USAF Tanker Deal "To be reviewed"

Lurchi · 06-20-08, 03:11 PM

A tanker must be kept out of harms way in any case. I can't imagine an easier target for a modern SAM than a fuel-loaded unmaneuverable tanker plane - and a fighter eats it for lunch. Armour for a tanker plane? What a waste of resources, money and especially weight which could be better used for fuel.

The USAF seems to think the same - that's why they chose the Airbus. Personally i think they don't want to make themselves too much dependent from one single supplier like Boeing.

Besides ... the british would profit the most of this deal, why do you pi$$ on them who buy american JSFs in exchange???

06-20-08, 03:11 PM	#25
Lurchi Planesman Join Date: May 2005 Location: Wilhelmshaven, Germany Posts: 181 Downloads: 35 Uploads: 0	A tanker must be kept out of harms way in any case. I can't imagine an easier target for a modern SAM than a fuel-loaded unmaneuverable tanker plane - and a fighter eats it for lunch. Armour for a tanker plane? What a waste of resources, money and especially weight which could be better used for fuel. The USAF seems to think the same - that's why they chose the Airbus. Personally i think they don't want to make themselves too much dependent from one single supplier like Boeing. Besides ... the british would profit the most of this deal, why do you pi$$ on them who buy american JSFs in exchange???