Would there be any advantage to using prop-driven planes with

>>33701481
No

maintenance hours, price efficient

>>33701481
please make sure brain is engaged before putting post in gear

>>33701490
this
jet engines can even be more cost effective

>>33701481
Cheaper, better fuel economy and that's pretty much it. No reason to use them if you already have jets fulfilling the same role.

>>33701481
Making amateur weapons system analyst shut up about "muh cost efficient CAS"

File: 101%20(10)[1].jpg (23KB, 256x192px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 256x192px

A!E Spad. You have to love radial engines. It shot down a jet engine powered aircraft.

>>33701481
poverty

>>33701481
Probably worth it for strafing ISIS in the sand. Send out hundreds of them at a time and just light up their shitty Toyota trucks. Strafe back and forth using cheap fuel and cheap ammo relative to jets until their dead. Rinse and repeat.

>>33701481
Yes when you run out of ammo you can do low passes and chop up people with the blades

>>33701481
Yes, based on price per unit, and cost of maintenance per unit, versus lost per unit man-hour.

This is based on zero enemy air assets and minimal AA. Beyond that YMMV.

>>33701548
But sandniggers have a decent number of 14.5 and 23 and planes and pilots aren't cheap at all.

>>33701590
That and won't the planes be more vulnerable from ground fire and all the fucking MANPADs, being low and slow.

File: IMG_1394.jpg (54KB, 620x371px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 620x371px

>>33701590
>>33701628
The same logic was applied to the A-10

>>33701553
Can't you accomplish the same thing by attaching katana to jets?

>>33701725
So you're saying the A-10 is also obsolete? I agree.

>>33701725
And the A-10 is an obsolete piece of shit, glad you're keeping up.

File: TSFC map.png (23KB, 600x420px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x420px

>>33701481
>Would there be any advantage to using prop-driven planes with modern avionics for close air support and similar missions?
Fuel consumption, especially when loitering or flying at low altitude. A prop can slow down and pull the power back without losing much efficiency or range (BSFC increases only slightly and TSFC decreases substantially with lower airspeed). A jet becomes very inefficient at low speeds (jet TSFC is nearly constant regardless of airspeed, especially at low bypass ratios).
Props also offer better static thrust and takeoff performance, which might increase payload.

File: von rosen biafra mfi 9.png (275KB, 568x350px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 568x350px

They cost significantly less than modern jet aircraft (even with all the bells and whistles like the Super Tucano), and if you're just fighting COIN ops against guerrillas/cartels/shit-tier militias they work just fine. When you have all the bells and whistles in a prop craft like the Tucano models, you basically have a training aircraft that can be used to train pilots for modern jet aircraft, and potentially at a lower cost depending logistics and military funding and a bunch of other stuff. That's what the stated purpose of the Super Tucano/Short Tucano/whatever is, and that's why most of the countries that have purchased Tucano aircraft are first world states that have bought them as trainers and third world states that have bought them to go full-on Von Rosen on rebels and cartels in low intensity conflicts.