LyleLanley wrote:After all we've been through, I'd hope you wouldn't just point to a brochure... There's a world of difference between a manufacturer's brochure with carefully chosen words vs. reality.
There's a world of difference between being certified to wear AERPS gear, which is what that brochure says, and being specifically designed to operate in that sort of environment. The MRTT is a lot like the KC-10: you can wear the gear and transit through a radiological/chemical area, but you're not designed to stay there. The MRTT (and KC-10) aren't hardened against EMP, there are no flash curtains, etc.
Australia's deployments to the middle east have nothing to do with whether the airplane can operate in those environs. You know Emirates flies 777s out of there, too, right?
I'm not an Airbus-hater, but its capes against the KC-46 in this subject are not strong.
I pointed to the brochure to provide a source to confirm what I have stated, you have made a lot of claims regarding the KC-46, yet you have not shown one source of evidence to back yourself up. Anyone can make unfounded claims. Fact is the MRTT could meet or exceed every requirement the USAF had for KC-X.
The KC-46 is not cleared to deploy into any adverse environment.
The MRTT went up against the KC-46 where NBC was a requirement, the MRTT was selected over the KC-46.