Replies

The KC-46A, like the KC-135, is a Boeing product.

And years ago, US politicians personally got involved to force the DoD to ditch a contract which was already awarded to Airbus for a new tanker which they won fair and square in a competition. If there was one thing the late McCain got right: https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/february-2011/how-boeing-won-the-kc-x-tanker-contract-maybe-for-good-this-time/

We went back, created new criteria / changed it, and ensured Boeing got the contract worth >35 billion in 2011. Aren't we happy we did that? /sarc

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/and-the-winner-is-northrop-eads-kc-45a-wins-us-air-force-tanker-competition/

https://www.defensedaily.com/northrop-grumman-wins-air-force-tanker-competition/business-financial/

You don't have competition anymore.

The competitors are broke / merged (example MD), and politicians (all of them on the take in some way) are making the decisions. So, you end up with stories like this.

I imagine had we gone with what an unbiased evaluative process decided is the best option, we would today already have a tanker: https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc30tanker/ Based on the A330 which is a common air-frame (>1,600 built) and which has been around for a while ~ 30 years since it's first model appeared. This plane already existed in a tanker variant used by allies a year before it won the original bid (very low risk): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT

***But why opt for the cheap and low risk option, if you can take the high risk and more expensive option? / sarc

“”The KC-46A, like the KC-135, is a Boeing product.””

So is AIR FORCE ONE!

Spent almost 40 years working on and around 135, great airplane