Umm I believe this is a fixed price contract.
Yeah, they never get revised...
Or perhaps they'll stick to the price but just get massive co-incidental R&D subsidies via the back door to cover development snags - like Boeing usually do to stay "competitive".....
Boeing's KC-X spec still remains a secret
Does this secrecy mean:
a) the frankentanker is actually all just old technology with no upgrades to keep it cheap
b) the bits that (still) don't work on the Italian 767 are not US sourced (rumoured to be UK sourced)
Boeing don't want to admit this until the dust has settled as
a) people will criticise them for delivering old obsolete tech to the "warfighter"
b) the touted "US" tanker is actually less US than they'd like you to believe
It seems that Boeing are clearly embarrassed about the spec, or its potential poor
PR impact for them to be so cagey about it. Or perhaps they plan to change the spec after contract award after they have won with a cheap bid, and ramp up the price during a pre-delivery block upgrade?!?!
If its rumoured to be $4Bn cheaper than the EADS bid thats 12% overall (if 1% was $330M) - I assume this must include all costs (fuel/crews) etc. through life. Is it right that the competition rules assumed a 1 for 1 comparison for tankers on a given mission and ignored the fact the 330 has > capability of a 767, so you also could in effect have a smaller fleet for the same AAR capability? I know frame numbers have a value in themselves, but its still should have been rather relevant to the comparison shouldn't it?