Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

In message , Andrew Chaplin
writes
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
NATO called the concept TASMO (Tactical Air Support of Maritime
Operations) and it involved land-based tactical aircraft tasked with
both offensive and defensive mission in support of ships.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

a square plug can go supersonic nicely

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.

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

"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.)

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

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