Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

On 7 Feb 2006 11:32:50 -0800, "Douglas Eagleson"
wrote:


Douglas Eagleson wrote:
Thats for a reasonable repy.

My idea was for a rebuilt A-10, meaning the design goes back to the
manufacturer. All the real professionals here need to complain of the
lack of adequate fighter design, in my opinion.

snip rehash of refutations of your stupidity

So I changed my topic and the A-10 is a closed topic.

And you're a demonstrated idiot. Thanks for playing.

The old "declare victory and go home" maneuver.

--
Mike Kanze

"If you're in the Army, it doesn't matter... you have no soul, being a brainwashed killer."

(I was told this by a very earnest young woman in Berkeley the other day. The look on her face when I asked why she was risking life and limb by angering a soulless killer was worth the lecture.)

-- Douglas Berry

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

[drivel snipped]

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

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
Thats for a reasonable repy.

My idea was for a rebuilt A-10, meaning the design goes back to the
manufacturer. All the real professionals here need to complain of the
lack of adequate fighter design, in my opinion.

Supersonic critical airspeed appears a worrysome thing when in fact it
is a simple airframe stress. Nothing drastic happens. An A-10 is a
slow speed design and the basic idea was to do a cheap re-engine to get
an plane suitable for a fighter pilot.

I will comment here on the thread responses so far.

A basic complaint of my idea is that at mach 1 the wings will fall off.

I do not wonder very hard at the ingenuity of the designer of the A-10
because it is an over built and stressed aircraft. Taking some weight
out of the wings just might be in order.

So the angle of the wings as the deciding factor has to be decided.
And it is a fact that as speed increases that angle of attack
decreases. ANd the supersonic speed does not alter the rule.

A single problem exists and the cause of unstable airframes is a large
problem. And I think the original designer made sure the design was a
nice stable nonvibrating one. And so the aerodynamical question
becomes the higher speed stability in relation to the original design
speed.

So the person then needs to consult the aerodynamical type who warns of
the means of stability control in mdern airframes. So the
poster/commenter has to request the exact airframe beam to be examined.
And it has beams for such stability reasons already.

And inadequacy for a higher frequency of reduction is then the real
question. Maybe it is going to have the tail fall off. But the wings
will stay on.

And the beams are designed for a complete failure of the additional
beam. It literally has a durability unsurpasable in strength.

And so the fact remains that making it a new aircraft is the question.
I vote yes. And the typical commenter says the wings will fall off.

I do not know the exact design issue, but have seen the drawings and it
appears fine for re-engining. In fact new engines are going in. May be
a subsonic missile platform is needed.

A nice radar can be mounted on it.

SO my claim is that it is just an idea, and it does not stink, because
it is already getting new engines and maybe then it will be allowed to
go to supersonic?

And so the real issue the becomes the exact method of covering air
defenses. Why not ask for 12 missles and radar on the S-3. Somebody
made that comment. It is a lightweight design compared to the A-10.
and I get to comment critically.

ANd so the story goes to the provable necessity for the design to match
the exact role. So pick the tactic for the available aircraft or
request the new aircraft.

I can then advise on the exact usage of the given aircraft. And the
commenter then gets to advise why the mission is out to the critical
distance and then a return. A certain real law of available contact
duration is calculatable. And the exact cause of the pattern is to be
discussed by the real commenter.

So I changed my topic and the A-10 is a closed topic.

Largely because you could not mask your total ignorance of supersonic
aerodynamics, weapons systems, or energy maneuverability with convoluted,
but nonsensical English.

R / John

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

Holy crap, you weren't kidding. I Googled "Douglas Eagleson" and came up
with the following. He has some great ideas for blowing up tanks as well.

http://www.angelfire.com/md3/dougeagleson/
http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about135972.html

Doug, you should get a resume off to Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, etc.
immediately. They obviously been doing it all wrong these many years.

Curt

On 7 Feb 2006 11:32:50 -0800, "Douglas Eagleson"
wrote:

I will comment here on the thread responses so far.

A basic complaint of my idea is that at mach 1 the wings will fall off.

Not at all. The basic complaint is your contention that putting more
powerful afterburning engines on a subsonic airframe would allow it to
fly both longer and faster.

Neither is very likely with the A-10, since the existing turbofans
were designed for extended endurance in the first place. Afterburning
engines would consume more fuel, not less and with the planform of the
aircraft already established, there's no room for more fuel.

While you might be able to push the Hog a bit faster, you won't get
anywhere near Mach 1 without encountering severe problems of
compressibility, high drag rise, shockwave interference, etc. etc.

More powerful engines could allow you to sustain airspeed a bit better
and achieve higher g-loads without airspeed bleedoff.

I do not wonder very hard at the ingenuity of the designer of the A-10
because it is an over built and stressed aircraft. Taking some weight
out of the wings just might be in order.

The A-10 (like all aircraft) is a complex bundle of engineering
trade-offs. It is not over built, but built to do the job it was
designed for.

Consider that the wing is stressed to carry ordnance--lots of it. That
means strength is required and that strength must deal with multiples
of the weight of the ordnance load encountered when maneuvering (i.e.
pulling "G").

So the angle of the wings as the deciding factor has to be decided.
And it is a fact that as speed increases that angle of attack
decreases. ANd the supersonic speed does not alter the rule.

As speed increases AOA usually does decrease. But, you also encounter
increases in drag and as you approach the mach, the drag rise increase
is exponential, not linear.

Depending upon the shape of the airfoil, supersonic speed does alter
many of the rules--that's why it was so hard to build a supersonice
airplane in the first place.

A single problem exists and the cause of unstable airframes is a large
problem. And I think the original designer made sure the design was a
nice stable nonvibrating one. And so the aerodynamical question
becomes the higher speed stability in relation to the original design
speed.

Do not confuse issues of airframe stability with controllability at
transonic speeds. Stability refers to the tendency of an aircraft to
converge or diverge from original conditions after a control
displacement. Highly maneuverable aircraft tend toward instability and
this is compensated for by various control systems. Decidedly subsonic
aircraft like the A-10 tend to be more stable and require less high
tech solutions.

So the person then needs to consult the aerodynamical type who warns of
the means of stability control in mdern airframes. So the
poster/commenter has to request the exact airframe beam to be examined.
And it has beams for such stability reasons already.

What? Or in the military vernacular, WTFO?

And inadequacy for a higher frequency of reduction is then the real
question. Maybe it is going to have the tail fall off. But the wings
will stay on.

You're nowhere near the problem with that either.

And the beams are designed for a complete failure of the additional
beam. It literally has a durability unsurpasable in strength.

Still out of the ballpark with regard to supersonice flight.

And so the fact remains that making it a new aircraft is the question.
I vote yes. And the typical commenter says the wings will fall off.

If it is a new aircraft, rather than a re-engined A-10 (which was your
proposal), then I suggest we call it F-35.

I do not know the exact design issue, but have seen the drawings and it
appears fine for re-engining. In fact new engines are going in. May be
a subsonic missile platform is needed.

What new engines are these?

A nice radar can be mounted on it.

Where? What would be a "nice" radar? What size, weight, power
requirements, emissions, agility, defensive measures, weapons served,
etc? Where displayed? What range?

SO my claim is that it is just an idea, and it does not stink, because
it is already getting new engines and maybe then it will be allowed to
go to supersonic?

OK, it's official--I hereby "allow" anyone who wants to put the
throttles in the far left quadrant for as long as they want and to go
as fast as they can. They will not go supersonic.

And so the real issue the becomes the exact method of covering air
defenses. Why not ask for 12 missles and radar on the S-3. Somebody
made that comment. It is a lightweight design compared to the A-10.
and I get to comment critically.

The Hoover is a different airplane for a different task, however it
should be noted that it already has a radar and is carrier qualified.

ANd so the story goes to the provable necessity for the design to match
the exact role. So pick the tactic for the available aircraft or
request the new aircraft.

What? Do you mean design the aircraft for the mission? That's what the
A-10 did. And that's what the F-14 did. And, that's what the F-22,
F-35 and every other tactical system has done. Put conversion of sows
ears into silk purses still isn't practical. Ditto for lead into gold.

I can then advise on the exact usage of the given aircraft. And the
commenter then gets to advise why the mission is out to the critical
distance and then a return. A certain real law of available contact
duration is calculatable. And the exact cause of the pattern is to be
discussed by the real commenter.

A, the ol' real commenter--hopefully someone with some tactical
experience or maybe someone with some aeronautics background or maybe
even someone with some design history.

Yes, I'd be happy to "advise why the mission is out to the critical
distance and then a return"--it's because you've got to go where the
target is and because I always like to come home.

So I changed my topic and the A-10 is a closed topic.

Now that you've changed your topic, hopefully it will be something
related to your expertise.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:05:20 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

Yes, I'd be happy to "advise why the mission is out to the critical
distance and then a return"--it's because you've got to go where the
target is and because I always like to come home.

And almost as importantly (for the long term at least), we want the plane to
come home. Because it's hard having to replace an entire squadron several times
a day.

Well, the topic is, somebody has to judge the concept I mentioned and
they all repeat the old topic.

If I mention, fit the aircraft to the mission, the poster forgot the
topic of fleet coverage as opposed to figther domination one to one.

Absolute superior performance is not capable of long duration flight.
That is almost a law of physics.

So fitting the aircraft to the long duration makes an inferior figther
of longer duration.

And that is it. If the figther is to expensive to loft up there then
there is no defense present.

And the cost of defense rules. SO make the low cost defense possible
and do not use inadequate high cost offensive aircraft.

A fighter coverage hole because of cost is either allowed or not.
Somebody decides. ANd people are assigned a dollar value in managment.


I

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 6 Feb 2006 18:59:34 -0800, "KDR" wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

When we exercised with Spanish air defense forces, which is apparently
the closest mission to respond to your question, we would configure
with three tanks, AIM-9s and AIM-7E. In that configuration on CAP, we
could maintain station for slightly over two hours. If you translate
that into distance, you could get one hour out at approx 500 kts
ground speed, ten minutes of engagement time at altitude and one hour
back: that defines a 500 nautical mile combat radius. That could be
increased if you jettisoned tanks as they went dry to reduce drag.

We were collocated in those days with the 98th Strat Wing, so we had
tankers available at all times if the mission would require.

Ed Rasimus

An ex-ROKAF pilot who flew F-4D says 500NM is too far even with three
tanks. He commented the 10-minute engagement should be done only using
mil power to get back to base. Was there any massive difference in
endurance between C and D models?

The devil remains in the details. You would need to determine weapons
configuration, altitude profile, speeds, weather divert requirements,
etc. to avoid apples-to-oranges.

There was no significant difference in endurance between C and D (and
E model as well until the tanks were foamed in the mid '70s).


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

When you exercised with the Spanish, what was the assumed scenario? For
instance intruders would always come from the East, and they would be
multi-engined bombers, etc.

I guess only Tu-95 Bear and Tu-16 Badger could have flown that far...

On 7 Feb 2006 15:21:52 -0800, "Douglas Eagleson"
wrote:

Well, the topic is, somebody has to judge the concept I mentioned and
they all repeat the old topic.

Yet the people are repeating the old topic because it is just as true now as
it was when you brought it up.

Absolute superior performance is not capable of long duration flight.
That is almost a law of physics.

You might have to prove that to all the world's aircraft engineers, they don't
know that yet.

So fitting the aircraft to the long duration makes an inferior figther
of longer duration.

Not necessarily.

And that is it. If the figther is to expensive to loft up there then
there is no defense present.

And the cost of defense rules. SO make the low cost defense possible
and do not use inadequate high cost offensive aircraft.

Only if the low cost aircraft are capable of stopping the high cost threat.
Feel free to tell us exactly how many A-10s it will take to stop a flight of
stealth aircraft inbound at night.

A fighter coverage hole because of cost is either allowed or not.
Somebody decides. ANd people are assigned a dollar value in managment.

Not to the US military, which whill gladly risk a dozen or more additional
aircraft and crews just to rescue one downed pilot.

As for cost, which is more effective. Spending $18 million to train 12 pilots
and putting them into 8 planes costing $15 million each for a total cost of $198
million dollars or putting a single pilot with $2.5 million in training into a
single $180 million dollar aircraft who can shoot down half of the 12 cheap ones
in a single engagement and then come back a few hours later for the other half?

(Taki Kogoma) wrote:

:On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 03:49:08 GMT,
:allegedly declared to sci.military.naval...
:In article .com,
: on 6 Feb 2006 08:29:33 -0800,
: Douglas Eagleson attempted to say .....
: A fighter specially designed for fleet defense was my comment.
:
:You mean the F-14 then ....?
:
:Nah. F-111...

Nope. Not what it was designed for. That was just a mission they
tried to tack onto an Air Force design that wasn't appropriate to the
task.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney