The thread seems to be digressing - the point being the numbers rather than the future types (though the whole next generation manned platform/drone wingman system rather than platform may be spreading out to confuse the issue for the KC-Z programme numbers.)

It's still funny how this moves around in circles for so long while it could be solved with big business for everybody.
Something else I don't understand is why Boeing has not used to beef up the commercial passenger 767 using tanker modifications, like a new cockpit? It could be some robust low cost people mover below the fancy 787.

They NEED to sell 787's not spend money on 767's - they'd be cannibalising their own market.

Being able to sell new passenger 767s has little to do with the flight deck or other updates on the 767-2C. The latest FedEx 767F have a flat panel flight deck display STC that is incorporated in production.
The real problem with the 767 for passenger service is the fuel burn is too high - it needs new engines (10% fuel burn minimum - probably closer to 15%). Problem is such a state of the art engine in the required 50k-60k thrust class doesn't exist. They get away with the fuel burn for the KC-46 and 767F because they don't fly 10-12 hours per day, so the fuel burn is a smaller part of the cost of operation.