Will this mean that future USAF fighters will be equiped for hose and drogue refueling? Most fighters cannot accept the high rate of fuel transfer that flying boom can provide (6,000lbs/min , it has to be reduced to 1,000-3,000lbs/min), and it would mean two or three could be fueled at the same time.

Though the flying boom is still superior for larger aircraft, the ability to refuel 2 fighters simultaneously is preferable (Navy pilots expressed a clear preference for RAF tankers over USAF tankers in afghanistan). Apparently 74% of aircraft would experience no reduction in transfer rate with hoses.

Will this mean that future USAF fighters will be equiped for hose and drogue refueling?

Appologies Dropbear, I am aware that the KC-45A (as it is now known!) has both systems, I was more suggesting that aircraft such as the F-35A will be start to be equiped with a probe as well as a boom receptacle, allowing them the advantages that using probe and drogue allows with multiple hook ups on the USAF tankers.

I am frequently stunned by the level of double-think some Americans are capable of.

The size comments are somewhat reminiscent of the CSAR-X competition, but not in Boeing's favour.

The A330 is "going out of production" at Airbus to be supplanted by the A350. Production of the KC-45 will be on a US line I believe.

Nonetheless, the Boeing team lost it because they had a scandal. They would already have wrapped up the contract otherwise. The real unfortunate thing is that the USAF had repeatedly stressed (perhaps misleadingly) that they preferred a small aircraft in the 767-class, but ultimately went for a plane with more fuel and more payload. This should really have been a contest between the A330 and the Boeing 777. Nothing carries more load or more fuel or has a longer range than the 777 in the twin aisle class. The 777 would have made a terrific tanker.

Well European governments have been illegally subsidizing Airbus for years, now hopefully they'll be illegally subsidizing the US Air Force : )  Apparently Boeing gets two weeks to review the reasons it lost the competition and file a greivence. I suspect the company will come back with a 777 offer as they had been considering this option and would have been stupid not to have such a fall back position .

The B-777 civil as built is infinitely superior as a SAFE airframe in the tanker role BEFORE those A-330 civil necessary mods.

Herald
 

I was reading the KC-X requirements. There was a 7,000ft runway takeoff (objective vice threshold) requirement at ful load. I'm not familiar with civil aviation, can the A330, 767 or 777 actually meet that?