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

luke_sandoz · by **luke_sandoz** » 05 Apr 2021, 16:58

She’s a big girl . . .

alloycowboy · by **alloycowboy** » 05 Apr 2021, 17:54

The KC-30 may be too big for Canada's Northern Airfields. With that being said Maximus Aviation dropped a video today on turning the A350 into a frieghter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNplCvP-mJc

alloycowboy · by **alloycowboy** » 05 Apr 2021, 23:16

Well this is an interesting development. According to Janes, "Airbus solely qualifies for Canada's tanker procurement."

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/airbus-solely-qualifies-for-canadas-tanker-procurement

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 06 Apr 2021, 00:02

alloycowboy wrote:Well this is an interesting development. According to Janes, "Airbus solely qualifies for Canada's tanker procurement."

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/airbus-solely-qualifies-for-canadas-tanker-procurement

No reason not to throw a meaningless competition anyway, Amiright??

go4long · by **go4long** » 06 Apr 2021, 01:19

XanderCrews wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:Well this is an interesting development. According to Janes, "Airbus solely qualifies for Canada's tanker procurement."

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/airbus-solely-qualifies-for-canadas-tanker-procurement

No reason not to throw a meaningless competition anyway, Amiright??

At least not more than one...

luke_sandoz · by **luke_sandoz** » 06 Apr 2021, 01:34

XanderCrews wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:Well this is an interesting development. According to Janes, "Airbus solely qualifies for Canada's tanker procurement."

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/airbus-solely-qualifies-for-canadas-tanker-procurement

No reason not to throw a meaningless competition anyway, Amiright??

So given there is no competition but it is Canada, this should only take a decade to select a winner?

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 06 Apr 2021, 03:07

luke_sandoz wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:Well this is an interesting development. According to Janes, "Airbus solely qualifies for Canada's tanker procurement."

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/airbus-solely-qualifies-for-canadas-tanker-procurement

No reason not to throw a meaningless competition anyway, Amiright??

So given there is no competition but it is Canada, this should only take a decade to select a winner?

After the "pause" or "reset" button and KPMG Canada runs the numbers out to 40 plus years plus cost of retirement. Can't get the Auditor General's undies twisted now...

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 06 Apr 2021, 14:41

alloycowboy wrote:The KC-30 may be too big for Canada's Northern Airfields.

I don't believe that would be an issue.
Yes, the A330/KC-30 is bigger than the Boeing 767/KC-46 and Boeing 707/KC-135 but I would say that an airport that is capable to handle the 767/KC-46 and 707/KC-135 will be able to handle the A330/KC-30 as well and without hitches. Afterall, the A330 MRTT/KC-30 is not a 'Super Jumbo' like the Airbus A380 (or even like a Boeing 747 or a C-5 Galaxy).

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 06 Apr 2021, 14:43

XanderCrews wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:Well this is an interesting development. According to Janes, "Airbus solely qualifies for Canada's tanker procurement."

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/airbus-solely-qualifies-for-canadas-tanker-procurement

No reason not to throw a meaningless competition anyway, Amiright??

Absolutely!

They should have done the same with the F-35. But wait, they did! But then f**ked this up. Let's hope that Canada doesn't do the same with this program.

luke_sandoz · by **luke_sandoz** » 06 Apr 2021, 15:00

alloycowboy wrote:The KC-30 may be too big for Canada's Northern Airfields. With that being said Maximus Aviation dropped a video today on turning the A350 into a frieghter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNplCvP-mJc

There are a bunch of 6000ft runways around the Cdn Arctic, be interesting to know what the MTOW would be for that length and what it would mean for range and time on station.

Probably still effective and a pair of them operating at the same base with the 2nd one topping off the mission plane immediately after departure could work.

And there is a program to lengthen a couple runways to 10,000 footers

Especially when working with a plane with extreme range/endurance like the F-35

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 06 Apr 2021, 22:00

I don't know how much has changed, but a lion share of AAR was being done by the USAF (who were at pains to fit baskets on their KCs, for a while there a lot of Canadian Tankers didn't have the comms or the nav gear etc to do Northern AAR. This was rectified eventually, but many Canadians who are obsessed with baskets vs booms miss this key point. It was actually harder as the USAF is the primary defender of the North America, but Canada used non USAF airplanes.

There was a great article a few years back, but it seems to have disappeared off the internet. Save everything, folks.

luke_sandoz · by **luke_sandoz** » 07 Apr 2021, 00:02

XanderCrews wrote:I don't know how much has changed, but a lion share of AAR was being done by the USAF (who were at pains to fit baskets on their KCs, for a while there a lot of Canadian Tankers didn't have the comms or the nav gear etc to do Northern AAR. This was rectified eventually, but many Canadians who are obsessed with baskets vs booms miss this key point. It was actually harder as the USAF is the primary defender of the North America, but Canada used non USAF airplanes.

There was a great article a few years back, but it seems to have disappeared off the internet. Save everything, folks.

Maybe this one ??

https://defence.frontline.online/articl ... d-the-F-35

luke_sandoz · by **luke_sandoz** » 07 Apr 2021, 00:19

XanderCrews wrote:I don't know how much has changed, but a lion share of AAR was being done by the USAF (who were at pains to fit baskets on their KCs, for a while there a lot of Canadian Tankers didn't have the comms or the nav gear etc to do Northern AAR. This was rectified eventually, but many Canadians who are obsessed with baskets vs booms miss this key point. It was actually harder as the USAF is the primary defender of the North America, but Canada used non USAF airplanes.

There was a great article a few years back, but it seems to have disappeared off the internet. Save everything, folks.

Or Mr. Shimooka’s take ?

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 07 Apr 2021, 01:31

luke_sandoz wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:I don't know how much has changed, but a lion share of AAR was being done by the USAF (who were at pains to fit baskets on their KCs, for a while there a lot of Canadian Tankers didn't have the comms or the nav gear etc to do Northern AAR. This was rectified eventually, but many Canadians who are obsessed with baskets vs booms miss this key point. It was actually harder as the USAF is the primary defender of the North America, but Canada used non USAF airplanes.

There was a great article a few years back, but it seems to have disappeared off the internet. Save everything, folks.

Or Mr. Shimooka’s take ?

That's it! Much obliged!

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 07 Apr 2021, 01:42

IF nothing else Pprune as some great humourous lines, re the KC-46A from BOING! being UPselected (not DOWNselected):

"Surprising. After all, Boeing includes free tools and miscellaneous loose hardware behind the interior panels."
https://www.pprune.org/military-aviatio ... st11023558

The FRANKENfurterTANKER cartoon came from another post at the LAUGH-IN forum somewhere yonks ago now. <sigh>