Why no CAS turboprops?

In article ,
says...
I'm sorry-- let me be a little more specific.
Is there any reason why a turboprop or pusher turboprop would be
less suitable for the low and slow CAS mission than say an aircraft
with a-10 style jet engines? I.E., is there some technological hurdle
that makes them innately less effective than jets at the speeds and
altitudes that CAS operates at?

The point is that "low and slow" isn't a healthy thing to do. "Low and
fast" is much preferable, even if it makes it harder to hit the target.

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:32:31 -0000, Abe wrote:

In article ,
says...
I'm sorry-- let me be a little more specific.
Is there any reason why a turboprop or pusher turboprop would be
less suitable for the low and slow CAS mission than say an aircraft
with a-10 style jet engines? I.E., is there some technological hurdle
that makes them innately less effective than jets at the speeds and
altitudes that CAS operates at?

The point is that "low and slow" isn't a healthy thing to do. "Low and
fast" is much preferable, even if it makes it harder to hit the target.
I'm not entirely certain about that-- the A-10, although it took
damage in Desert Storm, certainly didn't seem like a suicidal
proposition. I knkow some pilots who claim that the A-10 was more of
a case that it wasn't "Sexy" enough rather than it didn't work.

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:32:31 -0000, Abe wrote:

In article ,
says...
I'm sorry-- let me be a little more specific.
Is there any reason why a turboprop or pusher turboprop would be
less suitable for the low and slow CAS mission than say an aircraft
with a-10 style jet engines? I.E., is there some technological hurdle
that makes them innately less effective than jets at the speeds and
altitudes that CAS operates at?

The point is that "low and slow" isn't a healthy thing to do. "Low and
fast" is much preferable, even if it makes it harder to hit the target.
I'm not entirely certain about that-- the A-10, although it took
damage in Desert Storm, certainly didn't seem like a suicidal
proposition. I knkow some pilots who claim that the A-10 was more of
a case that it wasn't "Sexy" enough rather than it didn't work.

On a modern battlefield, I wouldn't give the A-10 much of a life span.
It might armoured like a tank, but it's sitting duck.

How would the A-10 survive in a theatre full of modern vehicle-mounted
SAMs, I wonder?

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:21:45 -0000, Abe wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:32:31 -0000, Abe wrote:

In article ,
says...
I'm sorry-- let me be a little more specific.
Is there any reason why a turboprop or pusher turboprop would be
less suitable for the low and slow CAS mission than say an aircraft
with a-10 style jet engines? I.E., is there some technological hurdle
that makes them innately less effective than jets at the speeds and
altitudes that CAS operates at?

The point is that "low and slow" isn't a healthy thing to do. "Low and
fast" is much preferable, even if it makes it harder to hit the target.
I'm not entirely certain about that-- the A-10, although it took
damage in Desert Storm, certainly didn't seem like a suicidal
proposition. I knkow some pilots who claim that the A-10 was more of
a case that it wasn't "Sexy" enough rather than it didn't work.

On a modern battlefield, I wouldn't give the A-10 much of a life span.
It might armoured like a tank, but it's sitting duck.

How would the A-10 survive in a theatre full of modern vehicle-mounted
SAMs, I wonder?

Not well-- if you sent it in alone. However, with SEAD it would do
pretty well-- A-10's in the first gulf war took plenty of fire from
shoulder fired SAMs' as well as cannon fire and came back in a
landable condition-- imagine an F-22 or F-35 doing the same. Also,
unlike the faster, more "sexy" aircraft, slow CAS can loiter in the
area, prepared to shoot up the odd target.
It should also be noted that During Desert Storm, A-10's did very
well:
"The Air Force sent 144 A-10s to the theater. While flying only 30
percent of the Air Force's total sorties, these aircraft achieved more
than half of the confirmed Iraqi equipment losses and fired 90 percent
of the precision-guided Maverick missiles launched during Desert
Storm. They demonstrated versatility as daytime Scud hunters in Iraq
and even recorded two helicopter kills with their 30mm guns. Although
A-10s flew more than 8,000 sorties in Desert Storm, only five were
lost in combat in a very high-threat environment. "

In article ,
says...

Not well-- if you sent it in alone. However, with SEAD it would do
pretty well-- A-10's in the first gulf war took plenty of fire from
shoulder fired SAMs' as well as cannon fire and came back in a
landable condition-- imagine an F-22 or F-35 doing the same. Also,
unlike the faster, more "sexy" aircraft, slow CAS can loiter in the
area, prepared to shoot up the odd target.
It should also be noted that During Desert Storm, A-10's did very
well:
"The Air Force sent 144 A-10s to the theater. While flying only 30
percent of the Air Force's total sorties, these aircraft achieved more
than half of the confirmed Iraqi equipment losses and fired 90 percent
of the precision-guided Maverick missiles launched during Desert
Storm. They demonstrated versatility as daytime Scud hunters in Iraq
and even recorded two helicopter kills with their 30mm guns. Although
A-10s flew more than 8,000 sorties in Desert Storm, only five were
lost in combat in a very high-threat environment. "

However, how many aircraft were deployed in the CAS role in large
numbers during that conflict? Without anything to compare those numbers
to, they're meaningless. Who's to say that a similar, faster aircraft
would not have had even fewer losses?

Would a helicopter count as a turboprop? Turbo-blade? :-)

In article dGKKb.8616$6l1.5192@okepread03, says...
Would a helicopter count as a turboprop? Turbo-blade? :-)

Helo engines are usually referred to as "turboshaft", which aside from
sounding suspiciously like a porn film, is possibly just another name
for a turboprop.

I wonder what the V-22 engines are. Turboprop when facing forward,
turboshaft when facing upward?

"Abe" wrote in message
...
In article dGKKb.8616$6l1.5192@okepread03, says...
Would a helicopter count as a turboprop? Turbo-blade? :-)

Helo engines are usually referred to as "turboshaft", which aside from
sounding suspiciously like a porn film, is possibly just another name
for a turboprop.

I wonder what the V-22 engines are. Turboprop when facing forward,
turboshaft when facing upward?

Isn't the presence of a transmission in the latter what helps delineate it
from the former?

Brooks

The OV-10 (twin turboprops) was used quite a lot for CAS (by the Navy
mainly, see "Black Ponies") during Vietnam. And since then by the
Philippines, and probably Venuzuela (sp?).

It was designed for Counter Insurgency (COIN) operations, which was
usually defined as low threat ops including CAS (but that was before
the SA-7 appeared!).

Great plane in a relatively low threat environment. Sucks when there
is radar guided AAA or manpads around - as Marines found out during
DS. Just too slow to get away from the threat!

Fun plane to fly, though, and a great FAC platform.

Kirk

"Kirk Stant" wrote in message
om...
The OV-10 (twin turboprops) was used quite a lot for CAS (by the Navy
mainly, see "Black Ponies") during Vietnam. And since then by the
Philippines, and probably Venuzuela (sp?).

It was designed for Counter Insurgency (COIN) operations, which was
usually defined as low threat ops including CAS (but that was before
the SA-7 appeared!).

Great plane in a relatively low threat environment. Sucks when there
is radar guided AAA or manpads around - as Marines found out during
DS. Just too slow to get away from the threat!

Fun plane to fly, though, and a great FAC platform.

I can remember my brother telling me that the USAF kept OV-10's rotating
overhead during the hours he and his crew were down near the Laotian border
after their dustoff UH-1 had been shot down. He had a particular affection
for it after that.

Brooks


Kirk