Naval Air Refueling Needs Deferred in Air Force Tanker Plan

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...

Argh! More study? Hell, just go ahead and plunk down the money and make them
all R's--we'll continue to pay the higher operating cost (even the R is
going to cost more to operate than the 767) for the next forty years--unless
wings start falling off, or the operating budget gets cut (not like that has
not happened, and rather recently (1990's) too), etc. Personally, I don't
see that as the best option.

Still clinging to the past I see Brooks

With the DSB report out the point is pretty much moot.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/bu...partner=GOOGLE

With no civil orders forthcoming, Boeing isn't likely to keep the 76
line open beyond whats been ordered. Already marginalized in the
budget process anyway, that does not bode well for the E-10 either.
Its time to move from the concepts of the last century anyway. As the
report says...
A page of the report, for example, calls for the Air Force to "work
with major airframe manufacturers to develop new tanker options" that
would have "more modern airframes" than the "20-year-old 767 design."
Instead of sinking money into old, orphaned airframes, it would be
much better to invest in something like the "MACK" or BWB that could
be optimized to operate and survive in tomorrow's ari threat
environment.
Potential adversaries are realizing that we are concentrating a very
signifcant part our ability to mount offensive operations into
rehashed airliners...even if the august members of this board don't
see it. They are doing something about it too...

http://www.indiadefence.com/collab.htm
Designed to fulfill the BVR (beyond visual range) role for "outer-air
battles", an aircraft usually of Sukhoi-27/30/35/37 "Flanker/Super
Flanker" family, equipped with KS-172 (also referred to as Article
172) would be able to engage ultra-high-value airborne platforms like
AWACS (airborne warning and control system), IFR (in-flight
refuelling) and LRMP (long range maritime patrol) platforms, without
necessarily having first to deal with their fighter escorts.

http://www.ainonline.com/Publication...1agatpg85.html
If used on a long-range missile airframe, the ARGS-PD could give an
opposing air force the ability to take out strategic targets at
distances outside of the normal interception envelopes of U.S. or
other NATO fighters. Boeing E-3 AWACS or E-8 JSTARS aircraft–platforms
that U.S. forces depend heavily upon in time of conflict–would be
vulnerable as never before.

http://arms.ashst.com/missiles/s400.htm
The S-400 system is intended to engage current and future air threats
such as tactical and strategic aircraft, Tomahawk cruise missiles and
other type missiles, including precision-guided ones, as well as AWACS
aircraft, at ranges of up to 400 km.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/031020/43/28nkk.html
"The FT-2000 surface-to-air missile (SAM), commonly known as the
'AWACS killer', designed by Chinese experts are considered to be the
most appropriate option if the U.S. refuses to provide the same kind
of Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) to Pakistan being sold
to India by Israel," The News said.

"sameolesid" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Argh! More study? Hell, just go ahead and plunk down the money and make
them
all R's--we'll continue to pay the higher operating cost (even the R is
going to cost more to operate than the 767) for the next forty
years--unless
wings start falling off, or the operating budget gets cut (not like that
has
not happened, and rather recently (1990's) too), etc. Personally, I
don't
see that as the best option.

Still clinging to the past I see Brooks

Well, you seem to be changing--your ID, that is. You still get plonked,
though.

Brooks