OK, toxic avenger:
1. I share the opinion of the Italians who rejected the Airbus for its unproven technology in the AAR role, its inability to operate from most Italian Air Force aerodromes and the fact that it is way over the requirement in terms of fuel capacity.
2. The A330 is too big to operate from most UK military aerodromes. It is also too big to fit into any RAF hangar. Whereas 767K is the same size as the current VC10.
3. The autopilot configuration in the A330 is currently unsuitable for the AAR role - you cannot allow the ac to turn 'automatically' during AAR, it must maintain a predictable constant attitude and only turn when it is commanded to - the roll rate, angle of bank and final heading must be continuously adjustable by the pilot; rates of roll acceptable to airliner passengers are NOT necessarily acceptable to receivers maintaining contact throughout the turn. 'Taking out the autopilot' is not an acceptable alternative.
4. I have serious doubts about what the A330 tanker FBW would decide to do when a receiver disconnects and gives the tanker a transient yawing moment and change in apparent drag.
5. If a 74-94 fuel tonne 767 is compliant with the requirement, the surplus capacity of a 111 fuel tonne A330K is effectively irrelevant. Nice to have perhaps, but far from essential to have!
6. Personally I'd trust a company with a proven record in providing military aircraft to end users such as Boeing rather than one with a non-military background such as Airbooooooooos.
(Edited because on second reading some of my comments were perhaps not as clear as I'd intended.)
[ 11 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]