If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote ... Thats for a reasonable repy. My idea was for a rebuilt A-10, meaning the design goes back to the manufacturer. All the real professionals here need to complain of the lack of adequate fighter design, in my opinion. The F14 was in essence designed to fill much of the requirement you're postulating, adding the capacity for quick high speed reaction, close combat handling capacity, a mix of short and long range missiles, plus rapid climb to station, all qualities unable to be met by even a totally redesigned A10. The trade off? A much shorter time on station, but then in a combat environment against enemy strike a/c, any a/c's weapons load would be quickly exhausted, so loiter time was not the highest priority. On the drawing boards since the mid60s, the F14 has come and gone, the mission for which it was designed and expensively developed gone with it. Supersonic critical airspeed appears a worrysome thing when in fact it is a simple airframe stress. Jeez, how can you be that unaware of the realities of basic aerodynamics. Would you care to predict the Mach number at which Cessna 172s begin to shed important components? I'm not quite sure if we could bolt a surplus J79 to a 172, but just for illustration sake the results would be informative for you. It would take a hell of a lot of airframe stiffening (measured in the many, many pounds category) to move an A10 to higher (but still subsonic) Mach ranges, and once there the a/c would be essentially uncontrollable, a doomed lawn dart. Nothing drastic happens. An A-10 is a slow speed design and the basic idea was to do a cheap re-engine to get an plane suitable for a fighter pilot. I'm not sure that their are many available choices less suitable than an A10. TMO |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
Ed Rasimus wrote:
"KDR" wrote: In case of defensive missions, what was the Torrejon F-4C's 'typical' mission radius? Did it normally involve air-to-air refueling? During the late '70s while I was there, Spain was not yet a member of NATO. (I participated in the integration and early work up exercises a few years later when I was at USAFE Hq and Spain came aboard.) There were no active missions from home base. We were always deployed down the Med at forward operating locations in Italy and Turkey. We trained for nuke strike, ground attack, air defense and deployment--basically those were the days of fully qualified in anything the aircraft was capable of doing. When we exercised with Spanish air defense forces, which is apparently the closest mission to respond to your question, we would configure with three tanks, AIM-9s and AIM-7E. In that configuration on CAP, we could maintain station for slightly over two hours. If you translate that into distance, you could get one hour out at approx 500 kts ground speed, ten minutes of engagement time at altitude and one hour back: that defines a 500 nautical mile combat radius. That could be increased if you jettisoned tanks as they went dry to reduce drag. We were collocated in those days with the 98th Strat Wing, so we had tankers available at all times if the mission would require. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com An ex-ROKAF pilot who flew F-4D says 500NM is too far even with three tanks. He commented the 10-minute engagement should be done only using mil power to get back to base. Was there any massive difference in endurance between C and D models? |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"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 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:
:A fighter specially designed for fleet defense was my comment. We had that in the F-14. We accelerated their retirement to save money and by more Super Bugs. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:
:No the concept of hounding the honest commenter is your problem. Not :mine. The concept of pointing out the ignorance of the commenter is mine. :All the airframe needs to perform over mach 1 is a little control work. Hogwash. All the airframe needs to perform over Mach 1 is a total redesign so as to prevent little details like the wings and empennage departing the airframe, terminating in uncontrolled intersection with terrain. :So the guy that was the original poster heard me say. I like the idea f making the A-10 a coverage defensive fighter. And once you do the redesign and rebuilt to get it over Mach 1 without losing pieces, now you need to beef it up so that it can take cats and traps without leaving the frame strewn across the deck. Then you get to figure out how to get fuel and weapons into your entirely new airplane. :And you get to listen again. : :A radar emitting fighter is a sitting duck one, so they are there to :shoot first. A non-radar emitting fighter can't shoot until it's practically up your ass. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:
:My idea was for a rebuilt A-10, meaning the design goes back to the :manufacturer. All the real professionals here need to complain of the :lack of adequate fighter design, in my opinion. Except: 1) That's not a problem, and 2) Your suggestion is worse than useless at correcting that problem if it should happen to exist. :Supersonic critical airspeed appears a worrysome thing when in fact it :is a simple airframe stress. Nothing drastic happens. An A-10 is a :slow speed design and the basic idea was to do a cheap re-engine to get :an plane suitable for a fighter pilot. Yes, but the actual idea is to get a deathtrap that disintegrates the first time you: 1) Launch from a carrier, 2) Hit the throttle and get close to Mach 1, or 3) Recover on a carrier. Not to mention that it won't do the mission. Other than those small details, it's a PERFECT plan. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
In article .com,
on 6 Feb 2006 08:36:24 -0800, Douglas Eagleson attempted to say ..... Why the BS return comments. You make irrelavent replies to the original. Why not consider some folks around here have some experience with the subject ? Again I ask, So, what is it, 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. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
In article .net,
on Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:00:02 GMT, Richard Lamb attempted to say ..... Douglas Eagleson wrote: Why the BS return comments. You make irrelavent replies to the original. Where do all these loons come from? His mommy let him get a yahoo account and now the boy thinks he is a military planner -- When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fleet Air Arm Carriers and Squadrons in the Korean War | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 5th 04 02:58 AM |
"New helicopters join fleet of airborne Border Patrol" | Mike | Rotorcraft | 1 | August 16th 04 09:37 PM |
Carrier strike groups test new Fleet Response Plan | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 18th 04 10:25 PM |
Fleet Air Arm | Tonka Dude | Military Aviation | 0 | November 22nd 03 09:28 PM |
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 4 | October 30th 03 03:09 AM |