You would think right?<p>For a parallel, let&#x27;s look at the state of the USAF tanker fleet (&quot;Nobody kicks ass without tanker gas!&quot;) The workhorse of the fleet is the pride of 1957, the KC-135. They&#x27;re old, and so the Air Force wants to replace them, with the KC-46, which is pretty much a Boeing 767 but with seats replaced with big gas tank, and boom off the back. The 767 isn&#x27;t a new airframe, it&#x27;s a 30 year old design.  And aerial refueling isn&#x27;t a new technology either. Afterall, the plane that&#x27;s being replaced has been in service for almost 60 years. Proven airframe. Proven technology. This is a slam dunk right?<p>Well, no. The KC-46 keeps getting delayed.[1] It&#x27;s essentially too complicated and too flashy. For exampe, Boeing is ditching the tried and true, and dirt simple system of guiding refueling booms by having a guy look at a window and put the boom into the receptacle, and instead go with some unproven system using an occulus rift and stereo cameras. Why? I don&#x27;t know. I guess because it&#x27;s &quot;high tech&quot;.<p>And do you want to know the most damning part of all? Boeing currently sells the KC-767, a refueling tanker based on the 767 airframe, that not only works, but is cheaper than the KC-46, and available today!<p>It&#x27;s almost as bad as the F-35 debacle, but not quite.<p>Honestly, I don&#x27;t think the military knows how to buy anything, and the contractors take advantage of that. It&#x27;s Eisenhower&#x27;s Military-Industrial Complex writ large.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com&#x2F;broken-booms-why-is-it-so-hard-to-develop-procure-a-1698725648" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com&#x2F;broken-booms-why-is-it-so-h...</a>
[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus</a>