Dont think so unless the RFP’s were changed asking for a much bigger tanker .

The best boeing had was the 787 tanker but that could not fit the timeline (or budget) so they went with the 767 . The 777 would have been too big .

and given the foreign content of the 787 the “made in America” card would have failed from the start

Not really since the plane was designed by Boeing all they have to do is build every part in Washington State at the 767 plant very simple to do, it does mean that they would need to rehire allot of folks they let go when they moved certain parts of the767 production overseas. Put see thats the pointif you wish to have a product for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MILITARY then it has be designed and build by Americans.

ok fair enough….when you’ve finished removing all the engines from the USMC AV8’s can you leave them on the quayside and we’ll send a boat over to pick them up……..oh we’ll have the Navy T45’s back as well and I believe you’ll soon get a call from the Swiss for those Texans

Personally folks if I was elect memeber of Congress I would have made it simple unless the item for the United States Military is design and build(every part) in the United States it doesn’t become part of the US Military. .

ok that’s the KC767 out of the competition then (and any Boeing alternative based on the 777 or 787)

But IS the work by Marshalls done at a commercial rate? They have the Trust over a barrel just as the owners of the hanger have. If Marshalls are seen to have exploited this situation no-one will ever approach them for a similar project again. The next rebuild to flying condition will be done in the USA or somewhere in Europe.

Given Marshall’s mega contracts with the MOD for the likes of C130 support,would they be bothered about not getting further one off rebuild work?