It is possible that it won´t be much heavier, more of a problem will be the ground clearance. And then you would not want to have your engines skimming the ground at a forward operating location either. 030m difference in the fan diameter between CF6-80E1 and the GEnx-2B-67 is not that easy to compensate, but surely possible. However one has to ask if it is worth the eoffrt, because it would mean that the uSAF would operate a special subvariant of the KC-767 and would not benefit form the many users of the CF6 in the airline business. While the version of the GenX might not become that popular.

So my last posts did achieve what I had hopped for, the reactions show that this is a political program. Both planes are good enough, with the Airbus being better in some parameters which were not highly valued in the original tender.
It makes one thing crystal clear though. The US has been talking about a two way street in purchasing military equipment in NATO since the early 70ies and even nearly 40 years later it is still a one way street.
For the US taxpayer and the USAF I hope that people see the stupidity of purchasing an Airbus through Northop. If it is politically unacceptable to buy directly from EADS, then the best advice can only be to buy the Boeing.

1. One of the biggest drawbacks for the bid. Why would it be efficent to buy an Airbus through NG?
2. Japan and Italy bought the KC-767.
3. JAL bought the 767. But you are right the 787 will end the life of the 767 as a civil airliner. Just as it will kill the 330 in the next 5 years.
4. Politics. The USAf wanted the KC-767 in the first round.
5. Why would the US benefit from giving money to a company that gets state monry to buy the competitor to the 787?
6. The end of the A330 is not far away either. 787 and A350XWB will kill it.
7. Cargo was not part of the original tender. The 767 full fills the requirement the USAF laid down.
8. unproven
9. US equipment is superior, that is why it is bought
10. Name the airfields. And you can park more 767 on an airfield.
11. The 767 full fills the requirement laid out by the USAF.
12.The USAF did not think so in the tender.

there are some real monster out there. 300+ HP and a trumpet to beat the **** out of you.

Any one tried the game and got a bear and founf out the the wolve is much stronger?

Yes, but then how about a real competition? I would bet that a lot of money could be saved if EADS would built the planes in Europe at the factories in Toulose and Seville. Instead of that, a new factory is planed, run by Northorp, where the same parts will be assembled for the USAF tankers.
So in fact there is still the requirement to buy an american made plane, even if it simply means building an European plane in the US. On the other hand if the requirement is there, then why not buy the plane that already has a running production line in the US?

For me liberal is not a dirty word, I specifically mean persons, who pretend to be liberal and enforce pseudo-liberal actions, just to meet political goals.