The problem is that you really need to replace tankers one for one. Converted DC-10s, MD-11s, or A330s offer a lot of offload, but when you need to offload gas in 100 different places, but only have 50 booms to do it (even if they have the same amount of gas airborne) you run into problems.
The USAF says they need the 762 because it is close to the KC-135 size for airfield concerns. EADS wants to offer cheaper A330s built in the US, but their size is greater so fewer can be based at one location. EADS argues that their bird can carry more farther, even though there is no cargo door conversion, and there is no existing tanker version, both unlike the 762.
The size and number of booms is important, because a USAF tanker can only gas one USAF aircraft at a time, so the number of tankers airborne and in theatre will affect the number of combat sorties flown. If you really want bigger, why stop at the A330? The 747 has a flying boom ready to go (Iran operates the type) and can carry even more gas!
Current KC-135s only have about 17,000 flight hours on the airframe, and the airframes are said to be good out to 36,000 hours. I think the most pressing issue is to retire the KC-135D/E/Q fleet with the TF-33 (JT3D) engines. These engines are becoming an issue, and the KC-135, E-3, E-8, TC-18, B-52 and C-141 fleet are using them up at a pretty good clip. Inflight failures aren’t all that uncommon, and some have caused mission aborts (E-8 over Iraq last year).
Sign In
