No they state fuel capacity not fuel offload. 242t MTOW minus 125 OEW gives only 117t fuel capacity. Airbus has clearly put in a big extra fuel tank and it won't be able to be filled up all of the way up.
As I replied before someone took a machete to this thread, 125T is not a realistic OEW unless you have a fully equipped passenger interior and windows.
An A330-200F weighs just under 110T. And that's the production version. I believe the P2F may even be lighter as it lacks the goiter and replaces the bulkhead with a 9G net.
A USAF-spec tanker, which is basically a freighter with a boom, would be much closer to 115T.
I'd also be wary of using Wikipedia figures for this sort of conjecture, especially when it comes to empty weights. They tend to base these figures on pax/freighter versions, which themselves are pretty unreliable.
The LMXT could easily outload the KC-46, with the added bonus of having a whole lot more modularity and options when it comes to carrying personnel, cargo and fuel.
I can easily see one of them dragging a detachment of fighters across the Atlantic or Pacific via Hawaii while carrying over 100 supporting ground personnel/troops in the main cabin on palletized seat modules and 20+ tons of spares and ground equipment in the lower holds.
This is what makes it so attractive, especially for Air Forces which do not have a plethora of different logistics airplanes to each perform specific missions and where multi-role capability becomes much more valuable.
Of course the requirements of the USAF may differ. They may, as in the previous RFP, require only a pure tanker (just bigger) and let the cargo and people be flown by other equipment.
At the end of the day, the main selection factor will be political. It was the last time, and always will be when it comes to military procurements with that kind of budget and public visibility. This essentially means the LMXT has no chance whatsoever IMO.
I just wish LM and Airbus had learned their lesson from the first round.