Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:

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

Hint: Just before the Gulf War the Air Force wanted to get rid of the
A-10 *TO SAVE THE OPERATING EXPENSES*.

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

In article ,
on Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:14:28 +0000 (UTC),
Taki Kogoma attempted to say .....

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...

Say, what was that straight wing predecessor of the F111 that didnt get built ?



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
on Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:14:28 +0000 (UTC),
Taki Kogoma attempted to say .....

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...

Say, what was that straight wing predecessor of the F111 that didnt get
built ?


Douglas F6D Missileer

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On 7 Feb 2006 16:38:54 -0800, "KDR" wrote:

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.


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...

The exercises with the Spanish air defense forces were not so
stereotyped. Scenarios varied and threat ingress routes were all
quadrants and altitudes.

Let me note that US/Spanish air defense goes back a long way, at least
to the fifties. And, the Spanish radar environment was excellent.

I've recounted here previously one exercise in which my profile as
attacker involved starting after tanker drop-off in the Mediterranean
near Malaga with full fuel in a three tank configuration and running
supersonic from the coast to Madrid at FL 400 or higher. Starting in
full AB and hitting M 1.1 at the coast, I was able to leave it in
reheat all the way to Madrid and as fuel load decreased the
acceleration took me to M 1.6 by the capital.

I was successfully intercepted by a Mirage III out of Valencia at FL
480 and M 1.6--the best high speed intercept I've ever seen!


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

Tank Fixer writes:

In article ,
on Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:14:28 +0000 (UTC),
Taki Kogoma attempted to say .....

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...

Say, what was that straight wing predecessor of the F111 that didnt get built ?

The F6D Missileer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F6D_Missileer

-dB

David Brower wrote:
Tank Fixer writes:

In article ,
on Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:14:28 +0000 (UTC),
Taki Kogoma attempted to say .....

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...

Say, what was that straight wing predecessor of the F111 that didnt get built ?

The F6D Missileer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F6D_Missileer

-dB

I vaguely remember a proposal to arm A-6 Intruder with AIM-54 Phoenix.
Probably it was mentioned in "Grumman A-6 Intruder: WarbirdTech Volume
33".

WaltBJ wrote:
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 F-111's escape capsule not only had an advantage in supersonic
'ejection' at zero altitude but it allowed a greater degree of crew
comfort. The soviet Suhokoi Su 34 "Platypus", which is an Su 27
derivative, has a 2 crew side by side seating with a little
****ter/toilet and galley in the rear. Very impressive crew cabin
built of 17mm Titanium armour and the abillity to carry rearward facing
AAM's.

In article ,
on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:29:38 GMT,
Ed Rasimus attempted to say .....

Simply putting big engines on barn doors does not get you supersonic
(experience with the F-4 notwithstanding.)

I had a thought, the M1 tank has a gas turbine engine, could we fit reheat to
it and use the beastie as a fleet defense aircraft ???

;')


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Wed, 8 Feb 2006 09:36:54 -0000,
Keith W attempted to say .....


"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
on Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:14:28 +0000 (UTC),
Taki Kogoma attempted to say .....

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...

Say, what was that straight wing predecessor of the F111 that didnt get
built ?


Douglas F6D Missileer

Duh, thanks, that's the one.

Isn't that just about what our boy is proposing ?


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,

Douglas F6D Missileer

Duh, thanks, that's the one.

Isn't that just about what our boy is proposing ?


Nothing so sensible I fear.

Keith