CFE said:
I used to be a proponent of the KC-787, but all of that program's delays are making me think twice. Right now I think the 777 would be the best choice for a tanker. Based on the KC-10 experience, I think a bigger airplane would be more useful (in spite of Boeing's argument that the 767 can fly from more airfields than the A-330.)
It would appear that the new tanker will still be called KC-42, regardless of which airframe is selected.
Actually, I believe that the A330 actually has a lower runway requirement than the KC-767. What Boeing was saying regarding airfields is that its aircraft could operate on more unmodified ramps and taxiways than the 330 derivative, and more could be parked on a given ramp space.
In this next go-round, although some speculated on a KC-787, that's unlikely for exactly the reasons you mentioned. in addition to the 787 being very new technology that isn't even in service, their performance so far on the program would make this a risky choice in the evaluation process. Also, since so much of it is outsourced, there are security regiments that would be more troublesome.
Boeing does have some flexibility here. If USAF again emphasizes minimum modification to existing fields, thy bid the 767 and offer the side benefit of more booms in the air. If USAF now pushes for max fuel/cargo capability, they offer the 777. It can carry more than the A330 but to my understanding requires less runway than the A330 when only carrying a load equivalent to the A330's
It'll be interesting...
