Originally Posted by
Commando Cody
Some examples:
1) One of the requirements was that KC-X had to perform a standard, defined "escape maneuver" (used when the tanker was threatened by opposing forces). The KC-135 could do this maneuver and apparently so could the KC-767. The KC-30 could not, so they simply ignored that in the evaluation.
2) There was a go/no go requirement that KC-X had to be able to refuel any AAR-capable fixed wing aircraft in USAF inventory. KC-30 couldn't, but this was ignored.
3) At the time, USAF wanted a guarantee that once in service major maintenance would transition to the Air Force and the contractor would facilitate this transition. Airbus wouldn't provide such a guarantee, but AF dismissed this as a "clerical error".
4) There was a requirement that KC-X had to be able to routinely operate from any KC-135 base or other fields that the KC-135 could. Much was made by the Europeans that the KC30 did not need runways as long as did the KC-767, and they were 100% correct. What the problem was that because it was so much larger and heavier, it couldn't use existing KC-135-capable taxiways and intersections. If AF wanted to allow this, they would have to add the cost of modifying those at KC-135 bases, where necessary, to the KC-30 requirements to the overall price of the KC-30 bid. Since this would add hundreds of millions of $ to the KC-30 bid, they just didn't add the costs.
OK, I'll bite.
1) what escape manoeuvre could a 330 not fly that a -135 and a -46 can?
2) which fixed wing aircraft can the 330 not refuel that a -46 can?
3) Airbus say that isn't so. Your evidence is....?
4) Which tanker bases could not accomodate a 330 because of taxyway restrictions? There are a host that a KC-46 can't operate from with full fuel because of runway length.....