Originally Posted by
Commando Cody
!) I don't know the specific details of the maneuver, I suspect it is classified. However, this was one of the findings that was cited as why the evaluation of the bids was not up to snuff.
So it can't actually be stood up?
2) The V-22 comes to mind, there may be others.
Why would a 330 MRTT not be able to refuel a V-22? And where is this, in black and white, because without evidence, these A330 shortcomings sound a bit makey-uppy.....
3) Boeing (naturally) said it is, it was part of their protest and so did GAO. It is true that in their defense of the award Airbus relented, but apparently at the time of the analysis the USAF didn't get the guarantee they required.
Right.... so the bottom line is that Airbus were, in fact, able to meet the requirement.
4) I can't name the specific bases,
Funny that. No-one ever can. I wonder why?
It is also true that the A330 needs less runway length that the 767. I assume this holds true for the tanker versions with full fuel,
You assume correctly. My understanding is that the 767 can theoretically take off in a shorter distance, but can't stop as quickly so needs a longer runway to operate safely.
As a result, the KC-46 cannot take off with full fuel from some well known real world tanker bases, and yet Boeing were not penalised for this, even though it would have cost millions of dollars to extend the runways...... or indeed to operate with sub-optimal fuel loads.
The issue was ability to do full operations from a KC-135 base and the hangup was the taxiways and intersections, and to a lesser extent runway width and strength.
I was once told that at one base (Altus, I seem to recall) there was supposedly a runway intersection that the A330 was too big to use. But there was another intersection a little further along that it could use. The kicker? The intersection concerned was too close to the threshold for any tanker to actually use.