are these things just a cheap and easy to use alternative to

Yes.

do they have any advantage other than longer loiter times?

>>33709154
Cheaper and easier to maintain, purchase.

File: airtractor.png (1MB, 986x662px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 986x662px

>>33709080
When your enemies don't have any credible anti-air capability other than small arms it makes more sense to use a flying tractor of death. It's rugged, easy to maintain, easy to fly, has a long hang time, and can land in a field or on dirt. Cost per flight hour is something like $400, that may sound expensive but compared to a jet or helicopter its nothing. Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars buying or producing a jet, on top of the cost of maintenance and runway upkeep, when you can get something that does the same thing for a fraction of the cost?

>4100kg payload

It would make a pretty good bomb truck for some third world military. Slow and vulnerable as shit but perfectly fine for flattening some band of revolutionaries or whatever.

File: 6922829689_9743c7ea1a_b[1].jpg (18KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 630x420px

Broncos were being trialed in syria recently, working CAS for special ops. They weren't trying to establish if the broncos are still useable, they were trialing the feasibility of using turbo prop aircraft as fast response CAS for special operations.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see the DoD order something like the archangel in the future.

>>33709235
Considering the WW2 era B-25 medium bomber had a max payload of 1361kg, that isn't too shabby for a single-engined turboprop that used to be a cropduster.

>>33709311
couple this with 5 minute scramble time and a 6-10 hour loiter and you can see why they make a lot of sense in a counter-insurgency role.

>>33709154
They have pretty good payload for a turboprop. They're also fairly crashworthy and have good visibility.

>>33709080

I wonder. Could these be used to threaten unescorted bombers like the B-52? Even if they fold like wet cardboard the moment a jet fighter gets into the scene, it would be something to consider.

>>33709080
Nice crop duster

>>33709372
probably not.
they are quite slow.

what about maybe using them on a carrier?
torpedoes?

As a low cost alternative, they work well.

Once proper anti-aircraft equipment is installed, then you're fucked.

These should work well on infantry/unarmored vehicles. Maybe even a helicopter if you wanna be a shit dick. Also, these have uses after combat uses for infrastructure, so either or, it's a good investment.

>>33709080
Once battery tech gets better electric props will be a thing. No heat signature = less effective AA.