The Very-Many-Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread XXXIV

[Commodore]

They're more efficient in the air. Particularly at moderate speeds. Hard to spot an insurgent when wizzing past at 600mph, and then immediately turning around and going for a refuel. Being able to loiter in an area for a while, and getting a really good look around, that's more important when trying to find a target that would rather not be found.

That is a significant advantage over jets, but the US already has an ever-growing fleet of UAVs that can fill that role. UAVs are also smaller, quieter, and less likely to be spotted by enemies on the ground than a manned aircraft. UAVs even have the ability to carry out airstrikes too.

That's why the US looking to acquire a turboprop for counter-insurgency seems odd to me. Makes sense for nations that may not have the money to invest in UAVs, but not so much for a nation like the US that isn't afraid to throw as much money as necessary at the military. The only advantage a turboprop would have over a UAV that I can think of is what Broken_Erika already mentioned: Turboprop aircraft can take much more ground fire than a UAV and still stay in the air. UAVs are pretty fragile in that regard. I guess turboprops would be better armed as well with a UAV only carrying a few missiles, while a turboprop could be outfitted with an array of guns, rockets, bombs, and missiles.

 

[shadowplay]

Why are turboprop aircraft considered good options for counter-insurgency operations? I ask because I've always noticed that a lot of South and Central American nations use turboprop planes for counter-insurgency but I always assumed it was because they were cheaper options for nations with limited defense budgets. However, I have been reading that the US is now considering a turboprop aircraft for light attack and counter-insurgency operations.

So is there any particular feature of turboprop aircraft that make them good for counter-insurgency operations?

They're more efficient in the air. Particularly at moderate speeds. Hard to spot an insurgent when wizzing past at 600mph, and then immediately turning around and going for a refuel. Being able to loiter in an area for a while, and getting a really good look around, that's more important when trying to find a target that would rather not be found.

Moderator Action: Please do not make a post consisting only of a video or a meme. Some discussion is warranted. --LM

 

[cardgame]

It is confusing though, because everything a prop can do, a UAV can do safer

Maybe they don't want to risk the tech falling into enemy hands, that's the only thing that makes much sense to me. Or some kind of backup in case OPFOR invents good enough electronic warfare to screw with our UAVs.

 

[Cutlass]

That is a significant advantage over jets, but the US already has an ever-growing fleet of UAVs that can fill that role. UAVs are also smaller, quieter, and less likely to be spotted by enemies on the ground than a manned aircraft. UAVs even have the ability to carry out airstrikes too.

That's why the US looking to acquire a turboprop for counter-insurgency seems odd to me. Makes sense for nations that may not have the money to invest in UAVs, but not so much for a nation like the US that isn't afraid to throw as much money as necessary at the military. The only advantage a turboprop would have over a UAV that I can think of is what Broken_Erika already mentioned: Turboprop aircraft can take much more ground fire than a UAV and still stay in the air. UAVs are pretty fragile in that regard. I guess turboprops would be better armed as well with a UAV only carrying a few missiles, while a turboprop could be outfitted with an array of guns, rockets, bombs, and missiles.

UAVs may fill a great deal of that role. But there's always a place for mixed force types to cover mixed situations. Sometimes you want a pilot on the scene to make the call.

 

[civvver]

I forgot to put my lunch in the fridge yesterday. I have leftover salmon and asparagus. So both are fully cooked but have been sitting at room temp for 24 hours. Do you think they are safe to consume?

 

[Arakhor]

Maybe not the fish, but you could give the asparagus a try.

 

[civvver]

Eh I tossed it since everything online said 2 hours out is bad. And cus it's fish it's hard to tell if it smells off or not.

 

[Synobun]

2 hours is a silly number.

 

[The_J]

For fish it probably still applies though.

 

[cardgame]

I'm 99% positive that meat of any kind is ruined after 24 hours in room temp.

 

[Cutlass]

I think I recall that I took a Red Cross course once, and their standard was 4 hours at room temp meant throw it out.

 

[Ajidica]

That's why the US looking to acquire a turboprop for counter-insurgency seems odd to me. Makes sense for nations that may not have the money to invest in UAVs, but not so much for a nation like the US that isn't afraid to throw as much money as necessary at the military. The only advantage a turboprop would have over a UAV that I can think of is what Broken_Erika already mentioned: Turboprop aircraft can take much more ground fire than a UAV and still stay in the air. UAVs are pretty fragile in that regard. I guess turboprops would be better armed as well with a UAV only carrying a few missiles, while a turboprop could be outfitted with an array of guns, rockets, bombs, and missiles.

Turboprops are "cheap and cheerful" compared to drones. Drones are fragile and while their cost per hour is less than jet fighters, it still is a bit more to a lot more than turboprop ground attack aircraft according to some quick googling.
http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/
I didn't see anything about number of hours of maintenance per flight hour, but I can't imagine drones are all that simple to maintain. Plus there are advantages of being able to get in close which drones really struggle to do.

 

[Takhisis]

I think I recall that I took a Red Cross course once, and their standard was 4 hours at room temp meant throw it out.

 

[Synobun]

What's the best program for doing line work? Photoshop makes lines, drawn or generated, all jagged.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Eh I tossed it since everything online said 2 hours out is bad. And cus it's fish it's hard to tell if it smells off or not.

I used to pack either sardine or salmon sandwiches in my school lunches. They were unrefrigerated for approximately 3.5 hours before I ate them.

I'm still alive.

 

[Lexicus]

I eat pizza with meat on it that's been sitting out for a day or more like all the time and it's fine

 

[The_J]

I think the 4 hours which Cutlass mentioned might have been for raw, and not for cooked.

 

[Synobun]

I eat pizza with meat on it that's been sitting out for a day or more like all the time and it's fine

Me too. Except with poultry.

 

[Lexicus]

I think the 4 hours which Cutlass mentioned might have been for raw, and not for cooked.

That may be. Most of the meat I eat on my pizzas is highly processed with lots of salt which I believe also extends the time it can sit out and still be okay to eat.

 

[Samson]

What's the best program for doing line work? Photoshop makes lines, drawn or generated, all jagged.

I am not quite sure what you mean. Vector based graphics packages can specify lines to an arbitratory accuracy, and you have to use them for producing high quality images. The expensive profesional one is Adobe Illustrator, the free clone is InkScape. They are quite different from drawing packages like photoshop / gimp, I have never got the hang of them.