Skies Magazine is out with a new interview with MGen Jeff Smyth, Chief of Air and Space Force Development, in the aftermath of last week’s Global announcement.
The easiest approach would be to add a fixed refuelling probe on top of the fuselage and use the higher flow rate available from the Husky centre hose and drogue and accepting a slower refuelling rate compared to a boom system. Integrating a boom slipway would be a major undertaking given the limited volume above the fuselage ceiling on the 6500 when compared to larger airliner based platforms like 737. A raised blister type roof slipway fairing or reworking the nose to accept a slipway similar to the A-10 could be explored, but both options come with their own drawbacks.
They have my support too. It sounds like DND is willing to fund the R&D for the IFR design and development. Good investment. And you’re right about the infrastructure not in place to support multiple refuelling locations. Moreover, in flight refuelling decreases the need to shut down an aircraft and then start it up again. From my experience, the fewer number of times a jet needs to be restarted, the better, because cranking up a cold airframe and all the avionics is a sure recipe for heat stress to cause something to break. Add that to the extreme cold temperatures to be faced, and that’s another argument in favour of IFR. BTW, your argument regarding the lack of infrastructure is a good case for not buying the F-39. If fuel is a problem at our established Arctic airfields and FOLs, there sure as heck isn’t any fuel along side our numerous nonexistent roads in the Arctic.
Just one peeve, probably just me. But when I’m mentally calculating time and distance in aircraft, I’m using nautical miles, nautical miles per hour (knots). Just easier. 600 knots is 10 NM/min, etc. Also, if you ever follow our RCAF aircraft on Flightradar24, you’ll see that distance and speed is all NM and Kts.
Very interesting BTW. Seeing the PM refuel in Hawaii enroute to the Indo-Pacific (more ammo for IFR), a Polaris deploy to Florida to conduct air refuelling over the Gulf of Mexico, deployments of Harvard trainers to the U.S. southwest for young pilots to train without being interrupted by blizzards and seeing Cyclones and Cormorants conduct SAR in both BC and Washington State during the current flooding. No mention of any of these flights and missions, but interesting indeed.
I use KM as a general ease to the audience. You'll be surprised how many people complained about NM being used and other such terms. So I'm trying to be nice and general 🤣
Great article Noah. It makes me think about the new MRTTs we're getting. Eight seems like a decent number, but when you break it down they're going to be pretty busy. Has there been any thought to augmenting this fleet with something like the MQ-25?
Boeing has thrown out the Idea. I actually had a good ten minute chat about it at CANSEC. I actually support acquiring a few more Husky on top of our current order.
The refueling capacity of an individual Husky compared to a Polaris is already substantial, as we have previously discussed, however I would like to see more if only for the additional cargo capacity.
Its undiscussed how great the Husky will be when it comes to logistics, and how valuable such a capacity is for a country that, sadly, lacks alternative sources of strategic lift capability.
Can't get more C-17, have no Sealift… we have an inherent limitation that a few extra MRTT can make a decent dent in, on top of course of that extra refueling capacity.
Has there been any discussion about modifying some of our MRTTs into a freighter-style configuration with cargo doors and upper-deck pallet layouts instead of the standard airline cabin?
The easiest approach would be to add a fixed refuelling probe on top of the fuselage and use the higher flow rate available from the Husky centre hose and drogue and accepting a slower refuelling rate compared to a boom system. Integrating a boom slipway would be a major undertaking given the limited volume above the fuselage ceiling on the 6500 when compared to larger airliner based platforms like 737. A raised blister type roof slipway fairing or reworking the nose to accept a slipway similar to the A-10 could be explored, but both options come with their own drawbacks.
They have my support too. It sounds like DND is willing to fund the R&D for the IFR design and development. Good investment. And you’re right about the infrastructure not in place to support multiple refuelling locations. Moreover, in flight refuelling decreases the need to shut down an aircraft and then start it up again. From my experience, the fewer number of times a jet needs to be restarted, the better, because cranking up a cold airframe and all the avionics is a sure recipe for heat stress to cause something to break. Add that to the extreme cold temperatures to be faced, and that’s another argument in favour of IFR. BTW, your argument regarding the lack of infrastructure is a good case for not buying the F-39. If fuel is a problem at our established Arctic airfields and FOLs, there sure as heck isn’t any fuel along side our numerous nonexistent roads in the Arctic.
Just one peeve, probably just me. But when I’m mentally calculating time and distance in aircraft, I’m using nautical miles, nautical miles per hour (knots). Just easier. 600 knots is 10 NM/min, etc. Also, if you ever follow our RCAF aircraft on Flightradar24, you’ll see that distance and speed is all NM and Kts.
Very interesting BTW. Seeing the PM refuel in Hawaii enroute to the Indo-Pacific (more ammo for IFR), a Polaris deploy to Florida to conduct air refuelling over the Gulf of Mexico, deployments of Harvard trainers to the U.S. southwest for young pilots to train without being interrupted by blizzards and seeing Cyclones and Cormorants conduct SAR in both BC and Washington State during the current flooding. No mention of any of these flights and missions, but interesting indeed.
I use KM as a general ease to the audience. You'll be surprised how many people complained about NM being used and other such terms. So I'm trying to be nice and general 🤣
Great article Noah. It makes me think about the new MRTTs we're getting. Eight seems like a decent number, but when you break it down they're going to be pretty busy. Has there been any thought to augmenting this fleet with something like the MQ-25?
Boeing has thrown out the Idea. I actually had a good ten minute chat about it at CANSEC. I actually support acquiring a few more Husky on top of our current order.
The refueling capacity of an individual Husky compared to a Polaris is already substantial, as we have previously discussed, however I would like to see more if only for the additional cargo capacity.
Its undiscussed how great the Husky will be when it comes to logistics, and how valuable such a capacity is for a country that, sadly, lacks alternative sources of strategic lift capability.
Can't get more C-17, have no Sealift… we have an inherent limitation that a few extra MRTT can make a decent dent in, on top of course of that extra refueling capacity.
Has there been any discussion about modifying some of our MRTTs into a freighter-style configuration with cargo doors and upper-deck pallet layouts instead of the standard airline cabin?
I always wonder about a tethered system. I believe Poland has ordered some. Less capable obviously but...