Why would the USAF have no support for autolanding? One thing I noticed when reading through the KC-10 flight manual (see page 184 for the specific reference) is that the KC-10 lacks support for Category III operations, unlike its civil DC-10 brethren.  What was the purpose behind the USAF asking MDC to remove capability from a military airplane?

Furthermore, military ILS systems in the US are qualified to CAT II at best, even in areas where air carrier airports are well-qualified for CAT IIIb minima.  For instance, Joint Base Lewis-McChord only has a CAT II approach to RWY 34 whereas nearby Seattle-Tacoma Int'l has CAT IIIb approaches to 300' RVR on all three of its primary instrument runways.  Considering that I seriously doubt the USAF would somehow be buying ILS equipment inferior to what's available in the civil market -- is there some other reason they don't provide any low-visibility capability better than the CAT II minima of 100' DH and 1/4 mile visibility, as the published PAR minima in the A/FD are no better, either?

Update: KADW RWY 19R has a CAT IIIa approach, good to 700' RVR.  This seems to be the only military CAT III procedure published, though.  Perhaps the VIP airlift aircraft (E4, etal) have autoland support, even though the normal military heavies don't?
FWIW, I do not fly the KC-10, but I do have friends that do...

Anyway, you're looking at a T.O. that is 7 years old since the last change (not sure when the most recent write-in is)...  Military pubs are always changing, avionics upgrades are always happening, and what you're looking at may be severely outdated.

Having said that, I don't believe in this instance that it is.  However, I don't see the need to be able to shoot CAT IIIc approaches.  What does the Air Force gain?  Once deployed you aren't going to have that technology, and CONUS you just divert.  So why spend the money for it?

I may not know the full politics behind it, but I do not see the operational need for it.