Why aren't we all investing in the power of turboprop aircraft?

awesome, you know whats the problem ?
turbo props sucks at CAS, they call only really do escort and/or pre planned missions and only in sterile airspace what in reality means you introducing another airframe that replaces nothing and makes CAS more expensive

Antonov/Taqnia An-132
Ilyushin Il-112
Airbus A400M
Alenia C-27J Spartan
Shaanxi Y-9
EADS CASA C-295
Lockheed Martin C-130J
Antonov An-70

There's plenty of prop aircaft in the recent years, just not in attack roles, because that's completely outperformed by turbofans other than the extreme niche role of cheap COIN and suveilance, in which you don't need as much POWAH

>Skyraider
>Turboprop
get out, noplons

The only reason the airspace in uncontested is because 1950s anti-aircraft weapons cant shoot down our planes

the reality of modern combat is that there will probably never be a battle against an enemy with an airforce at all
there are no airborne threats in any current battlefield

there is no need for such huge speed or air to air capabilities because no enemy will ever contest your space
they only need to drop bombs

What argument do you have for turboprops sucking at CAS. They can fly at much lower speeds than jets, allowing for longer staffing/bombing runs, and overal time on station.

Those same 1950s anti-aircraft weapons are also more than capable of taking out our current armed drones. We get around that by bombing their AA with our multi role jets. Then airspace is freed up for turboprops to patrol/bomb

Wtf does low speed have to do with CAS, why does everyone always say this shit? If I'm calling in CAS I need that plane hear now as fast as possible.

You do realize you can adjust airspeed, right?

>turbo props suck at CAS
in what regard? They have better loiter, similar armament, similar avionics, similar foul weather capabilities, and are slightly harder to lock onto with IR seeker MANPADs. They also still have the capability to fly above effective AAA and MANPAD engagement and retain PGM capabilities.

a lower stall speed allows for a plane greater time to pick out targets and aim
this is seen as essential for air support, hence why helicopters are the gold standard for it

Aircraft like the two in the OP cannot adjust their airspeed above low subsonic.

top speed of a Strike Eagle or Superbug is ~3x higher than the top speed of a super tucano.

Hello, this is the year 2019 speaking. Human eyes are no longer the primary targeting optic for aircraft.

You can adjust airspeed but not top speed. I call for CAS because I've come under contact, F16 is here dropping bombs in 30min. Turbo prop is here in 2 hrs. Why the fuck would I want a turbo prop?

Prop planes are slow as fuuuuuuuuck my dude, a quick google search gives me a top speed of 593 km/h for the super tucano. Even the A-10 goes 706 km/h, which is often cited "too fuckin' slow to get to troops needing urgent support".
The F-15E has a cruise speed of about 900 km/h, and goes supersonic when needed.

sigh

our insurgency wars are dominated by 2 types of missions, first one is on call and second one is on station, preplaned and convoy/escort ones are really being minority here

>there is no need for such huge speed

except for on call missions and on station missions (where aircraft are assigned one area and just sit there, and here is why b1 was absolute unsung here of our last ears)
> or air to air capabilities
awesome, thats why our armed forces changing doctrine to face near peer adversary ?

>they only need to drop bombs
we don't only need to drop bombs, we need to be there to drops times on time and actually have bombs to drop

>What argument do you have for turboprops sucking at CAS
to slow, no payload, niche role, waste of money

>They can fly at much lower speeds than jets,
this is relevant how ?
>allowing for longer staffing/bombing runs
no payload

>and overal time on station.
NO PAYLOAD

>makes CAS more expensive

Turboprops are a helicopter replacement, not a jet replacement. They loiter longer than helicopters and have less maintenance, which makes them cheaper.

Light attack squadrons could be attached to units the same way helos are. It’s the same concept as calling in a medivac. There’s no reason a small patrol base couldn’t build an improvised dirt runway to house a squadron of light attack planes. Turboprops are capable
Of operating off of dirt strips, jets are not. They would be a huge asset in small scale/low intensity conflicts(which have become the norm)

Yeah well still, engaging targets at lower speeds is more effective in combat than the time it takes for an aircraft to leave an airbase and get into a combat zone. Plus they can stay in the air a lot longer.

And yet you don’t need that speed for the role that a light attack aircraft plays

>we need to be there to drops times on time and actually have bombs to drop

That's why everyone hates jets, user. Unless you're SF, jets are scrambled after the fact, so they're always 20-30 minutes late. A cheaper and easier to maintain plane can be sent out to overwatch every mission so it's already there when the fighting starts.

>muh payload
2x 7-shot pods of APKWS cover 95% of situations.

Expect no that's not how it works. Air controller on the ground designates targets to aircraft and aircraft drops accurate payload onto target.

>Turboprops are a helicopter replacement
No they are not

[citation needed]

Getting on station is paramount, being able to loiter for an extra 10 minutes is pointless if it takes you an hour longer to get there while shooting is going on.

Turboprops can be flown off of dirt strips.
>have dirt strip on patrol base
>take contact out on patrol 20 kms south of patrol base
>call CAS
>tucano takes off and is there in minutes
>jet takes off 200km away and is also there in minutes.
>jet costs astronomically more to fly per hour

That's how helicopters do it; which in turn is why they get much better reviews than fixed wings. If you only want to hit a grid coord, arty is better than air, except gay pilots hate arty and enforce dumb permissions which slow down deconfliction from 30 seconds to 20+ minutes (the speed of an airplane) at which point might as well use an airplane because its there.

B-1 says hi.

>extra 10 minutes
I think it would be longer than that, and you're undervaluing that 10 minutes at the same time.

Turbo props can loiter for 4-6 hours instead of 30 minutes and be stationed closer to the contact zone in the first place.

It’s not a hard concept. Jets need a good place to take off from. Are usually only stationed in one or two areas for an entire region. Light attack craft can take off from small patrol bases. You can spread them out cheaply over a large area.

>aloha snackbar drops a mortar on your turboprop in the middle of the night

This

>arguing over CAS
>arguing about jtacs vs arty vs apaches
>arguing over basing

Pic related has MTI now, which is better SA than any AF pilot. CAS in your backpack, all it takes is a tablet and Raven base station.

Attached: literally 5.5 pounds, that's a 100rnd belt of 7.62.jpg (638x479, 109K)

And then you remember it takes more than a runway to operate an aircraft.

youtube.com/watch?v=EHMbkKi-QYo

Sometimes all you get is smoke with no other designations, sometimes you need your CAS to be the eyes 'cause you can't see shit or are supressed

I really like how the Super Tucano looks. I think it's because it almost comes off as "faux-retro" being a prop airplane, but painted in modern military colours, using modern materials.

Loitering drones with turbofan engines, large wingspan, SDB2 and detachable avionics package.

Hover an active zone for a full day, on call.

The Atomic Avenger cost less than the Tuscano.

>he doesn’t know you can park the planes under a canopy of HESCO wire suspended on 40 ft poles.

Jets are not limited to 30 min on station, and if refueling is available can remain on station for as long as pilots are capable of flying.

Because no one has enough pilots as it is.

And then you remember that mech tents exist along with easy to erect tent aircraft hangars.

Are you aware of the logistic footprint of aircraft? They need fuel, maintenance, ordnance, parts, shelter, and most importantly STAFF, not just pilots, but all the fucking ammo handlers, maintenance crew, flight control for the strip, they need weather reports you can't just set all that shit up in bumfuck nowhere

It's cute, but saves way less money then you'd think. Pilot, maintenance and support cost are the same for the Tucano and an F-16, while a goddamn viper isn't exactly impressive it's a hell of a lot more capable.

>you can't just set all that shit up in bumfuck nowhere
Like in the Indian ocean?

Turboprops have an outstanding record in Viet Nam against intensive ground fire no modern insurgency can match (unless China and Russia fund the fuck out of it) but the US can't afford more than the one squadron at Moody to train ragheads and prefers jet fighters since pilots are too valuable to risk in CAS missions. Infantry were considered worth risking aircrew in Southeast Asia where the CAS menu was better and fucking massive compared to the tiny force we field today. Quantity does matter because no aircraft can be in two places at once.

If you are seriously interested study OV-10 Bronco development and how the Navy tried to fuck it by overloading Bronco with radios. This backfired and Bronco became the premier FAC/light attack bird in Nam andthe main FAC in NATO during the Cold War. (I worked on them at Sembach AB.) Mohawk and O-2 were also very useful but retired as they were obsolete and you can't eject from an O-2. If your rear prop breaks you can lose a tail boom...

Light loitering fixed wing FAC/CAS/C4ISR would have saved Operation Red Wings by providing line of sight comms, radio relay, long loiter, better performance than helicopters at altitude, FFARs to give the Taliban a nice rocket bath and machine guns to mop up. Ditto Mogadishu where lightfighter fools sent helicopters into RPG range.

Those losses were minor to the brass and (literally) cost less than maintaining one fixed wing light attack squadron which is insanely expensive due to personnel costs. That's one reason Broncos successfully used in Syria were sold off afterwards.

Light prop CAS is dead to the US. Wiser air forces like the PAF still fly Bronco against ISIL and plan to acquire more prop jobs which are ideal for those missions. Remember they are faster and much more agile than a helicopter which besides being RPG bait are horrendously expensive to maintain and repair.

The concept has been proven in many wars but I'm not gonna type the whole internet.

>fuel
My patrol base had 2 giant bladders of fuel that would get resuoplied by trucks
>maintenance
A maintenance tent, and some mechs
>ordinance
ASP already at the PB
>parts
Convoys ressuply patrol bases
>shelter
Hangar tents
>staff
Live on the patrol base
>weather reports
Battalion intel already gives this info daily
>you can’t just set all that shit up in the middle of no where
You can for turboprop planes user

HESCO wire will not stop a mortar

Tucano parts are cheaper, cheaper cost per flight hour, less maintenance intensive

>The concept has been proven in many wars but I'm not gonna type the whole internet.

the amazing concept of aircraft with boomboom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>no aircraft

NO FUCKIN SHIT

>Turboprop
Can be useful for a niche-role that may or may not really exist if you handwaive all problems. Also other aircraft do that niche-role better.

>F-35
Just better.

Gee it's a hard choice.

It will set it off a distance away instead of allowing a direct hit. Same concept as RPG cage on an MRAP

It's about price and time in the air.

can it replace f-16 in its all roles ? can it even do that in some ? if not than its significantly more expensive as now you have to drag 2 logistics chains

F35s are great but you don’t need them to fly overwatch for a convoy

>Turboprops are a helicopter replacement
they work in tandem with each other

Geez, there are a small group of people on here that feel very strongly about this subject matter

Attached: B82B3E77-7DBE-4399-831C-780878148C1F.jpg (2000x1049, 170K)

It’s not meant to replace the f16. It would just be another tool in a company commanders toolbelt

>can it replace f-16 in its all roles ?
it's not suppose to

An f16 logistics train would have no business being at a small patrol base.

>Cheaper parts and flight hours

Way, way less then you'd think. The F-16 has a tremendous economy of scale as one of the most produced aircraft in the world.

They are actually more similar than you think - both can easily get shot down by a MIG-21.

Who else /YangGang/ in here?

well then its not worth it, 2 different logistics chains for aircraft with will really limited capability is just waste of money

nor any fixed or rotary wing aircraft, do you know that no small patrol bases fields aircraft ?

The f16 is great, I just realize that small turboprops could be a huge company level asset.

>Why have one plane when we have another
The A29 cost a fraction of the F16 operating cost and the parts are a lot cheaper. You don't need a jet to strafe and drop bombs on terrorists in afghanistan

Technically you’re correct, no patrol base should be occupied for more than 24 hours. I’m talking patrol base in terms of how the US set them up in these past conflicts. I was stationed out of a patrol base that housed my company of LAV25s, and we regularly had apaches berth on our patrol base

so here we come back again, can it replace f-16 in some roles ? if NOT then its to expensive
do you get it ?

It's just too expensive for it's capability, and it's not like there is a huge gap in company level air support between helicopters and fast movers.

Retard logic

>can it replace f-16 in some roles ?
yes, but it depends on the environment

fielding an A29 is Russia is dumb, fielding the A29 in Afghanistan is cost effective and superior
Also the F16 is getting replaced by the F35

yes m8 i have been there 3 times, same happened to me many many times, do you know what happens when hellis stay for to long? those dumb fucks will pull out mortars from fuck knows where and we will be under siege for some time, you cannot keep your air assets in anything smaller than regional bases

I didn't give a shit about yang (and his gun policies are dumb, but I'll let it slide because they wouldn't pass and he's not a truly bone-deep antigunner) until I saw his nick bostrom tweet. Anyone willing to listen to actual AI experts instead of stupid mainstream media is good with me.

>you cannot keep your air assets in anything smaller than regional bases
you know what hangars are right

because fuck the middle east, let the hadjis kill eachother instead. They will never become civilized if they haven't sold out to our capitalist hegemony already.

A cheap platform that can deliver bombs, conduct reconnaissance,and operate out of unimproved roadways is a great asset.

IF YOU CANNOT REPLACE ANYTHING WITH your turbo prop means you have to field 2 aircraft now and that what makes them to expensive

well m8 you are here arguing that 2

>means you have to field 2 aircraft now
said who?

You act like the f16 is the only plane that the US fields. There are many different aircraft supply trains to satisfy the many different aircraft we field

>pilot cost

Use enlisted pilots for Tucanos like we did in WW2. Boom, now pilot cost is cheaper.

not in patrol bases FFS, we don't keep aircraft in patrol bases, hell most of FOB didn't have anything bigger than hellis
you are arguing about thing you have no idea about

It is a much easier platform to fly, pilot cost and even more importantly pilot training costs would go way down.

I’m arguing for a concept. I’ve lived on patrol bases, I understand they currently don’t field prop planes, I’m stating that it wouldn’t be that hard to do.

no shit, so lets get one more with barely any use that sure gona save us money
can turbo pro replace f-16 then?

>can turbo pro replace f-16 then?
again, it's not suppose to replace it

>no shit, so lets get one more with barely any use that sure gona save us money
It will if we use them for low intensity CAS in stead of jets

>can turbo pro replace f-16 then?
As was stated earlier, that’s not the intent. The F35 replaces the f16

well then you will have to build up infrastructure and security to at least FOB level, fuck me, in most places i have been there would no place to put landing strip, but i see you logic, lets save some money by spending whole lot more money, murrica