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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
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. Nothing you've said makes sense for the intended purpose. - adding afterburners to an A-10? Why? Afterburners are to boost power, hence speed. Ok, useful for quick engagements or running. But the fuel consumption rises astronomically. Nothing about an afterburner will contribute to long duration. - 5 hour rotation means nothing unless that fleet the A-10 is covering is 50 miles off the coast. Radar targeted front cannon? Hmm, maybe you should look at the specs on an A-10. - Mach 1.5 in an A-10? Well maybe if it is at high altitude and the wings break off, it will touch Mach 1 on the way down.... - Air to air in an A-10? Perhaps against helicopters but against a dedicated fighter, the A-10 will be shot down with BVR missiles before they ever see an enemy. - What is a "basic" airframe? I could argue that a WWI Spad is a basic" airframe. Dean |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
Leaving aside that afterburners without sufficient a fuel load are like
tail fins on a car, name a single theater in today's world order where the A-10s would be moving mud without F-15s and F-16s having achieved air superiority first. "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. 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
On 5 Feb 2006 06:45:53 -0800, "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. NATO called the concept TASMO (Tactical Air Support of Maritime Operations) and it involved land-based tactical aircraft tasked with both offensive and defensive mission in support of ships. Convoys in proximity to land masses can be easily covered as well as fleets supporting amphibious ops. The hard part is coordinating the airspace and fire control, since much fleet air defense is handled by SAMs and carrier-based aircraft. With everyone on board coordinated by AWACS it becomes easier. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
... On 5 Feb 2006 06:45:53 -0800, "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. NATO called the concept TASMO (Tactical Air Support of Maritime Operations) and it involved land-based tactical aircraft tasked with both offensive and defensive mission in support of ships. Convoys in proximity to land masses can be easily covered as well as fleets supporting amphibious ops. The hard part is coordinating the airspace and fire control, since much fleet air defense is handled by SAMs and carrier-based aircraft. With everyone on board coordinated by AWACS it becomes easier. Is that what the Germans were up to when they strapped Kormoran onto Starfighters? The Baltic sounds like a good place to do it, as would have been North Norway. (I do not remember it being among the tasks talked about for AMF(A), but it would have made sense given the naval infantry threat.) -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:28:33 -0500, "Andrew Chaplin"
wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . NATO called the concept TASMO (Tactical Air Support of Maritime Operations) and it involved land-based tactical aircraft tasked with both offensive and defensive mission in support of ships. Is that what the Germans were up to when they strapped Kormoran onto Starfighters? The Baltic sounds like a good place to do it, as would have been North Norway. (I do not remember it being among the tasks talked about for AMF(A), but it would have made sense given the naval infantry threat.) Yep. Since NATO (in the good ol' days) was pretty much Europe surrounded by water, there were a lot of options for using land-based aircraft over water. The most likely scenario was land-based aircraft attacking enemy shipping or amphibious forces rather than CAP for friendly naval operations. But, we did it both ways. It was a primary role for the wing I was in out of Spain and we exercised regularly in that mission with deployments to Italy, Greece, Turkey etc. It was always more fun to attack (or at least try to attack) the CVBG than to try to defend it. The Navy usually wanted us to drone in flying Soviet missile profiles (Kelt, Kitchen, etc.) so that they could exercise their radars and command/control. We wanted to develop tactics and run in with our hair on fire to bomb the carrier. Usually we got to do a little bit of both. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"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 |
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 |