Well, you obviously have a very different read on this than I do. You have
made a huge leap from Gen Jumper's comments to the idea of tankers and other
HVAA fighting it out with SAMs and AAA over a hot area, conducting AR while
taking hits. I have no idea who you are or what your qualifications are. You
may remember who I am. I'm one of the guys orbiting in that tanker near the
bad guys. Seriously, not trying to flame you here but you just don't seem to
be that knowledgeable on these aircraft or air refueling in general.
Tanker, or any other HVAA, employment is determined by the threat vs. the
mission requirement to get in close to the battle. ORM, really. And in spite
of what you think, tankers have been going into harm's way since the Korean
War and none have been shot down. That's where the smart tanker concept came
from. The biggest threat to this type of aircraft is probably taking a
manpad on takeoff or landing. The technology to counter this threat is
relatively cheap and available, yet few tankers anywhere in the world have
it.
Now, the special ops mission requires going into the bad guys back yard.
That's why we have MC- and KC-130s.
I checked out your links and, aside from the smart tanker article, saw
nothing addressing tankers, and only several references to heavies period.
I will agree however that the fuel tank explosion suppression technology is
something that should be put on large aircraft regardless of type. Not just
for combat either, but to prevent a stray spark from ruining the day.
Think about this; you use Gen Jumper's comments to justify your thesis; this
is the same Gen Jumper who is asking Congress for 767 tankers. Oh, and 767s
for the MC2A as well. Are you just smarter than him? If you are correct why
isn't the military pursuing a battle-capable tanker? Maybe because it costs
way too much? The only way we can afford 100 767s, a fraction of the KC-135
fleet, is by leasing. And that will require pulling funds from other
programs. Guess the Navy missed the boat as well, basing the MMA on the 737,
another airliner.
Curt
"s.p.i." wrote in message
om...
"C Knowles" wrote in message
y.com...
What link?
I got the quote from he
http://www.afji.com/ISR/Mags/2002/Issue2/notebook.html
It is silly to think tankers won't eventually be shot at as they take
on more warfighting roles and assuming they won't will ensure its
occurence. Related; do you really think the JSTARS and its follow on
variants can reasonably be operated outside areas ot taking fire?
The 767 is built for rapid turnaround operations at airports and
economic cruise characteristics. It's built as light as possible, and
because components and systems have been engineered for ease of
access, they are vulnerable to external damage. Those who are familiar
with the brick ****house engineering and sporty performance of the
C-135 need to understand the 76 isn't your Granddaddy's Boeing.
It doesn't posess the inherent survivablity factors of speed, low RCS,
or agility of TACAIR and its not overbuilt like the C-135 is.
Without some hardening of the airframe and systems the chances of
going RTB after taking damage is pretty low with that airplane.
If there is official debate about this, its likely(rightfully)
happening in closed circles given the existence of this link
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/1999aircraft/neigh.pdf
But there is alot of open source on the subject and from this link you
can see surviviability been a red-headed step child discipline for
some time:
http://www.dote.osd.mil/lfte/ACFTVULN.HTM
Here are a couple of more links:
http://www.aircraft-survivability.co...Textbooks.html
http://iac.dtic.mil/surviac/
http://www.nps.navy.mil/or/oacurric/....%20Thesis.htm
http://www.blazetech.com/Products___...ield/fuelshiel
d.html