Originally Posted by
Just This Once...
I've no idea who does your math(s) but trying to play top-trumps with fuel/range/payload when you are holding the KC-46 card seems rather odd.
Ummm, no you misunderstood me. I questioned the claim made by someone that the A330-300 had no centerwing tank because multiple sources indicate that -200 and -300 have the same fuel capacity. I then tried (and clearly failed) to show how "fuel uplift" is a meaningless measure of merit. What matters is how much fuel can be offloaded at various distances and/or various on station times. Both the A330MRTT and KC-46 met or exceeded USAF's hundreds of fuel offload requirements (372 to be precise.) The A330 exceeded more of those requirements than KC-46 and by a wider margin than KC-46. But KC-46 came in much cheaper, and once all the requirements had been met, it was cost that won the day, not performance.
For example, the A330 is clearly "far superior" to the 737 in range and payload, with the Airbus able to carry many more passengers much further than the Boeing airplane. But economy carriers are very focussed on price and thus buy 737 or it's Airbus equivalent A320. They neither want nor need the additional performance. But the major carriers want and need more performance, and buy the big airplane.
Perhaps comparing freighters rather than airliners is a more proper comparison. 767 freighter is clearly smaller and has "less performance" than A330 freighter. Yet over 300 767 freighters have been ordered vs 42 for the A330. Clearly, some (many?) customers need/want a freighter smaller than the A330.
In the case of USAF's tanker, a large airplane was pitted against a smaller airplane, with both able to meet the performance requirements. The smaller airplane won on price.