Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

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

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.

Largely because you could not mask your total ignorance of supersonic
aerodynamics, weapons systems, or energy maneuverability with convoluted,
but nonsensical English.

R / John