Given the length and complexity of this thread (not to mention the various dead ends and red herrings) the following synopsis is provided:
No, not a single off the shelf tanker met USAF’s final RFP requirements for a new tanker. The RFP included many items which no manufacturer had ever before produced and which would require development, integration, and testing. Doing so required time and money. USAF’s budget and schedule for all this development plus delivery of the first 18 aircraft and all their maintenance documentation as well as spares and support equipment was very aggressive.
No, the A330MRTT being delivered today would not remotely meet USAF’s latest tanker requirements.
No, the KC-46 does not meet the A-10’s refueling receptacle requirements. But USAF admits that the A-10s requirements stated in their RFP (and to which Boeing worked) were in error. USAF and Boeing are working on correcting that now.
No, the vendor/manufacturer cannot tell USAF their requirements are “not necessary” or are “gold plating” or whatever and then ignore/alter those requirements.
No, neither the A330MRTT nor any legacy tanker can remotely meet USAF’s latest EMP/HERF requirements.
No, the KC-767I offered by BAE could not take off from a 9000 ft balanced airfield when fully loaded. But the KC-46 has more powerful engines, more powerful brakes, a slightly larger wing and shorter fuselage which enables it to take off fully loaded from an 8000ft runway on a plus 15C day.
No, Airbus was not the first to produce a fly-by-wire refueling boom. The DC-10 boom is fly-by-wire and entered service in the mid 70s. And an updated version of that boom is on the KC-46.
No, the main deck cargo door and floor have nothing to do with Boeing’s cost and schedule difficulties delivering the KC-46. The 767C2 airframe on which the KC-46 is based is the airframe for the 767LRF (Long Range Freighter), which was developed and certified well before KC-46 came into being and has been in production for some time.
No, Boeing’s cost over runs have not cost USAF or the taxpayers a dime. This is a firm fixed price contract and Boeing has borne all extra costs.
No, Boeing’s late delivery of KC-46 has not caused an airlift/tanker shortfall. The KC-135 and KC-10 availability rates have held steady for the past decade. Shortfalls are the result of an increase in tanking requirements, not a decrease in tanker availability.
No, Boeing did not get away with late deliveries without penalty. Although the late delivery did not result in an airlift shortfall, it did result in an increase in operational/maintenance cost to USAF to keep the legacy fleet going. USAF is computing that cost and Boeing will be penalized for those costs.
No, the KC-46 (unlike the A330MRTT) is not built as a commercial airliner, flown to a modification center, taken apart, and converted into a military tanker. Lessons learned from building the military P-8A MMA (based on 737) on a commercial production line were applied to 767, and the KC-46 is consequently built on a commercial production line in Everett. And yet meets all the Commerce Department’s Export restrictions and State Department’s Trafficking in Arms restrictions. This was one of the innovations Boeing used to meet their aggressive selling price which won them the contract.