Check it better.
The A-12 had about 25 tonnes of fuel. Compare this with 38 tonnes of SR-71.

Uh, those figures are painfully irrelevant, as the long-range Mach 3 proving flight demonstrated. Again, can a MiG-25 manage to sustain Mach 3 from Area 51 to Orlando, Florida?

So, it was the SR-71 which, because of Mig-25, never fulfiled its intended role.
And because of extraordinary Mig-31, it was retired from service entirely.

Lies. The overflights of the USSR ended on 1 May 1960 when Powers was shot down in his U-2. If the MiG-25 was the reason then the A-12 would’ve been overflying the USSR as it was in service before the interceptor FOXBAT. And the SENIOR CROWN program ended because of money, not FOXHOUND.

How To ID SAM Sites

I know, I know, but the whole concept was still incredibly stupid given the restrictions that would have been placed on modifying the airframes.

I think you’re thinking more near term than I am (near term being relative, obviously). There’s a good amount of space left to exploit right now, sure. But give it 50 years, and then see how much of that space is still available for exploitation due to populations increasing and the amount of arable land required for food production increasing as well. Hell, we may need a huge war at some point just to clean out enough space for everyone else.

Under the current international laws regarding space exploration, no nation has a right to unilaterally lay claim to the Moon. 50 years or so down the road, we could see a breakout of these agreements by the first nation to be able to profitably do it, in much the same way that the USA broke out of the ABM Treaty. There’s where your potential for conflict lies, at least in part.

Airlift: The only “airlift” requirement given a quantitative value was patient capacity which the KC-767AT can carry double the stated requirement. As an airlift asset, the KC-767AT can carry as many 463L pallets or roughly twice as many passengers or patients as a C-17. Unless you are going to argue that we need to replace all our C-17s with something with significantly greater capacity there is no justification for such in a TANKER

Having worked with a KC-135R unit for eight years, you’d be suprised how much cargo is actually moved on a tanker. Being able to put more cargo on your jet when deploying saves you from having to rely on so much airlifter support, freeing up those assets to do other things and maybe even stop buying C-17s (KC-30 and no more C-17s…maybe then Boeing can get the government to level the airliner playing field with subsidies :diablo: ).

[B]Most of us in the Air Force mobility community were a bit surprised by the decision to buy the quite large Airbus-330 tanker instead of the smaller Boeing 767 tanker. But the real shock was in the unusually harsh language used by the Government Accountability Office in overturning that decision. It was the harshest language used to overturn an action by the Air Force that I have read in my entire career.[/B]

That’s hilarious, the USAF operators I’ve conversed with were relishing the idea of the KC-30. The stupidest idea in this whole process was the idea to lease tankers in the first place, at least we got rid of that idiotic notion.

Recall that we started this acquisition process in order to replace the Eisenhower era KC-135 aircraft with a modern version capable of accomplishing everything the current fleet does plus additional needs for the future. Thus the required aircraft is of small to medium size much like the KC-135. Not a very large aircraft like the current KC-10, which may be replaced later with a comparably large aircraft.

The KC-135 was designed for Strategic Air Command to support the bomber fleet. Any new aircraft should be designed for what we need right now, which is a bigger aircraft capable of relieving airlift support requirements during deployment and capable of staying on-station longer and transfer more fuel.

Why a smaller to medium size aircraft? Because, first of all, you want tankers to deploy in sufficient numbers in order to accomplish all assigned tasks. You need to bed them down on the maximum number of airfields around the world along with or close to the customer — airborne fighters, bombers and other mobility assets in need of fuel close to or right over the fight or crisis. This allows the supported combatant commander the ability to conduct effective operations around the clock. The impact of more tankers is more refueling booms in the sky, more refueling orbits covered, wider geographic coverage, more aircraft refueled, and more fuel provided. A “KC-135 like” aircraft takes up far less ramp space, is far more maneuverable on the ground and does not have the risk of jet blast reorganizing your entire ramp when engine power is applied.

Horse. Crap. Allow me to explain.

We sent KC-135s and KC-10s all over the globe to support OSW, ONW, OEF, and OIF. Every airfield I know of that has had one type has also had the other at one point, and I’ve been places where we had both. Basing will ultimately be dependant on runway length and taxiway width, as well as ramp space. The places we’ll operate from and are doing so now have plenty of ramp space to offer and can support either size aircraft. Unless we’re going to invade Siberia with tiny airfields built on icebergs sized to support smaller tankers exclusively, this holds absolutely no water from a real-world, operational perspective.

Close to the customer? Are you kidding me? The only real way to do that is put them in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we aren’t doing it now for a few solid reasons. Outside of those two nations, most strike aircraft are based far from the real action anyway, and as they require gas to get to the operating areas, you won’t be basing the tankers farther inland than the fighters.

In fact, a bigger tanker is better for that reason. You can use fewer airframes which can follow a strike package in and out of the battle area, eliminating the need for smaller tankers to set up highly visible refueling orbits in some cases. Bigger jets mean fewer are needed to support air bridges as well, reducing the amount of tankers needed to support those operations.

And the last bit about reorganizing your ramp with jet exhaust is completely hilarious. Large and small aircraft operate together at the same locations all the time, this is nothing new and not a problem in the real world.

I also want the acquired aircraft to be integrated with the current defense transportation system. That means 463L compatible pallets; floor loaded on a freighter capable floor all compatible with the current modern airlift fleet. When I put passenger seats in this aircraft, I want to be able to use existing airlift aircraft seats and pallets. When tasked with our precious aero medical mission, I want to be able to use integral medical crew seats, onboard oxygen generation systems, more outlets and be able to use the USAF patient support pallet. I do not want to harness the USAF with the problem of going out to acquire unique assets due to a more radically sized and equipped tanker aircraft.

Guess what, the KC-10 and KC-135 can use the same pallets. Being bigger doesn’t mean the KC-10 had to have new pallets designed for it. Why should this apply to a new tanker.

Now, if you look at these rather simple requirements and look at the previous offerings from industry, you might agree with me that the KC-767 more closely meets these needs than the competition. If that’s what the warfighters need, that’s what they should get.

If you look at how the real world USAF operates, you’d disagree.

My purpose is only to help select the right aircraft that meets the warfighter’s requirements. It is not anything else. With that thought in mind, the KC-767 — or another that is the same size and has the same capabilities — is the right aircraft for the USAF. Now let’s see what the new leadership of the Air Force does to obtain the right aircraft for the warfighter.

The problem is that the people at the top of the food chain are often so far removed from the day-to-day warfighting operations that they miss a lot of the nuances involved. Plus, TRANSCOM or AMC isn’t necessarily the best organization to ask anyway. Guess what, when those AMC tankers deploy to the Middle East to fight wars, they become CENTCOM assets until they are released to rotate back to the United States. I’d be curious to see what CENTCOM, or more importantly CENTAF, has to say about the type of tanker needed to actually fight a war.

I could really care less who builds the new jet. But based on personal experience conducting combat operations with tanker units, bigger jets in the air would make a lot of things easier.

I’m gonna assume that the Israelis and Muslims will disagree about the “no religious wars” bit, but for what it’s worth I think they should be a thing of the past, the West is just too afraid to use the right kind of force necessary to put an end to it.

But I do see where you are going with the wars over resources. The next major war won’t even be fought on the Earth, I don’t think. As technology progresses, populations increase, and resources dwindle, there will be a greater push among the developed nations to find a way to exploit other bodies, beginning with the Moon. That’s where the next major war will be fought, over real estate on the surface of the Moon to combat resource shortages and overpopulation on Earth. This won’t happen tomorrow or in ten years, but that’s the road we’re heading down. It has nothing to do with ideology or politics, but with the natural growth of the human race.

It does bring up a very interesting moral question. Let’s say the USA develops (way down the road, bear with me) technology to travel efficiently and frequently to the Moon and other planets and populate them. Do we have a moral obligation to share this with the rest of the world, or are we to act in our own interests first, basically leaving the rest of the planet to fend for itself?