Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 539
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 20:17

Attachments
1390DB43-809A-4E1F-A942-465798E3D7A3.jpeg
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25895
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 20:27

Last paragraphs of the 'must be true news' above enlightening also:
"..."It's not over until it's over, but it certainly looks like the KC-46 is not heading to the Northern territories," AirInsight analyst Michel Merluzeau said. He added that he didn't think the decision was political, but was made because the Airbus A330 MRTT is a more mature program than the KC-46, and has ironed out technical wrinkles.

Canada currently operates five older CC-150 Polaris aircraft in this role — two which are retrofitted to be air to air refuelers, like the KC-46 — and those are Airbus jets, Merluzeau said."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 439
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 21:01

Canada picked the more mature program because there was less risk. I'm sure they will not have a similar decision making process for the fighter competition hurr hurr hurr.
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 539
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 21:08

kimjongnumbaun wrote:Canada picked the more mature program because there was less risk. I'm sure they will not have a similar decision making process for the fighter competition hurr hurr hurr.


They haven’t even reached the actual proposal stage yet. This was an Invitation to Qualify for a program that won’t see a new plane at an RCAF base for at least 5 years, probably 7or 8 years.

To reject a plane at its stage is highly unusual as it eliminates competition and sharpening of pencils.

Unusual to say the least.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7082
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 22:04

luke_sandoz wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:Canada picked the more mature program because there was less risk. I'm sure they will not have a similar decision making process for the fighter competition hurr hurr hurr.


They haven’t even reached the actual proposal stage yet. This was an Invitation to Qualify for a program that won’t see a new plane at an RCAF base for at least 5 years, probably 7or 8 years.

To reject a plane at its stage is highly unusual as it eliminates competition and sharpening of pencils.

Unusual to say the least.


I figured Boeing was dead on arrival after the Interim Super Hornet Fiasco, and Bombadier fight

Kind of hilarious watching Boeing become persona non grata in Canada

going through all the trouble of setting up a fake fighter gap, all the trouble of going through an interim fighter act, and then all the trouble of a competition now, where Both LM (who was the previous villain of choice) and Boeing are the top two competitors, and third option that simply can't make the grade to do the actual task. The other two competitors simply gave up and left.


Its not too late to include The Tejas and maybe Sukhoi to snub them too is it?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3239
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 Apr 2021, 00:16

luke_sandoz wrote:Peeling back the onion . . .


https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... orces.html


The following part of the article that you highlighted with the 'reddish' circle which I re-post below:
The move to cut Boeing from the contract competition — even as the U.S. Air Force and other allies load up on KC-46 jets


and more precisely the part that I highlighted above (bold and underline) isn't quite accurate.
Let's see the KC-46 users:
- USA (USAF)
- Israel (8 aircraft)
- Japan (4 aircraft)

Now lets compare with the A330 MRTT:
- Australia (7 aircraft)
- Belgium (1 aircraft)
- France (12 aircraft)
- Germany (4 aircraft)
- Netherlands (2 aircraft)
- Norway (1 aircraft)
- Singapore (6 aircraft)
- South Korea (6 aircraft)
- United Kingdom (14 aircraft)
- And other countries which aren't so close allies to Canada but also operate the aircraft: Qatar (2 aircraft), Saudi Arabia (6 aircraft) and United Arab Emirates (3 aircraft).


So it in terms of exports the A330 MRTT seems to be quite more successful than the KC-46.

Resuming, it seems that the 'other allies' load up on A330 MRTT jets (and not on KC-46's).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3239
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 Apr 2021, 00:32

luke_sandoz wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:I guess no one mentions the BOING! CRAP TANKER because it is being delivered to the USAF as a CRAP TANKER not ready.



Take a deep breath, count to ten and maybe you’ll feel better


Actually spaz has a point here!

The A330 MRTT was actually the winner of USAF's next/future aerial refueling tanker when it was known as the KC-45 (where Airbus which at the time was called EADS teamed up with Northrop Grumman) but then Boeing contested the result and the contest was revised apparently to favor the Boeing bid (and because of this Northrop Grumman abandoned the KC-45 bid) and Boeing (unsurprisingly?) ended up winning with its KC-46. After losing the USAF bid the KC-45 became the A330 MRTT and as you can see in my last post it was exported to several other countries.
And as if the situation above wasn't enough and like spaz said, the KC-46 had indeed lots of development and cost overrun problems.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25895
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Apr 2021, 00:37

Attachments
FrankenTankerBOING.jpg
Last edited by spazsinbad on 03 Apr 2021, 01:12, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25895
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Apr 2021, 00:45

USAF explains why fixed-price contract caused problems for Boeing KC-46A tanker
27 Feb 2021 Garrett Reim

"...The service initially believed the tanker, which is based on the Boeing 767 airliner, would be relatively easy to develop and thus there would be low risk for delays. However, 10 years after the contract was first issued to Boeing...

...Boeing has yet to get the Remote Vision System to work as required and that caused a delay for full operational capability of the KC-46A. In part due to issues with the Remote Vision System, but also due to other manufacturing and design problems, Boeing has lost more than $5.1 billion on the tanker programme...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 53.article
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3239
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 Apr 2021, 00:48

XanderCrews wrote:I figured Boeing was dead on arrival after the Interim Super Hornet Fiasco, and Bombadier fight

Kind of hilarious watching Boeing become persona non grata in Canada


I actually agree with this being one of the potential reasons why the Boeing bid was rejected by Canada.

So with above posted by Xander together with:
- A330 MRTT being exported to more countries (some of them close Canadian allies).
- KC-46 having a 'shady win' in the USAF bid.
- KC-46 having development and cost overrun problems.
- Canada currently operates the CC-150 Polaris (which will be replaced by the next aerial refueling tanker) an aircraft which is in fact an Airbus A310 so perhaps converting from the current Airbus A310 to the Airbus A330 is perhaps a much more straightforward process compared to converting from an Airbus A310 to a KC-46 (Boeing 767) and therefore becoming a simpler and potentially cheaper process?
- The A330 MRTT potentially has or seems to have a 'better performance' such as having a better range and cargo capability than the KC-46.

I believe the reasons above are more than enough reasons why the A330 MRTT was selected in lieu of the KC-46.
Of course I agree that this happening so soon is a bit strange hence why I want highlight here what xander said above.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5088
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post03 Apr 2021, 13:33

ricnunes wrote:- KC-46 having a 'shady win' in the USAF bid.


I see both sides of this argument. My understanding is that the RFP went something like this.

USAF - "Hey guys, we need a tanker that can carry X gas Y distance at Z cost. No points for exceeding X or Y will be counted"

Boing - "Here is our X, Y, Z- proposal!"

Scarebus - "Here is our X+A, Y+B, Z proposal!"

USAF - "Scarebus wins because they have +A and +B"

Boing - "Uhhhh, you CLEARLY said no points for X+ and Y+, so that shouldn't count! We're suing!"

USAF - "Ugh, fine, Boing wins..."

Boing - "Yay!"
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2785
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post03 Apr 2021, 16:22

I like Spurts summary. In addition, the USAF said, "Hey, wouldn't it be neato if the boom operator didn't have to lie on his tummy in the way back... and instead could enjoy his latte in the front with the two yoke actuators? We want a remote vision / operation system too..." that had never been developed / tested / fielded etc etc etc. What's tacking on some additional requirements anyway? It's only taxpayer money...
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

pushoksti

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 230
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 04:50
  • Location: Canadar

Unread post03 Apr 2021, 17:00

What happened to buying barely used airframes from airliners and converting them to tankers by Airbus? Is that still on the table or will these just be new buys?
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 864
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post03 Apr 2021, 23:32

pushoksti wrote:What happened to buying barely used airframes from airliners and converting them to tankers by Airbus? Is that still on the table or will these just be new buys?


The problem is that the A330 makes for a poor freighter conversion.

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-vs-boeing-freighters/
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 539
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post04 Apr 2021, 14:28

And just like that. . . . an MRTT is born

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1GBoeHPJvA
Attachments
5653174F-8C83-42A3-A1DB-D6391C0444B2.png
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], optimist and 46 guests