Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

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

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.

A basic airframe is perfect for the defensive role fighter.

Every responder need to get their noodle functioning before commenting.
Did I ever say the afterburner would always be used?

Nowhere did I make that claim of good practice.

And the idiots ignorent on how to launch the missile from the hanger
added are idiots. Why upgrade to a fighter without air to air missles?

A rader pod is placable on the nose or the fuel pods.

THe clean slow flight without afterburner gives up to five hours of
coverage duration.

My claim is a good claim. NEw engines would make the thing useful.

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
Douglas Eagleson wrote:

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

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.

A basic airframe is perfect for the defensive role fighter.


Every responder need to get their noodle functioning before commenting.
Did I ever say the afterburner would always be used?

Used or not, it's extra weight to haul around.

Also, an engine with an afterburner (and thus designed for higher speed
flight) won't be as fuel-efficient in cruise as the very thrifty
high-bypass turbofans currently used, which were designed for a
lower-speed environment.


Nowhere did I make that claim of good practice.

And the idiots ignorent on how to launch the missile from the hanger
added are idiots. Why upgrade to a fighter without air to air missles?

Well, you said "radar targeted front canon," not "missiles." Don't
expect people to assume things you don't mention.


A rader pod is placable on the nose or the fuel pods.

There's no place to mount a pod "on the nose' of the A-10. With a radar
in the nose, assuming you can find space, gun vibration will do nasty
things to its reliability.

In underwing pods, there are other sources of vibration, plus challenges
in keeping the radar boresighted and adjusted.

Also the antenna diameter of a pod will be much smaller than a typical
fighter nose radar. That means much less effective range.


THe clean slow flight without afterburner gives up to five hours of
coverage duration.

Of course, now you're lugging around afterburners (dead weight in
cruise), a large (draggy) radar pod, and apparently missiles. You can
expect much less endurance than the ideal clean configured cruise.


My claim is a good claim. NEw engines would make the thing useful.

It's damned useful now, in its designed role as a close air support
aircraft. But a fighter it's not.

New engines won't push the aircraft anywhere close to Mach 1, nor give
it the fast transonic acceleration you want in a missile platform.

Look, what you're proposing now is effectively a slower, less optimized
version of the F6D Missileer of the 1960s. That was dropped because it
would have been lousy at anything other than pure fleet air defense (and
not necessarily great at that).

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

In article .com,
on 5 Feb 2006 15:29:46 -0800,
Douglas Eagleson attempted to say .....


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

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.

A basic airframe is perfect for the defensive role fighter.

Every responder need to get their noodle functioning before commenting.
Did I ever say the afterburner would always be used?

Then why pray tell fit one ?


Nowhere did I make that claim of good practice.

And the idiots ignorent on how to launch the missile from the hanger
added are idiots. Why upgrade to a fighter without air to air missles?

Why not use a more suitable airframe ?


A rader pod is placable on the nose or the fuel pods.

No room in the nose.
And am I to understand you will put your expensive radar in fuel pods that can
be jettisoned ?


THe clean slow flight without afterburner gives up to five hours of
coverage duration.

My claim is a good claim. NEw engines would make the thing useful.

Might I guess you are what, 13 or 14 ?


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

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

"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)

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


Where do all these loons come from?

In article .net,
on Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:00:02 GMT,
Richard Lamb attempted to say .....

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


Where do all these loons come from?

His mommy let him get a yahoo account and now the boy thinks he is a military
planner

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

In article .com,
on 6 Feb 2006 08:36:24 -0800,
Douglas Eagleson attempted to say .....

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

Why not consider some folks around here have some experience with the subject ?

Again I ask,
So, what is it, 13 or 14 ?


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