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.

Why the BS return comments. You make irrelavent replies to the
original.

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:

Why the BS return comments. You make irrelavent replies to the
original.


Any comments that I read were sensible, quite unlike your
proposal...perhaps you need to read up and apply some common
sense?
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
Why the BS return comments. You make irrelavent replies to the
original.


Where do all these loons come from?

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.

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

"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/B seldom improves on-station time. It improves speed (somewhat depending
upon the aircraft), acceleration, sustained maneuverability, climb
capability and ceiling. (Did I miss anything Ed?)

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

The gun is fixed. Radar would assist in determining a range solution.

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.

The wing of the warthog has minimal (likely no) supersonic capability and
the odd shape and engine placement don't help either. I don't think it
could bludgeon through the number downhill with the F-22's thrust, much less
so with any realistic replacement for the current engines.

R / John

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

"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.)

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