Originally Posted by
LowObservable
You're right about one thing. Boeing underbid on the initial contract. But let's get things clear: the customer, Gawd bless him, is going to end up paying what it cost to develop the airplane, plus margin, irrespective of the initial price. Boeing will make its money back once the USAF needs support and services and Boeing owns the IP on the commercially certificated baseline aircraft,
Indeed. But such a bidding strategy requires accepting lotsa risk
and deep enough pockets to defer profiitability for several years. Airbus was apparently unwilling and/or unable to do that.
As for whether Airbus would have incurred the same delays - we don't know. However, it does seem that a very conscious Boeing decision, post-award, to change the way the KC-46 was built has played a part in the problems. To get the cost closer to the price they'd bid, Boeing decided to build the aircraft at Everett, as the 767-2C, up to the point where the boom and pods (and other things) got bolted on, because commercial manufacture was cheaper. I believe it's been suggested here that some commercial/military standards conflicted.
We won't ever know how Airbus would have done schedule wise, but given the track records of both Airbus and Boeing, probably, almost certainly, no better and likely worse. Unlike Airbus, Boeing's been doing military derivatives of commercial airliners for decades. Cost is a different matter. Boeing figured out how to build a military product on a commercial line on the 737 for the P-8. They applied those lessons learned to the 767 so, unlike the KC-767 and A330MRTT, the KC-46 could be built on the production line rather than completely built, flown elsewhere, and then taken apart to turn it into a tanker.
Also, enough with the red herrings over the cargo floor. Previous MRTTs did not have one. However, by the time the contract for KC-X was awarded, the A330-200F had been in service for a year, so it was not exactly a risk factor.
I agree. The main deck cargo door and floor have absolutely zero to do with Boeing's cost and schedule difficulties. ZERO. The 767C2 airframe upon which the KC-46 is built was developed, tested and certified well before the KC-46 came into being and include a cargo door and floor because it is the basis of the 767-200LRF.