Canada Looking at the A330 MRTT procurement
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 19,179
Canada Looking at the A330 MRTT procurement
To meet both its Tanker and VIP roles, rather like the UK does.
https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a330-canadian-government-jet/?utm_source=Bibblio
..
https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a330-canadian-government-jet/?utm_source=Bibblio
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 6th Apr 2021 at 12:41.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Imagegear
Where's Beagle when you don't want a "Frankentanker"
IG
IG
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 3,184
Originally Posted by etudiant
Boeing's lawyers effectively killed Bombardier's commercial transport business, I don't think Canada will be an available market for Boeing again for some time.
If the A220 series does become a profit center for Airbus, all the thanks will be due the Canadian taxpayer...
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 70
Posts: 620
If the MRTT is an off-the-shelf solution to a fairly generic and previously solved need, why choose a more complicated and expensive design that continues to struggle to get off the shelf? The KC-46 promises to solve a variety of needs, one of which (the primary?) is tanker. Someday, years after it was promised, it may be a fully, no-holds-barred, operational tanker. If we get half the lifetime and utility out of the KC-46 that we did from the KC-135, it will be a miracle.
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 287
The fleet that's being replaced, the CC-150s, were originally Wardair A310-300s four of which were converted to combi-freighters. The CC-150Ts were upgraded from the later for two-point hose and drogue refuelling and a new mission suite.
Support for allies leads me to the question of refuelling systems. Although the A330 MRTT usually comes with a boom, I wonder if a perceived lack of a domestic requirement means:
1) The fancy new KC-46 boom isn't required.
2) The Bug replacement is expected to be probe equiped with implications for the F-35 as a participant in the selection competition
Mind you its probably non-fuel payload and passenger capacity requirements that were the real deciders. Especially if the fleet split is like for like.
The article linked to by the OP states that Ottawa 'will outline the specific capabilities needed. An RFP (request for proposal) is expected to be issued later this year.' An RFP when you are down to one supplier and one basic product...hmmm.
.
(GlobalNav posted while I was composing this but I think it still stands)
Originally Posted by MPN11
Plenty of commonality with NATO and friendly nations too, which is helpful.
1) The fancy new KC-46 boom isn't required.
2) The Bug replacement is expected to be probe equiped with implications for the F-35 as a participant in the selection competition
Mind you its probably non-fuel payload and passenger capacity requirements that were the real deciders. Especially if the fleet split is like for like.
The article linked to by the OP states that Ottawa 'will outline the specific capabilities needed. An RFP (request for proposal) is expected to be issued later this year.' An RFP when you are down to one supplier and one basic product...hmmm.
.
(GlobalNav posted while I was composing this but I think it still stands)
Last edited by SLXOwft; 10th Apr 2021 at 18:27. Reason: Post crossed with GlobalNav 2nd 2 pt hose not 2 pt house
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by tdracer
Nah, Boeing didn't help, but Bombardier did that to themselves (and remember the trade case was eventually thrown out). The C-Series business case was so severely flawed that it was never going to be a financial success for Bombardier.
If the A220 series does become a profit center for Airbus, all the thanks will be due the Canadian taxpayer...
If the A220 series does become a profit center for Airbus, all the thanks will be due the Canadian taxpayer...
That was a $2B gift to Bombardier from the Canadian taxpayer, so we have a pattern.
Boeing spat in the soup, so no soup for Boeing for a long time.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,493
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,845
N707ZS, that option would indeed have been possible. Basically the same sort of MRTT conversion for the A330 which Elbeflugzeugwerke did for the A310. However, Airbus would far sooner sell a brand-new full-fat A330MRTT than sanction an 'A330MRTT-lite' conversion with no boom, 2 pods and a simpler Fuel Operator's Station including a Mission Computer System which actually works!
If the RCAF elects for a CF-188 replacement which needs boom refuelling, the current A330MRTT is the better solution. But if they restrict themselves to probe-and-drogue AAR, then an A330MRTT-lite makes better sense.
With so much underfloor space for cargo, the A330 does not need additional fuselage tanks or a KC-46A style extended centre tank. For passenger carrying, the seat can be left in situ rather than passengers having to use 'palletised' seatling in the windowless KC-46A with its 'rendition-class' seating.
Currently, the assumption is that the CC-150T will remain in RCAF service until at least 2028.
If the RCAF elects for a CF-188 replacement which needs boom refuelling, the current A330MRTT is the better solution. But if they restrict themselves to probe-and-drogue AAR, then an A330MRTT-lite makes better sense.
With so much underfloor space for cargo, the A330 does not need additional fuselage tanks or a KC-46A style extended centre tank. For passenger carrying, the seat can be left in situ rather than passengers having to use 'palletised' seatling in the windowless KC-46A with its 'rendition-class' seating.
Currently, the assumption is that the CC-150T will remain in RCAF service until at least 2028.
Eidolon
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by N707ZS
It must be possible to buy second hand A330s from the current stored worldwide glut and have them converted to the MRTT role.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Up and away in the mountains of Canada
Posts: 52
Canada's defense procurement has a colorful, very questionable track record, lately. Be it useless British cast off subs, scandals about building naval vessels, new fighter jets, us Canadians seem to continually elect folks without a shred of common sense about equipping our forces. The more some say things will change, the more they keep repeating mistakes of yesteryear!
