USAF tanker boodoggle[s]

Air refueling tankers are a range extender.  The KC 135's were purchased way back during the Eisenhower administration to refuel the B-52's.  The B-52's and their nuclear weapons were kept on US stateside bases for security reasons.  To bomb Moscow, the B-52s would be refueled somewhere over Europe before pressing on to Moscow.  And refueled a second time on the way back.  In Viet Nam the KC135s refueled our F105s just before they penetrated North Viet Nam air defenses, and a second time on the way home.  Without the tankers, the Thuds simply could not reach Hanoi from our bases in Thailand.  I expect that we will need the tankers to strike just about any foe we may encounter. 
   USAF has been trying to buy a new tanker to replace the 60-70 year old KC135s.  The KC135 is a good plane but 60-70 years of hard flying is asking a lot from it.  It's time for a new one.  And, a new tanker is a straight forward job, pick a jet liner in mass production for civil airlines.  Buy a bunch of 'em, take out the seats and the galley, put in fuel tanks and a refueling boom.  After  couple of bidding catastrophes, USAF managed to get a contract with Boeing to do just that.  They would take a Boeing 757 or 767 (can't remember which) and call it KC-46.  Except, USAF (or perhaps Boeing, they love gold plate as much as anyone)  speced a fancy TV system to allow the boom operator to sit up front with the rest of the crew and steer the boom out to meet the customer aircraft by TV.  The TV system has been unsatisfactory, (and unacceptable to USAF).  Last year they bitched about low contrast when the camera was looking into the sun.  This year they are bitching about "the rubber sheet effect" some kind of distortion of the image.  The Air Force is refusing to fly the plane.  Boeing is delivering them, USAF is withholding $8 or $12 million from the price of each KC46 until the TV system is satisfactory.  Aviation Week has a big color photo of  five finished KC46's parked on the ramp, canvas covers over the engines to keep out the rain. 
   This entire boondoggle could have been avoided by putting the boom operator in the tail and giving him a nice big window, glass or plexiglas, no moving parts, no contrast or "rubber sheet" distortion.  This worked just fine on the old KC135, and the much newer KC10.  But that was beyond USAF and Boeing, so we have Boeing loosing $8-$12 mil per aircraft, and they are just cluttering up a ramp somewhere, not flying missions.  Aviation Week has the story in the 24 Feb issue.