I think Boeing will shut down the 767 line if it can’t get any more commercial order orders for it. The line has been running at about the minimal economically sustainable rate of 12 per year just to keep it warm for the KC-45. Boeing really shot itself in the foot with the leasing scandal. If that hadn’t happened perhaps Boeing would have already built most of the initial 100 767 tankers and the USAF would have already been able to start retiring the KC-135E’s. Perhaps the KC-30 is the best tanker available four years from now from a new factory built in Alabama, but the existing 767 line had the spare capacity five years ago. The point of the leasing arrangement was to decrease the upfront acquisition costs and get more tankers built more quickly. As a pure KC-135 replacement at existing bases, the 767 is probably superior due to the need for minimal changes to hangers.
The Air Force is doing all it can to keep capacity available.
Lockheed got the fighters, but lost the C-5 upgrade and the antisub. Boeing got the antisub and will probably get the C-17 deal, but lost the tankers. Now Northrop got the tankers, to keep them in the game for this round.
Last time around, Northrup got bombers, Lockheed got the cargo and anti-sub, and what is now Boeing had the fighters (and the tankers).
Something for everyone maintains at least a minimal strategic base.