Originally Posted by
KenV
Guess it depend on the definition of "contested". Here's what the shill had in mind with regard to that: "Eighth, the Air Force's future tankers must be highly survivable, even when supporting operations in so-called anti-access/area denial environments. That entails being equipped with radar and infrared countermeasures that can defeat attackers, being hardened against the electromagnetic pulse generated by nuclear bursts, and being able to operate safely at night. The flight deck is even armored. As a result, KC-46 will be able to operate in environments where few tankers have gone in the past." So apparently not into any and all contested environments, but into more contested environments than today's tankers.
We'll know if they've gone too far by that great big flaming fireball in the sky.
Ops(O) puts down coffee cup and sighs.
"Hmm, that area was more contested than we thought it would be, general ... "
Originally Posted by
ORAC
So you’re back to dropping nukes on Poland, Hungary or the Baltic states then?
I am not sure how you arrive at that. NATO tends to forward deploy these days. *scratching head* You just named some NATO allies.
Alternatively, if you want to go bunker busting in any feasible enemy - then the targets are deep inside their territory outside the range of the F-35A without AAR well inside their airspace.
As I look at the order of battle, I find that the F-35 isn't the only aircraft, and that at least one aircraft, B-2, can handle that sort of mission if you are the USAF. If not, then ... what, is that the problem? The RAF can't be all things to all people?