One of the problems with this is the fact that tankers are often well defended, and behind our lines, though, as pointed out, they would make an inviting target (large unmaneuverable and full of fuel). There are two main jobs of flight refueling, strategic, and theatre (could be seen as B-52 and harrier refuelers respectively), and with one clearly further away, the theatre based aircraft will prevent more of a target. This will reduce the number of missions that can be flown ( I read soemthing like one downed tanker would have stopped something lke 1,000 sorties inthe 1st gulf war). This will also have the combined effect of increasesing concentration of protection round the tanker, and taking further fromthe front, therefore further reducing its effectiveness. There were some nightvision pictures around during the Iraq conflict showing (if I can remember) some F-14's flying round baghdad, and what appeared to be a tanker flying roudn with them, though I think it was just the way it was edited to look like they were flying tankers 'over' central Iraq. In terms of attacking apparently there were a couple of 'very quick' flights by Iragi Mig-25's, had they managed to shoot a tanker down would have been a mighty propaganda tool.

It always makes sense to examine the possibility of attacking an enemy not at his strongest position, but at his most vulnerable key points. There's been speculation about Soviet special raids on AWACs in context of Red Storm. It would certainly have been a worthwile doctrine. Similarly, it makes sense to go after tankers. Problems are to get near enough for shots. You'd need an air force with some decent, long ranged fighters as well as some good, medium to long ranged missiles. Or, something extremely stealthy.

I have always considered the Flanker as an obvious candidate for a "tank-destroyer". (NO SHAKA: It is not a tin pot with a gun, on this page a tanker FLIES)

Question: Would an old fashioned NIKE or something of that ilk have the range ??

NIK?

NIKE-ZEUS AIM missiles

The adder and the Alamo should do, approx 100KM range (air to air,a nd these tankers are not the most maneouverable. Iran still has the Gammon surface to air, rage about 300KM. So there is definitely the stuff to get tehm out there.

Let see: We agree on the threat - what are we to do?

I know that the RAF Sentry's at least have soem protection on the pods onthe wingtips, this should certainly be considered for tankers that operate near the frontline, reduced the percieved and actual threat. Because of the low number of aircraft this involves, and because it has already been done on similar aircraft ( I am talking about the KC-135 and E-3D sentry here), the cost could be mitigating.

The requirement for the Phoenix missile is gone; but there seems to be a requirement for a long- long range missile for the protection of tankers and AWACS - if not against the interceptor, then the long range missiles they launch. An updated Phoenix????