Groybard
Go for it, mate. I see you are still ignoring the cost through life. I take it back. You don't work for the British Govt (although you should), you work for Boeing!
Yes airlines have high utilisation. Shocked and stunned, its called profit. Tankers don't
necessarily have high utilization. Shocked and stunned. At least buying NEW KC-30/45s will allow the USAF (potentally) better utilization as they can be used in the tanker and transport roles!!
Military charters use old airplanes because they are cheap - pure and simple.
You are still studiously ignoring whole life costs.
Used 767s can receive avionics upgrades while the tanks and boom are installed.
Yes they can, but it adds to the cost. You need to redesign the cockpit to accept GATM requirements. Buy them built in, you don't have the redesign costs.
Military charters use old airplanes due to low utilization. If a clapped out DC-10 or 747-100 is good enough for 300 of our high value troops, it's good enough for a flying fuel farm.
Yes but in 10 years the military charter companies will have sold their old aircraft (probably to the fire-fighters) and replaced them with the latest generation of second-hand aircraft, thereby safeguarding your troops.
so better a ten year tanker than a 50 year old flying dinosaur.
Really? Really!!! So the F-35, that brand new, not yet in service, designed to serve for 25-30+ years fighter won't need tanking in 20, or 25 years? Or 30 years? It is all about looking across your entire service, not just about a single item. If the FJs are designed to be around for that length of time and they need tanking when they enter service, why will they not need tanking in 10, or 20 or 30 years?
There still aren't sufficient second hand airframes around to meet the USAF REQUIREMENT for this, the first tranche of replacements.
Converting to fire fighters. Specious argument. You wouldn't want to invest in a brand new 787 as fire fighting aircraft in such a dangerous role, would you? Maybe you do work for the British Govt.
$350 Million fighters are nonsense
COMPLETELY different argument.
Stop changing the argument. As BEagle and Jackonicko point out. The right aircraft won. It met the requirement (actually probably exceeded it) the 767 was the only alternative and it lost. There were no other competitors so specious arguments about second-hand aircraft are actually completely irrelevant!! I give up.