So, KenV, my point stands. If the USAF were to now change their minds they would't see a KC45 or MRTTfor a long time, mainly due to the amount of orders that ADS are yet to fulfil.
I totally agree with you that USAF would wait a long time to take delivery of any KC-45s. However I disagree that that would be because of the number of orders. KC-45 development would take a few years and all those existing orders would likely have all been fulfilled before KC-45 production began. Further, the A330NEO first flight is scheduled for mid 2016 and first deliveries in late 2017. By the time Airbus finished development of the KC-45, all the A330 deliveries would be complete and Airbus would be producing A330NEOs. Would Airbus be willing to keep the A330 line going and opening a second line to produce A330NEOs? I don't know.
What I have never quite understood is why the US Gov made the U-turn from Airbus to Boeing? Did they run a second competition or did someone change the requirements to be outside of the A330 capability?
The reasons are numerous and complex. See post #139 on page 7 for some details. If you still have questions, feel free to ask and I'll try to answer. But the short answer is that the requirements changed because the players changed. The first set of requirement was put together by former SAC tanker guys (SAC used to own ALL tankers) and they wanted a big tanker like the KC-10 and the KC-30 (later KC-45) won. By the time the 3rd competition rolled around (the 2nd never got out of the starting gate) AMC owned all tankers and the AMC guys added a plethora of new requirements which favored the KC-46.
EDIT: I failed to mention all the ITAR and "dual use" export issues. European and US laws on ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and "dual use" (civial and military) technology export are similar at high levels, but the devil is in the details. There were huge controversies and long arguments about what parts and what mods were ITAR controlled. For example, since the cargo door was added on afterward was the door and ALL its associated engineering ITAR controlled? If so, what about the wiring, hydraulic, pneumatic, and environmental systems that had to be rerouted to accomodate the door? If they were ITAR controlled, then Airbus would have to make most if not all of the A330 line ITAR compliant. EADS North America was ready to do that, but EADS Europe was not. Boeing not only made the entire 767 line ITAR compliant, but made ALL the 767 engineering drawings ITAR compliant. And every Boeing employee that works on the 767 recieves ITAR training and has completed ITAR certification.