Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

Why does the Navy have aircraft but the Air Force doesn't have ships?

Well, supersonic flight is not a trivial matter. I flew the F104A
equipped with the J79-19 engine. Minutes after takeoff the fuel was
down to wehere the aircraft had a 1:1 thrust to weigth ratio. With
18,900 pounds of thrust (engine was later de-rated for longevity) the
Zipper would exceed its thermal limit quite handily. The problem as I
saw it was the windshield and canopy. M2.0 in the stratosphere in a
standard atmosphere (-57F) gave us an inlet temperature of 100C. M2.0
was also the USAF limit of lateral stability. Yes, we went faster now
and then - some went faster than others (I had a wife and 2 kids' 2.2
was enough for me). 2.4 is the limit for an aluminum-fuselaged aircraft
- above that you risk de-tempering the alloy and subsequent loss of
strength. The F106 on display at the USAF Air Academy is one such
aircraft - it and its engine were expended to establish a speed record
around (ISTR) M2.45. The idea of rebuilding an A10 to make a supersonic
interceptor out of it is so far from being even remotely practical that
only total unfamiliarity with what would be required could excuse such
a concept. Sorry for the bluntness - but it's true.
Walt BJ

They're too hard to taxi out of the parking spot on the ramp? Lousy
club? Not enough women?
JO quarters substandard? BTW USAF did have ships - well, crash rescue
launches. Later the USAF Sea Survival in Bscayne Bay (!) had an LCM and
some 35 foot Bertrams. Tough duty, indeed. Good friend of mine, Al
Brown, worked there for awhile.
Walt BJ

"Cap'n Crunch" Cap'n@Scrambled Eggs.Org wrote:

:Why does the Navy have aircraft but the Air Force doesn't have ships?

Because anybody can fly an airplane but not everyone can land one on a
ship and take it back off again.

--
"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

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

RAMILLE22

Yes they did, but there wasn't air-to-air refueling yet.

"WaltBJ" wrote ...


Well, supersonic flight is not a trivial matter. I flew the F104A
equipped with the J79-19 engine. Minutes after takeoff the fuel was
down to wehere the aircraft had a 1:1 thrust to weigth ratio. With
18,900 pounds of thrust (engine was later de-rated for longevity) the
Zipper would exceed its thermal limit quite handily. The problem as I
saw it was the windshield and canopy. M2.0 in the stratosphere in a
standard atmosphere (-57F) gave us an inlet temperature of 100C. M2.0
was also the USAF limit of lateral stability. Yes, we went faster now
and then - some went faster than others (I had a wife and 2 kids' 2.2
was enough for me). 2.4 is the limit for an aluminum-fuselaged aircraft
- above that you risk de-tempering the alloy and subsequent loss of
strength. The F106 on display at the USAF Air Academy is one such
aircraft - it and its engine were expended to establish a speed record
around (ISTR) M2.45. The idea of rebuilding an A10 to make a supersonic
interceptor out of it is so far from being even remotely practical that
only total unfamiliarity with what would be required could excuse such
a concept. Sorry for the bluntness - but it's true.
Walt BJ


Thanks for a nice, readable explanation of the stresses, physical and
thermal, of high speed operations. I didn't realize the F106 could achieve
that sort of speed. The F92-102-106 lineage covered several decades, a lot
of investment, and a mixed bag of results. Losing a high school friend as
he was transitioning into 102s and later a younger neighbor in a 106
accident, I would be slow to belittle the avaiation skills of the current
President who did successfully fly the birds, by some accounts statistically
more hazardous than most military endeavors

Douglas has now been briefed from a variety of perspectives as to the
unsuitability and inoperability of hid projected "redesigned/re-engined"
A10, "Wonder Wart Hog" to borrow from the cartoonist Gilbert Shelton and
just as unrealistic as were Gilbert's cartoons, either from the Austin
_Texas Ranger_ era or the later years in Hashbury.

Somewhere in his lineage, Douglas's ancestors matched an obstinately
pig-headed gene with one from the "Just Plain Stupid" family tree, and a "Do
Not Replicate" (even for fun or at home) placard should have been attached
to all offspring of the damnable conjoining, especially Douglas (who adds to
the mangy mix the additional qualities of (a) being a few bricks short of a
full load, (b) owning an elevator which stops well short of the top floor,
and (c) possessing an ever-burning porch light when nobody's home). Having
ridden into the fair city of smn perched in the back of a watermelon wagon,
his departure huddled in the back of a turnip truck would bring joy to all
(although admittedly, he has brought to us more amusement than most of his
ilk).

TMO

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.

Several things problematic there, not the least of which is that the
manufacturer of the A-10 is out of business.

As for "lack of adequate fighter design", I think that F-22 and F-35
seem to refute that contention quite nicely. And that totally ignores
the various competing aircraft that were developed in those two
competitions and a whole gaggle of systems which came and went off
drawing boards unseen by the general public.

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.

You might want to visit a good library and pick up some aero texts
regarding your contention about simplicity. Lots of things happen when
an airframe is pushed through the mach with various shockwaves coming
and going, various shifts of centers of lift and pressure, various
losses and regainings (hopefully) of control effectiveness.

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



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

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

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...

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

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.