More importantly they lost the edge. Back then they had the technology - a boom equipped tanker in the air. Northrop-Grumman/EADS had a promise to develop the A-330 tanker and a boom system
Three years on. EADS has it's boom equipped KC-30B (same as the KC-45A) for the Australian order in the air, and is flying the first aircraft for the US order ("We get the order, this actual aircraft is yours, if not then it goes into the British, Austalian, Saudi, or UAE order")
Meabwhile Boeing is promising to turn the 767LRF (itself under development) into the 767AdvancedTanker - with new engines, cockpit, and other stuff
The USAFs's perception of program risk (hardware vrs development) has changed.
The USAFs's perception of program risk (hardware vrs development) has changed.
The 767LRF was a pretty simple upgrade of the 767-200ERF based on components already developed for the 767-400ER. The upgraded cockpit has been flying for years as well as the wings and landing gear. Probably the changes in the proposals were a response to the performance of the KC-30 in lifting larger fuel loads. The 767LRF wouldn't have matched the KC-30, but it would have fit in the same apron space as a KC-135 and been able to use the same hangers with minimal modifications to the doors. Also when supporting combat missions the ability to have more booms in the air is more important than having more fuel per tanker.