Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Canada Looking at the A330 MRTT procurement

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Canada Looking at the A330 MRTT procurement

Old 6th Apr 2021, 09:26
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 19,186
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


..

Last edited by NutLoose; 6th Apr 2021 at 12:41.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 11:23
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 76
Posts: 6,128
Plenty of commonality with NATO and friendly nations too, which is helpful.
MPN11 is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 15:50
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 2,765
Well they're not going to buy the B767.........
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 15:58
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 19,186
Industry sources noted that Canada had also received a response to its request from Boeing, which had offered the 767-based KC-46.

Just toying with them?
NutLoose is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 16:32
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: back out to Grasse
Posts: 320
Where's Beagle when you don't want a "Frankentanker"

IG
Imagegear is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 18:00
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 965
Originally Posted by Imagegear View Post
Where's Beagle when you don't want a "Frankentanker"

IG
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.
etudiant is online now  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 18:20
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 3,184
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
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.
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...
tdracer is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 19:24
  #8 (permalink)  
 
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.
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 19:49
  #9 (permalink)  
 
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.

Originally Posted by MPN11 View Post
Plenty of commonality with NATO and friendly nations too, which is helpful.
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)

Last edited by SLXOwft; 10th Apr 2021 at 18:27. Reason: Post crossed with GlobalNav 2nd 2 pt hose not 2 pt house
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 21:05
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Asia Pacific
Age: 50
Posts: 1,830
The federal government departments (including defence) in Canada are very francophile; Airbus could sell them anything.
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 21:45
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,448
Surprising. After all, Boeing includes free tools and miscellaneous loose hardware behind the interior panels.
Dorf is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 22:14
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 965
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
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...
That was always the case, remember Bombardier got started in corporate aviation with the Challenger, aka 'Fat Albert' for its designer, the late Billy Lear.
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.
etudiant is online now  
Old 7th Apr 2021, 02:23
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,493
If they wait another few years, we'll sell them our old ones. Cheap!
RAAF to Canada
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2021, 06:23
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 4DME
Posts: 2,148
It must be possible to buy second hand A330s from the current stored worldwide glut and have them converted to the MRTT role.
N707ZS is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2021, 08:08
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,846
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.
BEagle is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2021, 10:50
  #16 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 2,016
Originally Posted by N707ZS View Post
It must be possible to buy second hand A330s from the current stored worldwide glut and have them converted to the MRTT role.
A couple of the ex Qantas A330s were converted to tankers for the RAAF.
swh is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2021, 12:40
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,304
Originally Posted by BEagle
But if they restrict themselves to probe-and-drogue AAR, then an A330MRTT-lite makes better sense.
Or, as it's better known, Voyager! :-)
Davef68 is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2021, 14:30
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,846
It isn't. The Voyager has the over-complicated A330MRTT modifications minus a boom. Subtly different.
BEagle is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 05:59
  #19 (permalink)  
 
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!
Grizzz is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2021, 06:57
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 2,765
Trying to balance too many things - capability (want to be in second tier), cost (want to be cheap), local jobs ('nuff said), local jobs spread across a continent (even worse)
Asturias56 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.