do Marines much good. Convair was into the hunt with a prototype and napkin versions, and multiple other manufacturers also had paper proposals, but if you're asking what could Marines could do with it, you obviously understand that they didn't know ahead of time, and that's not how procurement policy is supposed to work.

That's my impression. The Army's use of it as a surveillance aircraft was more happy accident than design. It certainly wasn't a handy Bird Dog replacement in the same way the OV-10 was.

I know the Marines wouldn't necessarily understand all the uses for the aircraft, but they were in on the procurement program from the beginning. All I'm asking is what they might find to do with it if they didn't bail from the program.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

They would do less. The cost and size meant the Marines/Navy could bring fewer to the party. My meory is dim but a look at USN air reconissance capabilities in the era would be useful here. The Marines were not planning of operating independently from the Navy & neither party wanted a redundant capability.

 

[Wimble Toot]

They would do less. The cost and size meant the Marines/Navy could bring fewer to the party.

What programs/roles are likely to get cut if the Mohawk gets forced upon the USMC? How many AV-8As and F-4s is it going to cost the Corps?

 

[CalBear]

It has to be able to get off a flight deck (and land on it). Outside of some C-130s that is pretty much a given for a Marine aircraft.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

There could have been a carrier capable Mohawk, but with its larger dimensions you are back to fewer occupying the precious deck space.

 

[Just Leo]

This might have been what they wanted. At least a weapons load.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

It has to be able to get off a flight deck (and land on it). Outside of some C-130s that is pretty much a given for a Marine aircraft.

The Mohawk was at least hypothetically capable of that, though I can’t find any more specifics other than it was designed to fly from Essex carriers.

My understanding is that the Marines rejected it because the sophisticated sensor package made it quite a bit more aircraft than just a replacement for their old Cessna Bird Dogs, and they preferred to spend the money elsewhere. The Army never really developed the airframe to the degree they could have because it shoved up against the very limits of the Key West agreement.

I’m interested because a slow loitering aircraft that carries lots of sensors and can carry weapons is something we would have loved to have in Iraq and Afghanistan, basically a low-tech manned version of the Predator.

 

[Driftless]

because it shoved up against the very limits of the Key West agreement.

There's a POD for a separate thread... Either alter the date of the Key West agreement by a few years, or the specifics - give the Army some of the same capabilities that the USMC has (transports, observation, CAS?); along with the helo's

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

There's a POD for a separate thread... Either alter the date of the Key West agreement by a few years, or the specifics - give the Army some of the same capabilities that the USMC has (transports, observation, CAS?); along with the helo's

I think that’s a much bigger question that would be very hard to address.

As it was, the Mohawk was the first and last fixed wing airframe designed specifically for the US Army. Maybe successful Marine use of armed variants in Vietnam instead of the Bronco could mean fixed wing attack aircraft working their way into the Army inventory? Maybe the Air Force takes steps to kill the Apache like they killed the AH-56 Cheyenne? A Hellfire-armed late 80’s Mohawk is an interesting thought.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

View attachment 355709

This might have been what they wanted. At least a weapons load.

Now that’s a CAS plane! Prop version of the A-37? Looks like Hellfire under the wings, so an 80’s design? Is it intended to replace the A-4 in VMAs?

 

[Just Leo]

Now that’s a CAS plane! Prop version of the A-37? Looks like Hellfire under the wings, so an 80’s design? Is it intended to replace the A-4 in VMAs?

So the Stinger is just chopped liver? I have a license for their use. Another difference between Army and Marine Mohawk is weapons stations. Army has 2 for fuel. Marines have 6, for weapons. Later weapons fit on earlier designed mounts. Tandem cockpit and a grease pencil round out the differences.

It does not replace the Scooter, but somebody has to fly under the triple canopy.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

So the Stinger is just chopped liver? I have a license for their use. Another difference between Army and Marine Mohawk is weapons stations. Army has 2 for fuel. Marines have 6, for weapons. Later weapons fit on earlier designed mounts. Tandem cockpit and a grease pencil round out the differences.

It does not replace the Scooter, but somebody has to fly under the triple canopy.

Stinger, duh. I’ll lash myself in contrition. I have Hellfire on the brain lately. So it’s an OV-10alternative.

If that thing’s tandem cockpit is four-seat instead of two, it tickles every aircraft-related fancy I’ve got.

 

[Just Leo]

Stinger, duh. I’ll lash myself in contrition. I have Hellfire on the brain lately. So it’s an OV-10alternative.

If that thing’s tandem cockpit is four-seat instead of two, it tickles every aircraft-related fancy I’ve got.

That's what hair shirts were made for. You can be contrite and still hold a weapon. The two-seat tandem is for a purpose. Do you fancy taking the wife and kids/dog along for the ride?

Decades ago, in another life, I conversed with a Bronco driver, a member of Bravado Company, I believe, who knew a guy whose father flew with Pappy Boyington. It was from him that I got the impression that Broncos flew under the triple canopy. He was a Marine, so it must be true.

 

[docfl]

I thought the Army used the Marines to start the program. Army was trying to hide it from the Air Force.

 

[CalBear]

The Mohawk was at least hypothetically capable of that, though I can’t find any more specifics other than it was designed to fly from Essex carriers.

My understanding is that the Marines rejected it because the sophisticated sensor package made it quite a bit more aircraft than just a replacement for their old Cessna Bird Dogs, and they preferred to spend the money elsewhere. The Army never really developed the airframe to the degree they could have because it shoved up against the very limits of the Key West agreement.

I’m interested because a slow loitering aircraft that carries lots of sensors and can carry weapons is something we would have loved to have in Iraq and Afghanistan, basically a low-tech manned version of the Predator.

AD-1?

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

That's what hair shirts were made for. You can be contrite and still hold a weapon. The two-seat tandem is for a purpose. Do you fancy taking the wife and kids/dog along for the ride?

Decades ago, in another life, I conversed with a Bronco driver, a member of Bravado Company, I believe, who knew a guy whose father flew with Pappy Boyington. It was from him that I got the impression that Broncos flew under the triple canopy. He was a Marine, so it must be true.

I didn't say it was a better idea, I just said that I like side-by-side cockpits for aesthetic-type reasons. The Army OV-1 carried a pilot and an enlisted sensor operator, I'm guessing yours carries a pilot and a WSO. A four-seat version could carry a pilot, WSO/FO, and two enlisted sensor operators to assist with target acquisition either for the aircraft itself or to pass data to other aircraft and FDCs.

Is the nose cone like the A-37, that can carry either a gun or a sensor pod?

AD-1?

That's not really low-tech, plus it's supersonic. I was thinking more along the lines of something that could fly from austere airfields near the frontline.

 

[Just Leo]

Is the nose cone like the A-37, that can carry either a gun or a sensor pod?

It is a generic sensor pod for electro-optics, IR, or laser range-finding/target marking as may be available. Guns are fixed, in sponsons, and may be augmented by pod-guns on some stores stations on centerline or sponsons.


That's not really low-tech, plus it's supersonic. I was thinking more along the lines of something that could fly from austere airfields near the frontline.[/QUOTE]

I think he meant the SPAD/Skyraider.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

It is a generic sensor pod for electro-optics, IR, or laser range-finding/target marking as may be available. Guns are fixed, in sponsons, and may be augmented by pod-guns on some stores stations on centerline or sponsons.

Gotcha. I really appreciate my humble aircraft WI drawing your attention, since as you may have gathered, I don't know crap about aircraft. This thread was inspired by lazy speculation that the Army would have liked having armed and updated Mohawks in Afghanistan and Iraq for CIED work (see TF ODIN and its use of improvised fixed-wing aircraft). I also have an ignorant layman's fancy for the Super Tucano, OV-1, OV-10, A-37, and other such humble COIN aircraft.

I think he meant the SPAD/Skyraider.

That makes much more sense than what I was thinking. A neo-Skyraider would be more along the lines of a Super Tucano or AT-6 Texan II (the modern turboprop kind) in my mind. I'm thinking more of a dedicated loiter and observe platform with armament than a cheap attack aircraft. I think the US Army or Air Force should buy about 100 copies of either AT-6 or A-29 posthaste and look into the possibility of them replacing the A-10 fleet as well, but the "Grumman Mohican" doesn't have a clear precedent