Those are 2015 built, and will be modified by Airbus.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcaf-t ... -1.6520777

Is this part of the Strategic Tanker Transport Capability (STTC) tender, where Airbus is the sole bidder, or are these in addition to that? Last I read, Canada was interested in approx. 6 MRTT to replace the CC-150 fleet.

I read somewhere that those two are part of the STTC. So four more to go.
(Will provide the source a little later)

The big advantage of the A330MRTT is converting used A330-200 aircraft going dirt cheap. Canada will probably track down some additional used frames when they come up for sale. At such a low initial price the performance doesn't even come into consideration as the utilisation is so low.

It is unfortunate that Boeing actively blocks such tanker conversions of used 767 aircraft. Not many countries need the superior tanker capabilities and battle hardening of the KC-46.

RJMAZ wrote:

It is unfortunate that Boeing actively blocks such tanker conversions of used 767 aircraft. Not many countries need the superior tanker capabilities and battle hardening of the KC-46.

The Boeing block was for Israel, because the US provided the funding for their tankers, but for other countries they have allowed it. Brazil, Columbia, and most recently India.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 84247.ece/

The Canadian government said that the KC-46 did not meet the initial requested parameters, without going into detail. So one can speculate that they specified the larger aircraft and capacity, or some other attribute that the KC-46 could not match.

The news release indicate they are 2015 build, they are being sourced from International AirFinance Corporation, and will be delivered next year.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-nat ... force.html

So, 2 off-lease 2015 build A330-200's that will be available late next year... wonder which air frames are involved...

Checking the production lists for 2015-build A330-200's, I see 3 Kuwaiti Airways 330-200's are leased from IAFC. Maybe 2 of the 3 are involved here?

Avatar2go wrote:

The Boeing block was for Israel, because the US provided the funding for their tankers, but for other countries they have allowed it. Brazil, Columbia, and most recently India.

The Boeing block is for all used 767 aircraft. Boeing will not allow their boom from the KC-46 to be retrofitted to any used 767.

Any 767 that has been converted into a tanker has limited fuel capacity and can only use probe and drogue from a third party manufacturer. The A330 MRTT when using second frames has the full support from Airbus with refueling boom.

Airbus will probably win most of the low hanging fruit tanker orders by using this strategy with second hand aircraft. I dare say now that development costs have been paid for buying a brand new KC-46 would see more profit per aircraft than what Airbus gets from just fitting the refueling systems to an existing A330.

RJMAZ wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

The Boeing block was for Israel, because the US provided the funding for their tankers, but for other countries they have allowed it. Brazil, Columbia, and most recently India.

The Boeing block is for all used 767 aircraft. Boeing will not allow their boom from the KC-46 to be retrofitted to any used 767.

Any 767 that has been converted into a tanker has limited fuel capacity and can only use probe and drogue from a third party manufacturer. The A330 MRTT when using second frames has the full support from Airbus with refueling boom.

Airbus will probably win most of the low hanging fruit tanker orders by using this strategy with second hand aircraft. I dare say now that development costs have been paid for buying a brand new KC-46 would see more profit per aircraft than what Airbus gets from just fitting the refueling systems to an existing A330.

I think that choice may be driven by the aircraft hardening built into the KC-46. Easier to build that in than retrofit. Also the preservation of the special civilian certification they have for the KC-46, which is basically highly customized for the USAF.

It's probably possible to build a lesser version with a conversion, but I could see why they wouldn't choose that. The A330 conversion doesn't have those problems, so makes more sense as a retrofit. Plus those customers probably don't care about the USAF customizations, as India also doesn't with the IAI conversion.

RJMAZ wrote:

I dare say now that development costs have been paid for buying a brand new KC-46 would see more profit per aircraft than what Airbus gets from just fitting the refueling systems to an existing A330.

Pyrrhic victory. Besides, oftentimes marketshare can be more important than strictly bottom line per volume.

Hey guys,
So it sounds like Canada are doing what the RAAF did with its last two A330s (ex Qantas) with one allocated to VIP as well as A2A refuelling? Spain also has gone down that path… I wonder who will be next?
How ‘VIP’ will the likely VIP fit out be on the Canadian A330s? Anyone have any ideas?
Take care,
Bunumuring

RJMAZ wrote:

The Boeing block is for all used 767 aircraft.

Not true. As noted above, Boeing blocked the Israelis from getting the 767 mod tanker because the funding for those tankers would have come from US tax payer. They have clout there.

For non US funded converted tanker Boeing teams up with an Israeli firm for the mod.

RJMAZ wrote:

Boeing will not allow their boom from the KC-46 to be retrofitted to any used 767.

Not sure if there are technicalities involved, but the KC-46 boom is designed to operate with the remote vision system. They may need to tweak it to operate with the 767 mod tanker version (including all the plumbing from the boom to the tanks). Which means more certification work that no one wants to pay for.

bt

IAI Bedek has developed their own boom solution, which is also fly-by-wire and has about the same fuel delivery capacity. So they wouldn't need the KC-46 boom to be adapted, they have their own. They also have matching receptacles, although they are industry standard and should work with any similarly equipped aircraft.

Smart move, grab these “slightly” used A332s at a bargain instead of new builds. Maybe, just maybe this will be a well executed procurement project! There were rumours during the AC-TS merge talks that the RCAF may buy some of TS’s A332s.

For political reasons, I doubt this first batch will receive any special colours or VIP config.

Boeing also gave Canada a big nudge over the P-8, “order it now before we shut down the line.”

KrisYYZ

What superior tanking capabilities does the KC-46 have over the A330MRTT? Airbus have developed, flown and delivered their own flying boom; not only that but have been testing automatic in-flight refuelling - successfully; soon there will be no need for a remote vision system that doesn't work. Like the KC-46, the A330 has the capability to be configured with under-wing 'probe and drogue' pods. I somehow doubt that the KC-46 will be as profitable for Boeing as the A330MRTT has been for Airbus, that is unless the US taxpayer is forced to divvy up for excessive long-term support costs.

Pendennis wrote:

What superior tanking capabilities does the KC-46 have over the A330MRTT? Airbus have developed, flown and delivered their own flying boom; not only that but have been testing automatic in-flight refuelling - successfully; soon there will be no need for a remote vision system that doesn't work. Like the KC-46, the A330 has the capability to be configured with under-wing 'probe and drogue' pods. I somehow doubt that the KC-46 will be as profitable for Boeing as the A330MRTT has been for Airbus, that is unless the US taxpayer is forced to divvy up for excessive long-term support costs.

As has been noted here, it's not a matter of superiority of one platform over the other. It has more to do with suitability to mission. If a nation has only a small number of tankers, it makes sense to maximize the capability of that fleet, for the limited number of missions it will fly. If a nation has hundreds of tankers, making thousands of flights, then it makes sense to optimize the cost for the typical mission. That means a smaller tanker which is better matched to the typical mission fuel load.

Thus we see that worldwide, MRTT has around 70 sales, mostly in small numbers to each nation. Whereas in the US, we see 2 or 3 times that number for the KC-46 in single contracts. Japan is an exception because they already are flying the KC-767, so logical for them. Israel is spending US funds to purchase tankers, so again an exception.

On the remote vision system, please note it is essential for autonomous refueling, as the computers must be able to see the receiver aircraft. For the KC-46, one advantage of the upgraded vision system is that it's automation-ready.

Finally the KC-X program is worth about $55B over the lifespan of the aircraft. So it will be profitable for Boeing, and now will likely also lead to the KC-Y program, with all the risks retired.

Avatar2go wrote:

Pendennis wrote:

What superior tanking capabilities does the KC-46 have over the A330MRTT? Airbus have developed, flown and delivered their own flying boom; not only that but have been testing automatic in-flight refuelling - successfully; soon there will be no need for a remote vision system that doesn't work. Like the KC-46, the A330 has the capability to be configured with under-wing 'probe and drogue' pods. I somehow doubt that the KC-46 will be as profitable for Boeing as the A330MRTT has been for Airbus, that is unless the US taxpayer is forced to divvy up for excessive long-term support costs.

As has been noted here, it's not a matter of superiority of one platform over the other. It has more to do with suitability to mission. If a nation has only a small number of tankers, it makes sense to maximize the capability of that fleet, for the limited number of missions it will fly. If a nation has hundreds of tankers, making thousands of flights, then it makes sense to optimize the cost for the typical mission. That means a smaller tanker which is better matched to the typical mission fuel load.

Thus we see that worldwide, MRTT has around 70 sales, mostly in small numbers to each nation. Whereas in the US, we see 2 or 3 times that number for the KC-46 in single contracts. Japan is an exception because they already are flying the KC-767, so logical for them. Israel is spending US funds to purchase tankers, so again an exception.

On the remote vision system, please note it is essential for autonomous refueling, as the computers must be able to see the receiver aircraft. For the KC-46, one advantage of the upgraded vision system is that it's automation-ready.

Finally the KC-X program is worth about $55B over the lifespan of the aircraft. So it will be profitable for Boeing, and now will likely also lead to the KC-Y program, with all the risks retired.

The Airbus A330 MRTT is already certified for autonomous tanking:

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/pres ... tified-for

Farnborough, 19 July 2022 – The Airbus A330 MRTT has become the world’s first tanker to be certified for automatic air-to-air refuelling (A3R) boom operations in daylight following a successful campaign in collaboration with the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF).

Certified by the Spanish National Institute for Aerospace Technology (INTA), this capability is part of the new SMART MRTT developed by Airbus. The A3R system requires no additional equipment on the receiver aircraft and is intended to reduce air refuelling operator (ARO) workload, improve safety and optimise the rate of air-to-air refuelling (AAR) transfer in operational conditions to enable air superiority.

The A3R option will be a valuable addition to the MRTT platform, as nations deploy it. Boeing is working on similar capability for the KC-46, which as mentioned will be enabled by the new vision system.

Pendennis wrote:

What superior tanking capabilities does the KC-46 have over the A330MRTT?

I will answer this question very thoroughly as it often gets asked.

The KC-46 can provide more fuel further away despite being much smaller. The KC-46 is based off the freighter without windows. The A330MRTT is based off a passenger frame with windows. Lighter weight allows for more fuel to be carried. The KC-46 also has redundant wiring making it more survivable to damage. Basically it is superior for war.

Here are the following specs from wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus

A330MRTT
Wingspan: 60.3 m
Length: 58.80 m
Area on ground: 3,545 m2
Empty weight: 125,000 kg
MTOW: 233,000 kg
Fuel capacity: 111,000 kg (note 125t + 111t is 3t over MTOW, so max capacity is 107t)

KC-46
Wingspan: 48.1 m
Length: 50.5 m
Area on ground: 2,429m2
Empty weight: 82,377 kg
MTOW: 188,240 kg
Fuel capacity: 96,297 kg

The A330MRTT takes up 45% more area on the ground and fully fueled at MTOW it weighs 24% more compared to the KC-46. So when flying the A330 will burn much more fuel than the 767 as they both have similar engine technology.

https://alliknowaviation.com/2019/12/14 ... -aircraft/

This link shows the passenger 767 burns about 20% less fuel per hour than the A330. Fuel consumption is always relative to the flying weight of the aircraft. Yet the A330MRTT only carries approximately 11.5% more fuel than the KC-46.

In summary the extra fuel the A330 carries it consumes for itself. So you are getting a much larger aircraft with no extra fuel offload to the fighter jets. The A330 gains lots of space for passengers with a full passenger cabin with windows for them to look out.

RJMAZ wrote:

This link shows the passenger 767 burns about 20% less fuel per hour than the A330. Fuel consumption is always relative to the flying weight of the aircraft. Yet the A330MRTT only carries approximately 11.5% more fuel than the KC-46.

In summary the extra fuel the A330 carries it consumes for itself. So you are getting a much larger aircraft with no extra fuel offload to the fighter jets. The A330 gains lots of space for passengers with a full passenger cabin with windows for them to look out.

This is incorrect.

This can be proven by a cursury glance of the performance inflight cruise tables in the respective flight manuals. I looked at the performance inflight QRH Chapter 11 2014 of a 767 PW4056 spec aircraft and compared to my company's Trent 772 A330 FCOM from 2012 (sorry too lazy to download/find the most recent rev). The fuel flow difference at cruise fl 310 0.80M when heavy is 10% at most and even then, that is penalising the A330.

The 767 has an optimum cruise alt when heavy of 31k. The A330 will happily cruise at 35k when heavy.

Chaostheory wrote:

The 767 has an optimum cruise alt when heavy of 31k. The A330 will happily cruise at 35k when heavy.

Which is great for transporting stuff from point A to point B.

I'm looking at tanking missions over Romainia right now and those tankers are doing loops at around 20k.

Is it true the A330 converted tanker do not have a main deck cargo door? Or is it just depending on the variant?

by

Chaostheory wrote:

This is incorrect.

It is correct. Here is an analysis of 767-200ER Vs A330-200 both operating at or near MTOW. Both aircraft use same generation GE CF6 engines to remove engine differences from the comparison. The table at the end show all the actual flights and fuel usage.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/fi ... 007-11.pdf

The analysis showed that the A330-200 will consume about 24% more fuel than the B 767-
200ER.

Also this comparison is passenger frame versus passenger frame. The A330MRTT has the boom and tanker system added which increase the empty weight well above the passenger A330-200.

While the KC-46 is effectively a freighter 767-200ER without windows. The 767-300ER freighter is 3,900kg lighter than the 767-300ER passenger aircraft. So a 767-200ER freighter should also weigh 3,000+kg less than a 767-200ER passenger aircraft. So once the tanker systems are added to the freighter it will be closer to 767 passenger version.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767



Looking at this image it is easy to see how the A330-200 will burn 20% more fuel in transit. As it only carries 11.5% more fuel that means less for the fighter jets.

RJMAZ wrote:

It is correct. Here is an analysis of 767-200ER Vs A330-200 both operating at or near MTOW. Both aircraft use same generation GE CF6 engines to remove engine differences from the comparison. The table at the end show all the actual flights and fuel usage.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/fi ... 007-11.pdf

The analysis showed that the A330-200 will consume about 24% more fuel than the B 767-
200ER.

Those figures from a Boeing paper in 2007 are misleading and out of date. From the off I see they use a MGTOW of 395klb for the 767 as an example.

bikerthai wrote:

I'm looking at tanking missions over Romainia right now and those tankers are doing loops at around 20k.

Fuel flow differences at those altitudes are less than 10%.

Pendennis wrote:

What superior tanking capabilities does the KC-46 have over the A330MRTT? Airbus have developed, flown and delivered their own flying boom; not only that but have been testing automatic in-flight refuelling - successfully; soon there will be no need for a remote vision system that doesn't work. Like the KC-46, the A330 has the capability to be configured with under-wing 'probe and drogue' pods. I somehow doubt that the KC-46 will be as profitable for Boeing as the A330MRTT has been for Airbus, that is unless the US taxpayer is forced to divvy up for excessive long-term support costs.

Avatar said it very well, but another way to think about it is that the MRTT is more like a slightly down-graded KC-10. It's capable of the dual-role tanker (lots of pax upstairs, cargo downstairs, and can still carry fuel for 4-6 receivers transoceanic). For a normal AR mission it can carry lots of gas for initial offload in the first hour or two of flight, which is a lot, as it can carry almost 240K of gas. Its WARPS are certified and in-use, so the faster you get those guys through the more gas you have to offload to others. It can also do receiver AR with its UARRSI. Fuel burn is ~ 13k an hour. But it's a lot bigger: even bigger than the KC-10.

The KC-46 is more like a souped-up KC-135. It can do all three missions (pax, cargo, and AR), but it can realistically only do two of them at the same time. This is mainly because of the upper-deck space limitations, because cargo (both talking-cargo and non-talking-cargo) are only carried on the upper deck and more of one (especially pax) detracts from the other. It's also because we're weight-limited as MTOW is 415K. Empty weight is actually around 205K (not 182), so anything you add to 205K detracts from the gas needed to reach 415K. You can still drag fighters and haul stuff upstairs, but it's more transcontinental than transoceanic. Best case, with no cargo or pax you can takeoff with about 210K of gas, which is a very good initial offload, but quite a bit less than MRTT's. WARPS won't be ready for awhile, so we're limited to CDS or the boom. It can also do receiver AR. The KC-46 burn is ~ 11K an hour and it's a bit bigger than a KC-135, but still smaller than a KC-10.

Over a long enough sortie duration, yes, the KC-46 can offload a bit more gas than the MRTT, but it's not a practical difference. KC-135's have the same "advantage" over the KC-10 (12K burn an hour vs 18K) and would often brag (!) about this. Of course, if you need a tanker to fly for 10 hours, give all she can, and then land nearby, you should focus your energies on better landing rights than buying a smaller tanker. Or study what the term "pre-positioning" means in global mobility.

LyleLanley wrote:

Avatar said it very well, but another way to think about it is that the MRTT is more like a slightly down-graded KC-10. It's capable of the dual-role tanker (lots of pax upstairs, cargo downstairs, and can still carry fuel for 4-6 receivers transoceanic). For a normal AR mission it can carry lots of gas for initial offload in the first hour or two of flight, which is a lot, as it can carry almost 240K of gas. Its WARPS are certified and in-use, so the faster you get those guys through the more gas you have to offload to others. It can also do receiver AR with its UARRSI. Fuel burn is ~ 13k an hour. But it's a lot bigger: even bigger than the KC-10.

The KC-46 is more like a souped-up KC-135. It can do all three missions (pax, cargo, and AR), but it can realistically only do two of them at the same time. This is mainly because of the upper-deck space limitations, because cargo (both talking-cargo and non-talking-cargo) are only carried on the upper deck and more of one (especially pax) detracts from the other. It's also because we're weight-limited as MTOW is 415K. Empty weight is actually around 205K (not 182), so anything you add to 205K detracts from the gas needed to reach 415K. You can still drag fighters and haul stuff upstairs, but it's more transcontinental than transoceanic. Best case, with no cargo or pax you can takeoff with about 210K of gas, which is a very good initial offload, but quite a bit less than MRTT's. WARPS won't be ready for awhile, so we're limited to CDS or the boom. It can also do receiver AR. The KC-46 burn is ~ 11K an hour and it's a bit bigger than a KC-135, but still smaller than a KC-10.

Over a long enough sortie duration, yes, the KC-46 can offload a bit more gas than the MRTT, but it's not a practical difference. KC-135's have the same "advantage" over the KC-10 (12K burn an hour vs 18K) and would often brag (!) about this. Of course, if you need a tanker to fly for 10 hours, give all she can, and then land nearby, you should focus your energies on better landing rights than buying a smaller tanker. Or study what the term "pre-positioning" means in global mobility.

Lyle, is the holdup on the WARP pods still FAA civilian certification? I've been watching for news on that but there isn't much, periodically it gets mentioned that the process is ongoing.

Avatar2go wrote:

Lyle, is the holdup on the WARP pods still FAA civilian certification? I've been watching for news on that but there isn't much, periodically it gets mentioned that the process is ongoing.

It's been awhile since my last progress briefing, but I'm pretty sure that's the last big administrative hurdle. That being said, there were other issues and limitations discovered during flight test that will need to be fixed before the system can be used in normal ops, but compared to the other cat 1 and cat 2 deficiencies that manifest themselves every day, the AF has put the WARPS on the back burner. They're certainly not buying many pods. This, combined with the Navy's preference for Omega, means that any real-world usage of the KC-46 wing pods will most likely be that KC-46 crew's first time using the WARPS, ever.

LyleLanley wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Lyle, is the holdup on the WARP pods still FAA civilian certification? I've been watching for news on that but there isn't much, periodically it gets mentioned that the process is ongoing.

It's been awhile since my last progress briefing, but I'm pretty sure that's the last big administrative hurdle. That being said, there were other issues and limitations discovered during flight test that will need to be fixed before the system can be used in normal ops, but compared to the other cat 1 and cat 2 deficiencies that manifest themselves every day, the AF has put the WARPS on the back burner. They're certainly not buying many pods. This, combined with the Navy's preference for Omega, means that any real-world usage of the KC-46 wing pods will most likely be that KC-46 crew's first time using the WARPS, ever.

Thanks Lyle. My understanding is that 20 of the KC-135 have the pod capability, and that USAF will seek to replicate that in the KC-46. Although all aircraft are capable of receiving the pods, they will be transported & installed to aircraft as needed.

Also due to the certification issue, some of the pods have been deferred so that final testing can occur with certified pods. I believe they have 9 sets thus far, which are not certified and may require modification. .

Avatar2go wrote:

Thanks Lyle. My understanding is that 20 of the KC-135 have the pod capability, and that USAF will seek to replicate that in the KC-46. Although all aircraft are capable of receiving the pods, they will be transported & installed to aircraft as needed.

Also due to the certification issue, some of the pods have been deferred so that final testing can occur with certified pods. I believe they have 9 sets thus far, which are not certified and may require modification. .

Yep. 20 KC-10s, as well. Some KC-135 bases use their MPRS more than others (EGUN), but hopefully the WARPS eventually become a more common fixture during TACC/USCENTAF missions. It's a great capability when used correctly.

LyleLanley wrote:

Over a long enough sortie duration, yes, the KC-46 can offload a bit more gas than the MRTT, but it's not a practical difference.

But with the shift to the Pacific theatre we will see long durations sorties. Taking off from Guam and Japan to provide fuel over Taiwan would see regular 10+ hour sorties.

There doesn't have to be a practical difference in fuel offload. The key fact is the A330 is so much bigger, heavier and more expensive for no practical difference in fuel offload.

I assume hanger space would also be an issue.
KC-46 48.1m wingspan
KC-10 50.4m wingspan
C-17 51.7m wingspan
B-2 52.4m wingspan
B-52 56.4m wingspan
MRTT 60.3m wingspan

I am sure there are plenty of USAF hangers where a KC-46 will fit and the MRTT cant.

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
So it sounds like Canada are doing what the RAAF did with its last two A330s (ex Qantas) with one allocated to VIP as well as A2A refuelling? Spain also has gone down that path… I wonder who will be next?
How ‘VIP’ will the likely VIP fit out be on the Canadian A330s? Anyone have any ideas?
Take care,
Bunumuring

I believe the RAAF reason for buying second hand was more in the commonality with the existing fleet in age, but realistically I think it came more down to the bean counters than anything else

And to be honest I don't see why they need to use a MRTT in the VIP role and not have a dedicated aircraft

RJMAZ wrote:

The key fact is the A330 is so much bigger, heavier and (maybe?) more expensive for no practical difference in fuel offload at extended range. But you get a lot more mission flexibility with it, assuming your only metric isn't suitability for a nightmare war scenario in the Pacific theater.

Fixed it for you.

But really, while the USAF is more swayed by your argument, the vast majority of potential customers are more swayed by the MRTT's strengths then they're turned off by its weaknesses.

At the end of the day, they're both terrible choices for fighting a Pacific conflict; because there are no good choices for fighting at that distance. Just least terrible and more terrible. Btw, why are we ditching the KC-10 again?

RJMAZ wrote:

There doesn't have to be a practical difference in fuel offload. The key fact is the A330 is so much bigger, heavier and more expensive for no practical difference in fuel offload.

Over a 10 hour sortie, a 233t a330 will have 50t+ to offload, a kc46 40t at most. I wouldn't call that insignificant

Any a330-200 built from about 2008 onwards (I think Korean birds were the first) are capable of a 235t or 238t mtow option. That will include these 2015 builds. Most recent builds (Delta, Iberia?) are capable of 242t.

The kc46 has nowhere near the potential for upgrade.

A101 wrote:

And to be honest I don't see why they need to use a MRTT in the VIP role and not have a dedicated aircraft

Probably similar to the UK where not all MRTTs carry the refueling gear all the time, but they could be fitted quickly in case it's needed. VIP in peacetime, MRTT when things get hot.

mxaxai wrote:

A101 wrote:

And to be honest I don't see why they need to use a MRTT in the VIP role and not have a dedicated aircraft

Probably similar to the UK where not all MRTTs carry the refueling gear all the time, but they could be fitted quickly in case it's needed. VIP in peacetime, MRTT when things get hot.

I know the RAAF refueling boom is fixed, but Airbus was developing a removable boom not sure where they are up to with it or if its been used om the two new/second hand aircraft . Also the UK aircraft are not fitted nor plumbed for the boom.



https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... -boom-mrtt

Reading some of these posts one wonders why so many countries outside the US have gone for the Airbus solution rather than Boeing's. I think the answer is in its Multi-Role Tanker plus Transport capabilities. One frame does the work of two, that must be a huge cost advantage over a dedicated fleet for each role.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Reading some of these posts one wonders why so many countries outside the US have gone for the Airbus solution rather than Boeing's.

Reading from the various tanker debate going way back, I get a sense that those various countries like the cargo/passenger capabilities of the A330 when the tanking is not needed. The USAF however have plenty of cargo capabilities, their own VIP fleets, as well as a Civil Transport option. They just need tankers, and more specifically number of booms.

This makes sense to me

bt

A friendly reminder to provide links to credible sources when stating facts, thanks.

Avatar2go wrote:

Pendennis wrote:

What superior tanking capabilities does the KC-46 have over the A330MRTT? Airbus have developed, flown and delivered their own flying boom; not only that but have been testing automatic in-flight refuelling - successfully; soon there will be no need for a remote vision system that doesn't work. Like the KC-46, the A330 has the capability to be configured with under-wing 'probe and drogue' pods. I somehow doubt that the KC-46 will be as profitable for Boeing as the A330MRTT has been for Airbus, that is unless the US taxpayer is forced to divvy up for excessive long-term support costs.

As has been noted here, it's not a matter of superiority of one platform over the other. It has more to do with suitability to mission. If a nation has only a small number of tankers, it makes sense to maximize the capability of that fleet, for the limited number of missions it will fly. If a nation has hundreds of tankers, making thousands of flights, then it makes sense to optimize the cost for the typical mission. That means a smaller tanker which is better matched to the typical mission fuel load.

Thus we see that worldwide, MRTT has around 70 sales, mostly in small numbers to each nation. Whereas in the US, we see 2 or 3 times that number for the KC-46 in single contracts. Japan is an exception because they already are flying the KC-767, so logical for them. Israel is spending US funds to purchase tankers, so again an exception.

On the remote vision system, please note it is essential for autonomous refueling, as the computers must be able to see the receiver aircraft. For the KC-46, one advantage of the upgraded vision system is that it's automation-ready.

Finally the KC-X program is worth about $55B over the lifespan of the aircraft. So it will be profitable for Boeing, and now will likely also lead to the KC-Y program, with all the risks retired.

The A330MRTT wasn't in the Japanese competition as they insisted on a Government to Government contract; Airbus was in no position to tender.

I was aware the A330MRTT already has a Remote Vision System: since my last post the autonomous refuelling system has been approved for operational use, so it is already one and a half or even two steps ahead of the KC-46 in this field.

I do accept that the USAF operates in a different way to smaller air forces but it still uses civil transport aircraft to supplement its own airlift capabilities. Maybe it is just set in its ways?

Pendennis wrote:

The A330MRTT wasn't in the Japanese competition as they insisted on a Government to Government contract; Airbus was in no position to tender.

I was aware the A330MRTT already has a Remote Vision System: since my last post the autonomous refuelling system has been approved for operational use, so it is already one and a half or even two steps ahead of the KC-46 in this field.

I do accept that the USAF operates in a different way to smaller air forces but it still uses civil transport aircraft to supplement its own airlift capabilities. Maybe it is just set in its ways?

Japan had no interest in the MRTT because as stated, they already operate the KC-767, for which the kC-46 is the natural successor.

Also note that the KC-767 has a remote vision system, which operates without issue, is fully approved and has been for many years. The problem on the KC-46 is a mismatch of the older KC-767 camera technology with the newer 3D flatscreen display technology on the KC-46. Both are being updated to a higher standard than is used on either the KC-767 or the MRTT.

Airbus has the lead on automated refueling, Boeing has been held back by the problems with their vision system. But that will even out over the next 5 years or so, Boeing is working on similar technology.

The reason for the smaller mission profile for USAF has been explained, no need to repeat.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/08/10/canada-unveils-planned-deadline-to-buy-four-airbus-tanker-aircraft/

Looks like the remaining four airframes will be new builds.

This explains that the 2 + 4 A330 MRTTs will replace 5 elderly A310s, of which only 3 are MRTTs. Makes me wonder if all 6 A330s will be full MRTTs but suggests they will be. Also confirms Kuwait as the source:

"The Canadian Department of Defense has since told ch-aviation that the aircraft are to be ex-Kuwait Airways (KU, Kuwait) inventory. It did not, however, disclose their identity. According to the ch-aviation fleets advanced module, the carrier currently operates five A330-200s which are leased from International Airfinance. All are Rolls-Royce Trent 700-powered jets averaging seven years of age"

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... conversion

JerseyFlyer wrote:

This explains that the 2 + 4 A330 MRTTs will replace 5 elderly A310s, of which only 3 are MRTTs. Makes me wonder if all 6 A330s will be full MRTTs but suggests they will be. Also confirms Kuwait as the source:

"The Canadian Department of Defense has since told ch-aviation that the aircraft are to be ex-Kuwait Airways (KU, Kuwait) inventory. It did not, however, disclose their identity. According to the ch-aviation fleets advanced module, the carrier currently operates five A330-200s which are leased from International Airfinance. All are Rolls-Royce Trent 700-powered jets averaging seven years of age"

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... conversion

KAC will phase out 5 A330-200’s and 7 A320-200’s by the end of 2022 these aircrafts will be returned to the lessor and replaced by newer neo models.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

This explains that the 2 + 4 A330 MRTTs will replace 5 elderly A310s, of which only 3 are MRTTs. Makes me wonder if all 6 A330s will be full MRTTs but suggests they will be. Also confirms Kuwait as the source:

"The Canadian Department of Defense has since told ch-aviation that the aircraft are to be ex-Kuwait Airways (KU, Kuwait) inventory. It did not, however, disclose their identity. According to the ch-aviation fleets advanced module, the carrier currently operates five A330-200s which are leased from International Airfinance. All are Rolls-Royce Trent 700-powered jets averaging seven years of age"

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... conversion

It would make sense to keep the 2 used frames as troop, VIP and cargo without MRTT mods. Would save a lot of money. With the CC-177’s cargo capability and CC-130s refuling capability, 6 MMRTs for 60-80 operational fighters may not be needed.

The current VIP CC-150 doesn’t have the side cargo door either.

KrisYYZ

Interestingly, an interview with LGen Eric Kenny, commander of the RCAF reveals that he foresees a requirement for 9 A330 MRTT's for the RCAF, along with revealing the timeframe for the acquisition:

https://skiesmag.com/features/aligning- ... ric-kenny/

LGen Kenny: The STTC project was initially envisioned to give us enough aircraft to do three continuous lines of tasking, which would provide us a transport as well as a refueling capability. NORAD modernization has provided us funding to buy additional air refueling capacity. So, we will go from a requirement of three lines of tasking to five. This means the fleet will be larger than the initially envisioned five to six A330-200s. I foresee somewhere around nine total aircraft, but that is not finalized. All those are envisioned to be MRTTs. 

Our first two A330-200s are used aircraft with lots of life left on them. They will be arriving in the first four to five months of 2023, in a transport configuration. There is a multi-year wait to cycle aircraft through the Airbus MRTT modification line, so they will be used in transport roles and then eventually modified to the MRTT configuration. We’re also looking at acquiring more, in a mix of new and used aircraft.

I don’t anticipate having an A330 that’s capable of doing air refueling until late 2025/early 2026. And because of the timeline to get into the modification line, 2026 or 2027 is probably more realistic. All those aircraft will eventually be used for NORAD purposes. And they will be used to meet NATO obligations. 

The two used aircraft being purchased will arrive in early 2023, in a pure transport configuration, and will later cycle into the modification line when spots become available. First delivery of an A330 capable of doing the tanker role is expected to be at the earliest, late 2025, but 2026 or even 2027 is more realistic.

quite an expansion, there are only 5 CC-150's right? A more capable platform and almost doubling the fleet.

Dutchy wrote:

quite an expansion, there are only 5 CC-150's right? A more capable platform and almost doubling the fleet.

The RCAF also operates four KC-130H Hercules aircraft under the Canadian designation CC-130H(T) out of 17 Wing at CFB Winnipeg, MB. Since there seems to be no further C-130J/KC-130J acquisition on the horizon, I'd wager that these A330 MRTTs are going to be replacing that tanker capacity as well. Five CC-150s and four CC-130H(T)s give us a total of nine aircraft to replace, although since only two of the CC-150s are configured for refueling, it's still a net increase in refueling capability for the RCAF. Hopefully these plans will be fully realized.

The RCAF also operates four KC-130H Hercules aircraft under the Canadian designation CC-130H(T) out of 17 Wing at CFB Winnipeg, MB. Since there seems to be no further C-130J/KC-130J acquisition on the horizon, I'd wager that these A330 MRTTs are going to be replacing that tanker capacity as well. Five CC-150s and four CC-130H(T)s give us a total of nine aircraft to replace, although since only two of the CC-150s are configured for refueling, it's still a net increase in refueling capability for the RCAF. Hopefully these plans will be fully realized

I think we've lost the CC-130H(T) capability completely. 435 squadron and its four CC-130H(T) s have been retasked and redeployed to Comox to provide interim SAR coverage due to the issues with the Kingfisher. I am guessing they are not doing any tankering and are dedicated strictly to SAR, and most likely will not return to their previous mission.

cumulushumilis wrote:

The RCAF also operates four KC-130H Hercules aircraft under the Canadian designation CC-130H(T) out of 17 Wing at CFB Winnipeg, MB. Since there seems to be no further C-130J/KC-130J acquisition on the horizon, I'd wager that these A330 MRTTs are going to be replacing that tanker capacity as well. Five CC-150s and four CC-130H(T)s give us a total of nine aircraft to replace, although since only two of the CC-150s are configured for refueling, it's still a net increase in refueling capability for the RCAF. Hopefully these plans will be fully realized

I think we've lost the CC-130H(T) capability completely. 435 squadron and its four CC-130H(T) s have been retasked and redeployed to Comox to provide interim SAR coverage due to the issues with the Kingfisher. I am guessing they are not doing any tankering and are dedicated strictly to SAR, and most likely will not return to their previous mission.

Yep, the Kingfisher's are a hot mess from what I've been hearing. Airbus has a lot of work ahead of them to get the problems fixed. I suspect the C-130's will remain at Comox for a long time.

What is wrong with the Kingfisher? There is so little news on that plane.

rlwynn wrote:

What is wrong with the Kingfisher? There is so little news on that plane.

Ooh... where do we begin?

The short version is that the aircraft may not be certifiable as airworthy, and that Canada might have to scrap the purchase because there is a very strong likelihood that the aircraft will never meet requirements. Airbus had made 30 changes to the platform to meet Canadian mandatory and rated requirements.

Basically, the aircraft is totally underpowered due to the many modifications made to the base aircraft, which all had the effect of making significant additions to the aircraft weight. In the event of an engine failure, such as during take-off or when flying through mountainous canyons, the aircraft might not have sufficient power to operate safely.

There's also major concerns about flying the Kingfisher into known icing conditions; the deicing systems onboard is totally inadequate for the job, and if the aircraft looses an engine, it may not have enough power to run the deicing systems.

There are major concerns about weight and balance with the Kingfisher; the addition of so many avionics cabinets to the aircraft for the SAR role has made the aircraft noticeably nose-heavy in flight under certain fuel loads.

There's also a litany of issues with the aircraft's avionics, cockpit visibility and paradrop limitations...

The aircraft is also way too slow and too short legged to do the job effectively; in order to create some form of 'competitive competition', they significantly relaxed or dropped a number of requirements. The requirements where the biggest reductions in requirements was cruise speed and range. For example, one of the requirements dropped was the requirement that had to be able to reach all parts of Canada’s AOR within one-crew day from the existing bases.

Some of these problems can be addressed. Others are fundamental to the aircraft design. Collectively, the program is a hot mess right now.

There are some articles that touch on the problems:

https://skiesmag.com/news/how-delay-cc- ... nd-rescue/
https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/sovereignty ... ill-times/

The first of these used A330s for the RCAF may be starting VIP modifications. Kuwait Airways’s 9K-APC (A332) is in CHR for VIP mods. A second Kuwait Airways A332 flew to BSL. If recall correctly the first two A330s are not being converted to MRTT for a couple of years, after the new MRTT are delivered.

https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb. ... av4&page=2

KrisYYZ