According to U.S. Transportation Dept. data, the Airbus A330 model that Air France flies between Paris and JFK burns an average 12% less fuel per passenger than the 767 does on a similar flight.
There are not going to be 266 passengers or so on these planes. So the basis for the calculation is grotesquely flawed, since most refueling missions now with the KC-135...a plane with less capacity than either of the contemporary options ...often had more fuel than actually needed for many if not most assignments. There is a right size....and the A-330 doesn't appear to be it.
The A-330 derived tanker will actually guzzle 24% more fuel per mission....and not even see a reasonable quanity of planes fueled to deplete its capacity. On scarcely any missions. And if you really needed a bigger plane....we already have the KC-10s....when on the rare occasion we need to have large squadrons are cross the Pacific or Atlantic. The KC-10s are more capacity still.
And the DOT data on the 767 is now dated as it does not loook at the new wing and engine combo that puts the 767 as essentially a new plane. Not an "80's" plane.
And it is a plane which passed all 8 survivability criteria with flying colors....while the EADs plane flunked. Flunked 5 of the 8.
The EADS Airbus entry is an unsurvivable turkey of a plane which clearly doesn't save fuel....or precious AMERICAN lives in war.
And EADS has shown that they could care less about American Lives....constantly putting us in danger with their illegal proliferation activity with enemy regimes and terrorist states.
You are lost in statistics.
DOT: “A330 [...] burns an average 12% less fuel per passenger than the 767”
So a A330 can't “guzzle 24% more fuel per mission” as you repeat false claims by Boeing . There are about 25 % lees seats on a 767. Where did the 12 % less fuel come from?
You also repeat Boeing's false claims about fuel offload per mission. Boeing looked at KC-135’s average fuel offload by pounds. It's impossible to offload the whole fuel on every mission for security reason. It's not save to return to base with an almost empty plane. The average full offload was about 66 % or two-third. They didn't provide any numbers for KC-10. Maybe also two-third, maybe more.
For sure a KC-45 is to big to deliver KC-135’s average fuel offload. The question is what will be KC-45’s average fuel offload. Only looking at KC-135 numbers won't answer that.
“And if you really needed a bigger plane....we already have the KC-10s.”
There are only 59 KC-10 in service and over 500 KC-135. You missed to mention that with a greater fuel capacity a tanker can stay longer on station.
“And the DOT data on the 767 is now dated as it does not loook at the new wing and engine combo that puts the 767 as essentially a new plane. Not an “80’s” plane.”
Trust the airlines on that. They didn't believed in this “new” wing. Also a new plane as a new tanker has a higher development risk.