October 15, 2003 at 5:26 pm
I obviously dont have to underline that plenty of nations choose combat-capable props and turboprops to train fighter pilots, example Tucano, Yak, Pilatus etc.
They’re not that expensive, and they produce a lower infra-red signature over jets (by definition), and I think some would be well-suited to filling the battlefield gap between attack helicopters and close-air support jets.
For example, the Pilatus PC-9 with laser-designator and hard points for laser-guided ATBM’s like Hellfire, Attacka or Vikhr. Surely a cheaper alternative to say a Hawk or Frogfoot, and more nimble at very low altitudes. Naturally, they also have greater speed than most helos, which counters the fact that they need to come from an operation helo. I’ve seen PC-9’s capable of +4.5 hours flight time with fuel pods.
The only turboprop I can think of in European history that has fought post-WW2 is the Argentinian Puccara which flew against the British forces over the Falklands. How did they perform?
Would it be worth equipping a turboprop like Tucano or PC-21 with countermeasures ECM, flare, dazzle and chaff or otherwise?