On 5 Feb 2006 07:11:52 -0800, "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.

While great as a "mud mover" I'm with the majority in agreeing that
this is not a cost effective (or maybe even effective) suggestion.

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

Put A/B on an A-10 and you don't enhance duration. You might get it
to go real fast as long as the gas lasts. Then you have the "transit
time" issue. If he transits in A/B his on station time won't be much.
If he transits out of A/B (heavily encumbered by missles, radar pods,
etc.) he'll be slower than molassas in January in International Falls.
Which means you need a lot more airframes to keep an effective
umbrella.

These problems might have solutions, but eventually you have to
address the problem of adding layer upon layer of complexity.

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.

You can make a barn door supersonic if you put enough thrust behind
it. But that doesn't make it anymore than a barn door going really
fast.

A basic airframe is perfect for the defensive role fighter.

Maybe so, but it violates the Vince Lombardi Principle: The best
defense is a good offense.

Every warrior needs a sword and shield to be effective. While this
might (note the conditional) be a dynomite shield it's not worth a
bucket of warm spit as a sword.

Bill Kambic
Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão