A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 5th 06, 03:45 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

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.

  #2  
Old February 5th 06, 04:11 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base


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.

  #3  
Old February 5th 06, 04:26 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
KDR wrote:

Has any air force ever tried or practiced providing a consistent CAP
over a fleet by air-to-air refueling? I am wondering whether or not RAF
Tornado F3 units had ever done that.



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

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

Mach 1.5 is possible even for the odd shape. And this is enough for
coverage air to air fighting. A short evasive is the basic missile
defense.

A basic airframe is perfect for the defensive role fighter.

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
  #4  
Old February 5th 06, 04:59 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

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.



  #5  
Old February 5th 06, 05:05 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

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
  #6  
Old February 5th 06, 05:06 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
  #7  
Old February 5th 06, 05:26 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base


"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



  #8  
Old February 5th 06, 05:28 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

"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.)


  #9  
Old February 5th 06, 06:36 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

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
  #10  
Old February 5th 06, 09:20 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base

"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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fleet Air Arm Carriers and Squadrons in the Korean War Mike Naval Aviation 0 October 5th 04 02:58 AM
"New helicopters join fleet of airborne Border Patrol" Mike Rotorcraft 1 August 16th 04 09:37 PM
Carrier strike groups test new Fleet Response Plan Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 July 18th 04 10:25 PM
Fleet Air Arm Tonka Dude Military Aviation 0 November 22nd 03 10:28 PM
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII Mike Yared Military Aviation 4 October 30th 03 04:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.