“USAF then replaces an outdated aircraft with another outdated aircraft.”
Never have truer words been spoken regarding the A330.
“The ramp space is only a Boeing spin. Both aircraft perform quite the same out of the same ramp space because you’ll need less KC-45 to perform the same task.”
Yes, because unlike the 767, EADS has discovered how to have ONE KC-30 in TWO places at the same time.
“The KC-45 is heavier but due to the bigger wheels the pressure doesn’t differ that much.”
Only if the ramp is stressed for a higher load bearing capacity.
“The big difference between KC-767 and B787 or KC-45 is the fuselage. KC-767 needs additional fuel tanks on lower cargo deck.”
Because unlike the KC-30, an aircraft that CANNOT carry extra fuel without exceeding its MTOW. The 767 can carry an additional 40,000+ lbs of fuel before exceeding its MTOW.
“Neither a KC-45 nor a B787 would need additional tanks.”
and your point would be?
“On both of these aircraft the complete cargo bay is free for LD3 containers.”
IF the USAF used the LD3 container, this might matter.
“A B767 can just use the smaller LD2 size.”
The USAF does not use the LD2 container.
The USAF uses the 463L pallet, the 767 can carry 19 on the main deck and 5 on the lower deck, the KC-30 can carry 24 on the main deck and 8 on the lower deck.
Today Airbus builds 6 times more A330 than Boeing B767 and order backlog for A330 is about 5 times higher.
“Yes, because unlike the 767, EADS has discovered how to have ONE KC-30 in TWO places at the same time.”
No, that was discovered by USAF. One KC-45 can replace 1.9 KC-135.
“Only if the ramp is stressed for a higher load bearing capacity.”
And how big is the difference? How many Air Force Bases already have to accommodate the heavier C-17?
“Because unlike the KC-30, an aircraft that CANNOT carry extra fuel without exceeding its MTOW. The 767 can carry an additional 40,000+ lbs of fuel before exceeding its MTOW.”
Maybe true for Australian KC-30A but are you really sure about the 767?
A basic 767-300F can carry additional 60,000 lbs in relation to internal fuel capacity of 160,000 lbs.
412,000 lbs – (188,000 lbs + 162,000) = 62,000 lbs
MTOW - (OEW + fuel weight)
According to the offered fuel load of over 200,000 lbs just 20,000 lbs are left for boom and other refueling equipment, additional fuel tanks and cockpit protection.
BTW, did you know wings for KC-45 originate from A340. That’s why an A330 got such a huge fuel load.
MTOW of an A340 is at least 610,000 lbs with a fuel capacity of 40,960 US gal.
MTOW of an A340-500HGW is 838,000 lbs with a fuel capacity of 59,000 US gal.
BTW, A330-200 is already available with a MTOW of 238 t (525,000 lbs) without a higher OEW.
“IF the USAF used the LD3 container, this might matter.”
How do you think troop’s gear is moved on leased or rented commercial aircrafts (e.g. CRAF) while traveling to Manas AB?
“The USAF uses the 463L pallet, the 767 can carry 19 on the main deck and 5 on the lower deck, the KC-30 can carry 24 on the main deck and 8 on the lower deck.”
A 767 without additional fuel tanks can carry 5 additional 463L pallets on the lower deck. A KC-767AT couldn’t. An A330MRTT can carry up to 26 463L pallets on main deck. KC-45 is limited to 24 due to galleys. During the virtual tour on http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/ I counted just 18 pallets inside KC-767NG.
I’ll still have to refer to KC-767AT because Boeing dislikes unveiling some facts about the NG.
I refer to the A330MRTT as KC-45 then referring to aircraft offered to USAF during last competition.