"Leadfoot" wrote in message news:x3__a.351

I would really avoid using the latest war in Iraq as an example at how
combat will be fought in the future. The Iraqi military had as much chance
as a one legged man in an asskicking contest.

They ventured within 50NM of Baghdad because they could with impunity, not
because the mission was important enough to risk the aircraft.

What has occured is an increased role for large ISR aircraft-with
large crews of folks with rare and sensitive talents and knowledge- to
be OVER the battlefiled and a body of operational doctrine is
integrating that. In future conflicts this persistent ISR presence is
going to be sorely missed if someone says it can't be provided.
I've mentioned it before. The OP-2E story should give some folks some
pause. It was deemed so necessary to deliver the sensors (the
persistent ISR principle at work) over The Trail that an 80 percent
loss rate was acceptable. Our military can no longer afford to fight
that way today or in the future. We simply do not have the resources
to fight a "War Of Plenty" anymore.
Tankers too are taking on an increased warfighting role with the
advent of the "Smart Tanker" concept. There will be a need for them to
be near or in contested battlespace as well.
As far as the sorties near Baghdad, the SAM threat was still real when
they occured.
Its folly to assume that these civil airframes are not going to be
shot at and they are simply not built for it.