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.

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.

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

You need to learn how to read common vernacular. I do not write in
predicate.

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote ...

You need to learn how to read common vernacular. I do not write in
predicate.


I suspect that most of us familar with the common vernacular, speaking and
writing in same on a regular basis, would take your second sentence above as
more than adequate evidence that you're as confused concerning English as
you seem to be about Fleet Air Defense.

TMO

TOliver wrote:
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote ...

You need to learn how to read common vernacular. I do not write in
predicate.


I suspect that most of us familar with the common vernacular, speaking and
writing in same on a regular basis, would take your second sentence above as
more than adequate evidence that you're as confused concerning English as
you seem to be about Fleet Air Defense.

TMO

A fighter specially designed for fleet defense was my comment.

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.

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.

"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

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

On occasion. If you survive the engagement and the enemy must egress.
OTOH, the warthog in any enhancement would be a rather easy target. BTW,
the Navy flirted with this concept in the F-6 Missileer. Never got past the
proposal phase.

I suspect your comment is grounded in theoretical study unenhanced by real
world experience.

R / John