USAF has awarded Production lot 8 as of 21 AUG 22 bringing the number on order to 109 for the USAF. Other contracts to date have awarded 4 for Israel and 5 for Japan. So 70 remain for future lots from the 179 plane program of record. Lot 8 roughly prices out at $147.6M each, the Israel contract priced at $ 231.9M. Reporters always look at the original contract for about $5B and note that Boeing has written off around $ 5B along with it - what a huge loss - well yes a lot of money. But the production lots are on the order of $ 16B beyond this original order. Lot 8 was change P00215, what juicy amounts are in the prior 214 changes. The 70 remaining planes is 5.8 years at 12 per year.
The Jan 22 GAO report to Congress on the KC-46, lots of good stuff inside.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104530.pdfIf the need is to order about 12 aircraft a year thru the KC-Y program for the next 15 years the KC-Y plane needs to be certified within 5 years. If there is little difference between the KC-46 and KC-Y Boeing could have the KC-Y certified in that time (Boeing has been known to have a lot of own goals so who knows). Even if awarded now, Lockmart would be hard pressed to have a FAA certified aircraft in 5 years, it took Boeing almost a century <LOL>.
Let's leave aside the capabilities argument for now, lets look at the AF's hand in this game of poker.
1. Is the AF trying to get all of the deficiencies resolved and the Full Rate Production milestone so they have a better handle of the risks and the actual capabilities before extending the program of record past 179.
2. Can the AF extend on a sole source buy a program of record if not in Full Rate Production? I think the F-35 is caught in a similar wicket but their program of record is far, far off. What are the rules on allowing extensions, I know it is done the F-15EX is a great example, it worked for Boeing but the GE engine award was protested, GE won the subsequent competition because PW needed to cover certification costs for its engines, while GE was already on the Qatar order.
3. In the FARs around Construction, there are very specific rules on a sole source negotiation. Additional units will be priced at the prior unit cost x defined multipliers. For example if Boeing's unit price is $150M each in 2015 dollars the next soul source contract might only allow $ 159M + 10% + contract inflation factors. But that is locking in for Boeing its 10% underbid (my speculation) into the next program, a big savings for the Government. In this soul source case Boeing would have lower margins locked in - had they not underbid they would have normal margins in the next round.
4. If the AF competes Boeing knows all of their costs up front, pretty easy to price. The LMXT is not a full fledged design, yes there are a lot of A330 tanker craft produced, but what about the AF communications, the FAA certification, EMI shielding, etc that was known at KC-X bid time, but Boeing got these pieces now designed, but LM & Airbus didn't. Plus LMXT has a barn full of certification costs with only the Cobham wing pods being FAA certified (well it will be some day!). Boeing has little to certify if the current KC-46 meets specs. With the R&D cost hurdle for LM, this competition is Boeing's to lose, that is if the AF doesn't really want to change horses. Boeing could easily recover the $5B excess cert costs.
5. If there are big spec changes, say for modern engines - Boeing has the GEnX from the 748 for the neo engine, Airbus would go with the T7000 of the A339, but has that one run the gauntlet yet in terms of entry into AF service? New coms, drone tankering, added weapons, new roles Boeing has at least equal footing with LM.
6. Both the B767 and the A330 are in their twilight of their production. Boeing knows these factors, it can make 15/yr work for production. Would Airbus want A330 production, except for the FAL being in the US, to run for 20 more years at 15 per year. Ten years out it us unlikely there would be further civilian orders.