I'll start by reiterating the first sentence in my previous post: "With regard to the clear "superiority" of the A330 MRTT to the KC-46, that all depends on the user's priorities."
USAF's priorities are different than many other users' priorities. For many users a tanker about the size of a KC-10 is preferable, which leads them to the MRTT. For others a tanker about the size of a KC-135 is preferable, which leads them toward the KC-46. In USAF, the KC-46 is replacing KC-135s, not KC-10s.
As for the many other points:
Adding a cargo door does not turn an MRTT into a good cargo carrier. It would still need a cargo floor, and would still need to have all the luggage bins, galleys, lavs, etc etc removed. And the nose gear installation would need a redesign. Airbus redesigned the A330 freighter's nose gear installation for a very good reason, and not on some whim. I haven't a clue why Airbus is not using the A330 freighter as the basis for the MRTT, but the fact is they are not. For many potential users, that is a bad choice. For others who want to transport passengers, that's a good choice. But USAF does not want to use their tankers to haul passengers. USAF has a CRAF fleet for hauling passengers. And in a pinch, the KC-46 can be very quickly equipped with existing seat pallets and comfort pallets to enable it to carry passengers. The reverse cannot be said of the MRTT.
As for the "things" I mentioned, think sensors and comm gear. Imagine multiple orbiting tankers that are able to be "servers" for a digitally connected battle force and able to be electronic "vacuum cleaners" of the EM spectrum. Keep in mind that one of the F-22's major assets is its ability to be a battle space EM vacuum cleaner. There's more, but I'll leave it at that.
As for size of the aircraft, I was not referring to runway length. I was referring to the tarmacs, maintenance hangars, etc etc currently used by HUNDREDS of KC-135s. The 767 can use all those KC-135 facilities. The A330 cannot. The facilities issue was one of the drivers of the C-17's size. The C-17 can use all the facilities used by the C-141 and the C-17 replaced the C-141 just as the KC-46 will replace the KC-135. to put this in perspective, sure the C-5 and the 747F are larger can call haul far more than the C-17. Ther was massive pressure to use those existing larger aircraft rather than develop a new, smaller C-17. But both these "superior" air transports would require massive amounts of MILCON (military construction) to either modify all those C-141 facilities or build entirely new facilities. The same is true of the KC-135 and 767 vs A330. The total ownership costs include the facilities needed to operate and service/maintain the aircraft. A 767 sized tanker significatly reduces those costs for USAF relative to an A330 sized tanker because they can use the KC-135 facilities. For other users that don't have an existing fleet of tankers being replaced, this point would be moot.
Independent of the ability to use existing facilities, bigger is most certainly NOT always better. If bigger were better, Boeing could have proposed a 777F based tanker that would have been "far superior" to the 767, A330 AND the KC-10. But for the mission USAF was doing, bigger was NOT better. By comparison, Brazil chose the Gripen over the Super Hornet. For Brazil the small, single engine fighter fit their needs much better than the "far superior", but larger, Super Hornet. A C-130J is obviously "far superior" to a C-27J. But if your mission calls for a smaller aircraft, then the C-130's size does not necessarily make it "superior." The 747-8F, 777F and A330F freighters are all bigger and "far superior" to the 767F, yet UPS, FEDEX, and others chose the 767F over those bigger aircraft. And that had nothing to do with politics.
So I will end where I began and provide an addition. "Superior" is in the eye of the beholder. And in some beholder's eyes, "bigger" often does NOT equal "superior".
EDIT: I forgot one point. Boeing significantly underbid Airbus for the firm fixed price development contract. Boeing was willing to take a huge financial risk to develop the tanker. Airbus was not. Boeing may have "won" the contract, but at the current pace of spending, they will certainly lose a LOT of money on the first few dozen aircraft. Rather a Pyrrhic victory.
Last edited by KenV; 31st Oct 2014 at 16:19.