Stop Disrespecting the Turboprop: These engines are fine for modern air forces
1–10 of 10 posts
Re: Stop Disrespecting the Turboprop: These engines are fine for modern air forces
#2OA-X sounds like the polar opposite of the F-35. Simple, single-purpose, inexpensive, resilient, and maintainable. Congress will hate it.
Re: Stop Disrespecting the Turboprop: These engines are fine for modern air forces
#3OA-X sounds like the polar opposite of the F-35. Simple, single-purpose, inexpensive, resilient, and maintainable. Congress will hate it.
Yep. I think "single-purpose" is perhaps the part from which the rest flows.
I think this principle is humorously well-illustrated by this clip from "Pentagon Wars": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA&t=0m16s
Re: Stop Disrespecting the Turboprop: These engines are fine for modern air forces
#4A turboprop is also much better as a platform for surveillance radar.
Re: Stop Disrespecting the Turboprop: These engines are fine for modern air forces
#5OA-X sounds like the polar opposite of the F-35. Simple, single-purpose, inexpensive, resilient, and maintainable. Congress will hate it.
You've touched on a cultural misalignment - and here's another - who in the USAF would be willing to fly it?
It's essentially an assignment to the minor leagues of air combat.
Moreover, such planes would depend heavily on air supremacy gained by the Mach 2+ stuff.
OTOH, it would probably be a helluva lot of fun.
Re: Stop Disrespecting the Turboprop: These engines are fine for modern air forces
#6OA-X sounds like the polar opposite of the F-35. Simple, single-purpose, inexpensive, resilient, and maintainable. Congress will hate it.
You've touched on a cultural misalignment - and here's another - who in the USAF would be willing to fly it? It's essentially an assignment to the minor leagues of air combat. Moreover, such planes would depend heavily on air supremacy gained by the Mach 2+ stuff. OTOH, it would probably be a helluva lot of fun.
> Moreover, such planes would depend heavily on air supremacy gained by the Mach 2+ stuff.
I think that's part of the intended use-case, yes. Currently "anti-insurgency" implies opponents who do not have an air-force.
Re: Stop Disrespecting the Turboprop: These engines are fine for modern air forces
#7OA-X sounds like the polar opposite of the F-35. Simple, single-purpose, inexpensive, resilient, and maintainable. Congress will hate it.
You've touched on a cultural misalignment - and here's another - who in the USAF would be willing to fly it? It's essentially an assignment to the minor leagues of air combat. Moreover, such planes would depend heavily on air supremacy gained by the Mach 2+ stuff. OTOH, it would probably be a helluva lot of fun.
|who in the USAF would be willing to fly it?
Warrant Officers. The Army had a program during OEF/OIF where enlisted servicemembers could take a test and qualify for flight school to become helicopter pilots as a warrant officer. I found this tremendously attractive as an enlisted service-member and would have gone that route if I hadn't planned to leave and go to college instead.
Re: Stop Disrespecting the Turboprop: These engines are fine for modern air forces
#8A turboprop is also much better as a platform for surveillance radar. No engines hanging below the wing obscuring the radar field. Turboprop flies slower and thus stays longer over the target scene.
Re: Stop Disrespecting the Turboprop: These engines are fine for modern air forces
#9Interesting! Given that F-35s were going to lose in a dog fight and relies on long range missile superiority, why not mount the same missiles on simpler planes?
Re: Stop Disrespecting the Turboprop: These engines are fine for modern air forces
#10I thought a turbo prop was required for short, non paved air strips.