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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
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? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
a square plug can go supersonic nicely
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
You need to learn how to read common vernacular. I do not write in
predicate. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"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.) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
Well the reality is you need to actually read and be a real person.
Your wasted words are just evidence of common lazy jackass. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
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" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 09:28 PM |
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 4 | October 30th 03 03:09 AM |