Complete and utter bolleaux, KenV, as well you know.
The A330 shares the same 222" fuselage cross-section as the A310 and the avionics have been developed as the A320 family has matured. As have various aircraft systems - such as the industry-leading FBW system.
Whereas the KC-46A which still has yet to fly uses bits and pieces from various other 767s, plus 787 flight deck avionics....to a point. It is emphatically more of a cut-and-shut than the continuously-developed A330MRTT....
Once again, we'll have to agree to disagree.
The A330 shares FAR more than just the "same fuselage cross section" as the A300. The A330 fuselage is an A300-600 fuselage with two barrel sections added. The A330 fuselage sections are built by the same folks using the same drawings and using the same materials and are then assembled on the same production line as the A300. The A330 tail section and vertical stabilizer are the same as the A300. The horizontal stabilizer was modified to make it smaller and added a trim tank. The A330 systems (hydraulic, pneumatic, pressurization, fuel management, fuel quantity gauging, etc, etc) are upgrades of the same systems on the A300. Many parts are even interchangeable. The A330 freighter door is lifted directly from the A310 freighter. The KC-46 uses only structural components and aircraft systems common to the 767.
The A330 avionics system is directly based on the A320 avionics system and literally uses many of its components, panels, and even software. The KC-46 only uses the 787's wide screen displays and none if its avionics.
There is nothing "bad" about any of this. Indeed, I think such an approach is GREAT. But if using such an approach on a small scale on the KC-46 is freakish (as you insist), then using such an approach on a MUCH bigger scale must be more freakish. And the A330 does just that.
Bottom line: I call the re-use and re-application of technology, engineering and production systems (as has been extensively done on the A330 and lesser so on the KC-46) to be smart design, engineering, and business practice. You call it freakish. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
But wait......
(KC-46A) is emphatically more of a cut-and-shut than the continuously-developed A330MRTT.
Fascinating. Re-use and re-application of technology on an Airbus product is "continuous development", but doing that on a lesser scale on a Boeing product is freakish. Very well. Yet another point we'll have to agree to disagree on.