Small, slow and inexpensive propeller-driven planes are starting to replace jets

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,767
435
126
http://www.economist.com/node/17079443


JET fighters may be sexy in a Tom Cruise-ish sort of way, but for guerilla warfare—in which the enemy rarely has an air force of his own with which to dogfight—they are often not the tool for the job. Pilotless drones can help fill the gap. Sometimes there is no substitute for having a pilot on the scene, however, so modern air forces are starting to turn to a technology from the yesteryear of flying: the turboprop.
So-called light-attack turboprops are cheap both to build and to fly. A fighter jet can cost $80m. By contrast the 208B Caravan, a light-attack turboprop made by Cessna, costs barely $2m. It also costs as little as $500 a hour to run when it is in the air, compared with $10,000 or more for a fighter jet. And, unlike jets, turboprops can use roads and fields for takeoff and landing.


20100925_STP501.jpg

Nor is it only jets that light-attack turboprops can outperform. Armed drones have drawbacks, too. The Reaper, made by General Atomics, can cost $10m or more, depending on its bells and whistles. On top of that, a single drone can require a team of more than 20 people on the ground to support it, plus satellite communications. A manned turboprop can bomb an insurgent for a third of the cost of using a drone, according to Pat Sullivan, the head of government sales at Cessna. And there are strategic

considerations, too. Many countries’ armed forces rely on allies such as America for the expertise and satellite networks needed to run drones. Such allies can let you down in a pinch. Piloted light-attack planes offer complete operational independence—and, being lower-tech than many drones, are less subject to restrictions on exports in the first place.




They are also better, in many ways, than helicopters. To land a chopper safely in the dirt requires sophisticated laser scanners to detect obstacles hidden by dust thrown up by the downdraught of the rotors. On top of this, such dust makes helicopter maintenance even more difficult than it is already. Maintaining turboprops, by contrast, is easy. According to Robyn Read, an air-power strategist at the Air Force Research Institute near Montgomery, Alabama, they can be “flown and maintained by plumbers”. Thrush Aircraft, a firm based in Albany, Georgia, is even more expansive. It claims that the Vigilante, an armed version of its cropdusting plane that costs $1m, can be disassembled in the field with little more than a pocket screwdriver.



Turboprops are also hard to shoot down. Air Tractor, another firm that makes cropdusters, branched out into warplanes last year. One reason was that a fleet of 16 unarmed versions of its aircraft had been used by America’s State Department to dust South American drug plantations with herbicide—an activity that tends to provoke a hostile response from the ground. Despite the planes’ having been hit by more than 200 rounds, though, neither an aircraft nor a pilot has been lost.



In part, this is because of the robust mechanics of turboprops and in part because Air Tractor’s fuel tanks have rubber membranes which close around bullet holes to slow leaks. Add extra fuel tanks, which let the plane stay aloft for ten hours, six 225kg precision-guided bombs and more than 2,000kg of missiles, rockets and ammunition for two 50-calibre machineguns, and you have the AT-802U, a formidable yet reasonably cheap (at $5m) warplane.


Light-attack aircraft also now sport much of the electronics used by fighter jets. The MX-15, an imaging device made by L-3 WESCAM, a Canadian company, allows a pilot to read a vehicle’s license plate from a distance of 10km. It is carried by both the AT-802U and the AT-6, a top-of-the-range light-attack plane made by Hawker Beechcraft.
Not surprisingly, then, many countries with small defence budgets are investing in turboprops. Places that now fly them, or are expected to do so, include Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco and Venezuela. And the United States. For the biggest military establishment in the world, too, recognises the value of this new old technology. The American air force plans to buy more than 100 turboprops and the navy is now evaluating the Super Tucano, made by Embraer, a Brazilian firm.


In aerial combat, then, low tech may be the new high tech. And there is one other advantage that the turboprop has over the jet, at least according to Mr Read—who flew turboprops on combat missions in Cambodia during the 1970s. It is that you can use a loudspeaker to talk to potential targets before deciding whether to attack them. As Winston Churchill so memorably put it: “When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.”
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Why does that plane cost $2M ?
It's designed to get shot without falling down. A regular plane for transporting drugs from Mexico to the US is cheaper because they fall to the ground after being shot.

A lot of it is also design cost, transportation, maybe a warranty plan, small production runs, and specialize stuff that only applies to military equipment. It's like asking why a normal Lincoln is $50,000 but a bulletproof Lincoln costs closer to $100,000. That specialized stuff is all done by hand and it's expensive.
 

Blitzvogel

Platinum Member
Oct 17, 2010
2,012
23
81
Because low and slow is best for COIN operations, that's why turboprops like the Super Tucano make sense for their role, especially since drug-runners tend to use slow Cessnas and other similar aircraft. There is only one production jet optimized for the COIN role: the A-10, though it is arguably overkill, considering the counter-insurgency role kind of grew out of it's tank-killer and battlefield close support roles. Su-25 "Frogfoot" is too much of a strike aircraft, and not as capable of low and slow as needed.

4825L-2.jpg

We (USA) could've had a second COIN optimized aircraft in the form of the Scaled Composites ARES (pictured above), (VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9LlHcX8lg) designed by legendary aviation genius Burt Rutan and his team. I personally think the US government made a huge mistake in not acquiring the plane. Basically the ARES is an even smaller A-10, with better low and slow characteristics, drastically cheaper, and more maneuverable. The most striking thing about the plane (aside from it's design) is how Rutan and his team managed to cram a 25 mm Gatling cannon into the plane (specifically a GAU-12), design the aircraft to where it isn't thrown off balance by forces of it (but sure as hell slows the plane like the A-10). It's much faster than any current turboprop used for the COIN role, and since it uses a turbofan, there is no propeller that could easily be damaged like on a small forward base of operations or small arms fire. It has a longer range and can probably haul a larger useful load, which could be outboard fuel tanks, electronic gear (ECM pods, data gathering pods), as well as weapons.

Not to mention, it's actually faster than an A-10 is. An A-10 is a real tank killer, the ARES is not (no AGM-65 Maverick capability), but the ARES would certainly reek havoc never the less and pretty much could be the standard for small COIN aircraft had it been marketed towards South America or African markets where such a plane is completely necessary.

Wiki it for more info.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
i guess that's like the camera in your iphone. no, it's not going to replace your SLR for critical photos, but it's good enough. same with mp3s.
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
Considering how many of our enemies are practically living in the stone age, WW2 planes would work against most of them.
 

Blitzvogel

Platinum Member
Oct 17, 2010
2,012
23
81
Considering how many of our enemies are practically living in the stone age, WW2 planes would work against most of them.

Turbo props and small turbo fans are much better than old internal combustion engines. Huge thrust to weight advantage.
 

Blitzvogel

Platinum Member
Oct 17, 2010
2,012
23
81
are turbines still leaps and bounds more reliable?

To be honest, I don't think reliability would be an issue unless we are talking FOD, but they are more reliable in general operation. They cost more of course though, but enjoy greater fuel flexibility IIRC, and efficiency.
 

chusteczka

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2006
3,399
3
71
The US is spending too much on defense. This leads to cost cutting measures in which they need to market the advantages of "older" lower cost technology in comparison with "modern" higher cost technology.

The US Navy has been similarly considering the use of diesel/electric submarines to augment the nuclear fleet.
NextBigFuture.com - US Navy Needs Diesel Submarines

There are advantages to each form of technology in specific situations.
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,764
5,927
146
are turbines still leaps and bounds more reliable?
in terms of hours between failures, yes.
Ironically, they still cannot touch an ICE for fuel economy. For range and time-on-target, a diesel is best.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,783
6,340
126
Sorry, but Stealth is of the utmost importance. What if some AK carrying bandits get a hold of a Radar? Huh, huh? Game over man, game over. Pony up the >$100million/Plane.
 

Blitzvogel

Platinum Member
Oct 17, 2010
2,012
23
81
Sorry, but Stealth is of the utmost importance. What if some AK carrying bandits get a hold of a Radar? Huh, huh? Game over man, game over. Pony up the >$100million/Plane.

A radar needs a decent amount of electrical power and maintenence along with monitoring systems to run it.

Also COIN aircraft tend to fly very low. In an area like Afghanistan or mountainous area, where a low and slow plane will be at home, a radar system won't mean as much as it normally would. A point defense system like a Shilka or Tunguska sure, but we then revolve back to the fuel and ammunition issue.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,352
1,861
126
This is reasonable,

Strategic Bombers, maintain current fleets

Ground Support/Attack, keep around the A10s, but since they won't last forever, a large number of cheaper prop planes (where we have clear air superiority) will be just as effective as a medium number of expensive jet planes, and MUCH less expensive. (At least 1 order of magnitude.) Also, while helicopters are "cooler", turbo props are a hell of a lot more bang for the buck. I think the infantry deserves a hell of a lot of "bang" from their air support, and as a tax payer, I don't want to pay a whole lot of bucks, so this is a win win situation.

Fighters (Defined as "Air to air interceptors" or "defense for the bombers"), maintain existing fleet, replace with new tech when practical and necessary.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,352
1,861
126
Sorry, but Stealth is of the utmost importance. What if some AK carrying bandits get a hold of a Radar? Huh, huh? Game over man, game over. Pony up the >$100million/Plane.

I agree that we do need to pony up the money for Stealth for a percentage of the forces, however, you don't need stealth when you have clear air superiority and you've already bombed the hell out of the enemy power plant.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,783
6,340
126
A radar needs a decent amount of electrical power and maintenence along with monitoring systems to run it.

Also COIN aircraft tend to fly very low. In an area like Afghanistan or mountainous area, where a low and slow plane will be at home, a radar system won't mean as much as it normally would. A point defense system like a Shilka or Tunguska sure, but we then revolve back to the fuel and ammunition issue.

I agree that we do need to pony up the money for Stealth for a percentage of the forces, however, you don't need stealth when you have clear air superiority and you've already bombed the hell out of the enemy power plant.

Apparently I made a Stealth Post. o_O:D
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Sorry, but Stealth is of the utmost importance. What if some AK carrying bandits get a hold of a Radar? Huh, huh? Game over man, game over. Pony up the >$100million/Plane.

then they're still just shooting AKs into the air?
 

Scouzer

Lifer
Jun 3, 2001
10,358
5
0
I see Cessna Caravans everyday (civilian) and its pretty amusing to think of them as some kind of combat aircraft. They are huge planes relatively speaking and make big targets.