Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

[KDR]

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.

[Douglas Eagleson]

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.

[Dean A. Markley]

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.
>
Nothing you've said makes sense for the intended purpose.
- adding afterburners to an A-10? Why? Afterburners are to boost
power, hence speed. Ok, useful for quick engagements or running. But
the fuel consumption rises astronomically. Nothing about an afterburner
will contribute to long duration.

- 5 hour rotation means nothing unless that fleet the A-10 is covering
is 50 miles off the coast. Radar targeted front cannon? Hmm, maybe you
should look at the specs on an A-10.

- Mach 1.5 in an A-10? Well maybe if it is at high altitude and the
wings break off, it will touch Mach 1 on the way down....
- Air to air in an A-10? Perhaps against helicopters but against a
dedicated fighter, the A-10 will be shot down with BVR missiles before
they ever see an enemy.

- What is a "basic" airframe? I could argue that a WWI Spad is a
basic" airframe.

Dean

[sfb]

Leaving aside that afterburners without sufficient a fuel load are like
tail fins on a car, name a single theater in today's world order where
the A-10s would be moving mud without F-15s and F-16s having achieved
air superiority first.

"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 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.
>

[Ed Rasimus]

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

[Paul J. Adam]

In message . com>,
Douglas Eagleson > writes
>I am an avocate of adding afterburners to the A-10 for just this
>reason. A long duration of coverage is the defensive role.

Afterburners reduce duration, they don't add to it.

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

No radar on the A-10 and nowhere to put one (the cannon and the
refuelling receptacle get in the way)

>Mach 1.5 is possible even for the odd shape.

Straight down, maybe...

>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.

Right, which explains why the MiG-21 has such a stellar kill ratio
against overcomplicated monsters like the F-15 and F-16.

Whatever the A-10's virtues, its value for air-to-air combat is
extremely limited.

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

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Keith W]

"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.
>

HooHaHAHAHA , thats the funniest joke I've heard for years,
you were joking right ?

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

And real impossible

> Mach 1.5 is possible even for the odd shape.

No it isnt

> And this is enough for
> coverage air to air fighting. A short evasive is the basic missile
> defense.
>

Well no it isnt, without a BVR missile your A-10 will die
before ever seeing the enemy.

>
> A basic airframe is perfect for the defensive role fighter.
>

Which presumably is why the worlds air forces are going
back to Sopwith Camels for air defence

Keith

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Is that what the Germans were up to when they strapped Kormoran onto
Starfighters? The Baltic sounds like a good place to do it, as would
have been North Norway. (I do not remember it being among the tasks
talked about for AMF(A), but it would have made sense given the naval
infantry threat.)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:28:33 -0500, "Andrew Chaplin"
> wrote:

>"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? The Baltic sounds like a good place to do it, as would
>have been North Norway. (I do not remember it being among the tasks
>talked about for AMF(A), but it would have made sense given the naval
>infantry threat.)

Yep. Since NATO (in the good ol' days) was pretty much Europe
surrounded by water, there were a lot of options for using land-based
aircraft over water.

The most likely scenario was land-based aircraft attacking enemy
shipping or amphibious forces rather than CAP for friendly naval
operations. But, we did it both ways.

It was a primary role for the wing I was in out of Spain and we
exercised regularly in that mission with deployments to Italy, Greece,
Turkey etc. It was always more fun to attack (or at least try to
attack) the CVBG than to try to defend it. The Navy usually wanted us
to drone in flying Soviet missile profiles (Kelt, Kitchen, etc.) so
that they could exercise their radars and command/control.

We wanted to develop tactics and run in with our hair on fire to bomb
the carrier. Usually we got to do a little bit of both.


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

[Bob Moore]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote
> I am an avocate of adding afterburners to the A-10 for just this
> reason. A long duration of coverage is the defensive role.

Well.....look who appeared out of the blue! Haven't heard from
good-ole Doug since we chased him and his crack-pot theories off
Rec.Aviation.Piloting a couple of years back.

Which looney farm are you posting from this time Doug?

Do you and your wife still have that "LOOK AT HOW GREAT WE ARE"
web page up?

Bob Moore

[Paul J. Adam]

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 MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Juergen
Nieveler > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> Also when the RAF hung Martel, then Sea Eagle, on its Buccaneers; then
>> used Tornado GR.1B for the role when the Buccs retired..
>
>But the Bucc wasn't land-based originally, it was carrier-based. And
>unlike the Starfighter, it was actually designed for anti-shipping
>strikes.

True, except that the Bucc was designed for _nuclear_ anti-ship strikes
(toss-bombing Sverdlovs with buckets of instant sunshine, hence its 'S'
designator) - but when did you ever see a carrier-based Tonka?

And the Starfighter definitely hits the "lucky button" for maritime
strike: with that wing and that engine, like the Bucc and Tonka it's a
superb very-fast very-low raider for hitting a maritime group with
decent SAMs and having some chance of coming home in landable shape.

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

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Douglas Eagleson]

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]

Well you need to consider the reality of the suggestion and not play
idiot commenter side=bar jackass.

Chase me off was not the reason for not lurking more over on
rec.aviation. I willgo troll over there and expect a reasonable
repsonse not the jackass you are.

You have to refut the logic of my claim. not spout.

Where do you come from?

[Douglas Eagleson]

a square plug can go supersonic nicely

[Douglas Eagleson]

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.

[Douglas Eagleson]

You need to learn how to read common vernacular. I do not write in
predicate.

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote
> > I am an avocate of adding afterburners to the A-10 for just this
> > reason. A long duration of coverage is the defensive role.
>
> Well.....look who appeared out of the blue! Haven't heard from
> good-ole Doug since we chased him and his crack-pot theories off
> Rec.Aviation.Piloting a couple of years back.
>
> Which looney farm are you posting from this time Doug?
>
> Do you and your wife still have that "LOOK AT HOW GREAT WE ARE"
> web page up?

I thought we had just encountered another manifestation of John
Tarver.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Douglas Eagleson]

Well the reality is you need to actually read and be a real person.
Your wasted words are just evidence of common lazy jackass.

[Thomas Schoene]

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> a square plug can go supersonic nicely
>

Not really relevant. The A-10's airframe has a never-exceed speed (Vne)
of around 450 knots. Push it much faster than that and there's a good
chance of significant airframe damage. Even approaching Mach 1 will
certainly cause pieces to come off the plane. It won't reach Mach 1.5
except as a cloud of debris.

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

[Thomas Schoene]

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
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

[[email protected]]

On 5 Feb 2006 07:11:52 -0800, "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.

While great as a "mud mover" I'm with the majority in agreeing that
this is not a cost effective (or maybe even effective) suggestion.

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

Put A/B on an A-10 and you don't enhance duration. You might get it
to go real fast as long as the gas lasts. Then you have the "transit
time" issue. If he transits in A/B his on station time won't be much.
If he transits out of A/B (heavily encumbered by missles, radar pods,
etc.) he'll be slower than molassas in January in International Falls.
Which means you need a lot more airframes to keep an effective
umbrella.

These problems might have solutions, but eventually you have to
address the problem of adding layer upon layer of complexity.

>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.

You can make a barn door supersonic if you put enough thrust behind
it. But that doesn't make it anymore than a barn door going really
fast.

>A basic airframe is perfect for the defensive role fighter.

Maybe so, but it violates the Vince Lombardi Principle: The best
defense is a good offense.

Every warrior needs a sword and shield to be effective. While this
might (note the conditional) be a dynomite shield it's not worth a
bucket of warm spit as a sword.

Bill Kambic
Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Well the reality is you need to actually read and be a real person.
> Your wasted words are just evidence of common lazy jackass.

My, my, my, all that wit -- and charm, too, into the bargain.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[KDR]

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?

[Noah Little]

Andrew Chaplin wrote:

> My, my, my, all that wit -- and charm, too, into the bargain.

You should have read him *before* the Dale Carnegie class...

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Sun, 5 Feb 2006 20:52:19 -0500,
Andrew Chaplin attempted to say .....

> "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Well the reality is you need to actually read and be a real person.
> > Your wasted words are just evidence of common lazy jackass.
>
> My, my, my, all that wit -- and charm, too, into the bargain.

Well, I think you are half right.....

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

[Tank Fixer]

In article . com>,
on 5 Feb 2006 15:33:51 -0800,
Douglas Eagleson attempted to say .....

> Well you need to consider the reality of the suggestion and not play
> idiot commenter side=bar jackass.

Some of us have experience with military hardware.
At least a couple are former fighter pilots...

> Chase me off was not the reason for not lurking more over on
> rec.aviation. I willgo troll over there and expect a reasonable
> repsonse not the jackass you are.

I suspect the key phrase here is troll. Which is what you are becoming

>
> You have to refut the logic of my claim. not spout.

Many people have.

> Where do you come from?

Most of us are grownups, how about you ?


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

[Tank Fixer]

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.

[WaltBJ]

The USN does IFR for fleet CAP right now. However, the crew runs out of
stamina after seom indeterminate time. having spent over 10 hours in an
F4 cockpit, I can tell you I really wouldn't feel comfortable engaging
an enemy after ten hours aloft. The aircraft themselves have aloft
limits; new ones do replenish the oxygen system which was one of the
F4's limits. The oil supply, with decent engines, shouldn't be a
problem. But somewhere short of 24 hours aloft the crew will be
degraded. not os bad on big birds where you can get up, stretch,
scratch, eat and drink, use the the john and maybe even get a nap. The
other bad note is the consumption of aircraft time. Each aircraft can
fly only so many hours.cycles before maintenance must be performed. So
you have a limit consisting of maintenance capablity (manhours, skills
and space) and parts availability, not to mention fuel for the birds.
As for the A10, with only IR missiles and the 30mm GAU8 and no radar
it's not much of a interceptor. Compare it to an F14 - which, alas, are
now retired to the Boneyard. As for supersonic flight in an A10 - it is
to laugh. Lord knows what the critical mach is, or what would happen
when it reaches Mcrit. It's got the general aerodynamics of a WW2
fighter, thick airfoils, fixed horizontal fins, conventional elevators,
so I imagine it would tuck (nose down) and stay tucked regardless of
what the poor pilot did until it slowed below Mcrit. Maybe some test
pilot has probed the transsonic region in it. Maybe.
Walt BJ

[Fred J. McCall]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote:

: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.

Then you should be using an S-3. It's already carrier rated and has
loiter time to burn.

By the time you beef up an A-10 to take cats and traps you've lost all
that loiter time to structural weight.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Keith W]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>a square plug can go supersonic nicely
>

But we are discussing an aircraft designed for low speed.
It has MAJOR compressibility issues that preclude mach .8
operation let alone mach 1.5

Keith

[Greg Hennessy]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:09:25 -0000, "Keith W"
> wrote:

>
>"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>a square plug can go supersonic nicely
>>
>
>But we are discussing an aircraft designed for low speed.
>It has MAJOR compressibility issues that preclude mach .8
>operation let alone mach 1.5

Hush now, dont let reality intrude on the poor wingnuts fantasia.
--
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.

[Ed Rasimus]

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

[TOliver]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote ...

>a square plug can go supersonic nicely
>

It may come asa great shock to you, Doug, but there are a few here who over
decades, recent and past, have been intimately involved with naval
avaiation, AAW in a marine environment, air intercept controlling, CAP and
several other subjects of which you are currently less than adequately
informed.

Re-engining A10s, even with giant fuel-sucking AB equipped hardware, will
not allow them the operate at M1.5 (unless the wings separate quickly at a
very high altitude and even then the period of flight above Mach 1 will be
mercifully brief) The airframe was neither designed for not is it suited
for controlled flight at Mach 1 or even approaching Mach 1.

The A6, offering the distinct advantage of carrier-basing, even stopping in
for an arrestement and launch to refuel and rearm, a major convenience in a
pretracted conflict/threat situation, was considered (seriously and at
lenght, for employment in a manner similar to what you seem to envision.
The concept was dropped when the nature of potential future threats became
more clear, that (as with the F14/Phoenic combo, a fine fighter a/c equipped
with a missile designed to reach out and touch an oncoming attacker at long
range) the "perching" of a/c with long range AAMs in the skies above was no
longer the optimal appoach to fleet air defense, and that far greater
versatility was required.

While many of us may view the F/A18 series as less than perfect, I doubt
that any with any experience in a fleet environment would choose any
possible upgrade or refinement of an A10 as any more than an unrealistic (if
not ridiculous) proposal. Sadly, all those surplus S3 Vikings gone to the
graveyard would have been many times more effective in such a role than all
the A10 airframes in the world (and many times more effective would not be
effective enough to be suitable).

Shucks, I suspect a better case could be made for employing a B737 series
a/c ....a little slow in the turns, but capable of hauling about a vast
electronics bay jammed with all sorts of gear, a gen-u-wine rotary missile
launcher, a big radome, a decent time on station, room for an underbelly ASM
or two, and amazingly a radar cross section not much larger than the return
from a slab-sided old Warthog....

So, go on back to rec.aviation. Any better reception you might receive
their must be on account of the variety of prescription drugs employed by
the posters there.

TMO

[TOliver]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote ...

> You need to learn how to read common vernacular. I do not write in
> predicate.
>

I suspect that most of us familar with the common vernacular, speaking and
writing in same on a regular basis, would take your second sentence above as
more than adequate evidence that you're as confused concerning English as
you seem to be about Fleet Air Defense.

TMO

[Douglas Eagleson]

TOliver wrote:
> "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote ...
>
> > You need to learn how to read common vernacular. I do not write in
> > predicate.
> >
>
> I suspect that most of us familar with the common vernacular, speaking and
> writing in same on a regular basis, would take your second sentence above as
> more than adequate evidence that you're as confused concerning English as
> you seem to be about Fleet Air Defense.
>
> TMO

A fighter specially designed for fleet defense was my comment.

[Douglas Eagleson]

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.

[Douglas Eagleson]

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

[Douglas Eagleson]

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.

[Gord Beaman]

"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)

[Steve Hix]

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.

[Noah Little]

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

[ANQUETIL]

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

RAMILLE22

[Jack Love]

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.

[Greg Hennessy]

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.

[Richard Lamb]

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

Where do all these loons come from?

[Gord Beaman]

"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)

[John Carrier]

"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

[John Carrier]

"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

[TOliver]

"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

[TOliver]

"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.

The F14 was in essence designed to fill much of the requirement you're
postulating, adding the capacity for quick high speed reaction, close combat
handling capacity, a mix of short and long range missiles, plus rapid climb
to station, all qualities unable to be met by even a totally redesigned A10.
The trade off? A much shorter time on station, but then in a combat
environment against enemy strike a/c, any a/c's weapons load would be
quickly exhausted, so loiter time was not the highest priority. On the
drawing boards since the mid60s, the F14 has come and gone, the mission for
which it was designed and expensively developed gone with it.


>
> Supersonic critical airspeed appears a worrysome thing when in fact it
> is a simple airframe stress.

Jeez, how can you be that unaware of the realities of basic aerodynamics.
Would you care to predict the Mach number at which Cessna 172s begin to shed
important components? I'm not quite sure if we could bolt a surplus J79 to
a 172, but just for illustration sake the results would be informative for
you. It would take a hell of a lot of airframe stiffening (measured in the
many, many pounds category) to move an A10 to higher (but still subsonic)
Mach ranges, and once there the a/c would be essentially uncontrollable, a
doomed lawn dart.


> 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'm not sure that their are many available choices less suitable than an
A10.

TMO

[KDR]

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?

[Fred J. McCall]

"TOliver" > wrote:

:While many of us may view the F/A18 series as less than perfect, I doubt
:that any with any experience in a fleet environment would choose any
:possible upgrade or refinement of an A10 as any more than an unrealistic (if
:not ridiculous) proposal. Sadly, all those surplus S3 Vikings gone to the
:graveyard would have been many times more effective in such a role than all
:the A10 airframes in the world (and many times more effective would not be
:effective enough to be suitable).

I'll just note that a Super Bug configured with tanks and for an
air-to-air mission has a pretty good 'hang time'. Not the most
comfortable aircraft for a long duration mission, but then folks have
done 8+ hour missions in the C/D Hornet going into Afghanistan
(tanking 3 times along the way).

--
"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

[Fred J. McCall]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote:

:A fighter specially designed for fleet defense was my comment.

We had that in the F-14. We accelerated their retirement to save
money and by more Super Bugs.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Fred J. McCall]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote:

:No the concept of hounding the honest commenter is your problem. Not
:mine.

The concept of pointing out the ignorance of the commenter is mine.

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

Hogwash. All the airframe needs to perform over Mach 1 is a total
redesign so as to prevent little details like the wings and empennage
departing the airframe, terminating in uncontrolled intersection with
terrain.

: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 once you do the redesign and rebuilt to get it over Mach 1 without
losing pieces, now you need to beef it up so that it can take cats and
traps without leaving the frame strewn across the deck.

Then you get to figure out how to get fuel and weapons into your
entirely new airplane.

:And you get to listen again.
:
:A radar emitting fighter is a sitting duck one, so they are there to
:shoot first.

A non-radar emitting fighter can't shoot until it's practically up
your ass.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Fred J. McCall]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote:

: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.

Except:

1) That's not a problem, and

2) Your suggestion is worse than useless at correcting that problem if
it should happen to exist.

: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.

Yes, but the actual idea is to get a deathtrap that disintegrates the
first time you:

1) Launch from a carrier,

2) Hit the throttle and get close to Mach 1, or

3) Recover on a carrier.

Not to mention that it won't do the mission.

Other than those small details, it's a PERFECT plan.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Tank Fixer]

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.

[Tank Fixer]

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.

[Tank Fixer]

In article . com>,
on 6 Feb 2006 08:34:22 -0800,
Douglas Eagleson attempted to say .....

> 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.

Why not regale us with the changes you would make to achieve Mach 1+ ?


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

You might like it, that doesn;t make it a good idea.


> And you get to listen again.
>
> A radar emitting fighter is a sitting duck one, so they are there to
> shoot first.

You never heard of E2C I take it ?

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

[Tank Fixer]

In article . com>,
on 6 Feb 2006 08:29:33 -0800,
Douglas Eagleson attempted to say .....

>
> TOliver wrote:
> > "Douglas Eagleson" > wrote ...
> >
> > > You need to learn how to read common vernacular. I do not write in
> > > predicate.
> > >
> >
> > I suspect that most of us familar with the common vernacular, speaking and
> > writing in same on a regular basis, would take your second sentence above as
> > more than adequate evidence that you're as confused concerning English as
> > you seem to be about Fleet Air Defense.
> >
> > TMO
>
> A fighter specially designed for fleet defense was my comment.

You mean the F-14 then ....?

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

[Cap'n Crunch]

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

[WaltBJ]

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

[WaltBJ]

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

[Fred J. McCall]

"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

[KDR]

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.

[TOliver]

"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

[Ed Rasimus]

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

[Ed Rasimus]

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

[Taki Kogoma]

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]

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.

[Jack Love]

On 7 Feb 2006 11:32:50 -0800, "Douglas Eagleson"
> wrote:

>
>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.

<snip rehash of refutations of your stupidity>

>So I changed my topic and the A-10 is a closed topic.

And you're a demonstrated idiot. Thanks for playing.

[Mike Kanze]

The old "declare victory and go home" maneuver.

--
Mike Kanze

"If you're in the Army, it doesn't matter... you have no soul, being a brainwashed killer."

(I was told this by a very earnest young woman in Berkeley the other day. The look on her face when I asked why she was risking life and limb by angering a soulless killer was worth the lecture.)

-- Douglas Berry

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

[drivel snipped]

[John Carrier]

"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

[Curt]

> Which looney farm are you posting from this time Doug?
>
> Do you and your wife still have that "LOOK AT HOW GREAT WE ARE"
> web page up?
>
> Bob Moore

Holy crap, you weren't kidding. I Googled "Douglas Eagleson" and came up
with the following. He has some great ideas for blowing up tanks as well.

http://www.angelfire.com/md3/dougeagleson/
http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about135972.html

Doug, you should get a resume off to Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, etc.
immediately. They obviously been doing it all wrong these many years.

Curt

[Ed Rasimus]

On 7 Feb 2006 11:32:50 -0800, "Douglas Eagleson"
> wrote:

>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.

Not at all. The basic complaint is your contention that putting more
powerful afterburning engines on a subsonic airframe would allow it to
fly both longer and faster.

Neither is very likely with the A-10, since the existing turbofans
were designed for extended endurance in the first place. Afterburning
engines would consume more fuel, not less and with the planform of the
aircraft already established, there's no room for more fuel.

While you might be able to push the Hog a bit faster, you won't get
anywhere near Mach 1 without encountering severe problems of
compressibility, high drag rise, shockwave interference, etc. etc.

More powerful engines could allow you to sustain airspeed a bit better
and achieve higher g-loads without airspeed bleedoff.
>
>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.

The A-10 (like all aircraft) is a complex bundle of engineering
trade-offs. It is not over built, but built to do the job it was
designed for.

Consider that the wing is stressed to carry ordnance--lots of it. That
means strength is required and that strength must deal with multiples
of the weight of the ordnance load encountered when maneuvering (i.e.
pulling "G").
>
>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.

As speed increases AOA usually does decrease. But, you also encounter
increases in drag and as you approach the mach, the drag rise increase
is exponential, not linear.

Depending upon the shape of the airfoil, supersonic speed does alter
many of the rules--that's why it was so hard to build a supersonice
airplane in the first place.
>
>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.

Do not confuse issues of airframe stability with controllability at
transonic speeds. Stability refers to the tendency of an aircraft to
converge or diverge from original conditions after a control
displacement. Highly maneuverable aircraft tend toward instability and
this is compensated for by various control systems. Decidedly subsonic
aircraft like the A-10 tend to be more stable and require less high
tech solutions.
>
>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.

What? Or in the military vernacular, WTFO?
>
>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.

You're nowhere near the problem with that either.
>
>And the beams are designed for a complete failure of the additional
>beam. It literally has a durability unsurpasable in strength.

Still out of the ballpark with regard to supersonice flight.
>
>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.

If it is a new aircraft, rather than a re-engined A-10 (which was your
proposal), then I suggest we call it F-35.
>
>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.

What new engines are these?
>
>A nice radar can be mounted on it.

Where? What would be a "nice" radar? What size, weight, power
requirements, emissions, agility, defensive measures, weapons served,
etc? Where displayed? What range?
>
>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?

OK, it's official--I hereby "allow" anyone who wants to put the
throttles in the far left quadrant for as long as they want and to go
as fast as they can. They will not go 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.

The Hoover is a different airplane for a different task, however it
should be noted that it already has a radar and is carrier qualified.
>
>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.

What? Do you mean design the aircraft for the mission? That's what the
A-10 did. And that's what the F-14 did. And, that's what the F-22,
F-35 and every other tactical system has done. Put conversion of sows
ears into silk purses still isn't practical. Ditto for lead into gold.
>
>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.

A, the ol' real commenter--hopefully someone with some tactical
experience or maybe someone with some aeronautics background or maybe
even someone with some design history.

Yes, I'd be happy to "advise why the mission is out to the critical
distance and then a return"--it's because you've got to go where the
target is and because I always like to come home.
>
>So I changed my topic and the A-10 is a closed topic.

Now that you've changed your topic, hopefully it will be something
related to your expertise.


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

[Johnny Bravo]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:05:20 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

>Yes, I'd be happy to "advise why the mission is out to the critical
>distance and then a return"--it's because you've got to go where the
>target is and because I always like to come home.

And almost as importantly (for the long term at least), we want the plane to
come home. Because it's hard having to replace an entire squadron several times
a day.

[Douglas Eagleson]

Well, the topic is, somebody has to judge the concept I mentioned and
they all repeat the old topic.

If I mention, fit the aircraft to the mission, the poster forgot the
topic of fleet coverage as opposed to figther domination one to one.

Absolute superior performance is not capable of long duration flight.
That is almost a law of physics.

So fitting the aircraft to the long duration makes an inferior figther
of longer duration.

And that is it. If the figther is to expensive to loft up there then
there is no defense present.

And the cost of defense rules. SO make the low cost defense possible
and do not use inadequate high cost offensive aircraft.

A fighter coverage hole because of cost is either allowed or not.
Somebody decides. ANd people are assigned a dollar value in managment.


I

[KDR]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> 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

When you exercised with the Spanish, what was the assumed scenario? For
instance intruders would always come from the East, and they would be
multi-engined bombers, etc.

I guess only Tu-95 Bear and Tu-16 Badger could have flown that far...

[Johnny Bravo]

On 7 Feb 2006 15:21:52 -0800, "Douglas Eagleson" >
wrote:

>Well, the topic is, somebody has to judge the concept I mentioned and
>they all repeat the old topic.

Yet the people are repeating the old topic because it is just as true now as
it was when you brought it up.

>Absolute superior performance is not capable of long duration flight.
>That is almost a law of physics.

You might have to prove that to all the world's aircraft engineers, they don't
know that yet.

>So fitting the aircraft to the long duration makes an inferior figther
>of longer duration.

Not necessarily.

>And that is it. If the figther is to expensive to loft up there then
>there is no defense present.
>
>And the cost of defense rules. SO make the low cost defense possible
>and do not use inadequate high cost offensive aircraft.

Only if the low cost aircraft are capable of stopping the high cost threat.
Feel free to tell us exactly how many A-10s it will take to stop a flight of
stealth aircraft inbound at night.

>A fighter coverage hole because of cost is either allowed or not.
>Somebody decides. ANd people are assigned a dollar value in managment.

Not to the US military, which whill gladly risk a dozen or more additional
aircraft and crews just to rescue one downed pilot.

As for cost, which is more effective. Spending $18 million to train 12 pilots
and putting them into 8 planes costing $15 million each for a total cost of $198
million dollars or putting a single pilot with $2.5 million in training into a
single $180 million dollar aircraft who can shoot down half of the 12 cheap ones
in a single engagement and then come back a few hours later for the other half?

[Fred J. McCall]

(Taki Kogoma) wrote:

: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...

Nope. Not what it was designed for. That was just a mission they
tried to tack onto an Air Force design that wasn't appropriate to the
task.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[Fred J. McCall]

"Douglas Eagleson" > wrote:

:A fighter coverage hole because of cost is either allowed or not.
:Somebody decides. ANd people are assigned a dollar value in managment.

Hint: Just before the Gulf War the Air Force wanted to get rid of the
A-10 *TO SAVE THE OPERATING EXPENSES*.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:14:28 +0000 (UTC),
Taki Kogoma attempted to say .....

> 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...

Say, what was that straight wing predecessor of the F111 that didnt get built ?



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

[Keith W]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> on Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:14:28 +0000 (UTC),
> Taki Kogoma attempted to say .....
>
>> 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...
>
> Say, what was that straight wing predecessor of the F111 that didnt get
> built ?
>

Douglas F6D Missileer

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Ed Rasimus]

On 7 Feb 2006 16:38:54 -0800, "KDR" > wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> 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.


>When you exercised with the Spanish, what was the assumed scenario? For
>instance intruders would always come from the East, and they would be
>multi-engined bombers, etc.
>
>I guess only Tu-95 Bear and Tu-16 Badger could have flown that far...

The exercises with the Spanish air defense forces were not so
stereotyped. Scenarios varied and threat ingress routes were all
quadrants and altitudes.

Let me note that US/Spanish air defense goes back a long way, at least
to the fifties. And, the Spanish radar environment was excellent.

I've recounted here previously one exercise in which my profile as
attacker involved starting after tanker drop-off in the Mediterranean
near Malaga with full fuel in a three tank configuration and running
supersonic from the coast to Madrid at FL 400 or higher. Starting in
full AB and hitting M 1.1 at the coast, I was able to leave it in
reheat all the way to Madrid and as fuel load decreased the
acceleration took me to M 1.6 by the capital.

I was successfully intercepted by a Mirage III out of Valencia at FL
480 and M 1.6--the best high speed intercept I've ever seen!


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

[David Brower]

Tank Fixer > writes:

>In article >,
> on Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:14:28 +0000 (UTC),
> Taki Kogoma attempted to say .....

>> 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...

>Say, what was that straight wing predecessor of the F111 that didnt get built ?

The F6D Missileer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F6D_Missileer

-dB

[KDR]

David Brower wrote:
> Tank Fixer > writes:
>
> >In article >,
> > on Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:14:28 +0000 (UTC),
> > Taki Kogoma attempted to say .....
>
> >> 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...
>
> >Say, what was that straight wing predecessor of the F111 that didnt get built ?
>
> The F6D Missileer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F6D_Missileer
>
> -dB

I vaguely remember a proposal to arm A-6 Intruder with AIM-54 Phoenix.
Probably it was mentioned in "Grumman A-6 Intruder: WarbirdTech Volume
33".

[Eunometic]

WaltBJ wrote:
> The USN does IFR for fleet CAP right now. However, the crew runs out of
> stamina after seom indeterminate time. having spent over 10 hours in an
> F4 cockpit, I can tell you I really wouldn't feel comfortable engaging
> an enemy after ten hours aloft. The aircraft themselves have aloft
> limits; new ones do replenish the oxygen system which was one of the
> F4's limits.

The F-111's escape capsule not only had an advantage in supersonic
'ejection' at zero altitude but it allowed a greater degree of crew
comfort. The soviet Suhokoi Su 34 "Platypus", which is an Su 27
derivative, has a 2 crew side by side seating with a little
****ter/toilet and galley in the rear. Very impressive crew cabin
built of 17mm Titanium armour and the abillity to carry rearward facing
AAM's.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:29:38 GMT,
Ed Rasimus attempted to say .....

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

I had a thought, the M1 tank has a gas turbine engine, could we fit reheat to
it and use the beastie as a fleet defense aircraft ???

;')


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

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Wed, 8 Feb 2006 09:36:54 -0000,
Keith W attempted to say .....

>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article >,
> > on Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:14:28 +0000 (UTC),
> > Taki Kogoma attempted to say .....
> >
> >> 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...
> >
> > Say, what was that straight wing predecessor of the F111 that didnt get
> > built ?
> >
>
> Douglas F6D Missileer

Duh, thanks, that's the one.

Isn't that just about what our boy is proposing ?


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

[Keith W]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,

>> Douglas F6D Missileer
>
> Duh, thanks, that's the one.
>
> Isn't that just about what our boy is proposing ?
>

Nothing so sensible I fear.

Keith

[KDR]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2006 16:38:54 -0800, "KDR" > wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >> 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.
>
>
> >When you exercised with the Spanish, what was the assumed scenario? For
> >instance intruders would always come from the East, and they would be
> >multi-engined bombers, etc.
> >
> >I guess only Tu-95 Bear and Tu-16 Badger could have flown that far...
>
> The exercises with the Spanish air defense forces were not so
> stereotyped. Scenarios varied and threat ingress routes were all
> quadrants and altitudes.
>
> Let me note that US/Spanish air defense goes back a long way, at least
> to the fifties. And, the Spanish radar environment was excellent.
>
> I've recounted here previously one exercise in which my profile as
> attacker involved starting after tanker drop-off in the Mediterranean
> near Malaga with full fuel in a three tank configuration and running
> supersonic from the coast to Madrid at FL 400 or higher. Starting in
> full AB and hitting M 1.1 at the coast, I was able to leave it in
> reheat all the way to Madrid and as fuel load decreased the
> acceleration took me to M 1.6 by the capital.
>
> I was successfully intercepted by a Mirage III out of Valencia at FL
> 480 and M 1.6--the best high speed intercept I've ever seen!
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

What weapon did that Spanish Mirage III "use" to intercept you at that
time?

BTW, I'd greatly appreciate if you could recount any exercise in which
your F-4C defended the fleet against air threat.

[TOliver]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote ....

>
> Let me note that US/Spanish air defense goes back a long way, at least
> to the fifties. And, the Spanish radar environment was excellent.
>
(snippagio before and after)

Interesting commentary. In the early 60s, the Italian air defense system
was better organized, but the Spanish were making substantial progress, some
of which must have been paid by Uncle Sam to reduce the vulnerability of
assets (although, other than a Bear, what could get to Rota?).

I can recall, 1963 or so, controlling F3 Demons and F8s West of Sardinia,
running an intercept on a low (and slow) flyer, a Gin-U-Wine He111, one of
a squadron/detachment?, the last of the breed, based at Palma flying
maritime recon on those trusty Merlin re-engines. The logistics a/c in
service there were Ju52s. The Palma a/c later turned up in movie roles for
_The Battle of Britain_, IIRC.

I had seen my first "real" F4s the previous Fall at Key West providing CAp
and other skullduggery during the Cuban episode. They were mighty
impressive birds, but then still in the teething process, faster than
anything about except for the Photo Crusaders which washed and polished,
clean with naught to slow them down but the square corners on the camera
covers, were mighty slick and sleek. For one who had gone to AIC school in
which the bogeys and the friendlies were sleepy old F3D (later F6)
Skynights, the performance of the new F4s was scary, providing a whole new
timeframe for 135LPI intercepts.

VF-13, equipped with F4Ds (the original F4 "Ford"/Skyray from Douglas)
through August 0f '62, had requipped with F3Ds/F3s for AG-10s '63
deployment. The Demon offered a better radar and FCS, but with flight
parameters closer to an A10, other than endurance which was altogether brief
(but then their possession by VF-13 was equally brief, with the birds
replaced by "semi-all-weather" F8Cs by Fall of 1964).


TMO

[Ed Rasimus]

On 9 Feb 2006 03:09:06 -0800, "KDR" > wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>> I was successfully intercepted by a Mirage III out of Valencia at FL
>> 480 and M 1.6--the best high speed intercept I've ever seen!

>
>What weapon did that Spanish Mirage III "use" to intercept you at that
>time?

The system that detected, launched and directed the Mirage III was the
newly installed and very high-tech "Combat Grande" radar environment.
The kill weapon would have been AIM-9J or possibly whatever the
similar French IR missile was.

The intercept was consistent with the rear quadrant low-aspect
requirements of such a weapon and was completed well within range of
that type.
>
>BTW, I'd greatly appreciate if you could recount any exercise in which
>your F-4C defended the fleet against air threat.

I never did any fleet air defense. We did, however, plan for
land-based aircraft to provide CAP over convoys, amphibious
operations, task forces operating w/out their own CV, etc.

The USN has a tendency to be a bit parochial about who is defending
them!

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

[Taki Kogoma]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 04:49:19 GMT,
allegedly declared to sci.military.naval...
>In article >,
> on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:29:38 GMT,
> Ed Rasimus attempted to say .....
>> Simply putting big engines on barn doors does not get you supersonic
>> (experience with the F-4 notwithstanding.)
>
>I had a thought, the M1 tank has a gas turbine engine, could we fit reheat to
>it and use the beastie as a fleet defense aircraft ???

Less outlandish, how about a similar conversion of a jet-turbine
helicopter?

Gym "Hrm...If you put an Airwolf squadron on an LHD..." Quirk

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

[Thomas Schoene]

KDR wrote:

> I vaguely remember a proposal to arm A-6 Intruder with AIM-54 Phoenix.
> Probably it was mentioned in "Grumman A-6 Intruder: WarbirdTech Volume
> 33".

That I don't recall. The A-6F or G (or maybe both) had provision for
AMRAAM, but not Phoenix.


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

[KDR]

Thomas Schoene wrote:
> KDR wrote:
>
> > I vaguely remember a proposal to arm A-6 Intruder with AIM-54 Phoenix.
> > Probably it was mentioned in "Grumman A-6 Intruder: WarbirdTech Volume
> > 33".
>
> That I don't recall. The A-6F or G (or maybe both) had provision for
> AMRAAM, but not Phoenix.
>
>
> --
> Tom Schoene
> To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

Yes I know about the A-6F/G with AMRAAM. But what I saw in that
WarbirdTech book was not about AMRAAM. IIRC, the proposal was made
before the F nad G models.

[Fred J. McCall]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

:The USN has a tendency to be a bit parochial about who is defending
:them!

Primarily because we're afraid that the Air Farce might do the same
stellar job when they take over that job that they did for so many
years in providing close air support for the Army. :-)

I have a foil I want to use at a meeting, but I need to make sure no
USAF personnel are there before I do. It's a shot of a Hornet on
final to trap, with the caption:

"If it was easy, we'd let the Air Force do it."

--
"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

[Tank Fixer]

In article <dbrower.1139421805@stacr35>,
on Wed, 8 Feb 2006 18:05:17 +0000 (UTC),
David Brower attempted to say .....

> Tank Fixer > writes:
>
> >In article >,
> > on Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:14:28 +0000 (UTC),
> > Taki Kogoma attempted to say .....
>
> >> 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...
>
> >Say, what was that straight wing predecessor of the F111 that didnt get built ?
>
> The F6D Missileer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F6D_Missileer

Thanks, that's it. The original missile truck

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

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Thu, 9 Feb 2006 17:27:48 +0000 (UTC),
Taki Kogoma attempted to say .....

> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 04:49:19 GMT,
> allegedly declared to sci.military.naval...
> >In article >,
> > on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:29:38 GMT,
> > Ed Rasimus attempted to say .....
> >> Simply putting big engines on barn doors does not get you supersonic
> >> (experience with the F-4 notwithstanding.)
> >
> >I had a thought, the M1 tank has a gas turbine engine, could we fit reheat to
> >it and use the beastie as a fleet defense aircraft ???
>
> Less outlandish, how about a similar conversion of a jet-turbine
> helicopter?

The tank has a better gun.
Remember that is our friends whole premise that we not radiate radar..


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

[Mike Kanze]

Somewhat off-topic, but there was proposed at one time a single-seat variant of the A-6. IIRC, this one lost out early on to the A-7. There is a concept illustration of it somewhere on the web, but I no longer have the URL.

If you thought the A-6 looked slightly weird, this critter looked doubly so.

--
Mike Kanze

"If you're in the Army, it doesn't matter...you have no soul, being a brainwashed killer."

(I was told this by a very earnest young woman in Berkeley the other day. The look on her face when I asked why she was risking life and limb by angering a soulless killer was worth the lecture.)

-- Douglas Berry

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message link.net...
KDR wrote:

> I vaguely remember a proposal to arm A-6 Intruder with AIM-54 Phoenix.
> Probably it was mentioned in "Grumman A-6 Intruder: WarbirdTech Volume
> 33".

That I don't recall. The A-6F or G (or maybe both) had provision for
AMRAAM, but not Phoenix.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 03:08:52 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>:The USN has a tendency to be a bit parochial about who is defending
>:them!
>
>Primarily because we're afraid that the Air Farce might do the same
>stellar job when they take over that job that they did for so many
>years in providing close air support for the Army. :-)

Even with the smiley face at the end, that is patently absurd. I could
introduce you to a lot of AF airplane drivers both current and dating
back to SEA that spent a lot of time putting ordnance "in the wires"
and working both at night and under the weather in support of guys on
the ground. There is no more important mission.
>
>I have a foil I want to use at a meeting, but I need to make sure no
>USAF personnel are there before I do. It's a shot of a Hornet on
>final to trap, with the caption:
>
> "If it was easy, we'd let the Air Force do it."

You ought to put up a video clip of Baghdad in the middle of the night
with all of those missile trails and tracers then one of Sadaam's Hq
buildings being excised from amidst the neighborhoods without
collateral damage by an F-117, B-2 or F-15E. The caption can be:

"If the Navy could reach it, we wouldn't have to do it."

No one ever won a war by "out-landing" the enemy. Besides, why would
you want to fight a war from any place without a bar?



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

[TOliver]

"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message . ..
Somewhat off-topic, but there was proposed at one time a single-seat variant of the A-6. IIRC, this one lost out early on to the A-7. There is a concept illustration of it somewhere on the web, but I no longer have the URL.

If you thought the A-6 looked slightly weird, this critter looked doubly so.

Before it received the designation "A6", the original bird emerged from Grumman's drawing boards with another name, A2F, IIRC, under the old designation pattern. Along with a different designator the proposal (and maybe the prototype) arrived with what were intended to be vectored thrust nozzles for the exhausts of its twin engines.

The company already had a history with twins for the Navy, the XF5F-1 (actually flown in cartoon combat by a famous comic squadron, notable for a nose which didn't quite extend to the wing's leading edge), the F7F, a sleek fuselage mated to two big radials, and the S2F "Stoof", stubbier than sleek, with its stablemate, the "commuter" airliner, the C1A.

[Fred J. McCall]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

:On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 03:08:52 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
:>
:>:The USN has a tendency to be a bit parochial about who is defending
:>:them!
:>
:>Primarily because we're afraid that the Air Farce might do the same
:>stellar job when they take over that job that they did for so many
:>years in providing close air support for the Army. :-)
:
:Even with the smiley face at the end, that is patently absurd. I could
:introduce you to a lot of AF airplane drivers both current and dating
:back to SEA that spent a lot of time putting ordnance "in the wires"
:and working both at night and under the weather in support of guys on
:the ground. There is no more important mission.

And I could introduce you to a lot of grunts on the ground that
thought parts of the Air Force were being taught that CAS was
something you did from 30,000 feet and would rather have the Marines,
the Navy, or the Australians up there.

:>I have a foil I want to use at a meeting, but I need to make sure no
:>USAF personnel are there before I do. It's a shot of a Hornet on
:>final to trap, with the caption:
:>
:> "If it was easy, we'd let the Air Force do it."
:
:You ought to put up a video clip of Baghdad in the middle of the night
:with all of those missile trails and tracers then one of Sadaam's Hq
:buildings being excised from amidst the neighborhoods without
:collateral damage by an F-117, B-2 or F-15E. The caption can be:
:
: "If the Navy could reach it, we wouldn't have to do it."

Except, of course, that would be preposterous since the Navy could and
did 'reach it'. We didn't have 5 carriers over there for sport,
sport.

:No one ever won a war by "out-landing" the enemy.

Uh, that's how you win the air war. If a higher percentage of your
take-offs end in landings than the enemy can manage, you get air
superiority.

:Besides, why would
:you want to fight a war from any place without a bar?

Well, there is that.

[And this might explain that issue that so many grunts had with USAF
CAS. :-)]

--
"The way of the samurai is found in death. If by setting one's heart
right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his
body were already dead, he gains freedom in The Way. His whole life
will be without blame, and he will succeed in his calling."
-- "Hagakure Kikigaki", Yamamoto Tsunetomo

[St. John Smythe]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> No one ever won a war by "out-landing" the enemy.

Ummm...on the other hand, wars have been lost by failing to out-land the
enemy. (Without landings, attrition becomes pretty severe.)

--
St. John

Williams and Holland's Law:
If enough data is collected, anything may be proven by
statistical methods.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:18:39 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>:On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 03:08:52 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
>:
>:>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>:>
>:>:The USN has a tendency to be a bit parochial about who is defending
>:>:them!
>:>
>:>Primarily because we're afraid that the Air Farce might do the same
>:>stellar job when they take over that job that they did for so many
>:>years in providing close air support for the Army. :-)
>:
>:Even with the smiley face at the end, that is patently absurd. I could
>:introduce you to a lot of AF airplane drivers both current and dating
>:back to SEA that spent a lot of time putting ordnance "in the wires"
>:and working both at night and under the weather in support of guys on
>:the ground. There is no more important mission.
>
>And I could introduce you to a lot of grunts on the ground that
>thought parts of the Air Force were being taught that CAS was
>something you did from 30,000 feet and would rather have the Marines,
>the Navy, or the Australians up there.

Strange is it might seem, doing CAS from 30,000 feet today is the
better choice. With modern technology it isn't necessary to go
nose-to-nose with the bad guys at low altitude. The bombs are more
accurate, the delivery more timely and the response is available to a
much larger area.

It's still fun to see a fast-mover laying it down in front of the
troops or an A-10 shooting over their heads, but it isn't necessary.
>
>:>I have a foil I want to use at a meeting, but I need to make sure no
>:>USAF personnel are there before I do. It's a shot of a Hornet on
>:>final to trap, with the caption:
>:>
>:> "If it was easy, we'd let the Air Force do it."
>:
>:You ought to put up a video clip of Baghdad in the middle of the night
>:with all of those missile trails and tracers then one of Sadaam's Hq
>:buildings being excised from amidst the neighborhoods without
>:collateral damage by an F-117, B-2 or F-15E. The caption can be:
>:
>: "If the Navy could reach it, we wouldn't have to do it."
>
>Except, of course, that would be preposterous since the Navy could and
>did 'reach it'. We didn't have 5 carriers over there for sport,
>sport.

Until the Navy gets stealthy, there are going to be a lot of high
value targets that can't get serviced.

We operate a lot more jointly today than we ever have in the past.
That means USAF, USN, USMC, Army Aviation, and Allied nations get
integrated into the battle plan. Nobody does it alone, Sport.
>
>:No one ever won a war by "out-landing" the enemy.
>
>Uh, that's how you win the air war. If a higher percentage of your
>take-offs end in landings than the enemy can manage, you get air
>superiority.

That is a different spin than the first statement. Do all the cats and
traps you want, but if you don't put iron on targets you don't win the
war. Yes, you always need to come home at the end of the
mission--failure to do so is a victory for the other side. But there
have been enough AF exchange guys landing on boats to make your first
statement a bit of hyperbole.

Hell, I even had a USN exchange guy as one of my IPs when I went
through F-105 training. He holds a couple of distinctions beyond just
imparting some wisdom to me in my youth--he was later skipper of the
Blues and tragically he was the last fixed wing operator to be lost in
the Vietnam War. Harley Hall.
>
>:Besides, why would
>:you want to fight a war from any place without a bar?
>
>Well, there is that. (?)

A good point, particularly with consideration of today's theaters of
operations.
>
>[And this might explain that issue that so many grunts had with USAF
>CAS. :-)]

Still not funny. I've had a lot of grunts buy me drinks when they
found out my specialty. And, if we're talking about threat exposure,
I'd point you toward a list of the services of returning POWs for the
last several wars.

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

[Mike Kanze]

The original A2F-1 / A-6A design is not what I was referring to earlier.

The single-cockpit "A-6" was a design based upon the already (at that time) in-existence A-6 airframe. The Iron Works folks basically tried to save time by building upon something already flying about the place.

--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"If you're in the Army, it doesn't matter...you have no soul, being a brainwashed killer."

(I was told this by a very earnest young woman in Berkeley the other day. The look on her face when I asked why she was risking life and limb by angering a soulless killer was worth the lecture.)

-- Douglas Berry

"TOliver" > wrote in message ...

"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message . ..
Somewhat off-topic, but there was proposed at one time a single-seat variant of the A-6. IIRC, this one lost out early on to the A-7. There is a concept illustration of it somewhere on the web, but I no longer have the URL.

If you thought the A-6 looked slightly weird, this critter looked doubly so.

Before it received the designation "A6", the original bird emerged from Grumman's drawing boards with another name, A2F, IIRC, under the old designation pattern. Along with a different designator the proposal (and maybe the prototype) arrived with what were intended to be vectored thrust nozzles for the exhausts of its twin engines.

The company already had a history with twins for the Navy, the XF5F-1 (actually flown in cartoon combat by a famous comic squadron, notable for a nose which didn't quite extend to the wing's leading edge), the F7F, a sleek fuselage mated to two big radials, and the S2F "Stoof", stubbier than sleek, with its stablemate, the "commuter" airliner, the C1A.

[Mike Kanze]

Let the interservice Holy Wars begin! <g>

--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"If you're in the Army, it doesn't matter...you have no soul, being a brainwashed killer."

(I was told this by a very earnest young woman in Berkeley the other day. The look on her face when I asked why she was risking life and limb by angering a soulless killer was worth the lecture.)

-- Douglas Berry

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message ...
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 03:08:52 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>:The USN has a tendency to be a bit parochial about who is defending
>:them!
>
>Primarily because we're afraid that the Air Farce might do the same
>stellar job when they take over that job that they did for so many
>years in providing close air support for the Army. :-)

Even with the smiley face at the end, that is patently absurd. I could
introduce you to a lot of AF airplane drivers both current and dating
back to SEA that spent a lot of time putting ordnance "in the wires"
and working both at night and under the weather in support of guys on
the ground. There is no more important mission.
>
>I have a foil I want to use at a meeting, but I need to make sure no
>USAF personnel are there before I do. It's a shot of a Hornet on
>final to trap, with the caption:
>
> "If it was easy, we'd let the Air Force do it."

You ought to put up a video clip of Baghdad in the middle of the night
with all of those missile trails and tracers then one of Sadaam's Hq
buildings being excised from amidst the neighborhoods without
collateral damage by an F-117, B-2 or F-15E. The caption can be:

"If the Navy could reach it, we wouldn't have to do it."

No one ever won a war by "out-landing" the enemy. Besides, why would
you want to fight a war from any place without a bar?



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

[Dave in San Diego]

"Mike Kanze" > wrote in
:

> Let the interservice Holy Wars begin! <g>
>

<deep voice> Yay-yuh! </deep voice>

Can't y'all learn to play nice together? I've seen better manners in a
kindergarten class. ;~)

Dave in San Diego
AT1 USN Ret

[Yofuri]

TOliver wrote:
>
>
> "Mike Kanze" >>
> wrote in message . ..
> Somewhat off-topic, but there was proposed at one time a single-seat
> variant of the A-6. IIRC, this one lost out early on to the A-7.
> There is a concept illustration of it somewhere on the web, but I no
> longer have the URL.
>
> If you thought the A-6 looked slightly weird, this critter looked
> doubly so.
> Before it received the designation "A6", the original bird emerged
> from Grumman's drawing boards with another name, A2F, IIRC, under
> the old designation pattern. Along with a different designator the
> proposal (and maybe the prototype) arrived with what were intended
> to be vectored thrust nozzles for the exhausts of its twin engines.
>
> The company already had a history with twins for the Navy, the
> XF5F-1 (actually flown in cartoon combat by a famous comic squadron,
> notable for a nose which didn't quite extend to the wing's leading
> edge), the F7F, a sleek fuselage mated to two big radials, and the
> S2F "Stoof", stubbier than sleek, with its stablemate, the
> "commuter" airliner, the C1A.

Speaking of stablemates, how could you fail to mention the most
elegantly graceful and aesthetically pleasing Grumman product ever
built, the W2F Fudd?

The Tracker, the Trader and the Tracer, three different versions of two
T-28's welded to a dumpster.

But I did see a video of a beautiful Stoof working on a California
brushfire last week.

Rick

[Thomas Schoene]

Mike Kanze wrote:
> The original A2F-1 / A-6A design is not what I was referring to earlier.
>
> The single-cockpit "A-6" was a design based upon the already (at that
> time) in-existence A-6 airframe. The Iron Works folks basically tried to
> save time by building upon something already flying about the place.

That light-attack competition actually required that the competitors be
based on existing designs, so they got a Super A-4, a Single-Seat A-6,
and a Scrunched F-8 (aka the A-7). Funny how the A-7 won, as it was
probably the one with the least actual relationship with its notional
ancestor. I don't know if there are any structural elements in common
between the A-7 and the F-8.

Sound familiar? The Navy does this a lot.

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

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:47:22 -0800, Yofuri >
wrote:

>Speaking of stablemates, how could you fail to mention the most
>elegantly graceful and aesthetically pleasing Grumman product ever
>built, the W2F Fudd?
>
>The Tracker, the Trader and the Tracer, three different versions of two
>T-28's welded to a dumpster.

HEY!!!!!!!!!! I resemble that remark!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)

>But I did see a video of a beautiful Stoof working on a California
>brushfire last week.

The Brazilian AF runs a half dozen or so McKinnon coversion S2s. I
don't know if operate off thier carrier, though.

Bill Kambic

VS-27, VS-30, VS-73
Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Reed Judd-Dyer]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
<snip>
>
> Strange is it might seem, doing CAS from 30,000 feet today is the
> better choice. With modern technology it isn't necessary to go
> nose-to-nose with the bad guys at low altitude. The bombs are more
> accurate, the delivery more timely and the response is available to a
> much larger area.
>
> It's still fun to see a fast-mover laying it down in front of the
> troops or an A-10 shooting over their heads, but it isn't necessary.
> >
> Still not funny. I've had a lot of grunts buy me drinks when they
> found out my specialty. And, if we're talking about threat exposure,
> I'd point you toward a list of the services of returning POWs for the
> last several wars.

Ed, have you seen some of the MC testing concepts on aircraft as
manuever elements instead of simply fire support elements? CAS from
30,000ft may be better CAS in it's traditional role of flying
artillery, but what about interdiction, observation and utilizing fixed
wings aircrafts improved reaction time, multiple terrain reach and
improved sensor and firepower capabilities to free it from "fire
mission on grid WXYZ, troops in the open"?
Seems like there is still a role for low and (relativly) slow. Just a
thought, would love your feedback. (Flamers will be kill filed, respond
civily)
SPC Reed Dyer, 41st BCT OARNG
P.S. I am one of those groundpounder and an OIF vet. If you ever find
yourself near Portland OR or Olympia WA, I'll be more then happy to
cover that next drink.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Tim Jordan]

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> a square plug can go supersonic nicely
>

While may referred to the MickeyD F-4 as proof
that with enough thrust, bricks could fly, no
sane person could ever expect the A-10 to near
Mach 1 in any situation when it wasn't shedding
pieces constantly. I'm not sure what would leave
first: the engine nacelle, the tail or the wings.


TCJ
Warthog Lover in it's intended role: Tank Killer
Extrodinare

[KDR]

Mike Kanze wrote:
> Somewhat off-topic, but there was proposed at one time a single-seat variant of the A-6. IIRC, this one lost out early on to the A-7. There is a concept illustration of it somewhere on the web, but I no longer have the URL.
>
> If you thought the A-6 looked slightly weird, this critter looked doubly so.

Is this the one you are refering to?

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=19797

[Fred J. McCall]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

:On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:18:39 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
:>
:>:On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 03:08:52 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:>:
:>:>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:The USN has a tendency to be a bit parochial about who is defending
:>:>:them!
:>:>
:>:>Primarily because we're afraid that the Air Farce might do the same
:>:>stellar job when they take over that job that they did for so many
:>:>years in providing close air support for the Army. :-)
:>:
:>:Even with the smiley face at the end, that is patently absurd. I could
:>:introduce you to a lot of AF airplane drivers both current and dating
:>:back to SEA that spent a lot of time putting ordnance "in the wires"
:>:and working both at night and under the weather in support of guys on
:>:the ground. There is no more important mission.
:>
:>And I could introduce you to a lot of grunts on the ground that
:>thought parts of the Air Force were being taught that CAS was
:>something you did from 30,000 feet and would rather have the Marines,
:>the Navy, or the Australians up there.
:
:Strange is it might seem, doing CAS from 30,000 feet today is the
:better choice.

Yeah, you lot were just ahead of your time, trying it 40 years ago.

:With modern technology it isn't necessary to go
:nose-to-nose with the bad guys at low altitude.

Depends on the mission profile. If you're self-lasing you can't be
clear the hell up in "God's Country".

:The bombs are more
:accurate, the delivery more timely and the response is available to a
:much larger area.

Variable. I'd still rather the guy up in the air had some good idea
of where things are on the ground before he just takes the hand-off
targeting and bombs the Chinese Embassy or some baby milk factory.

:It's still fun to see a fast-mover laying it down in front of the
:troops or an A-10 shooting over their heads, but it isn't necessary.

Again, depends on the mission.

:>:>I have a foil I want to use at a meeting, but I need to make sure no
:>:>USAF personnel are there before I do. It's a shot of a Hornet on
:>:>final to trap, with the caption:
:>:>
:>:> "If it was easy, we'd let the Air Force do it."
:>:
:>:You ought to put up a video clip of Baghdad in the middle of the night
:>:with all of those missile trails and tracers then one of Sadaam's Hq
:>:buildings being excised from amidst the neighborhoods without
:>:collateral damage by an F-117, B-2 or F-15E. The caption can be:
:>:
:>: "If the Navy could reach it, we wouldn't have to do it."
:>
:>Except, of course, that would be preposterous since the Navy could and
:>did 'reach it'. We didn't have 5 carriers over there for sport,
:>sport.
:
:Until the Navy gets stealthy, there are going to be a lot of high
:value targets that can't get serviced.

This is what 'stand-off' is for.

:We operate a lot more jointly today than we ever have in the past.
:That means USAF, USN, USMC, Army Aviation, and Allied nations get
:integrated into the battle plan. Nobody does it alone, Sport.

Now try telling me something I don't know, Sport.

Oh, and USN and USMC assets are still pretty likely to 'push back'
because they think your plan is sloppy, Sport.

:>:No one ever won a war by "out-landing" the enemy.
:>
:>Uh, that's how you win the air war. If a higher percentage of your
:>take-offs end in landings than the enemy can manage, you get air
:>superiority.
:
:That is a different spin than the first statement. Do all the cats and
:traps you want, but if you don't put iron on targets you don't win the
:war. Yes, you always need to come home at the end of the
:mission--failure to do so is a victory for the other side. But there
:have been enough AF exchange guys landing on boats to make your first
:statement a bit of hyperbole.

It's a ****ing JOKE, Ed. Get over it!

Gods, you powder blue types get all up yourselves and cry SO easily.

:Hell, I even had a USN exchange guy as one of my IPs when I went
:through F-105 training. He holds a couple of distinctions beyond just
:imparting some wisdom to me in my youth--he was later skipper of the
:Blues and tragically he was the last fixed wing operator to be lost in
:the Vietnam War. Harley Hall.
:>
:>:Besides, why would
:>:you want to fight a war from any place without a bar?
:>
:>Well, there is that. (?)
:
:A good point, particularly with consideration of today's theaters of
:operations.
:
:>[And this might explain that issue that so many grunts had with USAF
:>CAS. :-)]
:
:Still not funny. I've had a lot of grunts buy me drinks when they
:found out my specialty. And, if we're talking about threat exposure,
:I'd point you toward a list of the services of returning POWs for the
:last several wars.

See above.

Sense of Humor - If you can't get one through USAF supply, I'm sure
they're available over on the Navy side. Just another thing you lot
will have to bludge off us.

Oh, and there *is* still a serious aspect to that when you go back to
SE Asia days. Why do you think they took Marine Air away from just
supporting Marines (and why were Marines upset about this and Army
guys real happy)?

--
"May God have mercy upon my enemies; they will need it."
-- General George S Patton, Jr.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 10 Feb 2006 18:10:41 -0800, "Reed Judd-Dyer"
> wrote:

>
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
><snip>
>> Strange is it might seem, doing CAS from 30,000 feet today is the
>> better choice. With modern technology it isn't necessary to go
>> nose-to-nose with the bad guys at low altitude. The bombs are more
>> accurate, the delivery more timely and the response is available to a
>> much larger area.
>>
>> It's still fun to see a fast-mover laying it down in front of the
>> troops or an A-10 shooting over their heads, but it isn't necessary.
>
>Ed, have you seen some of the MC testing concepts on aircraft as
>manuever elements instead of simply fire support elements?

One need only look at Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom to see the
application of aircraft (multi-service) as maneuver elements. In DS we
saw approximately 100 days of operations preceding a 100 hour ground
war. In OIF it was "Shock and Awe" leading to the roll down the
highway to Basra and Baghdad. In both cases you could easily apply a
metaphor of aircraft as modern, precise and very fast cavalry.

Which doesn't even touch the "tank plinking" and "Scud hunting"
aspects.

> CAS from
>30,000ft may be better CAS in it's traditional role of flying
>artillery, but what about interdiction, observation and utilizing fixed
>wings aircrafts improved reaction time, multiple terrain reach and
>improved sensor and firepower capabilities to free it from "fire
>mission on grid WXYZ, troops in the open"?

Here again, you point out the flexibility of modern tac air. As much
as folks love to point at specifically roled aircraft, the reality is
that every commander needs the flex to be able to reallocate his
weapons to other missions as the needs of the war evolve. While you
might really enjoy a fleet of air dominance fighters on day one, by
day three you would rather have a bunch of deep interdiction and recce
assets and if you get bogged down on day fifteen you'd like something
with endurance and precision to supply the CAS.

>Seems like there is still a role for low and (relativly) slow. Just a
>thought, would love your feedback.

Low and slow allows for a lot of things that high and fast does not.
But, it adds a lot of vulnerability. Army aviation assets are ideal
for these tasks and they have developed tactics to carry them out
effectively. Integration of artillery, aviation and fixed wing assets
for fire support is what the fire support coordination team does in
the ops center.

And, of course, we've now added the Predator.

>SPC Reed Dyer, 41st BCT OARNG
>P.S. I am one of those groundpounder and an OIF vet. If you ever find
>yourself near Portland OR or Olympia WA, I'll be more then happy to
>cover that next drink.

Actually, it should be me buying for you. Thanks for your service.

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

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:34:47 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>:
>:Strange is it might seem, doing CAS from 30,000 feet today is the
>:better choice.
>
>Yeah, you lot were just ahead of your time, trying it 40 years ago.

You might want to do an update on what was possible and common forty
years ago. My experience was in the interdiction and defense
suppression mission primarily, not in CAS. We didn't (and usually
couldn't) make it that high. Delivery was high angle dive and PGMs
were in very short supply and with very few qualified systems/crews to
deliver them.

CAS flown in the in-country war in SEA was very much low angle laydown
delivery, "Snake and Nape".
>
>:With modern technology it isn't necessary to go
>:nose-to-nose with the bad guys at low altitude.
>
>Depends on the mission profile. If you're self-lasing you can't be
>clear the hell up in "God's Country".

JDAM. There is very little application for self-lasing. Most units
have organic lasing capability if such weapons are used.
>
>:The bombs are more
>:accurate, the delivery more timely and the response is available to a
>:much larger area.
>
>Variable. I'd still rather the guy up in the air had some good idea
>of where things are on the ground before he just takes the hand-off
>targeting and bombs the Chinese Embassy or some baby milk factory.

The baby milk factory was IIRC hit by a Tomahawk. And, the "baby milk"
aspects were very questionable. Neither that strike nor the Chinese
Embassy were CAS situations. But don't let that get in the way of a
snappy retort.
>
>:We operate a lot more jointly today than we ever have in the past.
>:That means USAF, USN, USMC, Army Aviation, and Allied nations get
>:integrated into the battle plan. Nobody does it alone, Sport.
>
>Now try telling me something I don't know, Sport.
>
>Oh, and USN and USMC assets are still pretty likely to 'push back'
>because they think your plan is sloppy, Sport.

What "plan" is that? I've not proposed anything here, but have simply
pointed out that there is no longer a tactical necessity for "up
close" CAS.

CAS is always under the primary control of the ground commander. That
hasn't changed. Targeting is always coordinated with the ground
commander. The FAC/ALO/FSCO/S-3?ANGLICO or whatever is working for and
with the ground commander.

What is new is the ability to accurately provide target location with
GPS and lasing. That means "hit my smoke" or "100 meters N. of my
flash" isn't necessary and was never very accurate.

>Oh, and there *is* still a serious aspect to that when you go back to
>SE Asia days. Why do you think they took Marine Air away from just
>supporting Marines (and why were Marines upset about this and Army
>guys real happy)?

???? "They"??? You seem to be oblivious to command/control in a combat
zone. Joint operations means that if you have a ground unit calling
for air and you have airplanes available but they just happen to be
from another service you use them anyway.

No one "took Marine Air away" from anybody. Marine Air gets used when
their number come up, just like Navy air and USAF.

I never heard a ground commander express a request for a particular
flavor of airplane to service his immediate request. Or, maybe you've
made the call? "Oh, they're Air Force? I'll hold out a bit longer here
until you get some of those red-blooded Marines to come to me aid..."
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[KDR]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2006 03:09:06 -0800, "KDR" > wrote:
[snip]
> >BTW, I'd greatly appreciate if you could recount any exercise in which
> >your F-4C defended the fleet against air threat.
>
> I never did any fleet air defense. We did, however, plan for
> land-based aircraft to provide CAP over convoys, amphibious
> operations, task forces operating w/out their own CV, etc.
[snip]

Thanks for relating your experience while you were at Torrejon. Do you
remember any details about the plan to provide CAP over ships? That is
what I am looking for most of all.

[Mike Kanze]

>Is this the one you are refering to?

>http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=19797

Precisely. Thanks for sharing it.

If the A-7 was sometimes referred to as the "Thalidomide Crusader," I wonder what name the troops would have given the light attack "A-6" (Model G-12) had it entered service?

"One-Eyed Ugly?"

--
Mike Kanze

"If you're in the Army, it doesn't matter...you have no soul, being a brainwashed killer."

(I was told this by a very earnest young woman in Berkeley the other day. The look on her face when I asked why she was risking life and limb by angering a soulless killer was worth the lecture.)

-- Douglas Berry

"KDR" > wrote in message ups.com...

Mike Kanze wrote:
> Somewhat off-topic, but there was proposed at one time a single-seat variant of the A-6. IIRC, this one lost out early on to the A-7. There is a concept illustration of it somewhere on the web, but I no longer have the URL.
>
> If you thought the A-6 looked slightly weird, this critter looked doubly so.

Is this the one you are refering to?

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=19797