• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Opportunity to update the CC-150 fleet?

kev994

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
54
Points
330

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
338
Points
880
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

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
54
Points
330
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

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
334
Points
980
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

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
727
Points
910
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

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
345
Points
880
So translation to Navy... it's not big enough for a land-based system but is likely good for a carrier-based one?
 

kev994

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
54
Points
330
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

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
338
Points
880
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
255
Points
910
Okay, makes sense, we need something with 200k+ pounds of fuel to do what we need it to do.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
541
Points
940
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... :sneaky:
 
Top