# Opportunity to update the CC-150 fleet?



## KawarthaCruiser (29 Apr 2020)

In spite of current government spending on Covid-19 and other military priorities like the fighter replacement or shipbuilding, wouldn’t this be an excellent time to pick up a half dozen used Airbus A-330’s on the civilian market to replace the aging CC-150 fleet?  With airlines grounding massive numbers of aircraft it would seem likely that good deals on used civilian airframes/powerplants could be made.  I seem to remember that the CC-150's were purchased on the used market from a bankrupt Canadian airline.  Is it time to replace the Polaris with something more modern and easier to maintain?


----------



## MilEME09 (29 Apr 2020)

KawarthaCruiser said:
			
		

> In spite of current government spending on Covid-19 and other military priorities like the fighter replacement or shipbuilding, wouldn’t this be an excellent time to pick up a half dozen used Airbus A-330’s on the civilian market to replace the aging CC-150 fleet?  With airlines grounding massive numbers of aircraft it would seem likely that good deals on used civilian airframes/powerplants could be made.  I seem to remember that the CC-150's were purchased on the used market from a bankrupt Canadian airline.  Is it time to replace the Polaris with something more modern and easier to maintain?



Depends if anyone sells, the deal we can get, and if we are allowed to go buy it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Apr 2020)

Now would be a good time to go shopping, but I fear the DND piggy bank will be empty unless it means jobs here.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Apr 2020)

It would make more sense to buy new off a current production line so we would be part of a larger user community.  The C17 and Herc J fleets are successful because they were new, off the line, shared support with other nations, and the only Canadianization was the roundel on the tail.

Or we could Herc H it and build a fleet of similar but not the same aircraft and try to manage unique Canadian aircraft from aircraft that airlines didn't want.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Apr 2020)

Buying civilian airliners might be a good idea once we've made a decision on the aerial refueler replacement if we're finding we're short airframes after the initial buy, but now isn't the time to rush a major purchase like this. The Airbus A330 MRTT and the Boeing KC-46 based off the 767 jetliner are probably going to be our only bidders. Imagine the KC46 wins the competition and now we're holding 767s for refueling and A330s for pax transport. We're too small for a split fleet.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Apr 2020)

The requirement is defined as a single fleet that can perform both roles.

And this isn't being rushed; there have been personnel working on the CC-150 replacement for a number of years.  The work is actually fairly well advanced.


----------



## KawarthaCruiser (30 Apr 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Depends if anyone sells, the deal we can get, and if we are allowed to go buy it.



Yes, I expect that the Minister would be chased from the cabinet room at this time unless there was an extraordinary case to be made.


----------



## KawarthaCruiser (30 Apr 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It would make more sense to buy new off a current production line so we would be part of a larger user community.  The C17 and Herc J fleets are successful because they were new, off the line, shared support with other nations, and the only Canadianization was the roundel on the tail.
> 
> Or we could Herc H it and build a fleet of similar but not the same aircraft and try to manage unique Canadian aircraft from aircraft that airlines didn't want.



A new fleet of 5 or 6 strategic transports (including 2 tanker models) will be extremely expensive be they A-330’s or Boeing 767’s.  I would hope to see the retention of an MRTT like tanking capability for overseas fighter deployments.

You make an excellent point about commonality of the C-17 and C-103J fleets.  The CC-150's have been successful since they were first delivered to Wardair in 88-89.  They used to make use of the parts market that supported the 255 A-310’s produced but I understand the commercial fleet has dwindled to about 15 aircraft in commercial service now. (May be wrong about that number - source was a YouTube video.)  I expect that maintenance will only become more costly over time.

Do you have any idea what kinds of aircraft would replace the old tactical C-130’s in their tanking role? More new “J” models?  I doubt the government will come up with the funds to purchase KC-767's for a NORAD role.


----------



## dimsum (30 Apr 2020)

KawarthaCruiser said:
			
		

> Do you have any idea what kinds of aircraft would replace the old tactical C-130’s in their tanking role? More new “J” models?  I doubt the government will come up with the funds to purchase KC-767's for a NORAD role.



The USMC operates tanker C-130Js.  

However, the replacement will also depend on what fighter we operate - if it's the F-35, they need boom tankers, not probe/drogue tankers.  The J is a probe/drogue tanker.


----------



## KawarthaCruiser (30 Apr 2020)

Thanks Dimsum!


----------



## dapaterson (30 Apr 2020)

The Herc tankers were a stopgap between retiring the old Boeing tankers and the Airbus tankers, I do not think there is a plan to replace that capability.

And with airlines grounding thousands of planes, I think the only A310 commercial operators are in Iran. I don't think we can get simulator time in Tehran.


----------



## Zoomie (1 May 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I do not think there is a plan to replace that capability.


Concur - I believe divesting that capability is what funds the extra PYs for FWSAR.


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 May 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The USMC operates tanker C-130Js.
> 
> However, the replacement will also depend on what fighter we operate - if it's the F-35, they need boom tankers, not probe/drogue tankers.  The J is a probe/drogue tanker.



Do you think the the type of refueler will influence the purchase of the new fighter? If they need a boom tanker that means purchasing another aircraft type.


----------



## dapaterson (2 May 2020)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Do you think the the type of refueler will influence the purchase of the new fighter? If they need a boom tanker that means purchasing another aircraft type.



I believe the Aribus tanker currently in production can be fitted for either.  Per Wikipedia:



> For air-to-air refuelling missions the A330 MRTT can be equipped with a combination of any of the following systems:[citation needed]
> 
> Refuelling other aircraft
> Airbus Military Aerial Refuelling Boom System (ARBS) for receptacle-equipped receiver aircraft.
> ...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT


----------



## kev994 (2 May 2020)

Here’s a video of an F35 doing probe and drogue. I’m pretty sure a boom can have a drogue fitted to it. https://youtu.be/7xR_3H0qaTE


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 May 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> Here’s a video of an F35 doing probe and drogue. I’m pretty sure a boom can have a drogue fitted to it. https://youtu.be/7xR_3H0qaTE



Only the B and C variants have a probe.  The A model has a receptacle.  

Yes, a boom can have a drogue fitted to it however all modern tankers fitted with a boom also have wing drogues (A330 and KC-46).


----------



## kev994 (2 May 2020)

The base model never has the options you want


----------



## dimsum (2 May 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> The base model never has the options you want



Ha!  

But, the real reason is that the USAF aircraft are all receptacle (because it works better for large aircraft), so it's really for standardization within the service.


----------



## MilEME09 (2 May 2020)

I believe the air force's plan is fighter first, refueled second just because of this issue, need to know what they need to fuel the future fighter.


----------



## dapaterson (2 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I believe the air force's plan is fighter first, refueled second just because of this issue, need to know what they need to fuel the future fighter.



As noted, both the Boeing and Airbus models on offer can offer either refuelling system, so there is no need to sequence fighter, then transport/refuelling.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I believe the air force's plan is fighter first, refueled second just because of this issue, need to know what they need to fuel the future fighter.



That's Treasury Board/Government of Canada's plan. There's not enough money or political will to do 2 major purchases like that in short order.


----------



## dapaterson (2 May 2020)

You may wish to consult the investment plan before making pronouncements.

Future Fighter


> Anticipated Timeline (Fiscal Year)
> Completed Start Options Analysis
> Completed Start Definition
> 2022/2023 Start Implementation
> ...



Strategic Tanker Transport Capability


> Anticipated Timeline (Fiscal Year)
> Completed Start Options Analysis
> 2022/2023 Start Definition
> 2025/2026 Start Implementation
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (2 May 2020)

How often have we seen those dates shift? I have 0 confidence PSPC/TB/DND will adhere to those timelines and be able to deliver 2 capital aircraft projects simultaneously.


----------



## MilEME09 (2 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How often have we seen those dates shift? I have 0 confidence PSPC/TB/DND will adhere to those timelines and be able to deliver 2 capital aircraft projects simultaneously.



Not to mention CSC is suppose to hit the water at that time, among other projects, the 2020's is suppose to delivery a lot of projects across the board, after a pandemic I have my doubts we will get any unless it means major jobs


----------



## suffolkowner (13 Sep 2020)

some parts planes for us to pick up cheap

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36304/iran-air-is-selling-off-part-of-its-fleet-of-vintage-western-airliners


----------



## dapaterson (17 Dec 2020)

Mercedes Stephenson is reporting that the project is moving forward.

 https://twitter.com/MercedesGlobal/status/1339697779002773509?s=19 

Background from the last budget:
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/proactive-disclosure/supplementary-budget-b-2019-2020/other-issues/procurement-air.html#toc4


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Dec 2020)

Sigh.  

There you go again with your "knowledge", your "research" and your "facts".

What's next?  First hand "experience" of the procurement process?

 ;D


----------



## lenaitch (17 Dec 2020)

There should be two each in cold Lake, Bagotville and Trenton to support arctic intercept response.  I'm not convinced the tanker Hercs are fast or long-legged enough for an adequate tactical response.  It's our arctic, we shouldn't have to rely on US for fuel.  At the very least two in Winnipeg (split the east-west distance).


----------



## dapaterson (17 Dec 2020)

No tanker Hercs.


----------



## kev994 (17 Dec 2020)

lenaitch said:
			
		

> There should be two each in cold Lake, Bagotville and Trenton to support arctic intercept response.  I'm not convinced the tanker Hercs are fast or long-legged enough for an adequate tactical response.  It's our arctic, we shouldn't have to rely on US for fuel.  At the very least two in Winnipeg (split the east-west distance).


There are advantages of the Herc; shorter runway for one. You can fuel it and send it back up rather quickly. You can send it to a short runway and offload a bunch of army dudes...
It’s pretty long legged but slow compared to a fighter, but with any tanker the further you go the less you can give away.

Edit: I should note that the herc is a tactical tanker, Polaris is a strategic tanker. Different purposes. If you’re doing it right you wouldn’t need a herc to go faster.


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Mercedes Stephenson is reporting that the project is moving forward.
> 
> https://twitter.com/MercedesGlobal/status/1339697779002773509?s=19
> 
> ...



I think our biggest challenge right now, in implementing SSE, is the lack of staff-power in the procurement shops to push all those files.  We have a finite number of people that can generate a finite amount of work.  All the files are important but require a significant amount of staff-power.  Because it is going forward and that it is approved in the budget doesn't mean it won't stall at some point in the process (not because we don't want/don't have the money to buy the equipment but because we lack the people to push the ball forward). I believe CGAI (Jeffrey Collins) and Doug Dempster wrote about this.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Dec 2020)

lenaitch said:
			
		

> There should be two each in cold Lake, Bagotville and Trenton to support arctic intercept response.  I'm not convinced the tanker Hercs are fast or long-legged enough for an adequate tactical response.  It's our arctic, we shouldn't have to rely on US for fuel.  At the very least two in Winnipeg (split the east-west distance).



Ahhh, the Canada-only CADIZ which isn’t part of NORAD AOR.........oh, wait....


----------



## kev994 (17 Dec 2020)

737 Max should be having a fire sale any time now...


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Dec 2020)

Realistically there's only 2 bidders: Boeing KC-46A and Airbus A330 MRTT. The Airbus seems to be able to hold far more pax when it's configured that way and Boeing is struggling with multiple issues: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/03/31/air-forces-troubled-kc-46-tanker-has-new-problem-leaking-fuel.html


----------



## suffolkowner (17 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I think our biggest challenge right now, in implementing SSE, is the lack of staff-power in the procurement shops to push all those files.  We have a finite number of people that can generate a finite amount of work.  All the files are important but require a significant amount of staff-power.  Because it is going forward and that it is approved in the budget doesn't mean it won't stall at some point in the process (not because we don't want/don't have the money to buy the equipment but because we lack the people to push the ball forward). I believe CGAI (Jeffrey Collins) and Doug Dempster wrote about this.



From all the reports over the last couple of years it's possible that the Polaris fleet is not giving us the option of time to work the file.


----------



## lenaitch (17 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Realistically there's only 2 bidders: Boeing KC-46A and Airbus A330 MRTT. The Airbus seems to be able to hold far more pax when it's configured that way and Boeing is struggling with multiple issues: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/03/31/air-forces-troubled-kc-46-tanker-has-new-problem-leaking-fuel.html



Ah, buying new.  I was thinking more relieving a struggling airline of their some of their fleet and retro-fitting.  It seems to be our way.


----------



## suffolkowner (17 Dec 2020)

lenaitch said:
			
		

> Ah, buying new.  I was thinking more relieving a struggling airline of their some of their fleet and retro-fitting.  It seems to be our way.



The KC-46 is a wide body 767, I would think if anyone was trying to get rid of some planes they would be the 737's. Can the 737's be converted? Would it be beneficial?


----------



## dapaterson (17 Dec 2020)

lenaitch said:
			
		

> Ah, buying new.  I was thinking more relieving a struggling airline of their some of their fleet and retro-fitting.  It seems to be our way.





			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> The KC-46 is a wide body 767, I would think if anyone was trying to get rid of some planes they would be the 737's. Can the 737's be converted? Would it be beneficial?



For the in-service A310sCC150s, the air to air refit was done in conjunction with the Germans, more than a decade after we took them off the hands of WardairCanadian Airlines.  If we had been going alone, the NRE cost likely would have been prohibitive.  To my knowledge, no one is flying a 737 tanker.  Airlines will be scrapping their older, less fuel efficient 737s anyways, and keeping the more modern aircraft, so we couldn't even do a "P-8 on the cheap" conversion there.  (The 737 is actually a family of a/c, with multiple models produced over decades.  Boeing fights hard to keep them under a single type to make pilot training cheaper... the MAX was the logical extension of that philosophy)

Buying off the line, keeping Canadianizing to the roundel and possibly a few safety stickers in French, and keeping hardware in step with other users is a great way to get more affordable equipment with maintenance support in the long term.  Orphan fleets are costly to maintain and sustain... and you can end up beholden to a single supplier who never, ever, every delivers your CP-140s hypothetical aircraft on time from their R&O line.


----------



## dimsum (17 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Realistically there's only 2 bidders: Boeing KC-46A and Airbus A330 MRTT. The Airbus seems to be able to hold far more pax when it's configured that way and Boeing is struggling with multiple issues: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/03/31/air-forces-troubled-kc-46-tanker-has-new-problem-leaking-fuel.html



So, there's an aircraft flown operationally by multiple allied nations, and one that's barely sorting itself out.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Dec 2020)

lenaitch said:
			
		

> Ah, buying new.  I was thinking more relieving a struggling airline of their some of their fleet and retro-fitting.  It seems to be our way.



Airbus actually builds the A330 MRTT as a Civilian A330-200, and then it's converted in Spain for Military use. Spanish Air Force was planning on procuring some from Iberia Airlines and converting them, probably a decent cost savings there without much of a capability loss other than the flight hours already on the airframe especially if we want to capitalize on the downturn in the airlines due to COVID.


----------



## Mick (17 Dec 2020)

lenaitch said:
			
		

> There should be two each in cold Lake, Bagotville and Trenton to support arctic intercept response.  I'm not convinced the tanker Hercs are fast or long-legged enough for an adequate tactical response.  It's our arctic, we shouldn't have to rely on US for fuel.  At the very least two in Winnipeg (split the east-west distance).



http://rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/article-template-standard.page?doc=cc-150-polaris-tanker-fleet-reaches-norad-milestone/kctml0p5

With the retirement of the Herc Hs looming, it looks like steps are being taken to ensure the RCAF can continue providing NORAD with a Canadian tanker capability.


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 Dec 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> From all the reports over the last couple of years it's possible that the Polaris fleet is not giving us the option of time to work the file.



Same thing for the Navy's ships, or the Future Fighter Replacement.  Which one do you prioritize? We have solutions for the foreseeable future for refueling: the U.S. and contracted air-to-air refueling.  Not so much for ships and fighters.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Dec 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So, there's an aircraft flown operationally by multiple allied nations, and one that's barely sorting itself out.



Clearly, if history is any indication, we will go for the “barely sorting itself out” option...

Actually, (and I stress that I do not have any inside info and what follows is pure speculation) it would not surprise me if a Canadian Airline was offered liquidity, in return for 5-6 of its (currently) under-utilized wide-bodies of a variant that also serve as tankers.


----------



## MilEME09 (18 Dec 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Clearly, if history is any indication, we will go for the “barely sorting itself out” option...
> 
> Actually, (and I stress that I do not have any inside info and what follows is pure speculation) it would not surprise me if a Canadian Airline was offered liquidity, in return for 5-6 of its (currently) under-utilized wide-bodies of a variant that also serve as tankers.



If we went that route, I'd hope we would buy a couple extras as spares/ emergency expansion of our air lift capability if required.


----------



## FJAG (18 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> If we went that route, I'd hope we would buy a couple extras as spares/ emergency expansion of our air lift capability if required.



There are lots of opportunities out there. Unfortunately our years' long procurement cycles won't allow us to capitalize on them.

op:


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Dec 2020)

A few posts up mentions retiring the C130H tanker. I get that they are old, but to retire them and not replace with J model refueler seems like another tactical capability deleted.  An Airbus or Boeing tanker are strategic assets vs the tactical options of the JHerc (short rough runways, multi mission, austere locations etc).


----------



## kev994 (18 Dec 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> A few posts up mentions retiring the C130H tanker. I get that they are old, but to retire them and not replace with J model refueler seems like another tactical capability deleted.  An Airbus or Boeing tanker are strategic assets vs the tactical options of the JHerc (short rough runways, multi mission, austere locations etc).


H Tankers are from ‘91 http://www.rwrwalker.ca/CF_CC130.html not that old for an airplane. They were on the chopping block to make FWSAR PY neutral. The short runway capability in the middle of the country has come in handy a lot in the last 2 weeks, we can hope it will get revisited.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Dec 2020)

The H fleet is time expired, and despite efforts not a common platform across all a/c.  Retiring them is a good thing.


----------



## kev994 (18 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The H fleet is time expired, and despite efforts not a common platform across all a/c.  Retiring them is a good thing.


Absolutely not. The tankers are not even remotely close to the number of hours we’ve put on other E/H models. 

Edit: removed numbers, opsec and stuff.


----------



## lenaitch (18 Dec 2020)

I get the general tactical features of the C-130 (robust, short runways, austere conditions, etc.), as someone who knows little about matters military and even less about aerial refueling, specifically in remote areas, I suppose I'm missing how they are considered suitable for our NORAD role as a tanker.  First, to clarify; am I correct that the only RCAF aircraft we refuel are our CF-18s (and perhaps other NORAD/NATO fast jets that use drogues)?  If we race off from Cold Lake/Bagotville to do an intercept, how is a Herc/T lumbering out from Wpg the most appropriate choice?  I get that with all the surveillance assets we have access to, foreign probing into our airspace likely does not come as a complete surprise and a little pre-planning is available, but some unforeseen suspicious/nefarious/unknown commercial flight on a polar route implies fast response, long loiter, escort, etc., in the high arctic, perhaps depleting fuel before a Herc could get there.  I suppose the FOLs might allow a pit stop if weather allows, but is calling a time out for gas really this best response?

Given our geography and the location of fighter assets, range comes into play with all of the contenders for the new fighter acquisition.  Some argue for turning FOLs into FOBs but that is a whole 'nuther discussion involving staffing, recruiting, etc.

No doubt I am missing a whole lot.


----------



## kev994 (18 Dec 2020)

You forward deploy it before you need it.

Edit: thus the ‘tactical’ part of the tactical tanker. Different ball of wax from a strategic tanker that is getting replaced.


----------



## kev994 (18 Dec 2020)

If you want to fly your hornet from Bagotville to Europe you want a strategic tanker. If you want to hang out in the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range and not go very far and have multiple launches you want a tactical tanker. Each can sorta do the other’s job but with a fair bit of compromise.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Dec 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> Absolutely not. The tankers are not even remotely close to the number of hours we’ve put on other E/H models.
> 
> Edit: removed numbers, opsec and stuff.



We seem to want our a/c to fall into pieces as they touch down on their final flights, rather than replace and divest them once we have received reasonable use.  We have in the past bought clapped out, time expired a/c from other nations for parts to keep our a/c (with more hours on them!) in the air.


----------



## kev994 (18 Dec 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> If you want to fly your hornet from Bagotville to Europe you want a strategic tanker. If you want to hang out in the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range and not go very far and have multiple launches you want a tactical tanker. Each can sorta do the other’s job but with a fair bit of compromise.


I’ll quote myself to better explain. 
The tanker burns fuel too. And if you have a bigger tanker it’s burning it faster. The fuel truck can only push it so fast, so after landing the bigger tanker takes longer to send back up, and if you leave either up too long it burns all the fuel and has none left to give away.


----------



## GR66 (18 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I think our biggest challenge right now, in implementing SSE, is the lack of staff-power in the procurement shops to push all those files.  We have a finite number of people that can generate a finite amount of work.  All the files are important but require a significant amount of staff-power.  Because it is going forward and that it is approved in the budget doesn't mean it won't stall at some point in the process (not because we don't want/don't have the money to buy the equipment but because we lack the people to push the ball forward). I believe CGAI (Jeffrey Collins) and Doug Dempster wrote about this.



Curious...how much of this staff work is required due to the complexity of the contracts and how much is self imposed?  Asking seriously.  This is a purchase that is basically looking at two aircraft options.  I know that the purchase covers much, much more than just the aircraft themselves, but this is not the only aircraft purchase we have made/are making.  Do we not have standard contract requirements in terms of in service support, spares, training, economic offsets, etc. that could more or less be applied to various aircraft type purchases?  Are the technical requirements for AAR for Canada so significantly different than for our Allies that the "book" has to be completely re-written for our purchase?  Are the Canadian-specific equipment requirements for an AAR aircraft significantly different than for a fighter or FWSAR aircraft?  

On the other hand, how much of the staffing effort is actually to protect the CAF from potential lawsuits from losing bidders rather than related to our technical requirements?


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Dec 2020)

I think those constrains are placed upon us by the TBS; they are not internal to DND.


----------



## GR66 (18 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I think those constrains are placed upon us by the TBS; they are not internal to DND.



Then maybe the CF should just hand the technical requirements off to Public Services and Procurement Canada and let THEM provide the staffing to deal with the externally imposed contract requirements.  

It may not get us our equipment any faster, but I would take some perverse satisfaction in seeing our MND, when asked by the opposition why the purchase of vital equipment "X" is taking so long, he/she could stand up in the House and say "The Canadian Forces provided PSPC our technical requirements for this item ten years ago and provided them our technical feedback on the field testing of the prototypes provided by the bidders they generated in 2013, so I will defer to my Honourable colleague, the Minister responsible to comment on the delivery of this item."


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Dec 2020)

Is the governments cunning plan to not buy the F35 falling apart here? 
"We cant buy a new tanker because we don't know what the new fighter aircraft requires" + 'We cant buy a new fighter because we don't know what will refuel them" + "The wheels have fallen off the PM's Polaris" + "OMG we need a new PM airplane with wifi and a bidet" + "Air Force Acquisitions: where can we stick the probe/drogue on that?" + "Fighter Pilots: We have some ideas about where it should go."


----------



## kev994 (18 Dec 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Is the governments cunning plan to not buy the F35 falling apart here?
> "We cant buy a new tanker because we don't know what the new fighter aircraft requires" + 'We cant buy a new fighter because we don't know what will refuel them" + "The wheels have fallen off the PM's Polaris" + "OMG we need a new PM airplane with wifi and a bidet" + "Air Force Acquisitions: where can we stick the probe/drogue on that?" + "Fighter Pilots: We have some ideas about where it should go."


Both of those tankers do both boom or probe and drogue.


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Dec 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> Both of those tankers do both boom or probe and drogue.


Diversity and Inclusion- check.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Dec 2020)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Then maybe the CF should just hand the technical requirements off to Public Services and Procurement Canada and let THEM provide the staffing to deal with the externally imposed contract requirements.
> 
> It may not get us our equipment any faster, but I would take some perverse satisfaction in seeing our MND, when asked by the opposition why the purchase of vital equipment "X" is taking so long, he/she could stand up in the House and say "The Canadian Forces provided PSPC our technical requirements for this item ten years ago and provided them our technical feedback on the field testing of the prototypes provided by the bidders they generated in 2013, so I will defer to my Honourable colleague, the Minister responsible to comment on the delivery of this item."



Understanding the technical requirements isn't trivial.  There are integration requirements- are the hangers the right size?  Are the power sources correct?  How are we managing training?  How are we managing sparing - part of a multinational fleet (as with C17 / C130J) or on a stand-alone basis?  Are we outsourcing the periodic overhauls to industry (Hello, Air Canada) or doing it in-house?  How many locations are we operating the a/c from?

And that's just a 30 second set of questions.  Far, far more that goes into planning such activities, and requires dedicated staff to work alongside PSPC.

DND's side of acquisition fails just as often as PSPC - and sometimes those fails are because PSPC gives DND what DND asked for, not what DND needed.


----------



## lenaitch (18 Dec 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> You forward deploy it before you need it.
> 
> Edit: thus the ‘tactical’ part of the tactical tanker. Different ball of wax from a strategic tanker that is getting replaced.


And I suppose it the "before you need it" part that has me confused.  In a 9/11-type scenario, a commercial flight in the European Great Circle polar track goes dark and silent, maybe goes below long range radar, and last tracked heading for Toronto (ok, perhaps bad example).  A couple of fighters smoke out, start looking around with their own radar but at some point the gas gauge light comes on.  Now what?  Land somewhere and send two more out to start all over again?

Or maybe I'm all wet.

It seems better to have a fire extinguisher handy on the wall rather than run to Canadian Tire when the smoke detector goes off.


----------



## CBH99 (18 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> We seem to want our a/c to fall into pieces as they touch down on their final flights, rather than replace and divest them once we have received reasonable use.  We have in the past bought clapped out, time expired a/c from other nations for parts to keep our a/c (with more hours on them!) in the air.




So by the past, are you referring to just a few months ago with the Aussie hornets?


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Dec 2020)

lenaitch said:
			
		

> And I suppose it the "before you need it" part that has me confused.  In a 9/11-type scenario, a commercial flight in the European Great Circle polar track goes dark and silent, maybe goes below long range radar, and last tracked heading for Toronto (ok, perhaps bad example).  A couple of fighters smoke out, start looking around with their own radar but at some point the gas gauge light comes on.  Now what?  Land somewhere and send two more out to start all over again?
> 
> Or maybe I'm all wet.
> 
> It seems better to have a fire extinguisher handy on the wall rather than run to Canadian Tire when the smoke detector goes off.



Through the NORAD agreement, we have other means of getting airborne gas than our own organic assets.


----------



## kev994 (18 Dec 2020)

lenaitch said:
			
		

> And I suppose it the "before you need it" part that has me confused.  In a 9/11-type scenario, a commercial flight in the European Great Circle polar track goes dark and silent, maybe goes below long range radar, and last tracked heading for Toronto (ok, perhaps bad example).  A couple of fighters smoke out, start looking around with their own radar but at some point the gas gauge light comes on.  Now what?  Land somewhere and send two more out to start all over again?
> 
> Or maybe I'm all wet.
> 
> It seems better to have a fire extinguisher handy on the wall rather than run to Canadian Tire when the smoke detector goes off.


I think you don’t need a tanker for this (outside my expertise) you wait for it to get closer, I believe Bagotville is able to defend Toronto. But assuming for you want to go up North, you’re using the wrong tanker.  You’re describing a long distance for a short duration. You want a strategic tanker, ie an Airbus. 
The point of a tactical tanker is that you park it close to the op area (because it need less runway, and there are a lot more short runways than there are long runways). When it runs out of fuel it can stop for more and come back much more quickly because it’s stationed close to the op area and you can fill it faster. So sustained ops in a known location.

Edit to clarify that I’m stretching my knowledge


----------



## lenaitch (19 Dec 2020)

I get that we're in a partnership, but what activity ever goes on in our partner's sovereign space that we cover?  I sometimes think we say we are contributors to the big boy's party but only bring the napkins.  Given the attitude of successive governments going back decades, I worry that one day we'll just decide it's more expedient to hand them the keys to airfields.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Dec 2020)

lenaitch said:
			
		

> I get that we're in a partnership, but what activity ever goes on in our partner's sovereign space that we cover?  I sometimes think we say we are contributors to the big boy's party but only bring the napkins.  Given the attitude of successive governments going back decades, I worry that one day we'll just decide it's more expedient to hand them the keys to airfields.



There are provisions for the US to provide tankers for Hornet employment up North (in the Canadian Arctic, not on the US side)

The tactical tankers (our Herc) are very useful once we are in-situ (for the reasons kev highlighted) but getting the strat tanker to get us there initially and allow us to provide that initial response is not an issue with any NORAD missions.


----------



## Cronicbny (19 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> There are provisions for the US to provide tankers for Hornet employment up North (in the Canadian Arctic, not on the US side)
> 
> The tactical tankers (our Herc) are very useful once we are in-situ (for the reasons kev highlighted) but getting the strat tanker to get us there initially and allow us to provide that initial response is not an issue with any NORAD missions.



Agree. Wouldn't it be nice, though, to supply our own tankers for FOB operations instead of relying on tankers (and crews!) from KSKA and KPIT? Tankers are already High Demand/Low Avail and at some point TRANSCOM might need to reallocate for the fight away from home.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Dec 2020)

Even the USAF needs help these days, to wit Omega Tankers...


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Dec 2020)

IN ARDUA NITOR said:
			
		

> Agree. Wouldn't it be nice, though, to supply our own tankers for FOB operations instead of relying on tankers (and crews!) from KSKA and KPIT? Tankers are already High Demand/Low Avail and at some point TRANSCOM might need to reallocate for the fight away from home.



Perhaps that's a niche we could fill? Let's create a large tanker fleet and farm it out to our allies, might even make some money off it.


----------



## kev994 (19 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Perhaps that's a niche we could fill? Let's create a large tanker fleet and farm it out to our allies, might even make some money off it.


There’s probably money to be made for a private company if they were to buy some slightly used KC130s that might be coming on the market in a few years.

The government can’t even break even selling marijuana, I can’t imagine they’d do any better with jet fuel.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Perhaps that's a niche we could fill? Let's create a large tanker fleet and farm it out to our allies, might even make some money off it.


Europe's already doing that with NATO/EU. US, UK, AUS have their own assets. Who do we farm it out to, Africa? China?

We're the last kids at the table again on this, because big brothet USA covers us.


----------



## suffolkowner (20 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Same thing for the Navy's ships, or the Future Fighter Replacement.  Which one do you prioritize? We have solutions for the foreseeable future for refueling: the U.S. and contracted air-to-air refueling.  Not so much for ships and fighters.



The above doesn't help with a more economical transport option than the C-17 though or maybe more importantly the VVIP replacement 

Its a problem when all your equipment is aging out at the same time due to 30 yrs of holding off on replacements. The F-18 replacement and CSC project are obviously important and ongoing but not moving forward on other files would be a mistake as well. It remains to be seen what the end numbers will be 88?,77?, 65? and 15?, 12?, ??

replacing the CC150 with the 330MRTT will certainly be an increase in capability and probably necessitate new infrastructure which could slow it down



			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> assuming the CC-150 does get replaced do anyone see a problem with the size of the Airbus offering?
> 
> length ft   wingspan ft  height ft  fuel kg
> CC150   155           144              52          36000
> ...


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Dec 2020)

The Super Hornet can be configured  to refuel and other Super Hornet and the USN does this all the time. If the Super Hornet is a winning bid, is that capability of any interest to RCAF? Has RCAF CF 188 ever tinkered this idea?
Reading of course the range and on station time gained from these refuels is probably quite limited, but necessary for aircraft carrier ops. I believe the Brits experimented with a Buccaneer refueling Phantoms in the 1970s.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Dec 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> I believe Bagotville is able to defend Toronto.
> 
> Edit to clarify that I’m stretching my knowledge



Is defending Toronto really that important to the rest of Canada?


----------



## dapaterson (20 Dec 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Is defending Toronto really that important to the rest of Canada?



Any air threat to Toronto is either (a) American or (b) has passed through a considerable amount of Canada's airspace already...


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Any air threat to Toronto is either (a) American or (b) has passed through a considerable amount of Canada's airspace already...



Pentagon and WTC probably thought they were pretty safe too.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Pentagon and WTC probably thought they were pretty safe too.



US origin aircraft.  And COVID-19 has in a single day killed more Americans on multiple occasions.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> US origin aircraft.  And COVID-19 has in a single day killed more Americans on multiple occasions.



Good, so we don't need strategic tanker aircraft or the ability to project fighters across our entire country because COVID historically more dangerous than Domestic Terrorism? By that logic we don't need a Navy because the Halifax Explosion killed more people than any foreign enemy attacking our shores.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Dec 2020)

How many a/c were shot down on 9/11?  Zero.  OBL and his Saudi crew were well within the OODA loop, so it was irrelevant.

Similarly, a hijacked WJ 737 crashing into downtown Toronto out of Pearson would not be intercepted regardless of where Canada pre-positions fighter a/c.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> How many a/c were shot down on 9/11?  Zero.  OBL and his Saudi crew were well within the OODA loop, so it was irrelevant.
> 
> Similarly, a hijacked WJ 737 crashing into downtown Toronto out of Pearson would not be intercepted regardless of where Canada pre-positions fighter a/c.



Because NORAD failed in 2001, we should just give up ??? ?


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Dec 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Is the governments cunning plan to not buy the F35 falling apart here?
> "We cant buy a new tanker because we don't know what the new fighter aircraft requires" + 'We cant buy a new fighter because we don't know what will refuel them" + "The wheels have fallen off the PM's Polaris" + "OMG we need a new PM airplane with wifi and a bidet" + "Air Force Acquisitions: where can we stick the probe/drogue on that?" + "Fighter Pilots: We have some ideas about where it should go."



And I know where the boom or drogue should go to - but what do I know - I eat red crayons for a living.


----------



## MilEME09 (22 Dec 2020)

https://www.cbc.ca/1.5850140

Oh boy we guessed right folks! Almost like they are reading this forum. Government is looking at purchasing aircraft off civilian airline industry as part of a bail out package.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Dec 2020)

Considering the CC-150s were purchased used, doesn't surprise me.

Excited to see what one-off random airframe they'll purchase to try to convert into a strategic tanker... because you know it won't be a A330-200 or 767-200.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Dec 2020)

Any major acquisition will examine multiple options including status quo (as a baseline).  I would guess they will look at options including Status Quo; Buy new; Buy used; Lease new and Lease used.  Within each of those options, they'd look at options for maintenance and overhaul, crewing, lifecycle sustainment, support infrastructure, training costs... 

All of those considerations, (plus cost and economic benefits) are weighted and recommendations based on those are put forward.


----------



## MilEME09 (22 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Considering the CC-150s were purchased used, doesn't surprise me.
> 
> Excited to see what one-off random airframe they'll purchase to try to convert into a strategic tanker... because you know it won't be a A330-200 or 767-200.



Airlines would likely want to get rid of older frames not newer. We would have to force them to give up say a A330 for example. That said it might be possible if its industry wide and say only ask for 1 or two aircraft from multiple airlines.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://www.cbc.ca/1.5850140
> 
> Oh boy we guessed right folks! Almost like they are reading this forum. Government is looking at purchasing aircraft off civilian airline industry as part of a bail out package.



Big Red and Air Transat both have 330s the GoC could buy.  I think Big Red also either leased of procured some Qatar Air 330s.  Lots of 330 MRTT fleets growing around the world, far more than KC-46. 

‘_On verra!_’ :nod:


----------



## dapaterson (22 Dec 2020)

My back of the envelope solution is A330 MRTTs based out of Toronto, with a heavy Res F pilot cadre, who'd fly 9 months full-time for Air Canada on the A330 (where they'd do part-time military to keep all those non-flying quals current), and 3 months full time flying for the RCAF.  There would have to be some sort of negotiation between the RCAF, Air Canada and the pilots union, but I don't think it would be impossible.


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My back of the envelope solution is A330 MRTTs based out of Toronto, with a heavy Res F pilot cadre, who'd fly 9 months full-time for Air Canada on the A330 (where they'd do part-time military to keep all those non-flying quals current), and 3 months full time flying for the RCAF.  There would have to be some sort of negotiation between the RCAF, Air Canada and the pilots union, but I don't think it would be impossible.



What incentive would those pilots have to give up 3 months of Air Canada salary for a (lower) Class B salary?


----------



## dimsum (22 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://www.cbc.ca/1.5850140
> 
> Oh boy we guessed right folks! Almost like they are reading this forum. Government is looking at purchasing aircraft off civilian airline industry as part of a bail out package.



As much as I'd like to pat our collective backs for this, it's pretty much the same situation that got us the CC-150 in the first place (ex-Wardair planes).  Hopefully we get some A330s that can be retrofitted with the MRTT package.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> What incentive would those pilots have to give up 3 months of Air Canada salary for a (lower) Class B salary?



Doesn't; have to be black and white...schedule the RCAF support interleaved with their AC schedule.  The guys bid productivity vice layover with Big Red; that clears them more calendar days to augment RCAF CC-330 ops.


----------



## Dana381 (22 Dec 2020)

I would love to see us get a fleet of relatively new A330's to convert but more likely GOC will be talked into taking Rouge 767's to be converted into KC-767's. That sounds more like our government as aren't those 767's totally worn out by now. The airlines won't want to give up any planes with usable life left if they can convince GOC to buy clapped out planes at 3x market price.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Dec 2020)

Pilots are not negotiating from a position of strength right now: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/air-canada-layoffs-1.5572596#:~:text=Air%20Canada%20plans%20to%20cut,Friday's%20memo%20to%20staff%20said.


----------



## kev994 (22 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Pilots are not negotiating from a position of strength right now: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/air-canada-layoffs-1.5572596#:~:text=Air%20Canada%20plans%20to%20cut,Friday's%20memo%20to%20staff%20said.


That’s very specifically not pilots. Flight attendants (and I think AMEs) are cross trained on different fleets. Pilots are not. It’s much more difficult to layoff (and inevitably rehire) the pilots as it needs to be done by seniority, but some of those with low seniority are actually flying. Bit of a mess.


----------



## KJK (22 Dec 2020)

According to Wiki Air Canada doesn't have any A330-200 planes which the A330 MRTT is based on however Air Transat which is supposed to be acquired by Air Canada does have -200 aircraft. Maybe this is the Federal Gov't's way of ensuring the merger goes through by taking some of the aircraft that AC doesn't want? I can't imagine the government buying any of Air Canada's old 767s. Some of them are nearly as old as the CC-150. Actually I can believe they would buy the old 767s but I hope not.


----------



## kev994 (22 Dec 2020)

We’re looking at this all wrong. The military’s requirements are the least of the concerns for this deal. What we really need is a way to throw bombardier some money, even though they’re trying to get out of the airplane business. My money is on CRJ200.


----------



## MilEME09 (22 Dec 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> We’re looking at this all wrong. The military’s requirements are the least of the concerns for this deal. What we really need is a way to throw bombardier some money, even though they’re trying to get out of the airplane business. My money is on CRJ200.



That plan would never meet any SOR if a RCAF officer is allowed within 5ft of the document.


----------



## Quirky (22 Dec 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> We’re looking at this all wrong. The military’s requirements are the least of the concerns for this deal. What we really need is a way to throw bombardier some money, even though they’re trying to get out of the airplane business. My money is on CRJ200.



The CRJ200 can't fit VIPs, senior staff and pallets of alcohol in a cross-Atlantic sexual harassment drunken moral flight to eastern europe. The A330 is a much better platform in this regard. If it were up to me, I'd get in on a bunch of 737Max's and reserve it strictly for senior cabinet members.


----------



## CBH99 (22 Dec 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> As much as I'd like to pat our collective backs for this, it's pretty much the same situation that got us the CC-150 in the first place (ex-Wardair planes).  Hopefully we get some A330s that can be retrofitted with the MRTT package.




Maybe Australia is purchasing some new 330s to support their Super Hornets & Lightnings?

In which case we could purchase their old aircraft.  Adapt them to Canadian standards.  And use them to support our current fleet, while we kick the can down the road another 5 to 10 years?


Sounds so dumb & cheap that we could only picture a handful of 3rd world countries acquiring 30yo aircraft being retired from a 1st world country...


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Dec 2020)

How many aircraft would the feds need to buy in order to help the airlines. Surely it’s not 5 or 6.  This years winter vacation season is dead in the water, so Air Transat and Air Canada are going to eat that. 
I suspect the airlines are looking to get rid of many dozens of aircraft and the feds simply can’t do that much for them. They are screwed and not much is going to change in the next few years.


----------



## MilEME09 (22 Dec 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> How many aircraft would the feds need to buy in order to help the airlines. Surely it’s not 5 or 6.  This years winter vacation season is dead in the water, so Air Transat and Air Canada are going to eat that.
> I suspect the airlines are looking to get rid of many dozens of aircraft and the feds simply can’t do that much for them. They are screwed and not much is going to change in the next few years.



Agreed, the ball is in our court to set terms for a bail out, we could easily get 10+ aircraft of we wanted, that way we have spares.


----------



## FJAG (22 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Agreed, the ball is in our court to set terms for a bail out, we could easily get 10+ aircraft of we wanted, that way we have spares.



Or as a reserve force for when we need to deploy a flyover brigade to Poland. That's a lot of chalks.

 ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Or as a reserve force for when we need to deploy a flyover brigade to Poland. That's a lot of chalks.
> 
> ;D



Not with the amount of troops who would be able to DAG Green. Regular or Reserve.


----------



## GR66 (22 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Not with the amount of troops who would be able to DAG Green. Regular or Reserve.



Don't worry...they'd have plenty of time to get everything in order while they wait for their vehicles and gear to (eventually) arrive by ship once we find some commercial carrier to follow them to Europe.


----------



## MilEME09 (22 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Or as a reserve force for when we need to deploy a flyover brigade to Poland. That's a lot of chalks.
> 
> ;D



Thats another consideration, having the aircraft to get a battle groups personal over as quickly as possible.


----------



## FJAG (22 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Thats another consideration, having the aircraft to get a battle groups personal over as quickly as possible.



Sure. They could be piloted by air reservists on a monthly basis just to keep the seals and gaskets wet and to keep down the wear and tear until they're really needed. You could use Air Canada pilots as reservists to keep down the training costs. 

 ;D


----------



## kev994 (22 Dec 2020)

The military already can’t get Air Canada pilots to take reserve jobs. Or at least they couldn’t before March. Overtime at big red apparently pays much better.


----------



## MAJONES (22 Dec 2020)

Overtime at Big Red doesn’t require you to write an open book IRT, closed book IRT, open book CAT exam, closed book CAT exam, renew section 32/34, do GBA+ training, Green Procurement Training, Contracting Direct with Trade training, LOAC renewal and spend be able to do pepperpots/throw sand bags.


----------



## YZT580 (24 Dec 2020)

Don't need A/C reservists.  There are dozens of pilots operating twins and turbo-props with little to no chance of ever grabbing an airline posting who would sell their hot rods for the chance of flying a jet on a regular basis.  Carl Millard used to actually charge young pilots for right seat time in his DC3's.


----------



## kev994 (26 Dec 2020)

The RCAF is not going to let anyone without RCAF training fly their $300 million tanker. There is a lot more to the mission than driving a bus in 3D, even if you’re only doing the cargo portion. Another hole in your theory is that qualifying them on that big of an aircraft will concurrently qualify them for an airline job. I don’t see any problems being solved.


----------



## MilEME09 (26 Dec 2020)

kev994 said:


> The RCAF is not going to let anyone without RCAF training fly their $300 million tanker. There is a lot more to the mission than driving a bus in 3D, even if you’re only doing the cargo portion. Another hole in your theory is that qualifying them on that big of an aircraft will concurrently qualify them for an airline job. I don’t see any problems being solved.


The military as a whole has an issue with recognizing civilian qualifications that have military applications. As an example, let's just say for arguments sake we buy a 737-200, whats stopping us from recruiting an air canada or west jet pilot who was flying that aircraft last week with no issues?


----------



## kev994 (26 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:


> The military as a whole has an issue with recognizing civilian qualifications that have military applications. As an example, let's just say for arguments sake we buy a 737-200, whats stopping us from recruiting an air canada or west jet pilot who was flying that aircraft last week with no issues?


For starters DND has their own rules, someone will need to teach that conversion, and there are a lot of them. Different mission, if you break your WestJet plane there are maintainers there so you just get it fixed, not an option in Resolute Bay, or whatever other place DND sends you. So for example when my buddy did his Air Canada type course the sim instructor was astounded that he could fly an ILS without using the flight director, I’ve had to do this into CYRB operationally because it broke on the mission, not a lot of other options in the area. 
Different training, WestJet teaches you to go to a few major airports; I walked in for a routine trainer a couple weeks ago to find out the CDS had emailed my CO to ask if I could go to Shamattawa that day, 4000 ft runway is short but OK for a C130 if it’s dry but the one time someone was able to get a hold of the airport manager, who isn’t speaking his first language, the runway was compacted snow mixed with gravel, the friction index of that is highly variable and there’s a substantial slope to the runway. A lot of risk assessment being done that isn’t taught at west jet. Oh and it’s snowing but we don’t know what the ceiling or visibility is because it’s not reported, there’s no deicing, and sunset is at 1530. Came to work for a trainer.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Dec 2020)

1.  The RCAF will not acquire any 737 variants for the tanker / transport fleet because no one is operating 737s as tankers.  In service tankers are built around either A330s or 767s.  (If the Auroras are replaced by manned a/c then the P8, a 737 variant, may end up with Canadian roundels).

2. As noted, there is RCAF specific training required even when the base platform is the same.  I suspect having common platforms might be a tool to retain some pilots in the RCAF reserve - transfer out of the Reg F after 25 years, draw a 50% pension, fly for AC, and gain additional hours (and money) flying in the RCAF reserve.

3. The RCAF has mismanged pilot training for decades. resulting in the current shortages of trained pilots and backlogs of pilots in training.  There is an institutional need to look at pilot training and employment, top to bottom, to remove dissatisfiers where possible, and make flying a viable career - and not something you do between staff jobs so you can become CDS (the vision of a non-zero number of commanders of the RCAF over the past decade).


----------



## Fabius (26 Dec 2020)

If we want to provide federal assistance to the Cdn airlines on a regular ongoing basis AND increase the CAF airlift capacities to facilitate large scale deployments or to augment routine deployments to free up actual RCAF aircraft for more difficult environments I would recommend we take a long hard look at the US Civil Reserve Air Fleet concept.

Basically the US Government guarantees peacetime airlift business to  US airlines to maintain and commit aircraft to the  reserve fleet. The airlines that join are mandated to maintain 4 crews per aircraft and are to have aircraft available on 24,48 and 72hrs NTM. Currently the US has access to over 500 aircraft via this program and has activated it to facilitate Operation DESERT STORM and IRAQI FREEDOM. 
The UKs contract for their Point Class Sealift ships is also a similar type idea.

I am sure we could come up with some thing similar to actually provide capability and provide the airline industry support, however I doubt we will.


----------



## CBH99 (26 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:


> 3. The RCAF has mismanged pilot training for decades. resulting in the current shortages of trained pilots and backlogs of pilots in training.  There is an institutional need to look at pilot training and employment, top to bottom, to remove dissatisfiers where possible, and make flying a viable career - and not something you do between staff jobs so you can become CDS (the vision of a non-zero number of commanders of the RCAF over the past decade).


I've heard this from a few different folks in the know.

I'm curious as to how the RCAF has mismanaged pilot training?  Is there not a pretty streamlined 'pipe' or 'system' where pilots start & finish their training in much the same way as classes before them?  

I thought NATO Flying Training In Canada was supposed to be a great program.  But that's just from the official releases about it, years ago.  Did it not pan out?  😕


----------



## dapaterson (26 Dec 2020)

There is a significant mismatch between demand and production capacity that the RCAF has not addressed.  They hold a large backlog on the BTL - and given that the CAF has a limited ceiling for personnel, every person in excess on the BTL means that TEE positions will be unfilled.


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Jan 2021)

WestJet sells 4 Boeing 767-300s to Amazon
					

Amazon has announced the purchase of 11 Boeing 767-300 aircraft including four secured from Calgary-based WestJet.



					calgary.ctvnews.ca
				




Well if west jet can sell 767-300 to Amazon, why not us?


----------



## YZT580 (5 Jan 2021)

I guess that is the end of WestJet's foray into international air travel.  Another victim


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Jan 2021)

YZT580 said:


> I guess that is the end of WestJet's foray into international air travel.  Another victim


Westjet owns Boeing 787s.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Jan 2021)

As I recall, WJ bought used 767s as an interim platform until they got their 787s.   Checking Wikipedia, they were 25 year old cast-offs from Qantas.






						WestJet - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## YZT580 (5 Jan 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Westjet owns Boeing 787s.


Knew I should have done some research before I opened my mouth whoops!


----------



## MilEME09 (22 Jan 2021)

Now I don't wanna give a good idea fairy anything but I hear a bunch of 737-MAXs are sitting parked, I know governments love gently used equipment _sarcasm_


----------



## Quirky (22 Jan 2021)

Can you retrofit 737 Maxs into P8s?


----------



## GR66 (22 Jan 2021)

Quirky said:


> Can you retrofit 737 Maxs into P8s?


Why would you want to re-invent the wheel?  I'm no expert, but I have absolutely no doubt that any savings you'd get by buying a cheaper, used aircraft would be more than offset by the cost of integrating all of the elements into a different airframe.


----------



## Quirky (22 Jan 2021)

GR66 said:


> Why would you want to re-invent the wheel?  I'm no expert, but I have absolutely no doubt that any savings you'd get by buying a cheaper, used aircraft would be more than offset by the cost of integrating all of the elements into a different airframe.


Canada bought used F-18s from Australia that need major upgrades, it’s just what we do. Plus the larger engines on the 737Max just looks bad-ass. Since optics are the #1 priority with anything we do, it’d be a great fit.


----------



## Messerschmitt (23 Jan 2021)

Quirky said:


> Can you retrofit 737 Maxs into P8s?


No 737 for j00. Aurora until 2042 or until the wings fall off


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jan 2021)




----------



## dimsum (23 Jan 2021)

Messerschmitt said:


> j00


What is j00?


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Jan 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Now I don't wanna give a good idea fairy anything but I hear a bunch of 737-MAXs are sitting parked, I know governments love gently used equipment _sarcasm_



Those will all likely be in full use by this time next year.


----------



## CBH99 (25 Jan 2021)

I feel like acquiring the 737-MAX - all other issues aside (and there are a few issues with using the 737 platform as a replacment) - it would be a PR nightmare.  Right up there with the 'used subs' and 'used F-18s' (Goodness gracious the Liberals have a pattern...) - buying the 737-MAX to replace the Polaris fleet would just be a PR nightmare waiting to happen.


----------



## 3green (30 Jan 2021)

The 737 is a 1960s era narrowbody that has about a quarter of the payload of a widebody heavy Airbus 310. They're not even in the same category. The "jurasic jet" would have almost no functionality as a strat lift or refueler, nevermind the inexcuseably bad engineering and build quality of the Max.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jan 2021)

Canada will dig up some Convair 880's. Spend billions to retrofit them to flyable standards and keep them in the air for 30 years along with our Heritage Flight of F-18 and Tudors,  much to the joy of historical aircraft enthusiasts.


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Jan 2021)

Actually the 880 was a race car...it’d have to slow down to tank Hornets... 🤔


----------



## Quirky (31 Jan 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Canada will dig up some Convair 880's. Spend billions to retrofit them to flyable standards and keep them in the air for 30 years along with our Heritage Flight of F-18 and Tudors,  much to the joy of historical aircraft enthusiasts.



I feel like that's the sole purpose of our demo and airshow teams.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (31 Jan 2021)

I just hope we don't try to reinvent the wheel in trying to "Canadianize" our solution.

Looking at the absurd cost inflation of the new Protecteur-class should be enough to make anyone weep.

I understand that the Navy wants the best of everything to protect their sailors. However, if they had simply bought foreign off the shelf solutions there would have been enough money saved to have funded other critical capabilities (I'm sure everyone has their own preferred list), which I would argue would have been for the greater good of the armed forces as a whole.


----------



## YZT580 (31 Jan 2021)

One of the reasons why the vaccination process is off the rails and we are lumped together with all the 3rd world nations with our hands out hoping to have received sufficient quantities by mid-2022 is our lack of production facilities here in Canada.  We had insufficient quantities of masks, gowns, disposable needles and ventilators because we have no production facilities here in Canada.  We got hosed on price as a direct result and lots of people got sick.  When Israel bought gunboats from the French they had to go and steal them because politics had changed and their dollars were no longer welcome in Paris.  It may cost us more but I like the idea of not being beholden to anyone when it comes to procuring our navy, thank you very much.  If the national ship building programme had been underway when the last of the 280's came down the ways the Protecteur class would have cost us a whole lot less and the coast guard wouldn't have had to re-equip their fleet with self-bailers to keep the water out.


----------



## 3green (31 Jan 2021)

It's a nice sentiment. It's also why we've had inferior equipment that was bought at multiples of a fair price. Procurement's real utility isn't to actually equip anyone with anything or defend anything. It's to purchase votes in key ridings with 'regional industrial benefits', pork barrell politics 101. In that manner, procurement - while a genuine failure at every single level for decades - is tremendously successful. It's a political tool and has very little to do with defence. I'd rather have decent equipment in ample quantities, at a price that is fair for the country, from a reliable supplier, allowing good capability, than a 'made in Canada' solution at an inflated cost that reduce our actual capabilities - but get someone re-elected, or for ideological reasons. 

In any event, there is no Canadian capability to renew the CC150 fleet - or really any fleet other than the Challengers - for which middle of the night sole sourced purchases with fully loaded option sheets seem to somehow be ok... The CC144 is a decent airframe for it's purpose (although a Global would have been better), just ironic who the user is and how easy it is to renew that jet.

It's hard to think of an airframe added to the RCAF in the last 40 years in Canada that wasn't a purely political action:
-Griffon, wrong airframe forced on RCAF due to Bell Helicopter needing $ help,
-EH101, cancelled with massive $ penalties for purely political reasons, 
-Cyclone, arguable a criminally bad design, over a decade overdue, way over budget "buy anything but an EH101, that would look bad"
-Aurora is a museuem piece, spending insane money to extend life - profitable work for NS firm
-Airbus was originally a Wardair airliner, forced on RCAF after AC & Canadian airline merger
-Challengers were bought because Cretien was minister of industry & helped got the project going, Canadair needed $ help
-Kingfisher C295 is hopelessly inadequate, like buying a stationwagon to replace a F350, bought for 'regional industrial benefits'
-NFTC and Kelowna Flightcraft training contracts, and the airframes they purchased were awarded based on very political considerations

3 purchases stand out as successes in varying degrees: Chinook, Globemaster, J-Herc. All sole sourced, no political manipulation, no 10 years of studying it, no procurement process, not worried about buying them for regional industrial benefits, merely bought for capabilies, kept mostly per the manufacturer's design (not overly Canadianized). Arguably the Challenger could be considered a successful purchase as well - it is a fairly capable machine for it's intended use - also sole sourced.


----------



## dimsum (31 Jan 2021)

3green said:


> 3 purchases stand out as successes in varying degrees: Chinook, Globemaster, J-Herc.


And all happening (maybe not the J-Herc?) when people were coming back in body bags from Afghanistan.


----------



## 3green (31 Jan 2021)

dimsum said:


> And all happening (maybe not the J-Herc?) when people were coming back in body bags from Afghanistan.


Yep, hence my preference for 'capability' rather than politics.


----------



## CBH99 (1 Feb 2021)

dimsum said:


> And all happening (maybe not the J-Herc?) when people were coming back in body bags from Afghanistan.


That was very much done during that time period.  Contract was signed on January 16, 2008


----------



## Messerschmitt (15 Feb 2021)

Japan doesn't even have a military and they got this


----------



## CBH99 (16 Feb 2021)

Japan very much has a military.  A very robust and capable one, at that.

As per their Constitution, it is limited to self defence roles.  The constitution was heavily influenced by WW2, as it was written shortly after I believe.

So while the Japanese gear their military for defensive operations, make no mistake - they absolutely have a military.  And one that is slowly having its leash loosened up a bit as China does its thing.


(Upgraded F-15s, F-35s, extremely capable naval ships & submarines, Aegis equipped ships, etc etc)


----------



## CBH99 (16 Feb 2021)

Quirky said:


> Canada bought used F-18s from Australia that need major upgrades, it’s just what we do. Plus the larger engines on the 737Max just looks bad-ass. Since optics are the #1 priority with anything we do, it’d be a great fit.


The sad part is, we don’t even shoot for good optics anymore. 

Spending over $1 Billion to buy those Aussie Hornets, to supplement our own aging fleet... when they are just as old, and less upgrades that ours?? 

They don’t even try to spin good optics anymore.  They just delay any sort of useful decision making, avoid leadership, then make the cheapest or dumbest decision presented to them. 


All that money spent to acquire used airframes, less upgrades than ours.... only to have the upgrades and testing finish right around the same time we sign a contract for the replacement.  🤦🏼‍♂️

If nothing else, at least we’ll have some spare parts to keep the fleet going...

(Wouldn’t that money have been better spent towards the fighter replacement portfolio?  Since that money didn’t come out of the fighter portfolio, couldn’t it have been used for the tanker replacement?  Or set aside, invested at decent interest rate, then used towards sub replacement or just topping up any projects that need it?   We could have used that money in a million better ways... 🤦🏼‍♂️🤦🏼‍♂️😢)


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Feb 2021)

It's not a bad investment if the Liberal Brain Trust has a plan to dishonestly delay the spending on the replacement aircraft for as long as humanly possible....

Even moreso than the CSC, I can see this program getting shelved.  The only reason it likely wasn't delayed previously was because Justin was fearful of reprisals by Trump.  So bought time and fiddled whilebtrying to kick the can down the road to a Democratic Administration.  Now that Biden is in office, I would bet he's sounding out a fighter program delay in exchange for a greater "climate change" action plan.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Feb 2021)

Replacing the CC-150 fleet makes a more compelling business case than just about any RCAF investment - cost avoidance for strat lift; fuel savings; reduced greenhouse emissions from more modern and fuel efficient engines; contracted support supporting jobs in Canada; acquisition supporting aerospace industry in Canada; any infra buildout to support the fleet that's needed... If anything, I could see this purchase being accelerated.


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Feb 2021)

Cdn Blackshirt said:


> It's not a bad investment if the Liberal Brain Trust has a plan to dishonestly delay the spending on the replacement aircraft for as long as humanly possible....
> 
> Even moreso than the CSC, I can see this program getting shelved.  The only reason it likely wasn't delayed previously was because Justin was fearful of reprisals by Trump.  So bought time and fiddled whilebtrying to kick the can down the road to a Democratic Administration.  Now that Biden is in office, I would bet he's sounding out a fighter program delay in exchange for a greater "climate change" action plan.


Given early hints the new administration will stay the course on China, we still may have a pacific shift of our forces as well. It depends how much pressure they put on us. But given our emphasis on being a medium force, if we want to be a player in NATO, We need force projection, without supply ships, escorts,  aerial refuelers,  and troop transports we can't go far.


----------



## CBH99 (16 Feb 2021)

Cdn Blackshirt said:


> It's not a bad investment if the Liberal Brain Trust has a plan to dishonestly delay the spending on the replacement aircraft for as long as humanly possible....
> 
> Even moreso than the CSC, I can see this program getting shelved.  The only reason it likely wasn't delayed previously was because Justin was fearful of reprisals by Trump.  So bought time and fiddled whilebtrying to kick the can down the road to a Democratic Administration.  Now that Biden is in office, I would bet he's sounding out a fighter program delay in exchange for a greater "climate change" action plan.


Have we not yet hit the timeframe of 'delayed as long as humanly possible' yet?


----------



## Ping Monkey (22 Mar 2021)

On topic...








						Replacing Canada's Air Tanking Fleet - Second Line of Defense
					

The defence and space divisions of Airbus and Boeing are expected to go head-to-head as the Royal Canadian Air Force moves ahead with plans to replace its ageing fleet of CC-150 Polaris aircraft which have been fulfilling multiple roles, including executive transport as well as air-to-air...




					sldinfo.com


----------



## MilEME09 (1 Apr 2021)

Tender and Award Details - Buyandsell.gc.ca
					

Details for the tender or award that you are searching for are no longer available on Buyandsell.gc.ca. Government of Canada tenders and awards, including search, have moved to CanadaBuys. If you are searching Contract History, you will find details about related tenders and awards on CanadaBuys...




					buyandsell.gc.ca
				




Interesting airbus is the only qualified supplier


----------



## kev994 (1 Apr 2021)

This is the only one we want, we don’t care how much it costs. Now how much do you want? Just take my money.


----------



## SupersonicMax (1 Apr 2021)

I hope we’re getting dual-system option.....


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Apr 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> I hope we’re getting dual-system option.....


👍🏼 Agree.  No matter which aircraft we get, we should have both capabilities, as a responsible NORAD and NATO player.


----------



## CBH99 (2 Apr 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Tender and Award Details - Buyandsell.gc.ca
> 
> 
> Details for the tender or award that you are searching for are no longer available on Buyandsell.gc.ca. Government of Canada tenders and awards, including search, have moved to CanadaBuys. If you are searching Contract History, you will find details about related tenders and awards on CanadaBuys...
> ...


With all of the problems the USAF is having with the KC-46, I can't imagine it would qualify as it stands right now.  Besides, this is the one we really want anyway - not just as a refueller, but as a troop transport also.

0.02


----------



## dapaterson (13 Apr 2021)

Here's a question: Why not follow the UK lead and contract out the service?









						Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				








						AirTanker Services - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## kev994 (13 Apr 2021)

There are ~4 companies and they have more work than they can handle. We’re not exactly the easiest outfit to contract with.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Here's a question: Why not follow the UK lead and contract out the service?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Answer: how has Asterix worked out so far? On budget? Trouble free contract?


----------



## dapaterson (13 Apr 2021)

Guessing that in the water and doing the job (Asterix) beats still plate metal ashore (JSS).

And plenty of purchase contracts have gone sideways (MHP, for example).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Guessing that in the water and doing the job (Asterix) beats still plate metal ashore (JSS).
> 
> And plenty of purchase contracts have gone sideways (MHP, for example).


My point is: I have had my fill of contractors that promise the moon, the stars and the sky, but deliver... a lot less than that.


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Here's a question: Why not follow the UK lead and contract out the service?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Omega and the like are great to work with for transits and exercices.  I’d be curious to see how it’d work out when the mission commander, during actual operations, orders them over a contested piece of airspace.

You lose a lot of operational flexibility when you contract assets that could potentially be used overseas.  Furthermore, AAR is a great way for Canada to contribute to a kinetic operation without actually dropping bombs.  And every operations involving a decent amount of air has been short of tankers.  Canada, being a contributor to warfare, needs those softer capabilities to tailor its contribution while still contributing something useful.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Apr 2021)

kev994 said:


> There are ~4 companies and they have more work than they can handle. We’re not exactly the easiest outfit to contract with.



I know... I gave up on the Feds a few years ago when the pre-qualification requirements, to run a few team building workshops for staff, seemed to be derived from the processes required to vet to _COSMIC TOP SECRET ATOMAL. _Although we followed all the rules and submitted on time, we didn't hear anything for months, and then found out by accident that we hadn't been qualified, even though we had previously been pre-qualified through the same instrument for several years.

No matter, my (very patient) client figured out how to sole source us.

But we won't be back.


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Jun 2021)

Related on the note of air to air refueling.









						MQ-25 Stingray Drone Aerial Refuels Navy Aircraft For First Time
					

An unmanned aerial refueler/tanker tanker drone successfully refueled a US Navy carrier-based fighter jet for the first time, according to the Navy.




					funker530.com
				




The US recently conducted tests using a MQ-25 drone in the tanker role. Is this something that could benefit us? A tanker drone with more loitering time?


----------



## kev994 (7 Jun 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Related on the note of air to air refueling.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


AAR is all about offload; it’s hard to say how useful it is without knowing what the offload is.


----------



## SupersonicMax (7 Jun 2021)

15,000 lbs (with a 500 nm radius) or not enough to be useful beyond being a gas platform for the boat.  Last time I conducted AAR, I myself took 13,000 lbs (and that was just to get to Yellowknife and back from Cold Lake).


----------



## kev994 (7 Jun 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> 15,000 lbs (with a 500 nm radius) or not enough to be useful beyond being a gas platform for the boat.  Last time I conducted AAR, I myself took 13,000 lbs (and that was just to get to Yellowknife and back from Cold Lake).


You’re going to need more tankers than fighters.


----------



## Loachman (7 Jun 2021)

kev994 said:


> You’re going to need more tankers than fighters.


So, with Max' example above, there's 2000 lbs of payload potential left over.

Put a bomb on board, and now there's a large loitering munition.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Jun 2021)

kev994 said:


> You’re going to need more tankers than fighters.


I think it does make a good option for a carrier air wing. They don’t have to waste a Hornet (or 3) set up in a buddy configuration. Especially if you miss a trap and need to grab a couple K of fuel for another try (or to go ashore).


----------



## Underway (7 Jun 2021)

So translation to Navy... it's not big enough for a land-based system but is likely good for a carrier-based one?


----------



## kev994 (7 Jun 2021)

Loachman said:


> So, with Max' example above, there's 2000 lbs of payload potential left over.
> 
> Put a bomb on board, and now there's a large loitering munition.


No. They fly in pairs and 7500 lbs each is nothing. Cold Lake to Yellowknife is not very far.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jun 2021)

To put things into perspective, Cold Lake to Yellowknife is 500 nm.  The MQ-25 would not be capable of supporting that hop for a 2-ship.

During Op MOBILE, our transit varied between 250 and 500 nm (one way).  For our missions, we generally required 2-3 AAR brackets each taking 6-9,000 lbs of gas each.  We operated as 2 or 4-ships.

During Op IMPACT, our transit were slightly longer but our missions were much longer (6-9 hours long) and required between 3 and 5 AAR brackets, each taking 6-9,000 lbs of gas.  We also operated as a 2-ship minimum.

The KC-135 can transfer 150,000 lbs of gas (with a range of 1,300 nm), the KC-10 can transfer all of its fuel (342,000 lbs) but obviously needs some to stay airborne itself and the A330 MRTT can also transfer all of its fuel (245,000 lbs) which gives it a 110,000 lbs offload on a 4-hour time on station1,000 nm from its base.

All in all, great for carrier gas.  Not so much for other purposes, especially that it is incompatible with a receptacle.


----------



## MilEME09 (8 Jun 2021)

Okay, makes sense, we need something with 200k+ pounds of fuel to do what we need it to do.


----------



## dimsum (8 Jun 2021)

Underway said:


> So translation to Navy... it's not big enough for a land-based system but is likely good for a carrier-based one?


Basically yes. 

It doesn't need to travel as far to tank (and therefore burn fuel that it would be offloading to others). 

Now, a remotely-operated (piloted and boom/drogue operator) KC-135 or A330 MRTT, on the other hand...


----------



## calculus (20 Sep 2021)

Wonder if this version of the A330 MRT would be offered to Canada? 








						Lockheed Is Bringing Back The Airbus A330 Tanker To Compete Against Boeing
					

The Air Force wants to buy dozens of new tankers to fill a gap between the last expected deliveries of KC-46As and a future advanced design.




					www.thedrive.com


----------



## dapaterson (20 Sep 2021)

Old news.



			Redirect Notice


----------



## calculus (20 Sep 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Old news.
> 
> 
> 
> Redirect Notice


My question in post 172 relates to the "enhanced" version being offered to the USAF. Would that be offered to Canada? Not old news.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (20 Sep 2021)

tanker aircraft question.

If you are taking on fuel from a RCAF Tanker,  at Cold Lake, is there a tanker based there or does it fly from some where else?  Having 2 Tankers in the fleet if what i read is correct. Trenton is a long way from Cold Lake, so how doe sit work?


----------



## dimsum (20 Sep 2021)

FormerHorseGuard said:


> tanker aircraft question.
> 
> If you are taking on fuel from a RCAF Tanker,  at Cold Lake, is there a tanker based there or does it fly from some where else?  Having 2 Tankers in the fleet if what i read is correct. Trenton is a long way from Cold Lake, so how doe sit work?


They don't go there direct from Trenton.  They forward deploy to...somewhere (not sure if Cold Lake or somewhere else).


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Sep 2021)

dimsum said:


> They don't go there direct from Trenton.  They forward deploy to...somewhere (not sure if Cold Lake or somewhere else).


They sometimes do that to support Bagotville.  For supporting transits to/from Cold Lake, they will often launch from Trenton and meet the fighters somewhere close to Winnipeg for the transit, until a point where they have enough gas to make it to destination.  The tanker then returns to Trenton.


----------



## CBH99 (21 Sep 2021)

calculus said:


> Wonder if this version of the A330 MRT would be offered to Canada?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It appears to be the A330 MRTT with some enhanced features, the most impressive (to me anyway) being that it can carry/deploy so much more fuel.  


Would it be offered to Canada when it comes time to launch a competition?  

It’s hard to say.  The reason being that some of those new enhanced features will come at a price, and some countries won’t see the need to pay for the ‘fancy’ version if those features aren’t expected to be used often.  

In the article, I found it humorous that Boeing could possibly suggest the USAF simply buy more KC-46s  🤦🏼‍♂️   I hope for their sake that they don’t… to say that would be tacky would be an understatement.


----------



## dimsum (21 Sep 2021)

CBH99 said:


> In the article, I found it humorous that Boeing could possibly suggest the USAF simply buy more KC-46s


I'm betting their argument is somewhere along the lines of "do you want to buy from a red-blooded American company, or some commie pinko Eurotrash?"

And some would fall for it.


----------



## CBH99 (21 Sep 2021)

dimsum said:


> I'm betting their argument is somewhere along the lines of "do you want to buy from a red-blooded American company, or some commie pinko Eurotrash?"
> 
> And some would fall for it.


Agreed.  I suspect you are 100% correct. 

I hope they remember that it is the American company that has caused this delay in the first place.  

Rewarding such a shoddy program with additional orders for an aircraft that is causing the gap in the first place would be a bad idea.  

But I’ve learned to never underestimate the power of lobbying.


----------



## dimsum (21 Sep 2021)

CBH99 said:


> But I’ve learned to never underestimate the power of lobbying.


Boeing is one of a small handful of US aircraft manufacturers, and an even smaller number of US civilian aircraft manufacturers. 

In the US, I'm pretty sure what Boeing wants, sooner or later Boeing gets.


----------



## CBH99 (21 Sep 2021)

dimsum said:


> Boeing is one of a small handful of US aircraft manufacturers, and an even smaller number of US civilian aircraft manufacturers.
> 
> In the US, I'm pretty sure what Boeing wants, sooner or later Boeing gets.


I suspect you are right again.  

Especially now with new management at the helm.  That alone is a big boost of confidence from shareholders and government alike.  Lobbying should be easier now than it was, say, 3 years ago.   (I’m not sure their prior management could have done much worse.)

Some of their programs have been solid, punctual, progressive programs of record that have consistently delivered reliable products that are upgraded/updated regularly enough.  On the military side - Apache, Super Hornet, C-17, Chinook, Poseidon, etc.

Yet others seem to be a dumpster fire, in which their solution seems to just be to add more gasoline 😬🤷🏼‍♂️   


“ I know, I know… I know we are way over budget and behind schedule on building tankers for the USAF.  You know what this partially designed aircraft, stuffed full of developmental technology really needs for us to succeed?  Another imaginary system, designed from scratch.  That’ll fix it.”


----------



## Ping Monkey (22 Feb 2022)

Airbus continuing to impress with the caliber of its AAR (A3R) capabilities.  Hopefully RCAF is monitoring this feature development closely.









						Airbus completes midair automatic refueling trials with Singapore’s F-16, preps for tests with F-15
					

The A3R system automatically flies the boom and maintains alignment between the boom tip and the receiver receptacle with an accuracy of a couple of centimeters.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Jun 2022)

Another used plane for RCAF:



> Final A310 MRTT retires from Luftwaffe service​*After 22 years of operations, the Luftwaffe (German Air Force, GAF) retired the last of four Airbus A310-304 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft from active service on June 15, leaving Canada as the sole remaining military operator of the widebody strategic tanker/transport.*
> 
> 
> The final aircraft – serial 10+25 ‘Hermann Köhl’ – was built in 1988 and was operated as part of the Luftwaffe’s Flugbereitschaft des Bundesministeriums der Verteidigung (FBS BMVg, Special Air Mission of the Federal Ministry of Defence) from Köln-Wahn Air Base, near Cologne in western Germany, from 1996 until it was retired on June 15.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99 (23 Jun 2022)

MarkOttawa said:


> Another used plane for RCAF:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


🤦🏼‍♂️

(We really do need a facepalm emoji in our ‘like options’)


----------



## dapaterson (23 Jun 2022)

CAF has already announced it is replacing the Polaris fleet with A330s.


----------



## Spencer100 (23 Jun 2022)

dapaterson said:


> CAF has already announced it is replacing the Polaris fleet with A330s.



Got to keep the A220 line in Quebec don't you know.


----------



## dimsum (23 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Got to keep the A220 line in Quebec don't you know.


Except that there were only 2 contenders (A330 MRTT and KC-46), and the KC-46 was deemed not qualified.

The A220 wasn't an option.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> Except that there were only 2 contenders (A330 MRTT and KC-46), and the KC-46 was deemed not qualified.
> 
> The A220 wasn't an option.


I think Spencer 100 meant as in buy an Airbus product (A330 MRTT) so that Airbus doesn’t wholesale move A220 component production and assembly to its Mobile, AL plant.


----------



## Spencer100 (23 Jun 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> I think Spencer 100 meant as in buy an Airbus product (A330 MRTT) so that Airbus doesn’t wholesale move A220 component production and assembly to its Mobile, AL plant.


Yes. Ok for one I would guarantee that AIrbus will use the A220 assembly as IRB.  I would. Even if if it was not a direct connection it is surely implied by all parties.  I know I would if I was in government.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Jun 2022)

IRBs are left to the vendor, and thus are very creative.  See: French Fry factory as IRB for naval ships.


----------



## dimsum (23 Jun 2022)

dapaterson said:


> IRBs are left to the vendor, and thus are very creative.  See: French Fry factory as IRB for naval ships.


Since IRBs (Industrial Regional Benefits) are now ITBs (Industrial Technological Benefits), shouldn't that little loophole be closed?


----------



## Spencer100 (23 Jun 2022)

The Boeing KC-46 was not complaint?  It's fueling F-35s now.  But I get the teething problems with the boom.  They are redesigning the whole thing.  But did we pick the A330 MRTT even before the F-35 announcement?  Is this still anti Boeing hangover?  Which refueling type are we going with? Flying boom?  Drogue? The F35A is flying boom.  But then I read that one country maybe paying for the F35C system to be put on the F35A.  

If the Boeing system is not ready right now and it  is requirement of the RFQ.  How did Irving, Lockheed, BAE win with the T26?  It was not ready at the time either.  Makes you think.


----------



## Spencer100 (23 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> Since IRBs (Industrial Regional Benefits) are now ITBs (Industrial Technological Benefits), shouldn't that little loophole be closed?


Yes sorry ITB.  I should have used that.  I do think the process does include a scoring for direct and indirect manufacturing in the selection process.  They added it for the F35 after the Boeing issue.  In the end it didn't really change the outcome.  Lol


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> The Boeing KC-46 was not complaint?  It's fueling F-35s now.  But I get the teething problems with the boom.  They are redesigning the whole thing.  But did we pick the A330 MRTT even before the F-35 announcement?  Is this still anti Boeing hangover?  Which refueling type are we going with? Flying boom?  Drogue? The F35A is flying boom.  But then I read that one country maybe paying for the F35C system to be put on the F35A.
> 
> If the Boeing system is not ready right now and it  is requirement of the RFQ.  How did Irving, Lockheed, BAE win with the T26?  It was not ready at the time either.  Makes you think.


There were some fairly strict range and payload requirements.  I believe Boeing actually pulled their bids.  My guess is that it was to put more effort into the Super Hornet and P-8 bids.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Jun 2022)

Both aircraft have boom plus wing pods for probe and drogue refueling. We didn't need to know what fighter we were getting before selecting A330 MRTT.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (24 Jun 2022)

German air force ends A310 operations with transfer to Canada
					

Germany's air force has ended three decades of operations with the Airbus A310, with its final example having performed a last flight on 21 June.




					www.flightglobal.com
				




aircraft transfered to RCAF


----------



## dapaterson (24 Jun 2022)

FormerHorseGuard said:


> German air force ends A310 operations with transfer to Canada
> 
> 
> Germany's air force has ended three decades of operations with the Airbus A310, with its final example having performed a last flight on 21 June.
> ...


As a parts source.


----------



## suffolkowner (14 Jul 2022)

Canada moves forward with the acquisition of aircraft for the Royal Canadian Air Force  - Canada.ca
					

Today, Defence Minister Anita Anand announced that Canada has finalized a contract to acquire the first two aircraft for the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) that will replace and renew the capability currently fulfilled by the CC-150 Polaris fleet and later become part of the Strategic Tanker...




					www.canada.ca
				




2 used aircraft to be modified later for refueling plus 4 new?!?!?


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jul 2022)

So replacing five aircraft that are nearly 30 years old with more, more capable aircraft?


----------



## suffolkowner (14 Jul 2022)

dapaterson said:


> So replacing five aircraft that are nearly 30 years old with more, more capable aircraft?


6 planes with way more fuel,cargo, personnel capacity with one of them set up for VIP by the looks of it.


----------



## Weinie (14 Jul 2022)

dapaterson said:


> So replacing five aircraft that are nearly 30 years old with more, more capable aircraft?


Show me the money, Jerry.


----------



## Underway (14 Jul 2022)

From the internal news feed:



> *The Strategic Tanker Transport Capability Project is making progress*
> 
> The Strategic Tanker Transport Capability (STTC) project has taken an initial step towards the replacement of the CC-150 Polaris fleet with the procurement of the first two of up to six aircraft.
> 
> ...



So question then.  A330-200 can carry what exactly?  Not C-17 type heavy equipment but lots of pallets of smaller things I assume?  And of course people.


----------



## Underway (14 Jul 2022)

Answering my own question, seems like a pretty large aircraft.  From Wikipedia and a nice picture os a potential layout for pax.

The A330 MRTT has a maximum fuel capacity of 111,000 kg (245,000 lb) without the use of additional fuel tanks, leaving space for 45,000 kg (99,000 lb) of additional cargo.

The A330 MRTT cabin can be modified to carry up to 380 passengers in a single-class configuration, allowing a complete range of configurations from maximised troop transport to complex customisation suitable for VIP and guest missions. Available configurations include 300 passengers in a single class and 266 passengers in two classes.  The A330 MRTT can also be configured to perform Medical Evacuation (Medevac) missions; up to 130 standard stretchers can be carried. The main deck cargo configuration allows carriage of standard commercial containers and pallets, military, ISO and NATO pallets (including seats) and containers, and military equipment and other large items which are loaded through a cargo door. Like the A330-200, the A330 MRTT includes two lower deck cargo compartments (forward and aft) and a bulk area capability. The cargo hold has been modified to be able to transport up to eight military pallets in addition to civilian unit load devices (ULDs).

An optional crew rest compartment (CRC) can be installed in the forward cabin, accommodating a spare crew to increase time available for a mission. The passenger cabin of the A330 MRTT can be provided with a set of removable airstairs to enable embarkation and disembarkation when jet bridges or ground support equipment are not available.[


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Jul 2022)

Airbus has converted civilian aircraft before, RAAF have 2 of them. Good deal to replace those garbage Polaris quickly, although I bet you 1 of them will be in heavy use as CANFORCE 1 so the CAF won't see it.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Jul 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Airbus has converted civilian aircraft before, RAAF have 2 of them. Good deal to replace those garbage Polaris quickly, although I bet you 1 of them will be in heavy use as CANFORCE 1 so the CAF won't see it.


CANFORCE 1? Please explain. Thank you.


----------



## kev994 (14 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> CANFORCE 1? Please explain. Thank you.


Prime Minister’s plane uses this call sign.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jul 2022)

VIP transportation is a RCAF task.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Jul 2022)

kev994 said:


> Prime Minister’s plane uses this call sign.


Thank you!!!


----------



## rmc_wannabe (14 Jul 2022)

kev994 said:


> Prime Minister’s plane uses this call sign.


I thought it was RCAF001, but interesting.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I thought it was RCAF001, but interesting.


I could think up a few other names for the current incumbent....


----------



## Dana381 (14 Jul 2022)

Does the Polaris use roll on/roll off seating like this 737 combi? If they do does that cut down the ammount of seats they can fit in the aircraft? Will the A330-200 use this type of seating when configured for the RCAF? 

I ask because I seem to remember seeing seats like this in a wharehouse on a Truth, Duty Valour episode.


----------



## GR66 (14 Jul 2022)

Underway said:


> Answering my own question, seems like a pretty large aircraft.  From Wikipedia and a nice picture os a potential layout for pax.
> 
> The A330 MRTT has a maximum fuel capacity of 111,000 kg (245,000 lb) without the use of additional fuel tanks, leaving space for 45,000 kg (99,000 lb) of additional cargo.
> 
> ...


Perfect.  Double the order to 12 and stand up a Reserve Squadron in Trenton.  Should be lots of commercial airline pilots current on the A330.  The extra strategic lift and AAR capability would be a huge boost to our side in any conflict worldwide.  And as a plus for the Liberals they don't even have guns on them!


----------



## YZT580 (14 Jul 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> 6 planes with way more fuel,cargo, personnel capacity with one of them set up for VIP by the looks of it.


So why a minimum 15 months for delivery of an already in service aircraft that, as I read the article will still have to be modified.  Should be able to take possession next week


----------



## kev994 (14 Jul 2022)

GR66 said:


> Perfect.  Double the order to 12 and stand up a Reserve Squadron in Trenton.  Should be lots of commercial airline pilots current on the A330.  The extra strategic lift and AAR capability would be a huge boost to our side in any conflict worldwide.  And as a plus for the Liberals they don't even have guns on them!


Those pilots would likely already be maxed out on hours for the month and if they’re not then OT at AC pays better.


----------



## don3wing (15 Jul 2022)

YZT580 said:


> So why a minimum 15 months for delivery of an already in service aircraft that, as I read the article will still have to be modified.  Should be able to take possession next week


The International AirFinance Corporation is an aircraft leasing company and I imagine there will be a waiting time before the current lease expires.


----------



## MilEME09 (15 Jul 2022)

GR66 said:


> Perfect.  Double the order to 12 and stand up a Reserve Squadron in Trenton.  Should be lots of commercial airline pilots current on the A330.  The extra strategic lift and AAR capability would be a huge boost to our side in any conflict worldwide.  And as a plus for the Liberals they don't even have guns on them!


Weekend EXs to fly troops over and cargo, bring back service air on the regular


----------



## GR66 (15 Jul 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Weekend EXs to fly troops over and cargo, bring back service air on the regular


Even just to have them available in reserve.  Keep them maintained and rotate the active 1/2 fleet to reduce overall flight hours on the airframes.  They are there (along with Reserve pilots with currency) in case of a conflict or natural disaster, etc.


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Jul 2022)

YZT580 said:


> So why a minimum 15 months for delivery of an already in service aircraft that, as I read the article will still have to be modified.  Should be able to take possession next week


They will be modified before we take delivery.


----------



## Rjgillies (15 Jul 2022)

GR66 said:


> Perfect.  Double the order to 12 and stand up a Reserve Squadron in Trenton.  Should be lots of commercial airline pilots current on the A330.  The extra strategic lift and AAR capability would be a huge boost to our side in any conflict worldwide.  And as a plus for the Liberals they don't even have guns on them!


Would a Reserve squadron or separate flights adjacent to major commercial bases such as Calgary or Vancouver make more sense? More flight crew and maintainers, closer to Cold Lake and Comox.


----------



## calculus (15 Jul 2022)

Looks like we're going the used (cheap) route, once again:






						Canada moves forward with the acquisition of aircraft for the Royal Canadian Air Force  - Canada.ca
					

Today, Defence Minister Anita Anand announced that Canada has finalized a contract to acquire the first two aircraft for the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) that will replace and renew the capability currently fulfilled by the CC-150 Polaris fleet and later become part of the Strategic Tanker...




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Underway (15 Jul 2022)

I have limited understanding of strategic airlift requirements but add these to the pool with the Hercs, C-17's seem to me to create options and more capacity.  Given the expeditionary nature (even within our own country) of the CAF having more aircraft that can just move "stuff" while liberating the C17's to move just "big stuff" is good.


----------



## DBNSG (15 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> They will be modified before we take delivery.


What would these modifications be? Communication gear? ,paint job?, VVIP suite design?


----------



## dapaterson (15 Jul 2022)

DBNSG said:


> What would these modifications be? Communication gear? ,paint job?, VVIP suite design?


Yes.  Plus, if they have been in storage / preservation, there's a lengthy list of things to check before they are deemed airworthy again.


----------



## YZT580 (15 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> They will be modified before we take delivery.


glad to hear that but that is not what the info release said: These two commercial aircraft will later be modified by Airbus Defence and Space to military specifications required to serve as multirole aircraft within the STTC fleet, and they will play an integral role in providing air-to-air refuelling, strategic airlift, aeromedical evacuations, and strategic Government of Canada personnel transport, including transport of the Prime Minister, Governor General, and others, for decades to come.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Jul 2022)

I wonder if it is the AAR gear that will be “added at a later date”?


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jul 2022)

YZT580 said:


> glad to hear that but that is not what the info release said: These two commercial aircraft will later be modified by Airbus Defence and Space to military specifications required to serve as multirole aircraft within the STTC fleet, and they will play an integral role in providing air-to-air refuelling, strategic airlift, aeromedical evacuations, and strategic Government of Canada personnel transport, including transport of the Prime Minister, Governor General, and others, for decades to come.


The press release also doesn’t state when DND will assign them operationally to 437 Squadron in Trenton, so…1) I’m going out on a limb and hypothesizing exactly where these aircraft will reside operationally, and 2)  I agree with @SupersonicMax that the RCAF won’t see the aircraft in use or even flown by RCAF until AFTER AD&S does the conversion.  The press releases are almost always deliberately vague in areas of precise phasing and timing - so the Govt doesn’t restrict itself from fine tuning things but not providing a vector for complaints of untruthfulness.


----------



## GR66 (15 Jul 2022)

kev994 said:


> Those pilots would likely already be maxed out on hours for the month and if they’re not then OT at AC pays better.


We always seem to want to find reasons why we CAN'T do things in the CAF (and in the Reserve world in particular).

Somehow the US Air National Guard manages to find enough Reservists to man 90 flying squadrons (in addition to several squadrons operating UAVs).  I'm suggesting we find enough Reserve pilots to man 6 additional aircraft during surge requirements on an airframe where there is likely a large pool of pilots available that already have currency on the type.  

If that extremely modest task is beyond our capabilities then I truly despair for the future of our military.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jul 2022)

Canada also doesn’t have any inclination to keep said pilots in a reserve pool to directly or indirectly assist, à la US Civil Air Reserve Fleet:









						Civil Reserve Air Fleet
					

A unique and significant part of the nation



					www.amc.af.mil


----------



## YZT580 (15 Jul 2022)

GR66 said:


> We always seem to want to find reasons why we CAN'T do things in the CAF (and in the Reserve world in particular).
> 
> Somehow the US Air National Guard manages to find enough Reservists to man 90 flying squadrons (in addition to several squadrons operating UAVs).  I'm suggesting we find enough Reserve pilots to man 6 additional aircraft during surge requirements on an airframe where there is likely a large pool of pilots available that already have currency on the type.
> 
> If that extremely modest task is beyond our capabilities then I truly despair for the future of our military.


Sad but true.  Considering that our reserve squadrons flew single otters (with floats and skiis) for years until they were upgraded by a switch to jet rangers we have never tried to stand up proper squadrons.


----------



## Spencer100 (15 Jul 2022)

calculus said:


> Looks like we're going the used (cheap) route, once again:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Anyone taking bets the VVIP suite is put in first?   And that is the reason we are getting the used one first to standup fast as they can.  (I have heard the current PM is not too happy with the current suite.)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jul 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Anyone taking bets the VVIP suite is put in first?   And that is the reason we are getting the used one first to standup fast as they can.  (I have heard the current PM is not too happy with the current suite.)


This is likley the driving factor for the purchase, the other airframes are just icing on the cake for him.


----------



## brihard (15 Jul 2022)

I understand AAR has two very different types of systems and that our current fleet is not necessarily compatible with refueling some of what our friends fly; will these aircraft be able to refuel allied tactical aircraft? Just asking from a “credible coalition partner” standpoint.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jul 2022)

Probably more important for him (JT) to see Harper’s CPC/Shamu paint job replaced with a more liberal interpretation of Canada’s BackTM.

CANFORCE 1, aka CPC Shamu:

(Credit: Jetphotos.com)


----------



## GR66 (15 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> I understand AAR has two very different types of systems and that our current fleet is not necessarily compatible with refueling some of what our friends fly; will these aircraft be able to refuel allied tactical aircraft? Just asking from a “credible coalition partner” standpoint.


The Airbus 330 MRTT is equipped with both a Boom system and underwing pods for a Probe & Drogue system so will be able to refuel Allied aircraft using either system.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Jul 2022)

I have spoken with LCMM staff who were ashamed of the poor quality "VIP" suite more than a decade ago.

Regardless of which party the PM is from, there is a need to provide the head of government, head of state, and other VVIPs with transportation, often including large accompanying groups.

The A310 is flying with a bunch of Iranian airlines.  It has poor amenities for non VIP passengers.

Canadian cheapness (Chretien and Harper, please rise) is why we have a falling down, empty PM's residence and a 30+ year old crappy alleged VIP transport.

There are costs to a nation associated with its leadership.


----------



## captloadie (15 Jul 2022)

There was nothing wrong with the previous VIP config, if viewed from the lens of what its purpose was. 001 was never meant to be a flying command centre ala Airforce One. It was meant to be a means for the VVIPs to have an area to rest separate from the other passengers on the flight. It was also designed before the need for instant and constant connection to the internet. It was a mode of transportation, not a flying office.

Now that the requirement has evolved, I would expect the trappings of the VVIP suite will as well. That said, hopefully the result will still be an aircraft that can be tasked for other duties when required.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Jul 2022)

Underway said:


> I have limited understanding of strategic airlift requirements but add these to the pool with the Hercs, C-17's seem to me to create options and more capacity.  Given the expeditionary nature (even within our own country) of the CAF having more aircraft that can just move "stuff" while liberating the C17's to move just "big stuff" is good.


After having been pax in many C17 flights with kit strapped beside me, in my mind the A330 MRTT opens up more options to move large amounts of equipment that isn't "oddly shaped". Thinking mail, food, water, clothing, even DG flights. C17s can get used for trucks, generators, helicopters, etc.


----------



## Underway (15 Jul 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> After having been pax in many C17 flights with kit strapped beside me, in my mind the A330 MRTT opens up more options to move large amounts of equipment that isn't "oddly shaped". Thinking mail, food, water, clothing, even DG flights. C17s can get used for trucks, generators, helicopters, etc.


I completely agree.  C17 lands with two LAVs inside of it.  The company that will use them with all their gear get off the A330 one plane over.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Jul 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> After having been pax in many C17 flights with kit strapped beside me, in my mind the A330 MRTT opens up more options to move large amounts of equipment that isn't "oddly shaped". Thinking mail, food, water, clothing, even DG flights. C17s can get used for trucks, generators, helicopters, etc.


I believe the technical term for you in such situations is "self loading cargo" .


----------



## DBNSG (15 Jul 2022)

Underway said:


> I completely agree.  C17 lands with two LAVs inside of it.  The company that will use them with all their gear get off the A330 one plane over.


That scenario would have the majority of the Company walking. Is it time for Canada to ask our American friends to sell us some Fiscal year 2010-2015 slightly used C-17's to supplement our Fleet? I will take three at least please. 

Would the Yanks be open to that suggestion?

Minister Anand I would think needs a Win. Transports with the big Canada on the side are easy for Liberal voters to understand


----------



## FJAG (15 Jul 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Anyone taking bets the VVIP suite is put in first?   And that is the reason we are getting the used one first to standup fast as they can.  (I have heard the current PM is not too happy with the current suite.)


F - him. Let him fly Air Canada.



> This is likely the driving factor for the purchase, the other airframes are just icing on the cake for him.


@Colin Parkinson - more like top cover to hide the purchase amongst a legitimate one.


----------



## FJAG (15 Jul 2022)

Underway said:


> I have limited understanding of strategic airlift requirements but add these to the pool with the Hercs, C-17's seem to me to create options and more capacity.  Given the expeditionary nature (even within our own country) of the CAF having more aircraft that can just move "stuff" while liberating the C17's to move just "big stuff" is good.


Personally, I think this is a great move for the Army.

Assuming all aircraft are serviceable and we have the requisite pilots, we would have the capacity to move the personnel of an entire brigade group in one lift.

5 x C-17 @ 134 = 670;
17 x C-130J @ 128 = 2,176; and
6 x A330-200 @ 380 = 2,280
Total      5,126

A forward deployed brigade group would probably have some of its people permanently stationed forward so the numbers needing flyover would also be less.

It's doubtful we would ever have all aircraft on line but at that capacity we could easily move the personnel of a brigade group in just two lifts.

Long story short, our ability to forward deploy forces and rapidly reinforce them and subsequently sustain them is being dramatically improved.

🍻


----------



## Underway (15 Jul 2022)

FJAG said:


> Let him fly Air Canada.


The current suite was garbage in 2010 when I took a flight on one of those aircraft back from Cyprus and got a tour from the stewards.  It was a 1990's cubicle conference room.  I was embarrassed to look at it. Part of being a mature country is spending the money to ensure that our leaders have appropriate facilities.  And cheeping out doesn't stop with the military.  The diplomatic corps is even more screwed than we are half the time.



DBNSG said:


> That scenario would have the majority of the Company walking


Until the next C-17 arrives, and the next one etc...  Point is you don't need to have a C-17 carry the troops in and also take a separate trip for the vehicles.  They would act as a light company until the rest of their gear arrives.  You could essentially double the speed of the deployment.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jul 2022)

Underway said:


> The current suite was garbage in 2010 when I took a flight on one of those aircraft back from Cyprus and got a tour from the stewards.  It was a 1990's cubicle conference room.  I was embarrassed to look at it. Part of being a mature country is spending the money to ensure that our leaders have appropriate facilities.  And cheeping out doesn't stop with the military.  The diplomatic corps is even more screwed than we are half the time.
> 
> 
> Until the next C-17 arrives, and the next one etc...  Point is you don't need to have a C-17 carry the troops in and also take a separate trip for the vehicles.  They would act as a light company until the rest of their gear arrives.  You could essentially double the speed of the deployment.


I understand your lack of faith - which I don't find disturbing so no Force Choke - to the fact that every time Canada buys a new (insert name of equipment) some journalists raises a hue and cry about wasteful government spending on "baubles" for the elite. 

When Adrienne Clarkson was the GG people were in a tizzy over her budget and thought the GG position should be eliminated,...


----------



## DBNSG (15 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> I understand your lack of faith - which I don't find disturbing so no Force Choke - to the fact that every time Canada buys a new (insert name of equipment) some journalists raises a hue and cry about wasteful government spending on "baubles" for the elite.
> 
> When Adrienne Clarkson was the GG people were in a tizzy over her budget and thought the GG position should be eliminated,...


Clarkson took entitlement to a new level as did her husband who insisted on being called his excellency. Despite his writing record. I remember the Tour Ms Clarkson took of the Arctic Countries . With about 150 of her closest friends that happened to all reside in Toronto.


----------



## FJAG (15 Jul 2022)

Underway said:


> The current suite was garbage in 2010 when I took a flight on one of those aircraft back from Cyprus and got a tour from the stewards. It was a 1990's cubicle conference room. I was embarrassed to look at it. Part of being a mature country is spending the money to ensure that our leaders have appropriate facilities. And cheeping out doesn't stop with the military. The diplomatic corps is even more screwed than we are half the time.


Yeah - but when you have a Chevy military, having a Cadillac VIP aircraft just leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

I feel the same way about NDHQ. We couldn't afford to buy the weapons or the people for most of the combat support systems in the Army but we can afford to fill cubicles in a billion dollar new headquarters in Ottawa.  I know we had people scattered in rented buildings all over Ottawa, but my take-away from that was we had too many people not too few consolidated buildings.

#pointyendfirst

🍻


----------



## dapaterson (15 Jul 2022)

The purchase of the Carling Campus had everything to do with the GoC wanting to indirectly bail out the Nortel pension fund by buying that asset.


----------



## suffolkowner (15 Jul 2022)

are we using C-17's to move people right now? If so new CC-330's should help with that. The CC-150's have been limping along for quite a while now and I heard first hand account of how bad the VIP bird was over 10 yrs ago and it was not good. Do we think one will be dedicated VIP and the rest being able to transition from fuel/cargo/people or all three. Or will all 6 be able to be the VIP as well


----------



## Underway (15 Jul 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> are we using C-17's to move people right now? If so new CC-330's should help with that. The CC-150's have been limping along for quite a while now and I heard first hand account of how bad the VIP bird was over 10 yrs ago and it was not good. Do we think one will be dedicated VIP and the rest being able to transition from fuel/cargo/people or all three. Or will all 6 be able to be the VIP as well


Yes, I personally have been moved in a C17.  There is a pallet seating arrangement that can be loaded. I think I read in one of the A330 articles that this same pallet works for that aircraft for a quick transition between formats.


----------



## MilEME09 (15 Jul 2022)

Rjgillies said:


> Would a Reserve squadron or separate flights adjacent to major commercial bases such as Calgary or Vancouver make more sense? More flight crew and maintainers, closer to Cold Lake and Comox.


Isn't that how it uses to be before we closed a lot of bases? Most other countries have mixed civilian and military airports, why not us?


----------



## Quirky (15 Jul 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Isn't that how it uses to be before we closed a lot of bases? Most other countries have mixed civilian and military airports, why not us?


I believe that was already discussed in this thread/forum somewhere. Comox is fine as it is, but relocating Cold Lake to Edmonton or Saskatoon would mean longer transit times to the CLAWR.


----------



## MilEME09 (15 Jul 2022)

Quirky said:


> I believe that was already discussed in this thread/forum somewhere. Comox is fine as it is, but relocating Cold Lake to Edmonton or Saskatoon would mean longer transit times to the CLAWR.


I meant for reserve elements, we used to have air auxiliary squadrons that were training, transport, and helicopter squadrons in major cities. Much of that was dine away with in the 80s and 90s


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Jul 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Isn't that how it uses to be before we closed a lot of bases? Most other countries have mixed civilian and military airports, why not us?


Because politicians listen to constituents when they complain about the military, but the airlines flip the government off when locals even think about complaining of commercial air travel. 

Winnipeg is the only major Canadian commercial airport with notable dual-use, and Victoria does at least have 443 Sqn.  Saint-Hubert also has 438e ETAH, but it’s primarily a GA and trg airport.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Jul 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Because politicians listen to constituents when they complain about the military, but the airlines flip the government off when locals even think about complaining of commercial air travel.
> 
> Winnipeg is the only major Canadian commercial airport with notable dual-use, and Victoria does at least have 443 Sqn.  Saint-Hubert also has 438e ETAH, but it’s primarily a GA and trg airport.


Don’t forget Yellowknife!


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Don’t forget Yellowknife!


I was thinking international but yeah, YZF is fairly dual-use.


----------



## Quirky (16 Jul 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> I meant for reserve elements, we used to have air auxiliary squadrons that were training, transport, and helicopter squadrons in major cities. Much of that was dine away with in the 80s and 90s


Some days I wonder why or how Canada still has a military.


----------



## Spencer100 (16 Jul 2022)

dapaterson said:


> The purchase of the Carling Campus had everything to do with the GoC wanting to indirectly bail out the Nortel pension fund by buying that asset.


And here I thought it was to give the CCP even more insight to Canada's secrets.


----------



## armrdsoul77 (8 Dec 2022)

Aligning the Air Force for 2035: An exclusive Q&A with LGen Eric Kenny - Skies Mag

"This means the fleet will be larger than the initially envisioned five to six A330-200s. I foresee somewhere around nine total aircraft, but that is not finalized. All those are envisioned to be MRTTs. "


----------

