That's a darn good question. The 767 is available now and has enormous
political support. But the 7E7 is the same size and has what you'd want in
an OTS tanker; range & efficiency. The 767 is more of an interim tanker
until KC-X comes along, which is why leasing is a good idea. If the 7E7 were
to come on line we could sell/give back the KC-767s. But getting in now
seems the smart thing to do, as with the KC-135/707. Most avionics would be
the same, as with the KC-10.

Better yet - why not procure some of each? There have been statements
that
there is a risk in having all the tankers be of one design in case that
design is grounded for some reason.

Smoke. This is just to justify the 767 buy. This type of a/c is rarely
grounded and even then it is as a precautionary measure, i.e., the military
could still fly them in a crisis. It does not justify the huge added
expense.

You know that whatever the Air Force buys will be flying for 40+ years -
why
not get the latest, most efficient, and lowest maintenance aircraft?

Exactly. There is talk of a purpose built tanker but that would be hard to
justify the $. However, by leasing a small number of 767s the AF can delay
the KC-X decision and wait for any new technology aircraft to take shape,
such as X wing, blended wing, etc.

Curt