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

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

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7268
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post01 Apr 2021, 22:00

luke_sandoz wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Have you seen the news about Boeing Tanker? It has not been good & promises to do better as time goes by nevertheless.



If bad news about an aircraft was the criteria for failing to qualify to even submit a proposal, this thread would have died off years ago.

Just saying it is very unusual to be informed you are not qualified at this stage of a bidding process.


This thread would have also died off had Canada stuck to the conclusion that Boeing need not apply since they simply can't do what the other option can

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 00:12

go4long wrote:Who knows if Boeing even submitted a bid.


According to the link/news from Defence Watch it seems that Boeing actually submitted a bid:
Industry sources said Canada also received a response to its request for proposals from Boeing.
...
Industry sources said Canada also received a response to its request from Boeing. Boeing had offered the KC-46, which is also based on a commercial aircraft design.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... p-aircraft

go4long wrote:As far as I know there's no planned VIP interior on the KC-46, and we're looking for a tanker that does both the VIP transport and tanker roles...same as we currently do with our CC-150. With that being the case, I can't think of any new production options other than the A330 MRTT


Yeah, I believe that you may be onto something here. According from what I've read the KC-46 sole role is aerial refueling tanker while with the A330 MRTT and like the its name says is a Multi Role Tanker Transport or more precisely it's a dual role aircraft (aerial refueling tanker and strategic transport aircraft).

From what I read the only aircraft from Boeing that could directly compete with and perform the same dual roles as the A330 MRTT would be the KC-767 which was cancelled by the USAF in favor of the KC-46. As such only a very few KC-767s are in service with the Italian Air Force (4 aircraft), Japanese Air Force (4 aircraft), Brazilian Air Force (3 aircraft) and Colombian Air Force (1 aircraft). As opposed there are much more A330 MRTT aircraft in service and are also operated by some of Canada's closest allies (for example Australia and UK).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 541
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 00:55

ricnunes wrote:
go4long wrote:Who knows if Boeing even submitted a bid.


According to the link/news from Defence Watch it seems that Boeing actually submitted a bid:
Industry sources said Canada also received a response to its request for proposals from Boeing.
...
Industry sources said Canada also received a response to its request from Boeing. Boeing had offered the KC-46, which is also based on a commercial aircraft design.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... p-aircraft

go4long wrote:As far as I know there's no planned VIP interior on the KC-46, and we're looking for a tanker that does both the VIP transport and tanker roles...same as we currently do with our CC-150. With that being the case, I can't think of any new production options other than the A330 MRTT


Yeah, I believe that you may be onto something here. According from what I've read the KC-46 sole role is aerial refueling tanker while with the A330 MRTT and like the its name says is a Multi Role Tanker Transport or more precisely it's a dual role aircraft (aerial refueling tanker and strategic transport aircraft).

From what I read the only aircraft from Boeing that could directly compete with and perform the same dual roles as the A330 MRTT would be the KC-767 which was cancelled by the USAF in favor of the KC-46. As such only a very few KC-767s are in service with the Italian Air Force (4 aircraft), Japanese Air Force (4 aircraft), Brazilian Air Force (3 aircraft) and Colombian Air Force (1 aircraft). As opposed there are much more A330 MRTT aircraft in service and are also operated by some of Canada's closest allies (for example Australia and UK).



Both are MRTT. Both can accept VIP interiors (customers spec their own). Both accept standard cargo pallets. Both are duel refuelling systems

Differences are size, range/endurance & price.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 01:06

luke_sandoz wrote:Both are MRTT. Both can accept VIP interiors (customers spec their own). Both accept standard cargo pallets. Both are duel refuelling systems

Differences are size, range/endurance & price.


After digging a bit more after reading your post, yes you seem to be correct and as such I stand corrected!

Indeed the diferences between both aircraft seem to be at payload, range/endurance and other factors level where some (or even many?) of them seem to favor the A330 MRTT.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 541
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 01:30

ricnunes wrote:
luke_sandoz wrote:Both are MRTT. Both can accept VIP interiors (customers spec their own). Both accept standard cargo pallets. Both are duel refuelling systems

Differences are size, range/endurance & price.


After digging a bit more after reading your post, yes you seem to be correct and as such I stand corrected!

Indeed the diferences between both aircraft seem to be at payload, range/endurance and other factors level where some (or even many?) of them seem to favor the A330 MRTT.



Very odd for any nation to make a decision at this very early point in a competition that eliminates the competition. Airbus will now not feel the need to sharpen their pencils or offer extra “goodies” when they know they are the only horse in the race.

For Canada, it doesn’t seem necessary to have the bigger plane with more endurance. Those characteristics are better suited for over-ocean operations (Hello Australia!), not what Canada does much. Arctic Ops allow tankers to land and refuel as required.

Neither has the range to do a single tanker staging from Cold Lake to Europe.

This procurement has something odd about it.

Tick tock.
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 541
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 01:34

ricnunes wrote:
luke_sandoz wrote:Both are MRTT. Both can accept VIP interiors (customers spec their own). Both accept standard cargo pallets. Both are duel refuelling systems

Differences are size, range/endurance & price.


After digging a bit more after reading your post, yes you seem to be correct and as such I stand corrected!

Indeed the diferences between both aircraft seem to be at payload, range/endurance and other factors level where some (or even many?) of them seem to favor the A330 MRTT.


The other really, really odd thing is Boeing meekly and mildly accepting this decision . . . Maybe someone told them to STFU and not make waves because Trudeau will “take care of you in the fighter replacement contract decision)

Being isn’t normally meek or mild✅✅✅
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26183
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 01:49

I guess no one mentions the BOING! CRAP TANKER because it is being delivered to the USAF as a CRAP TANKER not ready.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 541
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 01:59

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
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26183
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 02:58

I think the BOING! tanker needs that deep breath of being up to scratch - soonish. Are you not aware of all the problems?
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

doge

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 799
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 08:53

It's finally coming to an end, but... 8) 10 years...!!!! :doh: (Oh, my God.)
https://worldnewsera.com/news/education ... es-reopen/
Canada on track to pick new fighter jet next year despite COVID-19
This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 1, 2021.
OTTAWA —
Canada’s top military procurement official says he is optimistic the federal government will finally end its decade-long search for a new fighter jet for the Royal Canadian Air Force next year despite challenges and delays from the pandemic.
Three fighter-jet makers submitted their bids last summer to provide the military with 88 new aircraft to replace the Air Force’s aging CF-18s, and government evaluators are now busily assessing those proposals to determine which best fits Canada’s needs.
The government had hoped to finish that evaluation process later this year and sign a contract with one of the bidders in 2022, with the first jet slated for delivery starting in 2025 and the last arriving in 2032.
Despite some recent hiccups in the process thanks to COVID-19, Troy Crosby, the assistant deputy minister of materiel at the Department of National Defence, says officials remain on track to meet that schedule and finally select a winner next year.
“That is a project where COVID has created some challenges,” Crosby said in an exclusive interview with The Canadian Press.

“Despite all of that, I still see the evaluation being completed this year. And that would get us to a point where we could enter whatever the resulting agreements or contracts are next year in 2022.”
The aircraft competing to replace the CF-18 are Lockheed Martin’s F-35, the Boeing Super Hornet and the Saab Gripen.
The successful selection of a new fighter jet next year would mark the culmination of more than a decade of stop-start efforts marked by mismanagement and political controversy under two successive federal governments.
COVID-19 posed the latest threat to that process, with fighter-jet makers asking the government for more time to submit their bids last year as they scrambled to finish their proposals while keeping staff safe and secret information private.
The pandemic has also created problems for those evaluating the bids, Crosby said.
“Quite a bit of the information is classified,” he said. “So that requires bringing people into workplaces. And we have to do that very deliberately and carefully. But the team that’s doing the evaluation has made significant progress, impressive progress.”

That includes recently going back to bidders to offer them an opportunity to clarify some points in their proposals or provide missing information, Crosby said, in much the same way as other military procurement projects.
Officials are on the clock to finish their work sooner rather than later as the CF-18s approach the end of their lives.
The last of the aircraft was supposed to have been retired last year, but Ottawa has been investing to keep them flying for another decade thanks in large part to delays in the purchase of a replacement.
Work is currently underway to upgrade the avionics over the next few years on all 76 CF-18s as well as 18 F-18s that Canada has purchased used from Australia, Crosby said. Thirty-six will receive further upgrades to their combat systems.
The total cost of that effort is expected to run about $1.3 billion.
As for the Australian aircraft, Crosby said 15 of the 18 have been delivered. Three are now flying with the Air Force while the remainder are still going through upgrades and changes to make them compatible with Canada’s needs.
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 541
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 14:09

spazsinbad wrote:I think the BOING! tanker needs that deep breath of being up to scratch - soonish. Are you not aware of all the problems?


Ya, it is in the news so it must be true.

Like everything ever reported on the F-35


At least they haven’t had an entire refueling boom fall off the plane like the A330 did.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7268
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 14:20

I was on my way to Quantico in the late 2000's and spied at the airport the big Boeing ad about buying a foriegn tanker, Boeing pulled every string and appealed to the public.

I don't know the intimate differences between the 2 airplanes.


But I do know those that went with MRTT, actually have them over 10 years later. watching videos of Australia use them while juxtaposing that with the latests "Pegasus News" was always interesting.

One Canadian disaster at a time.


Doge, If they pick F-35 at the end of this year, they will have spent 10 years to arrive right back at where they were in 2011. Of course having added another 1.3 billion dollars for Hornets/Hornet upgrades, and of course another 23 airplanes and 5 billion to the CF-18 replacement contract.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26183
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 14:36

luke_sandoz wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:I think the BOING! tanker needs that deep breath of being up to scratch - soonish. Are you not aware of all the problems?

Ya, it is in the news so it must be true. Like everything ever reported on the F-35. At least they haven’t had an entire refueling boom fall off the plane like the A330 did.

I look forward to you NOT reporting the news about anything ever again. I'm reluctant to derail this thread with all the bad news about the BOING FrankenTanker over the last several years. I'll ask why NEWS about this crappy tanker is here.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 541
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 19:11

spazsinbad wrote:
luke_sandoz wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:I think the BOING! tanker needs that deep breath of being up to scratch - soonish. Are you not aware of all the problems?

Ya, it is in the news so it must be true. Like everything ever reported on the F-35. At least they haven’t had an entire refueling boom fall off the plane like the A330 did.

I look forward to you NOT reporting the news about anything ever again. I'm reluctant to derail this thread with all the bad news about the BOING FrankenTanker over the last several years. I'll ask why NEWS about this crappy tanker is here.


Have you switched from decaf again?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26183
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Apr 2021, 19:24

The most recent BOING! frankentanker thread starts 2017: viewtopic.php?f=36&t=53459
Less used thread: viewtopic.php?f=36&t=53686
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests