Originally Posted by
melmothtw
Also, not only does the A330 MRTT 'do more than pass gas to other aircraft', but it doesn't need to be reconfigured to do it either.
Really? Do all A330MRTTs have a main deck cargo door? Do they have a main deck floor designed, stressed, and equipped to handle freight? Do the UK's Voyagers? Adding a main deck cargo door and main deck freighter floor is a damn serious "reconfiguration" if that's what the customer needs. Can the A330MRTT 3D camera vision system enable the boom operator to pass gas to receiver equipped stealth aircraft under all lighting conditions? Yet another serious "reconfiguration" issue of that's what the customer needs. Can the A330MRTT act as an airborne data relay station for stealth aircraft equipped with directional datalink systems? I could go on, but I think the point has been made. And in case you missed it, the point is that neither the A330MRTT nor the KC-767 can do many of the things that are required of the KC-46.
The point is, this was not a non-developmental program with USAF buying an off-the-shelf aircraft. Many of USAF's requirements needed to be developed, integrated, and tested. That took time and money. More time and money than provided by the firm-fixed-price contract. Boeing paid out of their own pocket for all the additional expenses, and paid penalties for the extra time. They were willing to accept that risk to win the competition. Northrop was not. And in the end, neither was Airbus. They could not match Boeing's low-ball bid. Just as Lockheed and several others could not meet Boeing's low ball bid for the T-X trainer (with a EUROPEAN partner), nor Boeing's low-ball bid for USAF's UH-1N replacement (the only bid based on a EUROPEAN helicopter), nor Boeing's low-ball bid for the MQ-25.