It is clear that the KC-390 is intended to be able to receive fuel in flight. Unless a decision is made to include a centreline hose on the KC-X2, or perhaps on another KC-390, a boom on the KC-X2 and UARRSI on the KC-390 would be logical.
For those who think I'm 'anti-American' when it comes to aircraft - think again. Why we persisted with the Tornado F2 and GR4 when the F-15C and F-15E were so clearly far superior is quite beyond me.
Re. the A330MRTT cargo door, it is a customer option because the capacious lower deck cargo holds are adequate for all current users. Both holds have large 107" doors and the hold capacity is unaffected by any AAR requirements. Whereas the Frankentanker
needs an upper deck cargo door because the lower cargo areas are too narrow for paired LD3s and are compromised by the extended centre tanks....
The difference in fuel burn between an A330 and a 767 whilst on a refuelling anchor is virtually insignificant - that was one red herring used to try to bolster the alleged benefit of the KC-46A. Anyway, until it actually flies no-one, knows how much fuel it will burn....
