Douglas Eagleson wrote:
KDR wrote:

Has any air force ever tried or practiced providing a consistent CAP
over a fleet by air-to-air refueling? I am wondering whether or not RAF
Tornado F3 units had ever done that.


I am an avocate of adding afterburners to the A-10 for just this
reason. A long duration of coverage is the defensive role.

A five hour rotation is possible for the Warthog upgraded. A radar
targeted front cannon is real cool.

Mach 1.5 is possible even for the odd shape. And this is enough for
coverage air to air fighting. A short evasive is the basic missile
defense.

A basic airframe is perfect for the defensive role fighter.

Nothing you've said makes sense for the intended purpose.
- adding afterburners to an A-10? Why? Afterburners are to boost
power, hence speed. Ok, useful for quick engagements or running. But
the fuel consumption rises astronomically. Nothing about an afterburner
will contribute to long duration.

- 5 hour rotation means nothing unless that fleet the A-10 is covering
is 50 miles off the coast. Radar targeted front cannon? Hmm, maybe you
should look at the specs on an A-10.

- Mach 1.5 in an A-10? Well maybe if it is at high altitude and the
wings break off, it will touch Mach 1 on the way down....
- Air to air in an A-10? Perhaps against helicopters but against a
dedicated fighter, the A-10 will be shot down with BVR missiles before
they ever see an enemy.

- What is a "basic" airframe? I could argue that a WWI Spad is a
basic" airframe.

Dean