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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
During WWII, Luftwaffe performed a consistent CAP overhead Kriegsmarine's
last cruisers during their Channel crossing from Brest to homeland RAMILLE22 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
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. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
Why the BS return comments. You make irrelavent replies to the original. Where do all these loons come from? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"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) |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"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 |
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 |