aging tankers to be replaced

"C Knowles" wrote in message ...

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.

It's not such a great leap to see the potential for taking rounds when
you are tasked to be,"...as close to the danger zone as [you] possibly
can so that the planes...have the shortest distance to go to do their
jobs."

This will be especially true in the future since the CISR role will
keep you "as close as possible" for periods not envisioned throughout
your career. I'm not suggesting you will be plugged up while jinking
away from SAMS. I am sugessting that you and others in your business
had better think seriously about getting shot at. And you better think
about putting some battle hardening into your new airframes.

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.

Its not my day job to be concerned about such things now...it used to
be in a previous life though. My active duty days predate yours by a
considerable margin and I find it troubling how important operational
concepts do not seem to be evolving with the times and the emerging
threats.
Cavalry officers never thought the horse would be replaced, battleship
admirals never thought airplanes would ever be able to think their
ships, I guess tanker guys think they will never be in a position to
take rounds. Time will tell.

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.

Since the Korean war there has been haven airspace near the fight
where you guys could do business. I remember some ballsy KC-135 guys
going into SAM envelopes to drag fighters out of North Vietnam but
thats been the exception.
I notice you have studiosly avoided the missions near Baghdad by the
way. Why did General Mosely think it was so important he went too?

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.

When you are confronted with a S-300 or S-400, or truly viable air
threat that won't be true.


Now, the special ops mission requires going into the bad guys back yard.
That's why we have MC- and KC-130s.

And what about the 767 sporting the GMTI as the JSTARS replacement?

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.

What was suggested is a bit different from the tank inerting
technology making its way into the civil world. Now that MANPADS is
something the civil fleet must worry about maybe some of this
technolgy may become a viable consideration for civil aircraft as
well.

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?

No, I'm not smarter than Gen Jumper. Yep you're right its money. Does
that mean that the AirForce isn't fielding a vulnerable platform? No.
I still suspect this discussion has cropped up in closed circles and
if it hasn't it should be. You are in a position to find out.
Pardon a digression here but I must ask. Is the 767 cockpit going to
be reconfigured for a flight engineer? IIRC there may have been some
early ones that were configured that way for union purposes but I've
never seen one. It would be expensive to do in the current production
line.


Guess the Navy missed the boat as well, basing the MMA on the 737,
another airliner.

They jury is stil out about what the Navy is going to do about MMA.
But yeah, the 737 is a bad choice as well and the notion of the
EMB-145 borders on the silly.