Originally Posted by
tdracer
Without rehashing hundreds of previous posts, the MRTT doesn't come close to meeting the mandatory USAF requirements (neither did the KC-767 - which is why the KC-46 development was such a huge task). The MRTT would need a massive redesign before it could be considered a viable replacement.
Or is it being advocated to replace a non-compliant Boeing offering with a non-compliant Airbus offering?
OK, without doing a re-hash, what are the highlights of the requirements neither plane meet?
As for defending Boeing, that's got to be getting harder with the growing list of disasters? at what point does operational necessity override political preference?
(for the record, I have the same issues with airbus, specifically the A400 project)