“Here’s another perspective from the March 21, 2008 of the Aerotech News, Vol. 23, Issue 8:
The Airbus A330 is newer, larger and can carry more fuel, passengers and cargo. The 767 is smaller, cheaper to operate and can land in more places closer to combat zones.”
That shows even Areotech News doesn’t check all facts.
767 is without doubt smaller than the A330 but I doubt a 767 is cheaper to operate. Many airlines think the same way. As well I doubt the option to land closer to combat zones. The C-17 is heavier as the KC-45 and the KC-45 has a better take-off performance than the KC-767.
“Initially, the Air Force seemed inclined to favor Boeing. Air Force officials told Congress they were looking for a medium-size tanker to replace the KC-135s. Cargo- and passenger-carrying capabilites were not a top priority, and Boeing and others were convinced their 767 would be a better fit than the Airbus A330.”
Oh no, that was what Boeing thought to be true.
Look at this: http://www.amc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070227-044.pdf
Some Air Force officials told that to lease tankers is a good deal. Some get jailed.
“In issuing its draft request for proposals, the Air Force raised the issue of government subsidies and a pending World Trade Organization ruling.”
That is also a problem for Boeing. EADS is not the main contractor. Maybe EADS has to pay a penalty maybe Boeing. Is that important for a boom operator or a fighter pilot? For what purpose did the Air Force asked that?
Classic apples and cauliflower comparison. The KC-145 is an older technology aircraft that is smaller and lighter than the 767 would be in a tanker configuration so, naturally, it will have better take-off performance. Take-off performance is a small part of the overall operational cost per mile that the AF must consider. All of these things explain why the KC-145 is being replaced by the Airbus A330. The C-17 is not a tanker, it's a cargo plane.
That is a Boeing claim that they can land at more airfields closer to the combat zone, and they had to play games to achieve that claim.
Yes, the Boeing KC-767AT can land at smaller fields at MTOW than the KC-45A can land at at it's MTOW.
However, if you have a KC-767AT at MTOW, and a KC-45A carrying the same fuel load as the KC-767AT, then the KC-45A can operate out of more fields than the KC-767AT due to it superior takeoff performance.
I have nothing against either aircraft, and I think both would serve the USAF well. I just happen to think that the KC-45A is the better of the two for the number being purchased, with an eye towards the long distance deployments the USAF faces in the future.
Keep in mind that we will still have KC-145s around, so if we need a slightly smaller tanker for a certain mission we will have it.