Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

In message .com,
Douglas Eagleson writes
I am an avocate of adding afterburners to the A-10 for just this
reason. A long duration of coverage is the defensive role.

Afterburners reduce duration, they don't add to it.

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

No radar on the A-10 and nowhere to put one (the cannon and the
refuelling receptacle get in the way)

Mach 1.5 is possible even for the odd shape.

Straight down, maybe...

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.

Right, which explains why the MiG-21 has such a stellar kill ratio
against overcomplicated monsters like the F-15 and F-16.

Whatever the A-10's virtues, its value for air-to-air combat is
extremely limited.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.


HooHaHAHAHA , thats the funniest joke I've heard for years,
you were joking right ?

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


And real impossible

Mach 1.5 is possible even for the odd shape.

No it isnt

And this is enough for
coverage air to air fighting. A short evasive is the basic missile
defense.


Well no it isnt, without a BVR missile your A-10 will die
before ever seeing the enemy.


A basic airframe is perfect for the defensive role fighter.


Which presumably is why the worlds air forces are going
back to Sopwith Camels for air defence

Keith

a square plug can go supersonic nicely

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
a square plug can go supersonic nicely


Not really relevant. The A-10's airframe has a never-exceed speed (Vne)
of around 450 knots. Push it much faster than that and there's a good
chance of significant airframe damage. Even approaching Mach 1 will
certainly cause pieces to come off the plane. It won't reach Mach 1.5
except as a cloud of debris.

--
Tom Schoene lid
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

The USN does IFR for fleet CAP right now. However, the crew runs out of
stamina after seom indeterminate time. having spent over 10 hours in an
F4 cockpit, I can tell you I really wouldn't feel comfortable engaging
an enemy after ten hours aloft. The aircraft themselves have aloft
limits; new ones do replenish the oxygen system which was one of the
F4's limits. The oil supply, with decent engines, shouldn't be a
problem. But somewhere short of 24 hours aloft the crew will be
degraded. not os bad on big birds where you can get up, stretch,
scratch, eat and drink, use the the john and maybe even get a nap. The
other bad note is the consumption of aircraft time. Each aircraft can
fly only so many hours.cycles before maintenance must be performed. So
you have a limit consisting of maintenance capablity (manhours, skills
and space) and parts availability, not to mention fuel for the birds.
As for the A10, with only IR missiles and the 30mm GAU8 and no radar
it's not much of a interceptor. Compare it to an F14 - which, alas, are
now retired to the Boneyard. As for supersonic flight in an A10 - it is
to laugh. Lord knows what the critical mach is, or what would happen
when it reaches Mcrit. It's got the general aerodynamics of a WW2
fighter, thick airfoils, fixed horizontal fins, conventional elevators,
so I imagine it would tuck (nose down) and stay tucked regardless of
what the poor pilot did until it slowed below Mcrit. Maybe some test
pilot has probed the transsonic region in it. Maybe.
Walt BJ

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote in message
oups.com...
a square plug can go supersonic nicely


But we are discussing an aircraft designed for low speed.
It has MAJOR compressibility issues that preclude mach .8
operation let alone mach 1.5

Keith

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:09:25 -0000, "Keith W"
wrote:


"Douglas Eagleson" wrote in message
roups.com...
a square plug can go supersonic nicely


But we are discussing an aircraft designed for low speed.
It has MAJOR compressibility issues that preclude mach .8
operation let alone mach 1.5

Hush now, dont let reality intrude on the poor wingnuts fantasia.
--
Chuck Norris and Mr.T walked into a bar. The bar was instantly
destroyed,as that level of awesome cannot be contained in one building.

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote ...

a square plug can go supersonic nicely


It may come asa great shock to you, Doug, but there are a few here who over
decades, recent and past, have been intimately involved with naval
avaiation, AAW in a marine environment, air intercept controlling, CAP and
several other subjects of which you are currently less than adequately
informed.

Re-engining A10s, even with giant fuel-sucking AB equipped hardware, will
not allow them the operate at M1.5 (unless the wings separate quickly at a
very high altitude and even then the period of flight above Mach 1 will be
mercifully brief) The airframe was neither designed for not is it suited
for controlled flight at Mach 1 or even approaching Mach 1.

The A6, offering the distinct advantage of carrier-basing, even stopping in
for an arrestement and launch to refuel and rearm, a major convenience in a
pretracted conflict/threat situation, was considered (seriously and at
lenght, for employment in a manner similar to what you seem to envision.
The concept was dropped when the nature of potential future threats became
more clear, that (as with the F14/Phoenic combo, a fine fighter a/c equipped
with a missile designed to reach out and touch an oncoming attacker at long
range) the "perching" of a/c with long range AAMs in the skies above was no
longer the optimal appoach to fleet air defense, and that far greater
versatility was required.

While many of us may view the F/A18 series as less than perfect, I doubt
that any with any experience in a fleet environment would choose any
possible upgrade or refinement of an A10 as any more than an unrealistic (if
not ridiculous) proposal. Sadly, all those surplus S3 Vikings gone to the
graveyard would have been many times more effective in such a role than all
the A10 airframes in the world (and many times more effective would not be
effective enough to be suitable).

Shucks, I suspect a better case could be made for employing a B737 series
a/c ....a little slow in the turns, but capable of hauling about a vast
electronics bay jammed with all sorts of gear, a gen-u-wine rotary missile
launcher, a big radome, a decent time on station, room for an underbelly ASM
or two, and amazingly a radar cross section not much larger than the return
from a slab-sided old Warthog....

So, go on back to rec.aviation. Any better reception you might receive
their must be on account of the variety of prescription drugs employed by
the posters there.

TMO

No the concept of hounding the honest commenter is your problem. Not
mine.

All the airframe needs to perform over mach 1 is a little control work.

So the guy that was the original poster heard me say. I like the idea
of making the
A-10 a coverage defensive fighter.

And you get to listen again.

A radar emitting fighter is a sitting duck one, so they are there to
shoot first.

"TOliver" wrote:

:While many of us may view the F/A18 series as less than perfect, I doubt
:that any with any experience in a fleet environment would choose any
ossible upgrade or refinement of an A10 as any more than an unrealistic (if
:not ridiculous) proposal. Sadly, all those surplus S3 Vikings gone to the
:graveyard would have been many times more effective in such a role than all
:the A10 airframes in the world (and many times more effective would not be
:effective enough to be suitable).

I'll just note that a Super Bug configured with tanks and for an
air-to-air mission has a pretty good 'hang time'. Not the most
comfortable aircraft for a long duration mission, but then folks have
done 8+ hour missions in the C/D Hornet going into Afghanistan
(tanking 3 times along the way).

--
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night
to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-- George Orwell