No. The EADs plane was not so well equipped or survivable as the Boeing, so its price would have to go through the roof to catch up, and it was fundamentally vulnerable. EMP for example with inferior antiquated FBW system.
So failing five of eight survivability criteria means that it is an invitation to enemies to go after these planes as even more tempting targets than they now are. Requiring that we fly them EVEN further into the zone.
And no, we need them to fly closer. That is already the practical experience.*
*At any given time we had as many as eight tankers and 250 people deployed," Forrest said. Some missions were flown so close to Serbian territory that the tactical aircraft "would come off the tanker and go right into (that) airspace. We were close! We were in the fight."
So you are just plain wrong.
“The EADs plane was not so well equipped or survivable as the Boeing”
Says who Boeing?
“inferior antiquated FBW system”
BS, the FBW system has to meet military specifications.
“So you are just plain wrong.”
Keep dreaming.