I believe this decision was inevitable, the most tactically capable, and, most importantly, reliable on-task performance, won the day.
There appears to be not much difference between the manufacturing cost per airframe, but considerable difference in the operating costs per airframe.
also...
quote - "Another part of the decision that bodes well for those who use it is that less cost per airframe means more hoses in the air. That is what limits the tactical utility of the airborne tanker in these days, NOT the total amount of fuel available. There is only so much fuel flow available to tactical jets, and there are not a lot of B-52s needing tankers any more..."
errr...from FoxtrotAlpha18..quote.."The Pentagon said Boeing was about 1% cheaper than EADS, so if compared purely on capability, I cannot see how the KC-767 is a better solution than the KC-45..."
I think the experts (and blind freddy) could see the better solution.
Simply put they need a tactically capable, reliable tanker.
