The B767 is in design 15 years older than the A330. The same is for B787 and A330. Nearly no airline ordered a B767 recently except of a big order for some freighters. I presume with a big discount to keep the production line open until the Air Force order arrives.
“Smaller and lighter instantly means lower fuel costs per mile, especially with the more fuel efficient engines.”
According to the Air Force the KC-45 tanker is 6 % more fuel efficient than a KC-767. Just think of a pickup and a truck. The efficiency depends on how and what you have to deliver. Ever thought about why the Air Force bought KC-10s and not KC-737s?
Bye the way, why was the B747 such a success? It's such a big plane?
“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.”
The KC-135 has the worst performance of all strategic tanker flying. The comparison with the C-17 was due to Boeing's argument about available airfields. I was talking about the KC-45/A330 and not about the KC-135/B707. The bigger KC-45 has a better take-off performance than the KC-767.
The C17 is a cargo lifter for close battle field support. How close did you want to operate a tanker aircraft? Today the C-17 is misused for standard cargo missions a KC-45 or KC-767 would need half fuel.
Aircraft: C-17 / KC-45 / KC-767
Payload(1): 77.5 t / 69 t / 43 t
pallets(2): 18 / 32 / 19
fuel burn(3): 21.5 / 13.8 / 10.5
(1) metric ton ~ 2205 lb
(2) 463L master pallets
(3) according to Boeing's claim to be 24 % more fuel efficient and http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/docs/afpam10-1403.htm
“[...]a former Navy pilot, said lawmakers should not put special interests ahead of national defense.”
http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/politics-0/1208834657304880.xml&storylist=alabamanews
I think he's right.
Since I live in San Antonio, I see the C-17 all the time. I agree that the C-17 is misused for standard cargo, however, for military aircraft today, the watch word is "Multi-Mission Flexibility". The down side of Multi-Mission Flexibility is that it begins to look like the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. If you have ever seen the HBO movie, "The Pentagon Wars" you will understand the reference. If not, I recommend you rent it and see what I'm talking about.
Back to the tanker problem. One of the issues that strikes me about the document you posted is floors and doors requirement to have the A330 be a Multi-Mission aircraft. IMO, the mission profile of a tanker makes Multi-Mission Flexibility more challenging and more expensive. If each of these aircraft is provided with a set of optional floors for cargo/passenger/medevac ops, it increases the operating costs because this optional material must follow the aircraft around to every TDY op area in the event that the mission profile needs to be altered in midstream. It happens (see the USS Pueblo incident for additional info).
In some cases, Multi-Mission compatibility works out such as carrier-borne Navy fighter-bombers, and attack aircraft that can also be used as tankers. The venerable P-3 has become a Multi-Mission aircraft moving beyond its intended role of ASW and assuming many of the electronic jamming, elint and ECM functions previously provided by the EA-6B. The more we delve into the specifics of this tanker deal, the less it appears that the AF has a clue what it is doing and the more it begins to appear (to me, at any rate) to be another Bradley Fighting Vehicle (see the video and you'll understand the reference).