The above scenario would be better served by F-35Cs off from a CBG. Faster reaction time and better survival rates for the F-35s compared to the B1-R.

They also forgot to mention the new rocket accelerated penetrating missile (Next Generation Penetrator) that will fit internally on the F-35 (so it can carry 6 total) and the B-1/B-2. It’s range has not been stated but since it’s part of the Long Range Strike concept, I am sure it’s over 200 miles.

The report makes a lot of assumptions of Chinese air power and does not really evaluate the effectiveness of Taiwanese or US air power (land & sea based).

The multiple simultaneous P&D operations are offset by the fact that the boom can refuel a fighter more than twice as quickly as a P&D setup.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32910.pdf

If you look at the AF as a whole then you might say they wanted the KC-30. But, this time around the AF refuelers told the cargo guys to pound sand and stuck to the original specs.

If the cargo guys want hauling capability then let them buy C-17s or 747/777 Freighters.

Wiki (I know, I know) say about $15 million US.

I see the USAF creating a bid process like they did with KC-X. It will have clearly defined specs and will come down to price. If Boeing tries to enter with a clean-sheet design, I do not see them wining due to the risk involved and the increased cost of development.

Since they already are a small part of the M-346, they may try and do a combined bid like NG/EADS did on KC-X. In that case they have a chance.

With the economy continuing to tighten I cannot see any future large contracts not being a set of specs & cost like KC-X was.

KAI T-50. It does not need the LO features of MAKO and is already flying (ie dev done).

It already has US parts, just switch to an all US engine & put more US avionics in it and it’s ready to fly.

Either mfg parts here for Korean assembly or mfg parts there for US assembly.

Win/Win for US and Korean partners.