I responded to Paul almost the same way on another thread. He has posted this article or referenced it more than once.For his and everyone’s enlighjtenment, the max takeoff weight for the KC-10 is 590,000 lbs. If the AF cannot handle that weight, why haven’t they scrapped the KC-10. Mr. Ross also refers to an editorial in the Air Force Association’s magazine as claiming they don’t like the EADS tanker either. When you read the editorial, you do not find anything like it. As I said on another thread, if anyone thinks the AF deliberately biased their selection process, they are crazy. After the lease debacle, no one in the AF would dare try to do it again.
For your information, the KC-10 is a strategic tanker that operates out of the airfields already available for strategic purposes. It was never expected to go into primarily tactical theaters. The KC-X has to be more flexible and tactically capable to go further into harms way. The KC-10 is perfect for its missions. But it is essentially one that is limited. There are approx. fifty or so KC-135s for every KC-10 in the fleet.
Mr. Ross also refers to an editorial in the Air Force Association’s magazine as claiming they don’t like the EADS tanker either. When you read the editorial, you do not find anything like it.
No, that was cited for a more limited point. I.e., you get a real sense of the concern for the warfighter's concerns, rather than arbitrary standards and rules. They explicitly want "booms in the air" not mythically "on station". They want them forward deployable...not a thousand miles out of useable range.