Nothing against Clayton, but he is mistakenly cross-walking C-17 issues to the KC-390. BLUF - The requirement is for GAS NOT for cargo. Again, the problem in INDOPACOM is not cargo. Remember the bridge tanker program was to address the gas shortage program for strikers. The KC-390 is much smaller and the intent was NOT to perform cargo and refueling operations at the same time. The KC-390 met the need and broke the models because it did not rely on the bigwing tanker plan...the ability to operate of short and unimproved strips meant you had nearly three times more gas at the edge because you were not limited to the few 8,000 easily targeted runways in PACOM. TGhe KC_390 could easily shuttle FAR more gas out of short strips operating much closer to the rally points. In it's current configuration the KC-390 can do both but that is because it is offloading much smaller fuel loads. To meet the 70K requirement it would be all in as a tactical tanker that can do helos, Tilt Rotor and fast jets via drogue and traditional USAF via the boom. KC-390 was great not only because it brought more gas but it brought more booms/drogues and increased flexibility for the strikers. Think of the increased capability if one jet can cover all three refueling sets at the SAME time without being reconfigured. The company I worked for designed a swap-able ramp that could be replaced in a few hours. Extra tanks were also designed that could be loaded in the cargo bay (think MC-130P). Again this demonstrated how trapped we are in our thinking...bring a new approach means testing new tactics and when we ran the models it was an epic difference but of course USAF was stuck in 1972 thinking.