Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

In message , Andrew Chaplin
writes
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
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.

Is that what the Germans were up to when they strapped Kormoran onto
Starfighters?

Also when the RAF hung Martel, then Sea Eagle, on its Buccaneers; then
used Tornado GR.1B for the role when the Buccs retired..

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 5 Feb 2006 06:45:53 -0800, "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.

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

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?

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

Ed Rasimus wrote:
"KDR" wrote:
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

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?

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

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

RAMILLE22

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.

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

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