2. If USAF were to change horses in mid stream at this late date, USAF would change to the KC-45 and not the MRTT......., so the wait for delivery would not be "considerable".
On the other hand the waiting time may be infinite. By the time Airbus developed the KC-45 from the A330-200, the A330-200 may no longer be in production. The production line may have converted over to producing A330NEOs...... Maybe losing the KC-45 contract was in Airbus' best long term business interests.
So, KenV, my point stands. If the USAF were to now change their minds they would't see a KC45 or MRTTfor a long time, mainly due to the amount of orders that ADS are yet to fulfil.
I agree that what is good for one is not good for the other, but at ARSAG the Boeing guys had to work hard to come up with scenario where the KC46 outperformed the MRTT as a tanker. For this reason I have never really understood the 'full to the brim' pallet thing. Surely once you load these pallets, any AAR capability is zero. This was not required for the UK, we have, like the USAF, a dedicated Airlift fleet for that with C17, C130 and A400M to come.
However, as you have said, the customer is the key. In years to come it will be interesting to see how much utilisation that cargo door gets. Not a pointed comment, just real interest.
What I have never quite understood is why the US Gov made the U-turn from Airbus to Boeing? Did they run a second competition or did someone change the requirements to be outside of the A330 capability?
I really don't give a damn who flies what around the world, and I fail to see why others are concerned, as long as we in the RAF get the best value for money and a service that meets the needs of the end user. For us, the A330 provides that capability.