[djwright]

Funny thing is the KC-45 is larger than the KC10 but doesn't carry nearly as much fuel.

Also this bid was for the KC-X, to replace the oldest, lowest capacity KC-135(E?), a KC-Y for the higher capacity KC-135R and then a KC-Z (for the larger tankers).

If size was such an asset why didn't the AF buy more than 59 KC-10s or try to get tankers based on the MD-11 before that line was shut down?

I agree also that many of the short runways are also not rated for large airplanes. So the KC-45 may not be able to land in the first place.

The AF actually ignored the capacity of their airfields (rated them all at their highest strength not their lowest).

There was plenty wrong here to raise a bunch of red flags.

[Northern Yankee]

Interesting...

[Paul Ross]

Funny thing is the KC-45 is larger than the KC10 but doesn't carry nearly as much fuel.

I've also thought that was odd.

The KC-10 is already impressively big...

This gives some sense of scale: