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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
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" |
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 |