I would rather that the USAF had bought 100 KC-10Bs (my personal designation for Mil-Spec tanker/cargo versions of the MD-11, fitted out as per the KC-10 but updated [the 60 KC-10As were built in the mid-1980s]).

These would be ordered in ~1995, and would be based on the MD-11F freighter, which was the last version in production (last deliveries 2001). They would, in addition to the under-tail hose/drogue unit, have hose pods under the outer wings.

Comparison of MD-11F and DC-10-30F - to the right DC-10-30F, to the left MD-11F (note the cargo door under the "AR" in the airline name).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...comparison.jpg

The KC-46 will work out just fine. The KC-135 series certainly have...

Agree, looks like a great aircraft.


The photo of the DC10 next to the MD11 illustrates very well the main reason for the latter's stability issues over the years, look at how much smaller the horizontal stabilizer is on the MD11 compared to the older DC10.


Most of the accidents with the MD11, and there have been plenty were with aircraft operated by cargo carriers operating routinely at higher weights, just like a tanker would be doing very commonly.



In other words using the MD11 as a tanker is not a good idea and fortunately wasn't tried.

The DC-10 is a short coupled aircraft vs. MD-11 therefore smaller surfaces needed..

Oh my goodness. Those undies really are in a wad now.

All figures that follow are for A330-200 and taken from Jane's (which coincidentally are the same as wiki's)

Here's the density of the most widely used commercial and military jet fuels:
Jet A: 6.7 lb/gal
Jet B: 6.8 lb/gal
JP-4/F-40: 6.7 lb/gal
JP-5/F-44: 6.8 lb/gal
JP-8/F-34: 6.8 lb/gal

OEW= 263,700 lb
MTOGW = 534,000 lb
Volumetric fuel capacity = 36,740 gal (US)

Let's do some math:
36,740 x 6.7 = 246,158 lb = max fuel capacity
36,740 x 6.8 = 249,832 lb = max fuel capacity
534,000 - 263,700 = 270,300 lb = total fuel plus cargo capacity

No matter which fuel one loads into an A330, the airplane will volume out before it masses out.

For the airplane to mass out with just fuel the fuel density would have to be:
270,300lb / 36,740gal = 7.36 lb/gal. Even if the above fuels were cooled to just above their freezing points, they would not approach a density of 7.36 lb/gal. So given these facts, please name the fuel (and/or temperature of fuel) the RAF loads aboard their Voyagers that has a density of 7.36 lb/gal.

Yeah, I thought so.

Really? That's an intersting assertion. Pray tell, why is there a cargo door and floor on a KC-135? And a KC-10?

But rather than muddy the water with other aircraft, let's look at just THREE of the hundreds of requirements of the recent USAF tanker RFP.
Load a full military 463L pallet.
Load a standard medevac litter stanchion.
Mission reconfigure time under 1 hr.

MRTT could accomplish NONE of the above.
KC-46 could accomplish ALL of the above.

Perhaps you're saying those three requirements were not really "needed" and were just USAF goldplating to ensure the KC-46 won. You're welcome to believe that, even if that belief does not quite comport with reality.

Edit:

Interesting that you brought that up. And BTW, you're dead WRONG. It was NOT "insignificant" in the Scooter. USAF used JP-4, US Navy used JP-5. These fuels not only have different mass densities, but also different energy densities. I had to recompute CG, range, my fuel ladder, weapons load, and other factors during mission planning depending on whether my Scooter was loaded with JP-4 or JP-5. So yes, I'm very familiar with the concept of fuel density and its affect on aircraft performance and limitations.

One more BTW. I also operated the P-3C for several years. When I was on a 12 hour or longer mission over blue water and was loitering one or more engines during the mission and operating at both high and very low altitudes and operating at max range cruise AND max undurance cruise during different parts of the same mission, and expending stores during the mission, I made damned sure I was certain about my fuel computations. So your assumption about my awareness of fuel density on aircraft performance is a fail.

For the same reason that the KC-46A needs them and the MRTT doesn't, no? All of the former are unable to fully utilise their underfloor cargo spaces because of the need to fit auxiliary fuel tanks. Without the need for auxiliary tanks, the MRTT is able to utilise all of its underfloor cargo space, and so doesn't need a main deck cargo floor or cargo door.

A main floor cargo deck and door aren't desirable features in themselves, it's just that the other platforms you name require them due to a lack of available cargo space elsewhere.

Really? On what is this assertion based? Look at the USAF designations. They are KC-45 and KC-46. The C stands for cargo. Yup, these are multi-mission aircaft which include not only tanker and freight missions, but also passenger and medevac missions, along with a few more.

And about that airbus MRTT designation? The MR stands for Multi-Role and the TT stands for Tanker Transport. Once again, a multi-mission aircraft.

Given the missions USAF wants to execute with their aircraft, the KC-46 met those mission needs better.

Given the missions RAF wants to execute with thier aircraft, the A330 met those mission needs better.

That depends on the nature of the contract. The tanker contract is firm-fixed price. Any cost over runs are borne by the manufacturer, NOT the government. Any equipment that does not meet spec must be redesigned/modified to meet spec at the cost of the manufacturer, not the government. Boeing is going to lose a LOT of money on this contract.

Boeing may lose money on the $4 billion EMD contract (the only contract so far awarded), but it will make this back in spades on the full-rate production contract. If it were any other way, they would simply pull out.

The MD-11 being stretched relative to the DC-10, it not only had a longer moment arm for the horizontal stabilizer, the MD-11 had a fuel tank in the horizontal stabilizer which the DC-10 did not have. The tail tank enabled fine tuning the CG inflight. This had two effects: it enabled reducing trim drag caused by the tail to increase range. It also meant there was a narrower CG range to deal with, so the stabilizer could be made smaller.

Ken

I have said it before but for clarity your max wt and empty weights don't tie up. The resultant max fuel using the figures I gave earlier means a max fuel of 239k =109 t.

That's a bold assertion, and one that does not comport with reality.
Can the MRTT carry full 463L military pallets in either the belly or main deck? Nope.
Can the MRTT carry medevac litter stanchions in either the belly or the main deck? Nope.
Can the MRTT be reconfigured from the tanker mission, to the cargo mission, to the passenger mission, to the medevac mission in under one hour? Nope.
Can the MRTT use USAF's existing roll-on/roll-off mission kits? Nope.

The answer is "Yes" for all the above for the KC-46.

If the abilities above are important to the customer, and one aicraft can do them and the other cannot, which should the customer choose?

Boeing may or may not make money later on. It depends on the contract. KC-46 is a high stakes gamble. Northrop Gumman pulled out early rather than accept the risk. Airbus accepted a lesser risk by bidding a higher price.

The A380 was a very high stakes gamble for Airbus. They may or may not make money on that gamble.

The 747-8 was a high stakes gamble for Boeing. They may or may not make money on that gamble.

The airplane business is not for the feint of heart. The vast majority of airplane companies no longer even exist.

All of which kind of leaves me scratching my head then, wondering why the USAF actually chose the KC-45.

You said yourself, politics had a big part to play in them opting to go with the KC-46A at the second (or third) time of asking, so you have to ask yourself how many of those capabilities you list are actually required by the USAF, as opposed to being drawn into the requirements in order to get the 'correct' outcome when the competition was rerun?

The A330MRTT can carry:

• 4 x 463-L military pallets in the forward lower cargo hold, plus another 4 x 463-L pallets in the aft lower cargo hold
• 28 NATO stretchers, 6 x critical care modules, 20 medical staff seats and 100 passengers on the main fuselage deck.
• If customers find that they want more upper deck cargo space, an option is to have a cargo door and a potential 26 x 463-L pallets on the optional upper deck.

None of which requires any loss of AAR capability.

On the subject of cargo containers, the A330MRTT can carry a total of 27 x LD3 universal cargo containers in the lower holds. Whereas the KC-46A is compromised by ol' Bubba's initial failure to ensure that LD3s could be carried in pairs in the 767 - its fuselage is too narrow. Unlike the A310 or A330, which both have the same 222" fuselage cross-section and are able to carry LD3s in pairs.

I used A330-200 data publicly available from Jane's.
If the Voyager's weight data is different, you're welcome to provide the Voyager's OEW, and MTOGW data. As I said previously, OEW makes a big difference. But if OEW is the only difference, Voyager's OEW would have to be over 20klb higher than A330-200 OEW. Which is certainly possible, but seems unlikely.

Technically, they chose KC-30, which was the Northrop Grumman designation for their A330-based tanker offer. The very first round in 2006 (which included a 777 based offer from Boeing) was structured very differently than the 2007 competion. Northrop Grumman/EADS threatened to pull out in 2006, so the competition was rejiggered to enable the A330 to compete.

The politics were complicated. The 2007 competition was driven by USAF's tanker boys which were hold overs from the old Strategic Air Command (SAC). Previously, ALL tankers belonged to SAC. When SAC ceased to exist, some tankers went to Air Combat Command (ACC) and some to Air Mobility Command (AMC). The former SAC guys, now ACC bomber guys, strongly favored a DC-10 sized aircraft, and Northrup Grumman/EADS won that competition for 800 aircraft (800!!) with the KC-30, which was based on the A330-200.

But Boeing formally protested and the Government Accountability Office (an independent arbiter not affiliated with USAF) threw out that competition after USAF admitted to several flaws in their bidding process. An "expedited recompetition" was convened by DoD rather than USAF. This second competition was for a more "realistic" 400 (400!) aircraft with more detailed performance requirements and mission criteria. But this competition collapsed early and did not get out of the starting gate. That was in 2008.

In 2009 USAF started over. The do-over was for a "possible" 179 aircraft. The process stretched into 2010. By now the old SAC guys were gone. ACC's tankers only supported their bombers, so they had a rather narrow vision of the tanker mission. But by this time the tankers were taken from ACC and all of them belonged to Air Mobility Command (AMC). AMC had a completely different vision for their tanker than ACC because AMC was responsible for deploying and supporting the Army, deploying and supporting USAF fighter and bomber units, and for supporting USN and USMC. And by "support" that means both operational support (in-theater air tanking) AND logistics support (providing "bombs, bullets, and butter" for in-theater units). AMC also had the medevac mission. So the AMC guys included a plethora of additional missions not included by the former SAC guys now ACC bomber guys during the first competition. And besides the requirements being very different, this new RFP was for a Firm Fixed Price rather than a cost-plus with incentive fees.

The A330 could still meet the additional requirements, but ONLY if Airbus offered an A330-200F based MRTT. Airbus simply refused. We (NG) never could figure out why, because unlike the first competition, Airbus now had a fully developed freighter version of the A330 and did not need to develop it for the tanker competition. So this is yet another factor in the "politics". Why did Airbus refuse to offer a freighter based MRTT? I don't know. But without a freighter based tanker to offer NG pulled out, and Airbus decided to go it alone with the passenger based version. And predictably, Airbus lost.

I hope this clarified.

Really? That would be a pretty good trick. A LOADED 463L pallet can be over 7 ft tall and can weigh up to 10,000 lbs. The USAF requirement was for a LOADED 463L pallet compatible with C-17 and C-130 for transhipment. Restacking the pallet in the theater for transhipment was not allowed. The A330's lower hold dimensions are not even compatible with a CH-46 configured 463L pallet.

And it's one thing to load a light (or empty) 463L pallet into the lower cargo hold of an A330 with a passenger nose gear. I's quite another to load a loaded pallet with that passenger nose gear. The freighter version of the A330 has a revised nose gear which gives the aircraft a level attitude on the ground. Not offering that nose gear for MRTT severely restricted pallet loadability.

Its not the stretchers that need to be compatible. A small helicopter can carry stretcher patients. The aircraft needs to be compatible with USAF's existing stretcher stanchions that stack stetcher patients 3 high. With the overhead luggage bins in the aircraft and no freighter floor, that is impossible.

BTW, have you ever tried to get a stretcher patient up the airstairs of an airliner and then make a 90 degree turn inside the airplane to move aft? It's pretty close to impossible. It's one thing to advertise the ability to carry 28 stretchers. Its entirely another thing to be able to actually load 28 stretchers with patients on them.

Once again, without a cargo floor to go with the cargo door, the pallet weight is severely restricted. And without a revised nose gear to go with a cargo door and cargo floor, pallet loadability is highly restricted.

But here's the real rub: Why did Airbus not offer a cargo door in the USAF competition? And still does not offer a cargo floor or a revised nose gear on the MRTT? I don't know. Do you? And can you see how not offering those features on the MRTT could hamper an Airbus offer relative to a Boeing offer? Especially if the purchaser "NEEDS" those features?

They did.

KC-45 Aerial Refuelling Tanker Aircraft - Airforce Technology

Cargo

The main deck can carry 280 passengers or 26 463l pallets. Loading and unloading is through a 141in x 100in cargo door. The lower deck can carry an additional six pallets. The KC-45 cargo loading system is supplied by AAR Cargo Systems which is based in Livonia, Michigan.

Mil-26Man, you'll only confuse him if you supply factual information.....:rolleyes:

KenV, read the article in post #1. "Boeing executives previously have said they expect to recoup the $1 billion in excess development costs during the program’s $39 billion production phase". The real money comes in subsequent orders or special sub-contracts. I am quite confident they will make up for this cost over run in the course of the program.

Wow Greenknight, I am really glad they did NOT buy a MD-11 derivative. They don't call the 11 "the turtle" for nothing....rolls on its back and dies....

:ok:

Well good for them! They added the cargo door after NG pulled out and Airbus decided to go it alone. I still don't get why they did not then and do not now offer the main deck cargo floor, nor the revised nose gear of the freighter.

The operative word there is "previously". You're assuming a $1 billion over run. Right now, that's a rosy estimate. And even the $1B makes huge assumptions about the follow on production contract(s). There's a reason Boeing's stock dropped even with unprecedented airliner deliveries and orders. KC-46 is a big part of that drop.

A330 MRTT can carry a lot more than 28 stretchers!! However, Ken V does make a very good point about the practicality of loading them!! The MRTT stretchers also stack 3 high, with stowage bins fitted and are fully certified.

Indeed it can, 3engnever!!. The fit to which I referred was the 'intensive MEDEVAC configuration' with 6 critical care modules also fitted. In the maximum stretcher fit, according to the tech specs it can carry up to 130 standard stretchers.

All without compromise to the AAR capability and without any loss of space for any additional centre tanks......such as are needed by the Frankentanker.

KenV - you're getting your MEWs and OEWs confused.

You're quoting MEWs - and you need to add the AAR equipment, seats, paint, galleys etc. Publicly available OEW figures range from 274,000 - 300,000 Lbs.

Also, you should read these:


http://defensetech.org/2008/04/01/fi...45-in-germany/

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...nundrum-airbus

I'm reading about all this wonderful stuff the MRTT has, but this begs a few questions:

1. A few days ago the mantra was:
The A330MRTT is wonderful and angelic as is and it does not need a demonic cargo door like the Frankentanker.

And now the mantra is:
Airbus is so wonderful because they've added a cargo door option to the angelic MRTT which adds SO much to its capabilities and utility.

I find it interesting that the mantra uttered by the true believers has done a complete 180 without the slightest pause.

2. Why did Airbus wait more than 4 years to offer all this stuff? Why did they not include it in their offer back in 2009? NG would likely have stayed in the program had Airbus done so.

3. Why does Airbus refuse to offer an MRTT based on the A330-200F? The freighter development is now done and it's in production. All that Airbus would need to do is offer a freighter with the -200 wing which includes the center wing tank rather than the current -300 wing without the center wing tank. How hard/expensive can that be? Surely there is a market for an air tanker that is more optimized for freighter duties than for passenger carrying duties. After all, the vast majority of the world's air tankers are optimized for freight rather than passengers. Perhaps there's a message there.

4. Perhaps all these new offerings relates to the A330NEO and A350. In 2009 Airbus could barely keep up with A330 orders and selling tankers was a minor sideline. Perhaps even a distraction. It could be argued that just developing and building a freighter was considered a distraction back then. At that time Boeing was desperate to keep selling 767s with the 787 coming on line and was willing to jump through all sorts of hoops to keep that production line open. Now Airbus is desperate to sell A330s to bridge the gap to the A330NEO. Airbus may have decided that tankers are the answer rather than a distracting sideline. And they may have decided that competing successfully against a "Frankentanker" in the world market place requires strengthening the "Multi" in MRTT.

That's simply not true. The mantra is, and has always been that the MRTT doesn't need a cargo door because it retains all of its cargo capacity in the undefloor hold, but the option was there for the USAF and is there for anyone else who wants it.

I stopped reading after 1, so can't comment on 2 to 4 I'm afraid.

Yes of course. And when it's pointed out that a customer (like USAF) says they need more "cargo capacity" in terms of mass and/or dimensions (including length and height) than will fit in a lower cargo hold the answer from those chanting the mantra has consistently been what amounts to "but that's not needed."

As for not reading 2 thru 4, that's your business. (and one could argue, your loss.)

KenV,

I would suggest that if the USAF was to change tack, which clearly it won't, Airbus has sold quite a few of these Multi Role Tanker Transport aircraft and so the waiting time would be considerable. I am not aware of the KC46 receiving the same interest?

I suppose the point is if you can still afford in this financial climate to pay a vast amount of cash for an aircraft with a single purpose then great, the KC46 is probably good to go. If you need a true Multi Role platform then I would suggest the MRTT is the choice. I've seen the stands for both, and whilst the MRTT doesn't meet the USAF requirements due to cargo door, the KC46 certainly doesn't meet the RAF requirements for FSTA in terms off Multi Role performance.

It's all quite simple really. Not about which tanker is best,more about which meets the customer requirements.

My last post on this thread; i can't be bothered with it anymore. KenV is clearly a troll and I'm bored now. :mad:

Ah, the usual PPRuNE mantra - he/she/it doesn't agree with me, therefore they must be a troll.

melmothw, hardly the case here. Some clear corrections of KenV's misinformation have been provided by those in the know. The fact that he chooses to ignore them and to pursue some weird agenda of his own is particularly revealing.

Anyway, since the KC-46A has yet to turn a wheel, let alone fly or start its flight test campaign, most of the claims made for it have yet to be proved - leaving the tanker market to the Airbus A330MRTT and IAI's modified 'pre-owned' 767s. When it's a choice between something sitting in the static display or some glossy brochure peddled by Boeing, the latter would have to be pretty compelling to be successful.

Boeing has built KC-767's for Japan and Italy that now seem to work fine...

But not the KC-46.......

So one one hand we have people saying what Airbus are offering is ****e and ole Bubba's wonder jet pisses all over it......

Oh wait, it will do, maybe if it gets in the air.
I know what I'd rather fly in thank you.

Every aircraft has four dimensions, seeing as how KC-46 is struggling with number four and then getting a working jetin the air.

I mean, how many Multi role tankers did Airbus build before MRTT? Vs Bubba?
So Boeing had all the skills and the expertise and no product in the air still yet according to those "truly in the know" is the best and will out perform Airbus by orders of magnitude....

I don't smell pork barrels here at all.

Ummm, no, you are dead wrong. I provided OEW data, not MEW.
OEW includes everything to "operate" the aircraft except usable fuel and payload and includes lubricants, hydraulic fluid, trapped fuel, OLE (Onboard Loose Equipment, like fire axes, O2 masks, O2 walk around bottles, cargo rails/rollers/locks, tie down chains/straps, first aid kits, etc), survival equipment, the flight crew, the flight crew's baggage allowance, etc, etc.

The bottom line is that the A330-200 is 20.5klb under its MTOGW limit when full of fuel. Unless the aerial refueling equipment on the Voyager weighs 20.5Klb (which is certainly possible, but seems highly unlikely) then the Voyager should not be able to reach its MTOGW limit with just fuel alone. Conversely, if the Voyager reachs its MTOGW limit with fuel alone, then its OEW must be 20.5Klbs higher than a typical A330-200.

Howewver, none of you Voyager guys have ever cited the Voyager's OEW, just its ZFW. OEW is well defined internationally. ZFW (generally) includes everything (including payload!) except usable fuel. ZFW varies greatly for every mission. With no payload ZFW equals OEW and ZFW can go all the way up to OEW + max payload, with max payload usually defined as the numerical difference between OEW and MZFW. MZFW is a structural limit determined by (generally) max fuselage bending moment on the ground and (generally) max wing bending moment in flight. Although related, MTOGW is another structural limitation defined quite differently than MZFW.

If the definition for ZFW you Voyager guys are using is the same as the general definition, then there is your problem. You are including the payload weight, which for the A330-200 is 20.5Klbs at max fuel. I have no idea what it is for the Voyager and may be more or less than 20.5Klb depending on the Voyager's OEW.

1. The RFP had hard delivery dates that lay years in the future. BOTH manufacturers' proposals met those delivery dates.

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. Although KC-45 is based on the A330-200 like the MRTT, it is quite a bit different than the MRTT, just as the KC-46 is quite a but different than the KC-767 that Boeing had previously produced. It would take a few years for Airbus to develop the KC-45 just as it is taking Boeing a few years to develop the KC-46. The production slots would be reserved years in advance while Airbus completed development, 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. Boeing's replacement for the 767 is the 787. Those are entirely separate production lines so Boeing can produce KC-46s at the same time as 787s. I don't know, but I believe that the A330 production line will be converted to producing A330NEOs. So the only way to produce KC-45s and A330NEO at the same time would be to have two separate production lines. Airbus would likely be loathe to do that. If Airbus had won the KC-45 contract, they would have been forced to create a separate production line for the A330NEO. Maybe losing the KC-45 contract was in Airbus' best long term business interests.

Wow. "those in the know". What a joke. You "in the know" guys are clueless about what was included in the three tanker RFPs and clueless about what Boeing and Airbus actually offered in response to those RFPs. And clu4u, Airbus did NOT offer an MRTT, just as Boeing did not offer a KC767. All you had were the typical knee jerk reactions of true believers of a favored product from a favored producer.

And you "in the know" guys appear to not even understand the difference between ZFW, OEW, and MEW. In the know indeed.

Wow. My agenda is and has been from the beginning, "better" is in the eyes of the beholder. My "agenda" stated that USAF's eye beheld the offered KC-30 (based on the A330-200) to be "better" than the offered KC-767 and then beheld that the offered KC-46 to be better than the offered KC-45. The "in the know" boys do not seem to grok that NONE of these offered aircraft existed at the time nor do ANY of them exist even now. My "agenda" also stated that the RAF's and RAAF's eyes beheld the MRTT to be "better".

And about "ignoring" and "choosing" things, YOU chose to "ignore" USAF's clearly established priorities for their tanker and chose to try to convince the readers here what the USAF "really" needed. And this while you "in the know" boys are utterly clueless about USAF's (and more specifically, AMC's) operational environment.

And if you "in the know" boys want to talk about "weird" agendas, just look at your fetish with the "Frankentanker" epithet. Now that's weird. And oh yes, YOU guys are the only ones setting up the "weird" competition between a KC-46 and an MRTT. They've never competed. Clu4u, the KC-45 is NOT the same as an MRTT, and the KC-46 did not compete against the MRTT.

Hmmmm. "Claims made"? Do you "in the know" boys really imagine there is the teeny tiniest scintilla of doubt that the KC-46 will have a boom, will have three drogues, will have belly tanks, will have a cargo door, willl have a cargo floor and will be able to operate from 10,000 ft runways. Those are essentially the only claims I made.

And oddly enough, the KC-45 is even farther from reality than the KC-46. Image that!!! Oh wait, you're still going on about that "weird" comparison between the KC-46 and the MRTT. Yeah, you "in the know" boys please do keep making that weird comparison.

Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on the needs of the user (which includes timing), and the product being offered. Which is to say it depends on the eye of the beholder. You "in the know" boys are apparently unaware that the F-35 was years from IOC while LOTS of folks from multiple nations chose it over the "on the ramp right now" Eagle, Hornet, Falcon, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Fulcrum, and the various derivatives of the Flanker.

"In the know" indeed.

And oh yes, a final question for the "in the know" boys. Who's the troll with the "weird agenda" here really.

Odd claim. No one even remotely suggested that "what Airbus are offering is ****e". That's a fabrication. Lots of follks are saying that what Airbus and what Boeing are offering are different. And which differences are "better" depends on the needs and the priorities of the user.

"No product in the air?" Really? The "in the know" boys apparently don't know that Italy and Japan are flying KC-767s now and said KC-767 was flying in 2005. First flight of the A330MRTT was in 2011, six years AFTER the KC-767. And real "in the know" folks understand that while it's true that the KC-46 is not yet flying, the KC-45 is literally infinitely farther from getting off the ground. Those truly "in the know" understand that it's utterly ludicrous to compare the first flight of the KC-46 with the first flight of the MRTT.

As for which tanker "out performs" the other, only the "in the know" boys are attempting to make "performance" comparisons. Most truly "in the know" folks are comparing the different FEATURES of the KC-767, A330MRTT, and KC-46 and how different customers put different priorities on these different FEATURES. Thus different customers make different procurement decisions, some (wisely) choosing the KC-767, some (wisely) choosing the MRTT, some (wisely) the KC-30, and some (wisely) the KC-46.

Or course some would say those choices had nothing to do with wisdom, or needs, or requirements, and it was all just politics. I'm not one of those.

I'd recommend seeing a doctor about that problem. :)

Odd claim. No one even remotely suggested that "what Airbus are offering is ****e". That's a fabrication. Lots of follks are saying that what Airbus and what Boeing are offering are different. And which differences are "better" depends on the needs and the priorities of the user.

"No product in the air?" Really? The "in the know" boys apparently don't know that Italy and Japan are flying KC-767s now and said KC-767 was flying in 2005. First flight of the A330MRTT was in 2011, six years AFTER the KC-767. And real "in the know" folks understand that while it's true that the KC-46 is not yet flying, the KC-45 is literally infinitely farther from getting off the ground. Those truly "in the know" understand that it's utterly ludicrous to compare the first flight of the KC-46 with the first flight of the MRTT.

As for which tanker "out performs" the other, only the "in the know" boys are attempting to make "performance" comparisons. Most truly "in the know" folks are comparing the different FEATURES of the KC-767, A330MRTT, and KC-46 and how different customers put different priorities on these different FEATURES. Thus different customers make different procurement decisions, some (wisely) choosing the KC-767, some (wisely) choosing the MRTT, some (wisely) the KC-30, and some (wisely) the KC-46.

Or course some would say those choices had nothing to do with wisdom, or needs, or requirements, and it was all just politics. I'm not one of those.

That's an odd question, but OK, I'll bite. "Bubba" has been building (and has built literally HUNDREDS of) multi-role tankers since before Airbus even existed.


I'd recommend seeing a doctor about that problem. :)