I don't think the USAF is going to pay a cent more for the KC-46 than they did for the original 179. I think Boeing is gambling on the USAF paying more to help cover cost overruns from the original contract.
The USAF is going to pay more if the data shows that they need to pay more.
Boeing has already taken the hit for the cost over run, they will not roll the cost into the next contract. New KC-46 contracts will be priced with consideration for inflation, improved manufacturing efficiency and a reasonable profit. Charging extra to make up for losses in previous batches will not be allowed. Boeing will not do this as it will risk breaking government contracting laws and losing]other government contracts.
As all RFP's were for off the shelf product based on a in service civilian a/c they were there somewhere....may not be mandated but expected and could stay or be removed with penalty for qualification....
Having not read the RFP, but it would be unlikely any mention of the T/R would be found in it. Typically RFPs are based on performance and not necessarily hardware. And since the T/Rs are not included in any certification performance requirements (FAA or other wise), it would be more difficult if you were to add them just to meet the performance requirements.
Bottom line is that the TR's are not required for the KC-46 or the KC-45 to meet the RFP (or FAA) requirements. Removing them would cost only a small amount of Engineering work to design them out of existing commercial nacelles while providing significant savings in cost and weight and complexity.
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.