Originally Posted by
Just This Once...
Who said USAF needs, other than you? For the USAF program the A330 was offered with an upper cargo deck.
Who said USAF needs a main deck cargo door and floor? USAF said this. And so did you with your reply. A number of folks here claimed USAF did not need a main deck cargo door and floor. That's bollocks
And for the record, the photo you posted was for an A330-200F. Airbus did not propose an A330MRTT based on the A330-200F freighter airframe. They proposed an A330MRTT based on the A330-200
airliner airframe, just like every other MRTT. Yes, a freighter door and floor could be added, but as an option. It was not a basic feature of their proposed tanker. Further, the airliner airframe does not have the lowered nose gear and nose blister to house it that the freighter airframe has. And why didn't Airbus propose a freighter based tanker? Perhaps it was because the A330MRTT was already certified as a tanker and that cert was based on the
airliner airframe, not the freighter airframe. Proposing a tanker based on the freighter airframe would require an entirely new flight test and certification campaign, further adding to the cost, but more importantly, further adding to the development time. USAF's RFP had a very aggressive schedule. The conjecture is that proposing a freighter based tanker would have meant not being able to meet USAF's schedule. You'll have to ask Airbus to confirm that.
By comparison, Boeing proposed a tanker based on the 767-200LRF (Long Range Freighter) airframe. The freighter configuration was the baseline of their proposal, not an option.
In short, anyone who buys an A330MRTT is buying an airliner based tanker. Anyone who buys a KC-46 is buying a freighter based tanker. The customer has to decide which better fits their needs. You and I are in agreement that the USAF customer wants and needs a freighter based tanker.