A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 6th 06, 02:04 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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"
  #22  
Old February 6th 06, 02:06 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

On 5 Feb 2006 07:11:52 -0800, "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.


While great as a "mud mover" I'm with the majority in agreeing that
this is not a cost effective (or maybe even effective) suggestion.

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


Put A/B on an A-10 and you don't enhance duration. You might get it
to go real fast as long as the gas lasts. Then you have the "transit
time" issue. If he transits in A/B his on station time won't be much.
If he transits out of A/B (heavily encumbered by missles, radar pods,
etc.) he'll be slower than molassas in January in International Falls.
Which means you need a lot more airframes to keep an effective
umbrella.

These problems might have solutions, but eventually you have to
address the problem of adding layer upon layer of complexity.

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.


You can make a barn door supersonic if you put enough thrust behind
it. But that doesn't make it anymore than a barn door going really
fast.

A basic airframe is perfect for the defensive role fighter.


Maybe so, but it violates the Vince Lombardi Principle: The best
defense is a good offense.

Every warrior needs a sword and shield to be effective. While this
might (note the conditional) be a dynomite shield it's not worth a
bucket of warm spit as a sword.

Bill Kambic
Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão
  #23  
Old February 6th 06, 02:52 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

"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.)


  #24  
Old February 6th 06, 02:53 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

Ed Rasimus wrote:
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


Many thanks for the reply. I enjoyed your book a lot.

In case of defensive missions, what was the Torrejon F-4C's 'typical'
mission radius? Did it normally involve air-to-air refueling?

  #25  
Old February 6th 06, 03:30 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

Andrew Chaplin wrote:

My, my, my, all that wit -- and charm, too, into the bargain.


You should have read him *before* the Dale Carnegie class...
  #28  
Old February 6th 06, 04:33 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

In article .com,
on 5 Feb 2006 15:29:46 -0800,
Douglas Eagleson attempted to say .....


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?


Then why pray tell fit one ?


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?


Why not use a more suitable airframe ?


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


No room in the nose.
And am I to understand you will put your expensive radar in fuel pods that can
be jettisoned ?


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.


Might I guess you are what, 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.
  #29  
Old February 6th 06, 05:31 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

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

  #30  
Old February 6th 06, 05:46 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:

:No the enhanced airframe is just a missile/rader launching system.
:
:A gun battle would result in the loossing of the A-10. It would not
:beat the aircraft you mention as the traditional dog fight. A radar
:game is is the actual game, though.
:
:The game is duration of fighter aloft time.

Then you should be using an S-3. It's already carrier rated and has
loiter time to burn.

By the time you beef up an A-10 to take cats and traps you've lost all
that loiter time to structural weight.

--
"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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 10:28 PM
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII Mike Yared Military Aviation 4 October 30th 03 04:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.