Tanker Comparison

The long running saga between the KC-767 and the KC-330 in the tanker competition has generated a lot of half truths between the two competing companies Boeing and NG-Airbus. Let us try to sort this out.

1. NG-Airbus, and Airbus for that matter, has not yet produced any operational tanker. Their models are still in the test phase, both the KC-330 MRTT and their A310 boom test plane.

2. Boeing has delivered operational KC-767 tankers to Japan but of the A series, not the AT series that is designed for the USAF.

3. Boeing has delivered a lot of tankers to the USAF for a long time.

4. Airbus has tested the boom designed for the KC-330.

5. Boeing has yet to make and test the boom for its KC-767AT but has an operational boom used in the KC-767A of Japan and Italy.

KC-767A refuels a B-52 bomber

6. The KC-330 has a larger payload than the KC-767AT.

7. The KC-330 has a higher flight fuel consumption than the KC-767AT.

8. The KC-330 has a more contemporary design.

9. The KC-767 has a lighter empty weight.

KC-330 drawing

In my opinion, the KC-767 is more appropriate for the USAF for the following reasons:

1. The USAF covers the whole world and needs more tankers/more gas nozzles in the sky.

2. The lower flight fuel consumption of the KC-767AT will be a big advantage over the 50 year deployment of the tanker.

3. The KC-767AT satisfies the stated USAF requirements and a large improvement over the KC-135 that it will replace.

4. The KC-767AT will need a lot less of infrastructure modifications in air bases.

5. The KC-767AT is perceived to be more of a US-made tanker, and returns more of the acquisition costs to the US economy and to US employees.