USAF receives three proposals for KC-X, but Antonov team admits concerns

I have flown in a few different Antonov offerings and I am not impressed.

The USAF would never choose this plane.

Agree.....

The late General Curtis E. LeMay would order the bombing of his own tankers if they were Antonov constructed, I can hear him now “You’re tellin’ ME that the United States Air Force is going to be refueled in mid-air by RUSSIAN tankers?!? Like Hell it will!”

My God, how we need men like LeMay today.

I agree with you 100 percent!

I wonder has Boeing studied the idea of using the Boeing 787-8 as the basis of a new tanker.

But the primary reason why Boeing chose the KC-767 based on the 767-200(ER) is the parking space used by the KC-767 is not much more than the parking space used by the KC-135, which means Air Force bases don't need to rebuild their ramp areas to accommodate a plane with a larger wing span. Since the production tooling for the 767 is already fully paid for, Boeing can use the 767 production jigs to produce as many as 300-350 KC-767's to completely replace the KC-135 fleet over the next 15 years.

Why not a C-17 knock off ?

This makes as much sense as the the US Army buying Russian helicopters. And it looks as if the Army is interested.

I’ve said this before that one day we will be purchasing our fighter jets and cargo airplanes from Russia. Looks like we are well on our way there. Now who won the Cold War?

WHAT IS ANTONOV EVEN DOING IN THIS BIDDING PROCESS???

Ants... ya gotta be kiddin me.

I wonder has Boeing studied the idea of using the Boeing 787-8 as the basis of a new tanker.

With the record backlog Boeing has for this new airliner, and the fact that they are already two years behind schedule in development, even if the 787 were the perfect tanker there is no production capacity available to produce it.

Since the production tooling for the 767 is already fully paid for, Boeing can use the 767 production jigs to produce as many as 300-350 KC-767’s to completely replace the KC-135 fleet over the next 15 years.

USAF then replaces an outdated aircraft with another outdated aircraft.

But the primary reason why Boeing chose the KC-767 based on the 767-200(ER) is the parking space used by the KC-767 is not much more than the parking space used by the KC-135...

The ramp space is only a Boeing spin. Both aircraft perform quite the same out of the same ramp space because you'll need less KC-45 to perform the same task. The KC-45 is heavier but due to the bigger wheels the pressure doesn't differ that much.

The big difference between KC-767 and B787 or KC-45 is the fuselage. KC-767 needs additional fuel tanks on lower cargo deck. Neither a KC-45 nor a B787 would need additional tanks. On both of these aircraft the complete cargo bay is free for LD3 containers. A B767 can just use the smaller LD2 size.

“USAF then replaces an outdated aircraft with another outdated aircraft.”

Never have truer words been spoken regarding the A330.

“The ramp space is only a Boeing spin. Both aircraft perform quite the same out of the same ramp space because you’ll need less KC-45 to perform the same task.”

Yes, because unlike the 767, EADS has discovered how to have ONE KC-30 in TWO places at the same time.

“The KC-45 is heavier but due to the bigger wheels the pressure doesn’t differ that much.”

Only if the ramp is stressed for a higher load bearing capacity.

“The big difference between KC-767 and B787 or KC-45 is the fuselage. KC-767 needs additional fuel tanks on lower cargo deck.”

Because unlike the KC-30, an aircraft that CANNOT carry extra fuel without exceeding its MTOW. The 767 can carry an additional 40,000+ lbs of fuel before exceeding its MTOW.

“Neither a KC-45 nor a B787 would need additional tanks.”

and your point would be?

“On both of these aircraft the complete cargo bay is free for LD3 containers.”

IF the USAF used the LD3 container, this might matter.

“A B767 can just use the smaller LD2 size.”

The USAF does not use the LD2 container.

The USAF uses the 463L pallet, the 767 can carry 19 on the main deck and 5 on the lower deck, the KC-30 can carry 24 on the main deck and 8 on the lower deck.

““USAF then replaces an outdated aircraft with another outdated aircraft.”
Never have truer words been spoken regarding the A330.”

Today Airbus builds 6 times more A330 than Boeing B767 and order backlog for A330 is about 5 times higher.

“Yes, because unlike the 767, EADS has discovered how to have ONE KC-30 in TWO places at the same time.”

No, that was discovered by USAF. One KC-45 can replace 1.9 KC-135.

“Only if the ramp is stressed for a higher load bearing capacity.”

And how big is the difference? How many Air Force Bases already have to accommodate the heavier C-17?

“Because unlike the KC-30, an aircraft that CANNOT carry extra fuel without exceeding its MTOW. The 767 can carry an additional 40,000+ lbs of fuel before exceeding its MTOW.”

Maybe true for Australian KC-30A but are you really sure about the 767?
A basic 767-300F can carry additional 60,000 lbs in relation to internal fuel capacity of 160,000 lbs.
412,000 lbs – (188,000 lbs + 162,000) = 62,000 lbs
MTOW - (OEW + fuel weight)

According to the offered fuel load of over 200,000 lbs just 20,000 lbs are left for boom and other refueling equipment, additional fuel tanks and cockpit protection.

BTW, did you know wings for KC-45 originate from A340. That’s why an A330 got such a huge fuel load.
MTOW of an A340 is at least 610,000 lbs with a fuel capacity of 40,960 US gal.
MTOW of an A340-500HGW is 838,000 lbs with a fuel capacity of 59,000 US gal.
BTW, A330-200 is already available with a MTOW of 238 t (525,000 lbs) without a higher OEW.

“IF the USAF used the LD3 container, this might matter.”

How do you think troop’s gear is moved on leased or rented commercial aircrafts (e.g. CRAF) while traveling to Manas AB?

“The USAF uses the 463L pallet, the 767 can carry 19 on the main deck and 5 on the lower deck, the KC-30 can carry 24 on the main deck and 8 on the lower deck.”

A 767 without additional fuel tanks can carry 5 additional 463L pallets on the lower deck. A KC-767AT couldn’t. An A330MRTT can carry up to 26 463L pallets on main deck. KC-45 is limited to 24 due to galleys. During the virtual tour on http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/ I counted just 18 pallets inside KC-767NG.

I’ll still have to refer to KC-767AT because Boeing dislikes unveiling some facts about the NG.
I refer to the A330MRTT as KC-45 then referring to aircraft offered to USAF during last competition.

“Today Airbus builds 6 times more A330 than Boeing B767 and order backlog for A330 is about 5 times higher.”

Another fine example of EU taxpayer subsidizing industry OR perhaps EADS/Airbus current marketing pitch is “buy our planes at cheap discount prices”

I believe that the 767 still has a higher production number (986) than the A330 (703).

A common practice to extend the life of a production line. Boeing has keep the 767 line open since 2004, delivering 68 aircraft, an average of 12 aircraft per year and since 2004 has gained orders for 110 aircraft.
Previously Boeing elected not to extend the 757 production line, from 45 deliveries in 2001, to 14 in 2003, to just 2 in2005 when the line closed. Boeing also closed the 727 line quickly going from 94 delivered in 1981, to 26 in 1982 to just 8 in 1984 when the line closed.
Airbus keep the A310 line open for 9 years without a single order/delivery and A300 line open for 12 years with deliveries averaging one aircraft every 6 weeks or 9.4 aircraft per year.

“No, that was discovered by USAF. One KC-45 can replace 1.9 KC-135.”

Sorry, the KC-30 can be in 1.9 places at the same time.

Still trying to figure out that Northrop Grumman program.
The KC-30 carries just 30% more fuel burns that fuel 40% faster but is worth 1.9 KC-135R?

“And how big is the difference? How many Air Force Bases already have to accommodate the heavier C-17?”

I believe the concern is regarding parking ramps in other (third world) countries.

“Maybe true for Australian KC-30A but are you really sure about the 767?
A basic 767-300F can carry additional 60,000 lbs in relation to internal fuel capacity of 160,000 lbs.
412,000 lbs – (188,000 lbs + 162,000) = 62,000 lbs MTOW - (OEW + fuel weight)”

MTOW 412,000 lbs – OEW 188,000 lbs (my estimate for the KC-767AT/NG is 190k) = 224,000 lbs.
Boeing claims a max fuel load of “202,000 lbs +” they could mean 202,100 lbs or 222,000 lbs anything is possible.

“According to the offered fuel load of over 200,000 lbs just 20,000 lbs are left for boom and other refueling equipment, additional fuel tanks and cockpit protection.”

The difference in OEW (from wiki & Boeing’s 767 pages 10 & 12) for the 767-3ER and the 767-2ER is 17,140 lbs, figure 12,000 is the fuselage weight difference.
Based on the 767-3F OEW of 188,100 (wt of GE or PW) minus 12,000 lbs for the shorter -200 fuselage, the OEW of the 767-2LRF is 176,000 lbs + 20,000 lbs for everything = 196,000 lbs. MTOW 412,000 lbs – 196,000 lbs = 216,000 lbs available.

“BTW, did you know wings for KC-45 originate from A340. That’s why an A330 got such a huge fuel load.”

Yes, the A330/A340 share the same wings.
The A340 another heavily subsidized Airbus FAILURE to design a commercial airliner to compete against the 777.
The A340-300 orders/deliveries 218/218, the 777-200ER orders/deliveries 430/413

“MTOW of an A340 is at least 610,000 lbs with a fuel capacity of 40,960 US gal.”

More wasted (unneeded/unused) fuel, the average offload since Vietnam has been less than 60,000 lbs (9,000 gal) per tanker mission.
Did I miss the announcement regarding EADS submitting the A340 for KC-X?

MTOW of an A340-500HGW is 838,000 lbs with a fuel capacity of 59,000 US gal.”

More wasted (unneeded/unused) fuel, the average offload since Vietnam has been less than 60,000 lbs (9,000 gal) per tanker mission.

“BTW, A330-200 is already available with a MTOW of 238 t (525,000 lbs) without a higher OEW.”

Fuel capacity is still 246,000 lbs.

“How do you think troop’s gear is moved on leased or rented commercial aircrafts (e.g. CRAF) while traveling to Manas AB?

You mean the ones that fly in on commercial or chartered civilian aircraft?
Last time I checked commercial or chartered or CRAF aircraft are NOT OWNED by the USAF.
And I’ve seen 747 Freighter using the 463L when flying cargo charters for the USAF.

“A 767 without additional fuel tanks can carry 5 additional 463L pallets on the lower deck. A KC-767AT couldn’t.”

My understanding is that the additional fuel tanks will be either pallet mounted or in LD8 sized tanks, similar to the LD6 sized auxiliary fuel tanks used by the 777LR. These tanks should be removable allowing an additional 5 pallets to be carried on cargo missions, although whether the USAF would do so is another question.

“ An A330MRTT can carry up to 26 463L pallets on main deck. KC-45 is limited to 24 due to galleys.”

24 or 26 pallet is just more empty and 95% of the time UNUSED space, plus the 65,000 lbs of aircraft needed to support it that EADS hopes to saddle the USAF with. And like last time, will the KC-30 fail to meet several requirements regarding air refueling all aircraft using current procedures?

“During the virtual tour on http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/ I counted just 18 pallets inside KC-767NG.”

Interesting, they need to slow down the cargo demo or allow you to pause it.

“I’ll still have to refer to KC-767AT because Boeing dislikes unveiling some facts about the NG.”

I tend to use 767AT/NG, nor am I a fan of Boeing’s “I’ve got a secret” regarding the 767NG.

“I refer to the A330MRTT as KC-45 then referring to aircraft offered to USAF during last competition.”

I do not believe Northrop Grumman offered the KC-45, they offered a KC-30 based aircraft for the KC-X (KC-45) selection.
The USAF has stated that the winner of the KC-X would be designated as the KC-45A.
Northrop Grumman used the “KC-45A” to describe its aircraft after the selection, referring to it as the “Northrop Grumman KC-45A” and completely avoiding any reference the actual origin of the aircraft.
After the selection and contract were overturned by the GAO, Northrop Grumman continued to used the “Northrop Grumman KC-45A” until the USAF “requested” that they cease doing so.
This is my reason from referring to the EADS A330 MRTT as the KC-30.

Another fine example of EU taxpayer subsidizing industry OR perhaps EADS/Airbus current marketing pitch is “buy our planes at cheap discount prices”

We should delay this discussion until the second WTO dispute according commercial aircraft production is made public. Maybe WTO rates tax breaks also as a subsidy.

I believe that the 767 still has a higher production number (986) than the A330 (703).

Airbus and many other speak of the A330/A340 aircraft family. Production number is over 1050.

A common practice to extend the life of a production line. Boeing has keep the 767 line open since 2004, delivering 68 aircraft, an average of 12 aircraft per year and since 2004 has gained orders for 110 aircraft.^

Among these 27 freighter for UPS and several compensations for the sevenlateseven.
Airbus gained 46 orders for A330 in 2010 up until now.

Previously Boeing elected not to extend the 757 production line, from 45 deliveries in 2001, to 14 in 2003, to just 2 in2005 when the line closed. Boeing also closed the 727 line quickly going from 94 delivered in 1981, to 26 in 1982 to just 8 in 1984 when the line closed.
Airbus keep the A310 line open for 9 years without a single order/delivery and A300 line open for 12 years with deliveries averaging one aircraft every 6 weeks or 9.4 aircraft per year.

What was possible due to the way Airbus assembles an aircraft. A way Boeing tries for the first time with 787.

“No, that was discovered by USAF. One KC-45 can replace 1.9 KC-135.”
Sorry, the KC-30 can be in 1.9 places at the same time.

It is sufficient for an aircraft e.g. to stay 1.9 longer on station. At a range of 2,500 nm a KC-45 can loiter nearly three times longer than a KC-135. (Figures derived from here: …)

Still trying to figure out that Northrop Grumman program.
The KC-30 carries just 30% more fuel burns that fuel 40% faster but is worth 1.9 KC-135R?

According to my calculations fuel burn for KC-135 or KC-45 are quite the same for cruising.
According to USAF the KC-135R is reduced to 180,000 lbs of fuel at takeoff. A KC-45 carries 30 % more fuel than a KC-767AT/NG.

I believe the concern is regarding parking ramps in other (third world) countries.

I won’t think you can offer much parking ramps anywhere for KC-767 with unrestricted use while KC-45 got restrictions.

MTOW 412,000 lbs – OEW 188,000 lbs (my estimate for the KC-767AT/NG is 190k) = 224,000 lbs.
Boeing claims a max fuel load of “202,000 lbs +” they could mean 202,100 lbs or 222,000 lbs anything is possible.

You trade 21 ft of fuselage length for complete refueling installations incl. additional internal tanks.
OEW difference between 767-300F and 767-300ER is about 9,000 lbs. A -300ER offers about 20 % more seats than a -200ER. So seat weight is about 7,500 lbs for -200ER. OEW weight for both ER differ by 18,000 lbs. So fuselage weight for 21 ft is about 10,000 lbs or all additional installations.

Yes, the A330/A340 share the same wings.
The A340 another heavily subsidized Airbus FAILURE to design a commercial airliner to compete against the 777.

The A340 went into service 2 years prior to B777.

More wasted (unneeded/unused) fuel, the average offload since Vietnam has been less than 60,000 lbs (9,000 gal) per tanker mission.
Did I miss the announcement regarding EADS submitting the A340 for KC-X?

Nice figure but that won’t tell as anything. How many training missions are included with low offload? At a range of 2,000 nm a KC-135 can’t even provide 60,000 lbs of fuel to offload.

There was fuzz about one new type of tanker would be quite cheaper to maintain than two types. So it would make sense to replace the KC-10 with a KC-45HGW (with just two engines) to reduce the types of aircraft.

MTOW of an A340-500HGW is 838,000 lbs with a fuel capacity of 59,000 US gal.”
More wasted (unneeded/unused) fuel, the average offload since Vietnam has been less than 60,000 lbs (9,000 gal) per tanker mission.

It’s not just fuel it’s also cargo.
Due to the experience made in Vietnam with KC-135 USAF wanted a bigger tanker.

“BTW, A330-200 is already available with a MTOW of 238 t (525,000 lbs) without a higher OEW.”
Fuel capacity is still 246,000 lbs.

238 t for MTOW minus 109 t for OEW for an A330-200F leaves about 285,000 lbs for fuel and payload or 245,000 lbs of fuel and 40,000 lbs for additional installations.

You mean the ones that fly in on commercial or chartered civilian aircraft?
Last time I checked commercial or chartered or CRAF aircraft are NOT OWNED by the USAF.

You don’t have to be the owner of something then using it.

And I’ve seen 747 Freighter using the 463L when flying cargo charters for the USAF.

A 747-400F can carry about 42 military 463L pallets with just 9 pallets on the lower deck; about 30 % more than a KC-45 with 32 pallets.
463L is not adequate to use the lower cargo deck on commercial airlines. Cargo volume is about 60 % higher for LD3 or LD2 containers on lower deck compared 463L pallets.

My understanding is that the additional fuel tanks will be either pallet mounted or in LD8 sized tanks, similar to the LD6 sized auxiliary fuel tanks used by the 777LR. These tanks should be removable allowing an additional 5 pallets to be carried on cargo missions, although whether the USAF would do so is another question.

Tara weight of one LD8 is about 132 kg or 291 lbs. Volume is about 6.88 m³. Fuel is about 0.8 kg / litre or 1.78 lbs / litre. In each LD8 container about 12,500 lbs of fuel can be stored.

24 or 26 pallet is just more empty and 95% of the time UNUSED space, plus the 65,000 lbs of aircraft needed to support it that EADS hopes to saddle the USAF with. And like last time, will the KC-30 fail to meet several requirements regarding air refueling all aircraft using current procedures?

You should differ between the views of USAF and view some lawyers.
BTW, does the KC-767I already meet all the simple Italian Air Force requirements?

Interesting, they need to slow down the cargo demo or allow you to pause it.

Done that. It’s just an animation. The CGI division may as competent as the PR department.

After the selection and contract were overturned by the GAO, Northrop Grumman continued to used the “Northrop Grumman KC-45A” until the USAF “requested” that they cease doing so.

I wasn’t requested by USAF. I choose KC-45 to distinguish better between the different types.

“We should delay this discussion until the second WTO dispute according commercial aircraft production is made public. Maybe WTO rates tax breaks also as a subsidy.”

Perhaps

“Airbus and many other speak of the A330/A340 aircraft family. Production number is over 1050.”

Allowing Airbus to final claim the success for a wide body design that reached 1,000 units.
Considering the barely successful A300 and the total failure of the A310.
The A330/A340 family grouping allows Airbus to avoid the stain of another commercial failure with the A340.
The A330’s direct competitor would be the 767 or the 777 or both?
The 757 & 767 (together and separately) destroyed the A300 & the A310.
And the 767 has done well against the newer A330.
How are those A350 vs. 787 orders going?

“Among these 27 freighter for UPS and several compensations for the sevenlateseven.”

Similar to many A330 orders as compensation/filler for the A will it ever fly 350.

“Airbus gained 46 orders for A330 in 2010 up until now.”

More buy our planes at cheap discount prices.

“What was possible due to the way Airbus assembles an aircraft.”

Multiple production/assembly lines spread across Europe.

“A way Boeing tries for the first time with 787.”

They are?

“It is sufficient for an aircraft e.g. to stay 1.9 longer on station. At a range of 2,500 nm a KC-45 can loiter nearly three times longer than a KC-135.”

Based on?
If so, please explain how.

The following are based on a 245,000 lbs fuel load for the KC-30 (MTOW) and a 195,000 lbs fuel load for the KC-135R (MTOW), using an average of the Airbus A330-2F brief and Conklin study fuel burn rates (Airbus says 12,400 lbs/hr, Conklin says 14,300 lbs/hr, average 13,400 lbs hour, KC-135 fuel burn rate is 10,800 lbs/hr), A330-2F cruise speed M 0.82/535kts, KC-135R cruise speed M 0.79/515kts, a 1.5 hour fuel res and no winds:
At 2,500NM with no time on station: a KC-30 can give 98,900 lbs, a KC-135R can give 73,000 lbs.
At 2,500NM with 2 hours on station: a KC-30 can give 72,100 lbs, a KC-135R can give 52,400 lbs.
At 2,500NM with 4 hours on station: a KC-30 can give 45,300 lbs, a KC-135R can give 30,800 lbs.
At 2,500NM with 6 hours on station: a KC-30 can give 18,500 lbs, a KC-135R can give 9,200 lbs
At 2,500NM the KC-30 will depart after 7.4 hours on station, the KC-135R will depart after 6.7 hours on station.
If we use the 180,000 lbs fuel load for the KC-135, it would depart after 5.4 hours on station.

Three times longer?

“(Figures derived from here: …)”

???

“According to my calculations fuel burn for KC-135 or KC-45 are quite the same for cruising.”

Based on ???

What is the max range of any A330?
The KC-135’s max range is over 9,500NM

“According to USAF the KC-135R is reduced to 180,000 lbs of fuel at takeoff. A KC-45 carries 30 % more fuel than a KC-767AT/NG.”

The USAF factsheet still states max fuel load for the KC-135R as 200,000 lbs.

“I won’t think you can offer much parking ramps anywhere for KC-767 with unrestricted use while KC-45 got restrictions.”

I believe this is an “actual size of the plane” issue.

“You trade 21 ft of fuselage length for complete refueling installations incl. additional internal tanks.”

I estimated the weight difference of the 767-300F and the 767-200LRF by using the 767-3ER and 767-2ER as a baseline.
I believe that I’ve used 190,000 lbs as an OEW for the 767AT/NG, a “stock 767-2LRF” would have an OEW of 172-175,000 lbs.
leaving 15-18,000 lbs for all additional equipment.

“OEW difference between 767-300F and 767-300ER is about 9,000 lbs.”

Ok

“A -300ER offers about 20 % more seats than a -200ER. So seat weight is about 7,500 lbs for -200ER.”

Depends on seating configuration. The OEW difference of the 767-2ER and the 767-3ER is about 17,000 lbs.

“OEW weight for both ER differ by 18,000 lbs. So fuselage weight for 21 ft is about 10,000 lbs or all additional installations.

“The A340 went into service 2 years prior to B777.”

And promptly fell face first when the 777 entered service.

“Nice figure but that won’t tell as anything.”

Tells me that the extra 40,000 lbs of fuel and the extra 60,000 of airplane required to carry it are not needed i.e. wasted.

“How many training missions are included with low offload?”

“At a range of 2,000 nm a KC-135 can’t even provide 60,000 lbs of fuel to offload.”

M, please think for yourself and stop mindlessly repeating information that has been repeatedly shown to be incorrect.
Using the 180,000 lbs fuel load (from 10-1403), 2,000NM at M 0.79/515kts = 3.9 hours, 1 hour loiter, 3.9 hours return plus a 1.5 hour res equal 10.3 hours X 10,700 lbs/hr (the 2003 edition of 10-1403) = 111,200 lbs. 180,000 lbs – 110,200 lbs = 69,800 lbs.

“There was fuzz about one new type of tanker would be quite cheaper to maintain than two types.”

Regarding a split buy of KC-30 and KC-767.

“So it would make sense to replace the KC-10 with a KC-45HGW (with just two engines) to reduce the types of aircraft.”

Please, replace my dual-role capable KC-10 with a 170,000 lbs cargo capacity and 350,000 lbs fuel capacity with a 20% larger A330 that carries 30-70,000 lbs less cargo and 100,000 lbs less fuel.

The 777-2LR or 777-2F will be a superb replacement for the KC-10A, the 777-2F has a cargo capacity of 226,000 lbs standard fuel capacity if over 300,000 with use of the 1,850 gal (7,000 lts) auxiliary fuel tanks. A 777-2F MTOW is 765k and the OEW is 340k (320k + 20k for refueling equipment) leaving a possible fuel load of 425k lbs.

“Due to the experience made in Vietnam with KC-135 USAF wanted a bigger tanker.”

Yes, they got the KC-10 and how has that worked out? And the KC-30 is 20% LARGER BUT CARRIES 30% LESS FUEL.

“238 t for MTOW minus 109 t for OEW for an A330-200F leaves about 285,000 lbs for fuel and payload or 245,000 lbs of fuel and 40,000 lbs for additional installations.”

The Airbus website does not mention a 238t version of the A330 just the 233t version. Nor has Airbus Military mentioned adding additional fuel capacity to the KC-30.

“You don’t have to be the owner of something then using it.”

Ok???

“A 747-400F can carry about 42 military 463L pallets with just 9 pallets on the lower deck; about 30 % more than a KC-45 with 32 pallets.”

I came up with 50 463L pallets (40 main deck & 10 lower) and a maximum cargo capacity of 248,000 lbs compared to the 32-34 pallets and 100-140,000 lbs of the A330.

“463L is not adequate to use the lower cargo deck on commercial airlines. Cargo volume is about 60 % higher for LD3 or LD2 containers on lower deck compared 463L pallets.”

Depends on the cargo, if the aircraft owner provides LD series containers the USAF will likely use them, they won’t buy/own them.

“Tara weight of one LD8 is about 132 kg or 291 lbs. Volume is about 6.88 m³. Fuel is about 0.8 kg / litre or 1.78 lbs / litre. In each LD8 container about 12,500 lbs of fuel can be stored.”

I estimated that LD-8 based tanks could hold about 1,320 gal (5,000 lts), using the 777’s LD-6 tanks (1,850 gal/7,000 lts) as a reference.
12,500 lbs seems high, that’s about 1,865 gal, slightly more than the current LD-6 sized tanks.

“You should differ between the views of USAF and view some lawyers.”

I’m sure the SRD was written by lawyers and the airlift profile got 1% credit.

“BTW, does the KC-767I already meet all the simple Italian Air Force requirements?”

About as many as the KC-30 meets for the RAAF

“Done that. It’s just an animation. The CGI division may as competent as the PR department.”

Believe me, I’m not a fan of Boeing per se, but I think the 767 fits as a replacement for the KC-135.
If Boeing still has the 707 tooling, I’d rather see new 707-320, but the 767 is all they have.
If Airbus still had the A310 that would be sized right for a KC-135 replacement, but the A330 is all they have.

“I wasn’t requested by USAF. I choose KC-45 to distinguish better between the different types.”

True, but even EADS/Airbus uses the KC-30, it’s a matter of “doors and floors” then.

Sorry, I forgot this one,

“How many training missions are included with low offload?”

Offloads for training depend on receiver type and training requirements.

Why carry 60,000 lbs of extra aircraft around when you don’t need to?