• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Opportunity to update the CC-150 fleet?

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,151
Points
1,090
GR66 said:
Then maybe the CF should just hand the technical requirements off to Public Services and Procurement Canada and let THEM provide the staffing to deal with the externally imposed contract requirements. 

It may not get us our equipment any faster, but I would take some perverse satisfaction in seeing our MND, when asked by the opposition why the purchase of vital equipment "X" is taking so long, he/she could stand up in the House and say "The Canadian Forces provided PSPC our technical requirements for this item ten years ago and provided them our technical feedback on the field testing of the prototypes provided by the bidders they generated in 2013, so I will defer to my Honourable colleague, the Minister responsible to comment on the delivery of this item."

Understanding the technical requirements isn't trivial.  There are integration requirements- are the hangers the right size?  Are the power sources correct?  How are we managing training?  How are we managing sparing - part of a multinational fleet (as with C17 / C130J) or on a stand-alone basis?  Are we outsourcing the periodic overhauls to industry (Hello, Air Canada) or doing it in-house?  How many locations are we operating the a/c from?

And that's just a 30 second set of questions.  Far, far more that goes into planning such activities, and requires dedicated staff to work alongside PSPC.

DND's side of acquisition fails just as often as PSPC - and sometimes those fails are because PSPC gives DND what DND asked for, not what DND needed.
 

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,179
Points
1,040
kev994 said:
You forward deploy it before you need it.

Edit: thus the ‘tactical’ part of the tactical tanker. Different ball of wax from a strategic tanker that is getting replaced.
And I suppose it the "before you need it" part that has me confused.  In a 9/11-type scenario, a commercial flight in the European Great Circle polar track goes dark and silent, maybe goes below long range radar, and last tracked heading for Toronto (ok, perhaps bad example).  A couple of fighters smoke out, start looking around with their own radar but at some point the gas gauge light comes on.  Now what?  Land somewhere and send two more out to start all over again?

Or maybe I'm all wet.

It seems better to have a fire extinguisher handy on the wall rather than run to Canadian Tire when the smoke detector goes off.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,213
Points
1,090
dapaterson said:
We seem to want our a/c to fall into pieces as they touch down on their final flights, rather than replace and divest them once we have received reasonable use.  We have in the past bought clapped out, time expired a/c from other nations for parts to keep our a/c (with more hours on them!) in the air.


So by the past, are you referring to just a few months ago with the Aussie hornets?  ;)
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,308
Points
1,110
lenaitch said:
And I suppose it the "before you need it" part that has me confused.  In a 9/11-type scenario, a commercial flight in the European Great Circle polar track goes dark and silent, maybe goes below long range radar, and last tracked heading for Toronto (ok, perhaps bad example).  A couple of fighters smoke out, start looking around with their own radar but at some point the gas gauge light comes on.  Now what?  Land somewhere and send two more out to start all over again?

Or maybe I'm all wet.

It seems better to have a fire extinguisher handy on the wall rather than run to Canadian Tire when the smoke detector goes off.

Through the NORAD agreement, we have other means of getting airborne gas than our own organic assets.
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
704
Points
1,060
lenaitch said:
And I suppose it the "before you need it" part that has me confused.  In a 9/11-type scenario, a commercial flight in the European Great Circle polar track goes dark and silent, maybe goes below long range radar, and last tracked heading for Toronto (ok, perhaps bad example).  A couple of fighters smoke out, start looking around with their own radar but at some point the gas gauge light comes on.  Now what?  Land somewhere and send two more out to start all over again?

Or maybe I'm all wet.

It seems better to have a fire extinguisher handy on the wall rather than run to Canadian Tire when the smoke detector goes off.
I think you don’t need a tanker for this (outside my expertise) you wait for it to get closer, I believe Bagotville is able to defend Toronto. But assuming for you want to go up North, you’re using the wrong tanker.  You’re describing a long distance for a short duration. You want a strategic tanker, ie an Airbus.
The point of a tactical tanker is that you park it close to the op area (because it need less runway, and there are a lot more short runways than there are long runways). When it runs out of fuel it can stop for more and come back much more quickly because it’s stationed close to the op area and you can fill it faster. So sustained ops in a known location.

Edit to clarify that I’m stretching my knowledge
 

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,179
Points
1,040
I get that we're in a partnership, but what activity ever goes on in our partner's sovereign space that we cover?  I sometimes think we say we are contributors to the big boy's party but only bring the napkins.  Given the attitude of successive governments going back decades, I worry that one day we'll just decide it's more expedient to hand them the keys to airfields.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,308
Points
1,110
lenaitch said:
I get that we're in a partnership, but what activity ever goes on in our partner's sovereign space that we cover?  I sometimes think we say we are contributors to the big boy's party but only bring the napkins.  Given the attitude of successive governments going back decades, I worry that one day we'll just decide it's more expedient to hand them the keys to airfields.

There are provisions for the US to provide tankers for Hornet employment up North (in the Canadian Arctic, not on the US side)

The tactical tankers (our Herc) are very useful once we are in-situ (for the reasons kev highlighted) but getting the strat tanker to get us there initially and allow us to provide that initial response is not an issue with any NORAD missions.
 

Cronicbny

Member
Reaction score
19
Points
230
SupersonicMax said:
There are provisions for the US to provide tankers for Hornet employment up North (in the Canadian Arctic, not on the US side)

The tactical tankers (our Herc) are very useful once we are in-situ (for the reasons kev highlighted) but getting the strat tanker to get us there initially and allow us to provide that initial response is not an issue with any NORAD missions.

Agree. Wouldn't it be nice, though, to supply our own tankers for FOB operations instead of relying on tankers (and crews!) from KSKA and KPIT? Tankers are already High Demand/Low Avail and at some point TRANSCOM might need to reallocate for the fight away from home.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,355
Points
1,360
Even the USAF needs help these days, to wit Omega Tankers...
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,739
Points
1,090
IN ARDUA NITOR said:
Agree. Wouldn't it be nice, though, to supply our own tankers for FOB operations instead of relying on tankers (and crews!) from KSKA and KPIT? Tankers are already High Demand/Low Avail and at some point TRANSCOM might need to reallocate for the fight away from home.

Perhaps that's a niche we could fill? Let's create a large tanker fleet and farm it out to our allies, might even make some money off it.
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
704
Points
1,060
MilEME09 said:
Perhaps that's a niche we could fill? Let's create a large tanker fleet and farm it out to our allies, might even make some money off it.
There’s probably money to be made for a private company if they were to buy some slightly used KC130s that might be coming on the market in a few years.

The government can’t even break even selling marijuana, I can’t imagine they’d do any better with jet fuel.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,751
Points
1,060
MilEME09 said:
Perhaps that's a niche we could fill? Let's create a large tanker fleet and farm it out to our allies, might even make some money off it.
Europe's already doing that with NATO/EU. US, UK, AUS have their own assets. Who do we farm it out to, Africa? China?

We're the last kids at the table again on this, because big brothet USA covers us.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
728
Points
1,060
SupersonicMax said:
Same thing for the Navy's ships, or the Future Fighter Replacement.  Which one do you prioritize? We have solutions for the foreseeable future for refueling: the U.S. and contracted air-to-air refueling.  Not so much for ships and fighters.

The above doesn't help with a more economical transport option than the C-17 though or maybe more importantly the VVIP replacement ;)

Its a problem when all your equipment is aging out at the same time due to 30 yrs of holding off on replacements. The F-18 replacement and CSC project are obviously important and ongoing but not moving forward on other files would be a mistake as well. It remains to be seen what the end numbers will be 88?,77?, 65? and 15?, 12?, ??

replacing the CC150 with the 330MRTT will certainly be an increase in capability and probably necessitate new infrastructure which could slow it down

suffolkowner said:
assuming the CC-150 does get replaced do anyone see a problem with the size of the Airbus offering?

            length ft  wingspan ft  height ft  fuel kg
CC150  155          144              52          36000
330      193          198              57          111000
KC46    159          156              52          73000

 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
The Super Hornet can be configured  to refuel and other Super Hornet and the USN does this all the time. If the Super Hornet is a winning bid, is that capability of any interest to RCAF? Has RCAF CF 188 ever tinkered this idea?
Reading of course the range and on station time gained from these refuels is probably quite limited, but necessary for aircraft carrier ops. I believe the Brits experimented with a Buccaneer refueling Phantoms in the 1970s.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,836
Points
1,160
kev994 said:
I believe Bagotville is able to defend Toronto. 

Edit to clarify that I’m stretching my knowledge

Is defending Toronto really that important to the rest of Canada?  :whistle:
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,151
Points
1,090
Colin P said:
Is defending Toronto really that important to the rest of Canada?  :whistle:

Any air threat to Toronto is either (a) American or (b) has passed through a considerable amount of Canada's airspace already...
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,751
Points
1,060
dapaterson said:
Any air threat to Toronto is either (a) American or (b) has passed through a considerable amount of Canada's airspace already...

Pentagon and WTC probably thought they were pretty safe too.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,151
Points
1,090
PuckChaser said:
Pentagon and WTC probably thought they were pretty safe too.

US origin aircraft.  And COVID-19 has in a single day killed more Americans on multiple occasions.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,751
Points
1,060
dapaterson said:
US origin aircraft.  And COVID-19 has in a single day killed more Americans on multiple occasions.

Good, so we don't need strategic tanker aircraft or the ability to project fighters across our entire country because COVID historically more dangerous than Domestic Terrorism? By that logic we don't need a Navy because the Halifax Explosion killed more people than any foreign enemy attacking our shores.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,151
Points
1,090
How many a/c were shot down on 9/11?  Zero.  OBL and his Saudi crew were well within the OODA loop, so it was irrelevant.

Similarly, a hijacked WJ 737 crashing into downtown Toronto out of Pearson would not be intercepted regardless of where Canada pre-positions fighter a/c.
 
Top