Can’t buy that. If that were true, they’d try and do it the first way again, because that would “validate” their strategy. In this case they’re doing whatever they can to get new a/c into service.
Way to contradict yourself 😀
The second statement is exactly what I said. They are doing what they can to get new a/c into service by 1) putting the needs of the acquistion team ahead of the needs of the warfighter and 2) selecting a tanker that Congress will allow them to have
The choice always was whether they wanted more booms available and the ability to operate from more fields vs. more fuel offload per aircraft and greater cargo capability.
Absolutely false. There were going to be the same number of booms (179) regardless of which tanker was selected. And as the IFARA score showed, the KC-30 mopped up the KC-767 in real-world operational effectiveness.
As far as the more fields, that isn’t clear at all. Compared to the base 767, the A330 can operate from more fields because of its shorter balanced field length. With this variant of the Frankentanker and its longer wings, they may have improved their takeoff performance enough to take the lead, but if they have, it’s not by much.
Regardless, it doesn’t matter much because tankers don’t operate out of austere FOBs for the simple reason they don’t have enough fuel available. A perfect example is how the tankers for Afghanistan operate out of Manas in Kyrgyzstan. Having to operate from a base a long way from the action is becoming typical and really shows off the advantage of the longer-ranged KC-30
Sign In
