The U.S. military has been here before: fighting an enemy who wears no uniform, one who hits and runs then disappears, blending in with local villagers. It has pursued before, with overwhelming technological superiority, guerrilla fighters who improvise weapons and use the terrain to hide. The rugged mountains along the Afghanistan-Pakistan frontier, where the Taliban and al Qaeda hide, are as effective at concealment as the dense swamps and forests of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. In Vietnam, the U.S. military learned that when striking an elusive enemy, high-performance jet fighters were much more successful when they were directed by lighter, slower airplanes that could wait and watch for the enemy to move.
Last July the Air Force revived its requirement for a slow-moving, light-attack/armed reconnaissance aircraft, and Boeing’s Global Services and Support group responded with an updated version of a Vietnam veteran: the OV-10 Bronco. In Vietnam, the OV-10 (“O” for observation; “V” for short takeoff) was highly adaptable and performed many missions for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. But it was primarily a forward air control aircraft whose machine guns, rockets, and bombs could quickly make it ferocious.
“You could do quite a bit of damage while you were waiting for the heavier stuff,” says Dennis Darnell, who in 1969 and 1970 was a first lieutenant in VMO-2, an observation squadron supporting the First Marine Division at Da Nang. “And if the situation was right, you wouldn’t even need the heavier stuff. You could get Medevac or troop transport helicopters in and pluck [U.S. infantry] out of difficult situations and that would be the end of it.” The OV-10 was armed with four 7.62-mm machine guns and a variety of external weapons. For the Marines, the ordinary load was four rocket pods: two with white phosphorous rockets for marking targets and two with 2.75-inch, folding-fin rockets for striking them.
In 1971, 15 Air Force OV-10s with the 23rd Tactical Air Support Squadron, based at Nakhon Phanom Air Base in northeastern Thailand, were modified with laser designation pods and LORAN (long-range navigation) systems. The modified OV-10s would join the effort to interdict troops and supplies moving on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, according to aviation historian Darrel Whitcomb, who flew those forward air control missions.
Forward air controllers, or FACs, are the flying equivalent of army scouts who range ahead of the main unit to locate the enemy and quickly report its location and strength. The FAC’s mission is to call in artillery, fighter-bombers, or naval gunfire to reduce or eliminate the threat.
The FACs with laser designators illuminated targets for McDonnell F-4 Phantoms, at the time the only aircraft in Southeast Asia equipped with laser-guided weapons. On the OV-10, the LORAN “talked to” the laser designation system, says Whitcomb, so that pilots would receive a readout in the cockpit of the coordinates of the illuminated target. “The weapons systems guy in the back seat would hold the designation system crosshairs on the target,” he says, “and the bomb would come down and it would guide right to the target.”
The control vanes on the bombs deflected fully or not at all, so the bombs would follow a zig-zag path. “I can still see it to this day,” says Whitcomb. “The bomb came off the F-4, and you could see it wobbulating—pitching up and down as it tracked to the target. Normally it took about 34 seconds to fall to the ground.”
The Bronco arrived in Vietnam in 1968. It didn’t take long for it to develop a reputation that made the Viet Cong think twice about shooting at it. “After a while, the enemy knew that it was a FAC aircraft,” says Darnell. “We got cut some slack because if they missed, [they knew that] within a few minutes we could bring the world down around their ears.”



Comments
As you can see from my email address, I was a Nail FAC out of NKP in 71-72. I was one of three pilots selected for the combat evaluation of the Laser OV-10 known as Pavenail which took place at Ubon Thailand with most of the missions flown into Cambodia. If you have any questions about that Laser system (which was removed from the OV-10's before they left SEA) I can help.
Posted by John W. Van Etten on January 24,2010 | 10:26AM
I was a crew chief on ov-1o both with 20 & 23 tass and have often wondered what ever became of my best performing plane from 23 tass I set a world record with tail# 67-14671 I managed to keep it flyin for 212.2 hours in a single month!! like I said it was the best ,and its overall 6 month average was 176 hrs /month I really loved "671"
Posted by harry J aldworth on January 24,2010 | 10:43AM
Great plane worth bringing back. The A-10 is a superlative CAS platform, but people should consider bringing back the A-1 which has fine loiter time and played an impressive role in providing cover for SAR helicopters touching down to rescue downed air crews.
Posted by Donald A. Petkus on January 24,2010 | 08:36PM
I have seven and a half years on the OV10 and find it to be the best plane I have ever crewed and flown. I was on them at DaNang, NKP,McDill and Shaw AFB. I was the only enlisted Air Force NCO to be back seat FCF Qualified on the OV10. I would love to see it come back. Harry R. Shank Msgt Retired.
Posted by Harry Shank on January 26,2010 | 09:04AM
Salutations! I'm an avid model aircraft builder and currently preparing for my next project, which is building a 1/72 YOV-10D (55395). I was wondering if anyone from membership could help with a clear closeup picture of the logo painted on the vertical stab. I can't figure out what it is. The following a link to a picture of the aircraft in question w/ logo, but to far to tell what it is to make a decal. http://www.scaleaero.com/yov10nogs.htm Thanks, Alex
Posted by Alex on January 28,2010 | 08:20PM
For more information about the Navy's only OV-10 Bronco squadron, Light Attack Squadron Four (VAL-4) go to www.backpony.org
Posted by Dave on January 29,2010 | 06:01PM
I remember seeing USMC Broncos at airshows back in the 80s and 90s where they'd pull the nose up in a high angle and troops with parachutes would slide out the back into freefall. Pretty neat trick to see.
Posted by Chris on February 8,2010 | 11:10AM
I too have always been fascinated by the OV-10, but I have never flown or really been around one other than static display. While I find the concept of the comeback intriguing, there is one huge issue that no one has touched on, the UAV. While the man in the loop is a valuable thing in certain situations,(UAVs actually have men in the loop too) the UAV dose much the same job as an OV-10 would be called upon to do. The only real capability that the OV-10 has over the MQ-9 Reaper for example is the cargo bay. That might be good for Spec Ops resupply, but even the Fire Scout UAV has been tested in that role. What would be the real advantage?
Posted by John on February 9,2010 | 01:25PM
I had the honor of serving with VAL-4 Black Ponies in 1970-71 at Binh Thuy as a plane captain on OV-10's. I am proud to have served as a Pony and to have worked 0n such a great aircraft as the Bronco was. Tom Poland
Posted by Tom Poland on February 12,2010 | 08:09PM
Mr. Van Etten, Are you the same Mr. Van Etten that worked as a pilot for Great Lakes Chemical Corp? If so, as a college student at a talk you gave I remember seeing one of your OV-10 "Home movies" shot in SEA. Any chance of you sharing that again on YouTube or something similar? Bill Johnson, Maj(Ret),USAFR
Posted by Bill Johnson on February 12,2010 | 09:49PM
I had the opportunity to work on the OV-10 while assigned to the 20th TASS during my tour at DaNang AB, Vietnam in 1971. It was a tremendously versatile airplane and I enjoyed working on them as an Instrument techinican. There is some discussion about bringing the Bronco back and hopefully it will return to service. Ken Brown, MSgt, USAF Retired
Posted by Ken Brown on February 13,2010 | 08:05PM
RQST email address for John W, Van Etten. (Note: I wrote the recommendation letter and made the presentation to install the laser system in the OV-10's at Ubon). Stephen Hubert 433 TFS Paveway I EDITORS' REPLY: We don't give out contact information. Please send your request, along with your contact information, to editors@si.edu and we will try to forward your request to Mr. Van Etten.
Posted by Stephen Hubert on March 17,2010 | 03:19PM
Thank you for adding my grandfather Captin Steven L. Bennett. It means alot that people will never forget what sarcrifices one must make to insure freedom in our country. I just wanted to tell you thanks.
Posted by Jake buck on March 21,2010 | 09:44PM
I was fortunate to have served with Light Atkron Four (VAL-4), the Navy's only OV-10A squadron. Our unit was based at Binh Thuy in 4 Corps and supported both SEAL and Riverine operations throughout the Mekong Delta. Our ordinance loads consisting of Zuni rockets, 2.75" 19 shot pods and 20mm Mk. 4 gun pods proved more than sufficient to control and decimate any target encountered. It's viability might be suspect in the high threat environments in which ops are currently being conducted, but given the other candidates being suggested and the upgrades proposed by Boeing, it would be a great choice. It is a very forgiving aircraft and a treat to fly.
Posted by Lynn Henish on April 12,2010 | 06:24PM
Dear Sir I want to ask please If some one may know by official records,"did The Royal Australian Airforce pilots any of them ever have flown North American OV-10 Bronco during the Vietnam conflicts in the 1960s plus have any of them stationed briefly in The Country of Australia" Sir.? I am a Aviation Enthisiast and The North American 0V-10 Bronco Reccon Warhorse would have to be one of my favourite aircraft since I'm studying V.T.O.L.and S.T.O.L. etc.
Posted by Jeffrey Phillip Meadowvale on May 22,2010 | 06:46PM
Need help locating 3 0v-10 pilots who were out of Danang. These guys were wounded on hill 55 in Oct. 1971. They were wounded by a mortar that also killed a US Army Col. and also wounded others. Maybe you could contact other OV-10 organizations and I can find these guys. Their code name was Lopez. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. Thank You! Tiger (code name) Hill 55 (1970-1971)
Posted by Phil Mac on June 5,2010 | 11:02AM
In response to Phil Mac - You may try contacting guys from the FACNET. Smitty
Posted by Matt Smith on June 8,2010 | 12:38PM
They stood interceptor/alert duty in Korea as late as 1980, as I recall. Two of them next to the jets in their respective bunkers at all times. The NORKS had a WWI/construction biplane contraption (AN-12 Colt,IIRC) that served them as an air assault platform. Their idea of that was hanging on the end of a rope and barrel rolling onto the ground from them. Osan had it written into their ABD exercise scenarios-- The Broncos were the only thing the USAF had slow enough to track them through the mountainous approaches and kill em prior to that point.
Posted by Jorge Wall on June 11,2010 | 02:05PM
July-October 1970, 3 Army-Lockheed YO-3As were based at Phu Bai I Corps. The YO-3A had 2nd generation NVAP, IRI, and Laser Target Designator. (see www.yo-3a.com.) We had Marine Corps officer with us evaluating the YO-3A for the Marines. The Marines had tested the LTD CONUS on the YO-3A before coming over to join us at Phu Bai. I am in personal contact with the Marine Corps officer who was T/O on the YO-3A and he said he employed the LTD often and that it was his favorite target designator over the other target designator YO-3A, the, Infrared Illuminater. We believe this is the 1st use of an LTD on a fixed wing aircraft in Vietnam. Would love to know if anyone knows of any earlier LTD applications in Vietnam prior to July-October 1970 time frame. Of Note the Mission equipment on the YO-3A was designed and built by Electro-Optical, a division of Xerox. Any one interested in more information can contact me through the www.yo-3a.com website. Also, see http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/stalker.html
Posted by Kurt Olney on June 22,2010 | 12:21PM
Anyone still in contact with Hostage Rifle (Phil Smith)? We were Quonset hut mates at MMAF 1969. I flew 46s with HMM-165 but having an OV-10 around was always nice - they were the shortest link to fixed wing air whenever we ended up in a shxt sandwich. As I recall, for a time the MMAF OV-10s were getting better KBAs than the F4s flying out of Danang. Semper Fi, 'til I die!
Posted by Jeff Sinclair on June 28,2010 | 01:27PM
Great bird, I served with it for 10 years off and on. The flight hour to man hour ratio and operating costs were the lowest in the Naval inventory, even in its advanced age and after two mods. I imagine with modern mandrel type composite wing and airframe plus updates to its many mech-elec systems(60s tech)it would be the ideal low cost multi-purpose COIN platform; with even lower flight/maintenance ratios. The LW-3B ejection seat had 0-0 capability...so the seats weren't a drawback when you were only 30 feet off of the ground with no chance of surviving a "silk only Bailout"!
Posted by Rick Barton on July 19,2010 | 01:37PM