Originally Posted by
airsound
Sorry Ken - I thought you probably knew why the USAF didn't buy the KC-767. As wikipedia saysOr has wiki got it all wrong?
airsound
The KC-46 is meant to be more than simply a tanker. Maybe the USAF should have only sought a tanker, I don't know, but the USAF has many decades of experience with tankers and their additional capabilities. Many such capabilities and new ones were included in the requirements for the KC-46.
I have plenty of reason to believe that, birthing issues notwithstanding, the KC-46 will have a long and glorious service life, counting on a host of capabilities built in from the start, as well as new ones not yet even conceived. The USAF is not inexperienced in this business and have learned much from what the KC-135 and its derivatives have achieved.