For those not in the know, the KA-6D packed not one, but two refueling drogues!
In addition to this…
The KA-6D also maintained the capability to visually employ ordnance!
Technically it could have up to six 
I’m amazed a KA-6 has more fuel than an S-3. Is it turkeyday yet? I just flew some mirage and FBW jets are boring.
Here is the test whether you are a true Intruder fan. There is an easily visible error in those nice renders. Who has spotted it?
1 Like
It doesn’t look like it’s had the crap beaten out of it and then hammered back into place repeatedly for the past 20 years?
5 Likes
It’s not an F-111?
5 Likes
Inner most MER on each side should only have 5 bombs on it.
1 Like
And we have a winner 
1 Like
Beat me to it…
One day…
1 Like
Don’t you guys think that these forums are suddenly looking better as of late?
Like- there’s an overabundance of pictures of great planes…
I feel so happy.
2 Likes
I did a loadout mod pack for the A-6’s in Strike Fighters a few years ago. 
2 Likes
Yeah, Malibu, I remember that one!
I guess I’ll be doing some A-6 skins for DCS now!
Both true statements.
Let us remember that the KC-135 was designed to tank strategic bombers which had become jets–the KB-29 max speed was evidently just a few knots above the stall speed of the jet bombers it was supposed tank.
An we also might remember that the B707 was developed from the KC-135, not the other way around.
As far as the 767 being an old airframe, at least (as of late 2017) it is still in production. However, if we want to go with a newer, more fuel efficient airframe, than could always look at the 787 or the 767’s replacement (in about 8 years) the 797. I think DoD could make case for Boeing to co-develope the B797 with the KC-797. Just a thought.
Ease of getting support is really not the issue. Maintaining availability of tanker support is.
Tankers (and AWACS) are what we call “Low Density / High Value” assets. Meany we don’t have very many of them and they are very valuable to the combat effort. What this means is that you base them far away from the threat to protect them…to the point of outside IRBM range if needed. You don’t send them into/over any area–i.e. the Tactical Area of Responsibility (TAOR)–where they might get shot down. In military parlance you “husband these assets”…you keep them out of harms way. Thus you can maintain the availability of tanker support by “keeping them alive”, even if they do need to fly further to provide that support, as you mentioned, “where it needs to be”. 
So, no, the PG map is not well configured for a big war against Iran scenario. In such a war, the tankers would likely be based out of Saudi Arabia or Iraq’s western airfields…maybe as far away as Incirlik AB Turkey (fly east and take a right at the Iraqi border). Tankers have long legs. An 8-10 hr flight is par for the course…they have bunks, a coffee maker and a lavatory…what else does one need.
So per a suggestion by @near_blind, using the PG map, one would use scripting to make tankers appear near the western edge and orbit for a while, to be replaced on station by other tankers.
3 Likes
I was convinced it wasn’t anymore for some reason… I think I tossed it in with the 757… woops!
You’re all wrong. Over 50 replies and not a single Mudspikee got it right. The correct answer to Heatblur’s fantastic teaser is this:
!
5 Likes
4 Likes
Heatblur Interview
4 Likes