Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
a square plug can go supersonic nicely


While may referred to the MickeyD F-4 as proof
that with enough thrust, bricks could fly, no
sane person could ever expect the A-10 to near
Mach 1 in any situation when it wasn't shedding
pieces constantly. I'm not sure what would leave
first: the engine nacelle, the tail or the wings.


TCJ
Warthog Lover in it's intended role: Tank Killer
Extrodinare

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

Well.....look who appeared out of the blue! Haven't heard from
good-ole Doug since we chased him and his crack-pot theories off
Rec.Aviation.Piloting a couple of years back.

Which looney farm are you posting from this time Doug?

Do you and your wife still have that "LOOK AT HOW GREAT WE ARE"
web page up?

Bob Moore

Well you need to consider the reality of the suggestion and not play
idiot commenter side=bar jackass.

Chase me off was not the reason for not lurking more over on
rec.aviation. I willgo troll over there and expect a reasonable
repsonse not the jackass you are.

You have to refut the logic of my claim. not spout.

Where do you come from?

In article .com,
on 5 Feb 2006 15:33:51 -0800,
Douglas Eagleson attempted to say .....

Well you need to consider the reality of the suggestion and not play
idiot commenter side=bar jackass.

Some of us have experience with military hardware.
At least a couple are former fighter pilots...

Chase me off was not the reason for not lurking more over on
rec.aviation. I willgo troll over there and expect a reasonable
repsonse not the jackass you are.

I suspect the key phrase here is troll. Which is what you are becoming


You have to refut the logic of my claim. not spout.

Many people have.

Where do you come from?

Most of us are grownups, how about you ?


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

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 121...
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote
I am an avocate of adding afterburners to the A-10 for just this
reason. A long duration of coverage is the defensive role.

Well.....look who appeared out of the blue! Haven't heard from
good-ole Doug since we chased him and his crack-pot theories off
Rec.Aviation.Piloting a couple of years back.

Which looney farm are you posting from this time Doug?

Do you and your wife still have that "LOOK AT HOW GREAT WE ARE"
web page up?

I thought we had just encountered another manifestation of John
Tarver.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Well the reality is you need to actually read and be a real person.
Your wasted words are just evidence of common lazy jackass.

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote in message
ups.com...
Well the reality is you need to actually read and be a real person.
Your wasted words are just evidence of common lazy jackass.

My, my, my, all that wit -- and charm, too, into the bargain.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Which looney farm are you posting from this time Doug?

Do you and your wife still have that "LOOK AT HOW GREAT WE ARE"
web page up?

Bob Moore

Holy crap, you weren't kidding. I Googled "Douglas Eagleson" and came up
with the following. He has some great ideas for blowing up tanks as well.

http://www.angelfire.com/md3/dougeagleson/
http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about135972.html

Doug, you should get a resume off to Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, etc.
immediately. They obviously been doing it all wrong these many years.

Curt

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?

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?

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

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.

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
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?

Used or not, it's extra weight to haul around.

Also, an engine with an afterburner (and thus designed for higher speed
flight) won't be as fuel-efficient in cruise as the very thrifty
high-bypass turbofans currently used, which were designed for a
lower-speed environment.


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?

Well, you said "radar targeted front canon," not "missiles." Don't
expect people to assume things you don't mention.


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

There's no place to mount a pod "on the nose' of the A-10. With a radar
in the nose, assuming you can find space, gun vibration will do nasty
things to its reliability.

In underwing pods, there are other sources of vibration, plus challenges
in keeping the radar boresighted and adjusted.

Also the antenna diameter of a pod will be much smaller than a typical
fighter nose radar. That means much less effective range.


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

Of course, now you're lugging around afterburners (dead weight in
cruise), a large (draggy) radar pod, and apparently missiles. You can
expect much less endurance than the ideal clean configured cruise.


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

It's damned useful now, in its designed role as a close air support
aircraft. But a fighter it's not.

New engines won't push the aircraft anywhere close to Mach 1, nor give
it the fast transonic acceleration you want in a missile platform.

Look, what you're proposing now is effectively a slower, less optimized
version of the F6D Missileer of the 1960s. That was dropped because it
would have been lousy at anything other than pure fleet air defense (and
not necessarily great at that).

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