• 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?

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
716
Points
940
Related on the note of air to air refueling.


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

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
168
Points
610
Related on the note of air to air refueling.


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

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
605
Points
910
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

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
168
Points
610
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
451
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
1,867
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
811
Points
1,010
So translation to Navy... it's not big enough for a land-based system but is likely good for a carrier-based one?
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
168
Points
610
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
605
Points
910
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
716
Points
940
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
1,453
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:
 

FormerHorseGuard

Sr. Member
Reaction score
57
Points
280
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

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,453
Points
940
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

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
605
Points
910
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

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
696
Points
990
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

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,453
Points
940
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

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
696
Points
990
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.
 
Top