Originally posted by porkchop817
If they have decided that what they need is a tanker that has decent cargo capabalities also, then great, the KC-30 is what we need. But in my opinion what we need is a TANKER, if we need more cargo capabilities, buy more C-17s to lighten the load off the workhorses they are driving into the ground overseas now.
The reason you have tankers that haul cargo is for when you deploy fighters anywhere. That way the crew chiefs and at least SOME important spares arrive with the fighters. Otherwise you not only tie up airlift that could be used elsewhere, but you risk the spares and crew chiefs sitting somewhere for three days being fixed while your fighters are delayed waiting for them because no one on that particular base is qualified to work on that type of fighter so all they can do is refuel them.
The GAO has found "irregularities" in the contract
process for the KC-45. It's possible that they may recommend that they start the process over again. Their recommendations aren't binding, but the
USAF is expected to follow them. 
