Originally Posted by
vascodegama
CC
No sarcasm-not this time. Firstly study of post 1038 kindly added by Beagle shows that even a legacy aircraft has managed it. A quick search suggests that the V22 has a max cruise speed of 270 KCAS so would not need to refuel at 90 kt. The hose speed range on the A330 family hose is 180-325 which should easily cover the V22. Indeed at least one member of said family of tankers has a clearance to refuel the V22. Maybe the GAO didn't look to hard! Not only that where was the evidence that the KC46 was any better?
As far as performance is concerned the ancient rules I referred to are those that were in force when the KC135 was built/certified. The A330 does meet all current perfA requirements and does not rely on balanced field calculations-it uses an optimised V1 based on the choice of take off configuration chosen.
With respect, again, all the GAO said in its summary was that USAF had not demonstrated in its analysis that all USAF-fixed wing aircraft could be refueled by the A330 submission. It was a separate source that said it was the V-22 Whether the 767 bid could do that better was not the issue, it was USAF's lack of properly addressing the issue regardless of what aircraft the receiver in question might have been. GAO looks at contractual issues.
Regarding your second point, how it calculates V1 isn't the issue; military allowances are different (which is why a number of military aircraft never get civil certification). Runway length was not an issue in the award, protest or sustainment. This whole thing was a contractual problem, one of a number USAF experienced in the 2000s. .Like I said, USAF was doing so badly at this point that DoD seriously considered taking the authority to make the next tanker award away from them and doing it itself. That is a
severe condemnation and rarely taken step .