aging tankers to be replaced

"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___...uelshield.html