Don’t tell me. I read the public available information used to calculate fuel consumption. The flight profiles used to calculate the “fuel usage rates” had on average of 7 (seven) touch&go maneuvers per flight. On the other side US Air Force ordered also simulators to avoid training flights... These faked profiles made up the price difference.
On the other side nobody looked at the money that could have been saved be returning 50 KC-135 earlier by using 20 rather simple Australian KC-30 type for the first batch and include afterwards more sophisticated installations like crew protection, LAIRCM, main cargo bay, ... later.
I guess Airbus is no better of to sell A330 to airlines for delayed 787. Will we see another roll-out with temporary fasteners for KC-46?
Btw. KC-30 will be soon certified to refuel F/A-18 of all Forces: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australian-a330-mrtt-undergoes-tanking-trials-with-fa-18fs-384998/
I didn’t get why the F-35 needs boom refueling. The refueling rate for fighter aircraft isn’t much better for boom compared to probe-and-drogue but 2 aircraft can refueled at once with probe-and-drogue.
Now US Air Force gets second best aircraft later and untested. The Chicago boys made it...
IIRC, there was a drouge set up for three aircraft at one time.
I think it was the Brits with their VC-10 or Victor tankers.