Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote in message
oups.com...
a square plug can go supersonic nicely


But we are discussing an aircraft designed for low speed.
It has MAJOR compressibility issues that preclude mach .8
operation let alone mach 1.5

Keith

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:09:25 -0000, "Keith W"
wrote:


"Douglas Eagleson" wrote in message
roups.com...
a square plug can go supersonic nicely


But we are discussing an aircraft designed for low speed.
It has MAJOR compressibility issues that preclude mach .8
operation let alone mach 1.5

Hush now, dont let reality intrude on the poor wingnuts fantasia.
--
Chuck Norris and Mr.T walked into a bar. The bar was instantly
destroyed,as that level of awesome cannot be contained in one building.

On 5 Feb 2006 17:53:01 -0800, "KDR" wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

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

Many thanks for the reply. I enjoyed your book a lot.

In case of defensive missions, what was the Torrejon F-4C's 'typical'
mission radius? Did it normally involve air-to-air refueling?

During the late '70s while I was there, Spain was not yet a member of
NATO. (I participated in the integration and early work up exercises a
few years later when I was at USAFE Hq and Spain came aboard.)

There were no active missions from home base. We were always deployed
down the Med at forward operating locations in Italy and Turkey. We
trained for nuke strike, ground attack, air defense and
deployment--basically those were the days of fully qualified in
anything the aircraft was capable of doing.

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

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote ...

a square plug can go supersonic nicely


It may come asa great shock to you, Doug, but there are a few here who over
decades, recent and past, have been intimately involved with naval
avaiation, AAW in a marine environment, air intercept controlling, CAP and
several other subjects of which you are currently less than adequately
informed.

Re-engining A10s, even with giant fuel-sucking AB equipped hardware, will
not allow them the operate at M1.5 (unless the wings separate quickly at a
very high altitude and even then the period of flight above Mach 1 will be
mercifully brief) The airframe was neither designed for not is it suited
for controlled flight at Mach 1 or even approaching Mach 1.

The A6, offering the distinct advantage of carrier-basing, even stopping in
for an arrestement and launch to refuel and rearm, a major convenience in a
pretracted conflict/threat situation, was considered (seriously and at
lenght, for employment in a manner similar to what you seem to envision.
The concept was dropped when the nature of potential future threats became
more clear, that (as with the F14/Phoenic combo, a fine fighter a/c equipped
with a missile designed to reach out and touch an oncoming attacker at long
range) the "perching" of a/c with long range AAMs in the skies above was no
longer the optimal appoach to fleet air defense, and that far greater
versatility was required.

While many of us may view the F/A18 series as less than perfect, I doubt
that any with any experience in a fleet environment would choose any
possible upgrade or refinement of an A10 as any more than an unrealistic (if
not ridiculous) proposal. Sadly, all those surplus S3 Vikings gone to the
graveyard would have been many times more effective in such a role than all
the A10 airframes in the world (and many times more effective would not be
effective enough to be suitable).

Shucks, I suspect a better case could be made for employing a B737 series
a/c ....a little slow in the turns, but capable of hauling about a vast
electronics bay jammed with all sorts of gear, a gen-u-wine rotary missile
launcher, a big radome, a decent time on station, room for an underbelly ASM
or two, and amazingly a radar cross section not much larger than the return
from a slab-sided old Warthog....

So, go on back to rec.aviation. Any better reception you might receive
their must be on account of the variety of prescription drugs employed by
the posters there.

TMO

"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.

No the concept of hounding the honest commenter is your problem. Not
mine.

All the airframe needs to perform over mach 1 is a little control work.

So the guy that was the original poster heard me say. I like the idea
of making the
A-10 a coverage defensive fighter.

And you get to listen again.

A radar emitting fighter is a sitting duck one, so they are there to
shoot first.

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

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.

"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)