Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

Ed Rasimus wrote:
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

What weapon did that Spanish Mirage III "use" to intercept you at that
time?

BTW, I'd greatly appreciate if you could recount any exercise in which
your F-4C defended the fleet against air threat.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote ....


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.

(snippagio before and after)

Interesting commentary. In the early 60s, the Italian air defense system
was better organized, but the Spanish were making substantial progress, some
of which must have been paid by Uncle Sam to reduce the vulnerability of
assets (although, other than a Bear, what could get to Rota?).

I can recall, 1963 or so, controlling F3 Demons and F8s West of Sardinia,
running an intercept on a low (and slow) flyer, a Gin-U-Wine He111, one of
a squadron/detachment?, the last of the breed, based at Palma flying
maritime recon on those trusty Merlin re-engines. The logistics a/c in
service there were Ju52s. The Palma a/c later turned up in movie roles for
_The Battle of Britain_, IIRC.

I had seen my first "real" F4s the previous Fall at Key West providing CAp
and other skullduggery during the Cuban episode. They were mighty
impressive birds, but then still in the teething process, faster than
anything about except for the Photo Crusaders which washed and polished,
clean with naught to slow them down but the square corners on the camera
covers, were mighty slick and sleek. For one who had gone to AIC school in
which the bogeys and the friendlies were sleepy old F3D (later F6)
Skynights, the performance of the new F4s was scary, providing a whole new
timeframe for 135LPI intercepts.

VF-13, equipped with F4Ds (the original F4 "Ford"/Skyray from Douglas)
through August 0f '62, had requipped with F3Ds/F3s for AG-10s '63
deployment. The Demon offered a better radar and FCS, but with flight
parameters closer to an A10, other than endurance which was altogether brief
(but then their possession by VF-13 was equally brief, with the birds
replaced by "semi-all-weather" F8Cs by Fall of 1964).


TMO

On 9 Feb 2006 03:09:06 -0800, "KDR" wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

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!


What weapon did that Spanish Mirage III "use" to intercept you at that
time?

The system that detected, launched and directed the Mirage III was the
newly installed and very high-tech "Combat Grande" radar environment.
The kill weapon would have been AIM-9J or possibly whatever the
similar French IR missile was.

The intercept was consistent with the rear quadrant low-aspect
requirements of such a weapon and was completed well within range of
that type.

BTW, I'd greatly appreciate if you could recount any exercise in which
your F-4C defended the fleet against air threat.

I never did any fleet air defense. We did, however, plan for
land-based aircraft to provide CAP over convoys, amphibious
operations, task forces operating w/out their own CV, etc.

The USN has a tendency to be a bit parochial about who is defending
them!

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

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 04:49:19 GMT,
allegedly declared to sci.military.naval...
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 ???

Less outlandish, how about a similar conversion of a jet-turbine
helicopter?

Gym "Hrm...If you put an Airwolf squadron on an LHD..." Quirk

--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.

KDR wrote:

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".

That I don't recall. The A-6F or G (or maybe both) had provision for
AMRAAM, but not Phoenix.


--
Tom Schoene lid
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

Thomas Schoene wrote:
KDR wrote:

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".

That I don't recall. The A-6F or G (or maybe both) had provision for
AMRAAM, but not Phoenix.


--
Tom Schoene lid
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

Yes I know about the A-6F/G with AMRAAM. But what I saw in that
WarbirdTech book was not about AMRAAM. IIRC, the proposal was made
before the F nad G models.

Ed Rasimus wrote:

:The USN has a tendency to be a bit parochial about who is defending
:them!

Primarily because we're afraid that the Air Farce might do the same
stellar job when they take over that job that they did for so many
years in providing close air support for the Army. :-)

I have a foil I want to use at a meeting, but I need to make sure no
USAF personnel are there before I do. It's a shot of a Hornet on
final to trap, with the caption:

"If it was easy, we'd let the Air Force do it."

--
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night
to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-- George Orwell

In article dbrower.1139421805@stacr35,
on Wed, 8 Feb 2006 18:05:17 +0000 (UTC),
David Brower attempted to say .....

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

Thanks, that's it. The original missile truck

--
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 Thu, 9 Feb 2006 17:27:48 +0000 (UTC),
Taki Kogoma attempted to say .....

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 04:49:19 GMT,
allegedly declared to sci.military.naval...
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 ???

Less outlandish, how about a similar conversion of a jet-turbine
helicopter?

The tank has a better gun.
Remember that is our friends whole premise that we not radiate radar..


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

Somewhat off-topic, but there was proposed at one time a single-seat variant of the A-6. IIRC, this one lost out early on to the A-7. There is a concept illustration of it somewhere on the web, but I no longer have the URL.

If you thought the A-6 looked slightly weird, this critter looked doubly so.

--
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

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message link.net...
KDR wrote:

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".

That I don't recall. The A-6F or G (or maybe both) had provision for
AMRAAM, but not Phoenix.


--
Tom Schoene lid
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"