Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

In article .com,
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:

My idea was for a rebuilt A-10, meaning the design goes back to the
manufacturer.

The manufacturer is long gone. No hope there.

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.

You don't actually know anything at all about aerodynamics, do you, Doug?

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.

Except your prescription wouldn't do what you claim/want it to do.

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
Supersonic critical airspeed appears a worrysome thing when in fact it
is a simple airframe stress.

That you're able to be so spectacularly (and obliviously) in error
regarding your basic premise, doesn't do a lot for your overall
credibility.
--
Noah
"When you are in it up to your ears, keep your mouth shut."
-Ashleigh Brilliant

During WWII, Luftwaffe performed a consistent CAP overhead Kriegsmarine's
last cruisers during their Channel crossing from Brest to homeland

RAMILLE22

On 6 Feb 2006 08:41:38 -0800, "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.

Please take one of the many clues that have been offered already:
planes are designed for a specific performance envelope. Changing
engines will do something but not modify the basic flight
characteristics (much). Wings break off when overstressed, the
canopies will collapse when hit by supersonic shock waves, non swept
wings have very bad performance characteristics in supersonic flight,
etc. etc. etc.

The A-10 doesn't carry an air intercept radar, a necessity for a
fighter aircraft.

On 6 Feb 2006 08:34:22 -0800, "Douglas Eagleson"
wrote:


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

LMFAO! You really are a demented f*ckwit.



greg
--
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.

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
Why the BS return comments. You make irrelavent replies to the
original.


Where do all these loons come from?

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:

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.

Have you no pride whatsoever?...what will your poor mom think if
any of your foolishness gets back to her?
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"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/B seldom improves on-station time. It improves speed (somewhat depending
upon the aircraft), acceleration, sustained maneuverability, climb
capability and ceiling. (Did I miss anything Ed?)

A five hour rotation is possible for the Warthog upgraded. A radar
targeted front cannon is real cool.

The gun is fixed. Radar would assist in determining a range solution.

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.

The wing of the warthog has minimal (likely no) supersonic capability and
the odd shape and engine placement don't help either. I don't think it
could bludgeon through the number downhill with the F-22's thrust, much less
so with any realistic replacement for the current engines.

R / John

"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

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

I think that the most adequate and suitable response I can achieve is.....

"Bull-f*cking-****!"

At speeds slightly above Mach .8, the Warthog will begin to shed some
serious components.



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

Let's see, in that role, the A6, the S3 or even the jaunty B73 series would
be far better, but still not good enough, for the mission parameters you're
proposing simply don't fir into the fleet air defense priorities, no more so
than would the A10 serve to provide CAP over the Bush ranch on Prairie
Chapel Road, a few miles over the ridgeline from me or over the White House.
F16s and F15s are simply several magnitudes more suitable.

And you get to listen again.

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

.....and it's with an outlandish statement like the sentence above that
you've moved our mutual evaluation of your capacity from the "absurb and
trivial dilletante" to "silly twit in many fathoms over his head". You do
understand that for better or worse, aircraft involved in the intercept role
can hardly avoid the occasional shining of their gadgets. EMCON is a great
thing, but unsuited to aspects of air to air warfare beyond "dogfights", the
last freakin' envelope into which to introduce clumsy, hulking Warthogs.

Read, learn and ask, and the day may come when your posts are received with
something better than titters, guffaws snorts or the explosion of coffee
across keyboards. Should you choose otherwise, the staff recommends that
you not let the door strike you upon the ass as you exit.


TMO