Regarding the AAC, I'm just wondering, how long would it be safe or practical to keep a 747 airborne with aerial refuelling? Because if it could stay on-station a couple of days even, then I'd drop a couple of microfighters for more munitions to generate more sorties (as fuel to the 747 which it could then give to the microfighters could be replenished with tankers, of which probably several would be needed).
Although, I don't quite get the idea, just nearly so. Microfighters are at a disadvantage to proper fighters except in WVR, and can't carry that much mud-moving equipment either. True, they have a shorter turnaround time than if a "proper" fighter had to fly all the way back to base and/or carrier (thus also being less tiresome for the pilots - and flying a combat flight over intercontinental distances in a single-seater would be a bother even if refueling would allow it), plus an AAC could be on-station almost instantly compared to a carrier. Then again, a carrier is a lot harder to kill than a 747.
Basically, Falklands War would have been a tailor-made scenario for the AAC: rapidly provide at least some air support on the other side of the globe while real carriers are on the way. Plus even when flying in from Ascension Island, a 747 would not likely have needed eight tankers each to reach the Falklands unlike the Vulcan...
