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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote in message oups.com... a square plug can go supersonic nicely But we are discussing an aircraft designed for low speed. It has MAJOR compressibility issues that preclude mach .8 operation let alone mach 1.5 Keith |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:09:25 -0000, "Keith W"
wrote: "Douglas Eagleson" wrote in message roups.com... a square plug can go supersonic nicely But we are discussing an aircraft designed for low speed. It has MAJOR compressibility issues that preclude mach .8 operation let alone mach 1.5 Hush now, dont let reality intrude on the poor wingnuts fantasia. -- 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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
On 5 Feb 2006 17:53:01 -0800, "KDR" wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote: 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 Many thanks for the reply. I enjoyed your book a lot. In case of defensive missions, what was the Torrejon F-4C's 'typical' mission radius? Did it normally involve air-to-air refueling? During the late '70s while I was there, Spain was not yet a member of NATO. (I participated in the integration and early work up exercises a few years later when I was at USAFE Hq and Spain came aboard.) There were no active missions from home base. We were always deployed down the Med at forward operating locations in Italy and Turkey. We trained for nuke strike, ground attack, air defense and deployment--basically those were the days of fully qualified in anything the aircraft was capable of doing. When we exercised with Spanish air defense forces, which is apparently the closest mission to respond to your question, we would configure with three tanks, AIM-9s and AIM-7E. In that configuration on CAP, we could maintain station for slightly over two hours. If you translate that into distance, you could get one hour out at approx 500 kts ground speed, ten minutes of engagement time at altitude and one hour back: that defines a 500 nautical mile combat radius. That could be increased if you jettisoned tanks as they went dry to reduce drag. We were collocated in those days with the 98th Strat Wing, so we had tankers available at all times if the mission would require. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote ... a square plug can go supersonic nicely It may come asa great shock to you, Doug, but there are a few here who over decades, recent and past, have been intimately involved with naval avaiation, AAW in a marine environment, air intercept controlling, CAP and several other subjects of which you are currently less than adequately informed. Re-engining A10s, even with giant fuel-sucking AB equipped hardware, will not allow them the operate at M1.5 (unless the wings separate quickly at a very high altitude and even then the period of flight above Mach 1 will be mercifully brief) The airframe was neither designed for not is it suited for controlled flight at Mach 1 or even approaching Mach 1. The A6, offering the distinct advantage of carrier-basing, even stopping in for an arrestement and launch to refuel and rearm, a major convenience in a pretracted conflict/threat situation, was considered (seriously and at lenght, for employment in a manner similar to what you seem to envision. The concept was dropped when the nature of potential future threats became more clear, that (as with the F14/Phoenic combo, a fine fighter a/c equipped with a missile designed to reach out and touch an oncoming attacker at long range) the "perching" of a/c with long range AAMs in the skies above was no longer the optimal appoach to fleet air defense, and that far greater versatility was required. While many of us may view the F/A18 series as less than perfect, I doubt that any with any experience in a fleet environment would choose any possible upgrade or refinement of an A10 as any more than an unrealistic (if not ridiculous) proposal. Sadly, all those surplus S3 Vikings gone to the graveyard would have been many times more effective in such a role than all the A10 airframes in the world (and many times more effective would not be effective enough to be suitable). Shucks, I suspect a better case could be made for employing a B737 series a/c ....a little slow in the turns, but capable of hauling about a vast electronics bay jammed with all sorts of gear, a gen-u-wine rotary missile launcher, a big radome, a decent time on station, room for an underbelly ASM or two, and amazingly a radar cross section not much larger than the return from a slab-sided old Warthog.... So, go on back to rec.aviation. Any better reception you might receive their must be on account of the variety of prescription drugs employed by the posters there. TMO |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
Why the BS return comments. You make irrelavent replies to the
original. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:
Why the BS return comments. You make irrelavent replies to the original. Any comments that I read were sensible, quite unlike your proposal...perhaps you need to read up and apply some common sense? -- -Gord. (use gordon in email) |
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 |