It was only when, at an independent research organisation, we conducted an indepenedent assessment of capability based upon defined RW conditions (10000 ft balanced field, sea level +15 deg C and still-air) that the truth about the KC-767A was revealed....
It was a simple problem and one for which each nation was asked to supply their own data:
Given a 4-hour sortie from 10000ft balanced field at sea level, ISA, still air and assuming the same aerodrome characteristics for landing (4 hours from take-off to landing, land with equivalent of 1 hr fuel burn remaining to tanks dry), state the maximum offload capability of each tanker type.
The answer:
- KC-767: 50000 kg
- A310MRTT: 45500 kg
- A330MRTT: 82500 kg
First question from the American data providers was a request to use 12000 ft balanced field, not 10000ft. This was refused.
It would be interesting to learn whether the USAF made specific requirements for RW performance. E.g. Mildenhall to Mildenhall at +15C and still-air, what would be the max fuel available at RTOW and 3-crew only ZFW without cargo?
If Boeing win, it will be difficult for the KC-767A to be known as anything other than 'The Tanker the USAF Didn't Want'. And when being flown in Guantanamo Bay class luxury in an austere, windowless environment, the KC-767A's passnegers can think about the normal airline standards being enjoyed by those fortunate enough to be flying in the A330MRTT.
Give the USAF the casting vote - and tell the whining politicians to get lost!