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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
You need to learn how to read common vernacular. I do not write in
predicate. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |