Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

In article .com,
on 5 Feb 2006 15:29:46 -0800,
Douglas Eagleson attempted to say .....


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.

Every responder need to get their noodle functioning before commenting.
Did I ever say the afterburner would always be used?

Then why pray tell fit one ?


Nowhere did I make that claim of good practice.

And the idiots ignorent on how to launch the missile from the hanger
added are idiots. Why upgrade to a fighter without air to air missles?

Why not use a more suitable airframe ?


A rader pod is placable on the nose or the fuel pods.

No room in the nose.
And am I to understand you will put your expensive radar in fuel pods that can
be jettisoned ?


THe clean slow flight without afterburner gives up to five hours of
coverage duration.

My claim is a good claim. NEw engines would make the thing useful.

Might I guess you are what, 13 or 14 ?


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.