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

Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

WRT the C17s

If their use is going to be intermittent maybe buy them and get Coulson Aviation to manage them like they managed the Mars waterbombers as a reserve fleet.


I don't think we will have a hard time keeping the extra C17s busy. I believe you will find they are an extremely busy aircraft.

And I dislike the idea of having and outside agency as another hurdle in the way of getting to them.
 
31 BUSD / 10,000,000 Swedes
123 BUSD / 40,000,000 Canadians

55,516.84 USD (2023) Per capita GDP Sweden
53,431.19 USD (2023) Per capita GDP Canada

31.5% Debt to GDP Sweden
110.8% Debt to GDP Canada
So you're saying its possible, lol.
 
Speaking of our CC-177's...good thing nothing like this could happen here, right?....RIGHT?


As I suggested in a previous post I think that part of our increased defence spending needs to be spent on hangers/concrete shelters for all of our aircraft as well as increased security and on-site C-UAS, AD capabilities at our airfields and other facilities. The Ukrainian's Operation Spider Web against the Russian Strategic Bomber force and security incursions like this one in the UK could seriously affect our capability to defend ourselves or deploy our forces.
 
I don't think we will have a hard time keeping the extra C17s busy. I believe you will find they are an extremely busy aircraft.

And I dislike the idea of having and outside agency as another hurdle in the way of getting to them.

For some reason I find it always slightly concerning when a capability like that of our C17s is being used at something like 80-90% capacity during routine peacetime operations.

To me that sounds like the capability is massively under resourced and will be highly overstretched to meet wartime requirements.
 
For some reason I find it always slightly concerning when a capability like that of our C17s is being used at something like 80-90% capacity during routine peacetime operations.

To me that sounds like the capability is massively under resourced and will be highly overstretched to meet wartime requirements.
Or we use them because they are available, and not because they are the best option.

Sunk cost fallacy is a hell of a drug.
 
For some reason I find it always slightly concerning when a capability like that of our C17s is being used at something like 80-90% capacity during routine peacetime operations.

To me that sounds like the capability is massively under resourced and will be highly overstretched to meet wartime requirements.

Im no RCAF mover but I suspect it will be unsustainable in war time scenario. And they will be prime targets for our adversary.
 
Im no RCAF mover but I suspect it will be unsustainable in war time scenario. And they will be prime targets for our adversary.

It looks like enemy action might be the least of our worries...

Only 40% of air force inventory ready for action as Canada rethinks its F-35 contract​

Mixed fleets and avoiding American firms come with their own challenges​


Only 40 per cent of Canada's air force inventory is considered serviceable and ready to fight, according to a new military-wide readiness document obtained by CBC News.

And the uncertainty about the availability and age of the various fleets of aircraft is expected to grow in light of the Liberal government's pledge to look at alternatives to the F-35 fighters and the possibility that the number of U.S.-made warplanes on order could be reduced.

The document, dated Feb. 18, 2025, tracks the availability of military equipment and personnel. It projects that 60 per cent of the air force inventory is "unserviceable" and likely not fit for deployment should NATO call upon this country.

 
So you're saying its possible, lol.

Canada's total public debt, encompassing both federal and provincial levels, is substantial. In 2021, the market value of gross debt for the consolidated Canadian general government was $2,942 billion, according to Wikipedia. This includes debt from federal, provincial, territorial, and local governments. While the federal debt is around $1.2 trillion, the total public debt, including provincial and local governments, is significantly higher.

If Danielle Smith got her 1 MBPD pipeline and it generated 20 BCAD per year as suggested, and all of those revenues were donated exclusively to government debt if would take

147 years to pay off the national consolidated debt
100 years to pay down the consolidated debt to something like Swedish levels
60 years just to pay off the federal debt

We are looking at slave trade era borrowing obligations more than even WW1 and WW2.

It’s hard to believe but it was only in 2015 that, according to the Treasury, British taxpayers finished ‘paying off’ the debt which the British government incurred in order to compensate British slave owners in 1835 because of the abolition of slavery.


Funds borrowed in 1835 repaid in 2015 - 180 years later

WW1 debts also repaid in 2015 - 98 years later
WW2 debts repaid in 2006 - 60 years later

Fun factoid - by 1946, when Britain was so financially straitened that it could be coerced into giving up its imperial efforts, its debt to GDP ratio was roughly the same as that of Sweden today - 33%

By the end of World War II Britain had amassed an immense debt of £21 billion. Much of this was held in foreign hands, with around £3.4 billion being owed overseas (mainly to creditors in the United States), a sum which represented around one third of annual GDP


There is hope however

The history of the British national debt can be traced back to the reign of William III, who engaged a syndicate of City traders and merchants to offer for an issue of government debt, which evolved into the Bank of England. In 1815, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, British government debt reached a peak of £1 billion (that was more than 200% of GDP).





1750430422290.png
 
Last edited:
Im no RCAF mover but I suspect it will be unsustainable in war time scenario. And they will be prime targets for our adversary.

Which is one reason I suggest "war stock" platforms being managed after the fashion of the Mars waterbombers. Available in the last resort but maintained flight worthy.

A more mundane example of which I am fond is the UK's Green Goddess programme

Production of the fleet ran between 1953 and 1956, during which time some 1,300 SHZ versions and 1,900 RLHZ versions were built.
When the CDC* was “stood down” in 1968, many of the Green Goddess vehicles, perhaps over 1,000, were mothballed and placed into storage. Responsibility for the service and maintenance to keep them in running order in case of an emergency was transferred to the Army. That proved to be just as well because throughout the 1970s Britain was racked by a series of disputes, not least of which was a strike by fire services employees. This sometimes led to the Army deploying the Green Goddesses and their crews, who did their best but had limited training.

*The CDC, or Civil Defence Corps, was a body of unpaid volunteers raised in 1949 that served until being disbanded in 1968. The membership peaked in 1956 at 330,000 members.


This was a fire truck (actually, to be more precise it was a pumper that could be deployed during both fires and floods) but the concept could equally apply to any specialist vehicles - armoured cars, tanks, AAA, aircraft, helicopters..... Bv206s
 
All kidding aside, one of the things that our NATO and other allies rely on the United States for is strategic airlift. Significantly increasing our own capability in that area would make us extremely valuable to our allies in the face of a potentially unreliable US. Combine that with large war stocks of key munitions to fly on those aircraft and Canada could play a key role in any future conflict.

Get another ten and we'd have almost double the fleet of any of our allies. Combine that with our 9 x CC-130's and our 17 x CC-130J's and we could move a significant amount of materiel.
Actually makes sense - any idea if we could staff this scale of fleet?
 
Actually makes sense - any idea if we could staff this scale of fleet?
Well I suppose we could always do away with both the Snowbirds and the RCAF pipe band.
And of course a small reduction in numbers of staff related positions in Ottawa.
If...we were serious about this.
 
It looks like enemy action might be the least of our worries...

Only 40% of air force inventory ready for action as Canada rethinks its F-35 contract​

Mixed fleets and avoiding American firms come with their own challenges​


Only 40 per cent of Canada's air force inventory is considered serviceable and ready to fight, according to a new military-wide readiness document obtained by CBC News.

And the uncertainty about the availability and age of the various fleets of aircraft is expected to grow in light of the Liberal government's pledge to look at alternatives to the F-35 fighters and the possibility that the number of U.S.-made warplanes on order could be reduced.

The document, dated Feb. 18, 2025, tracks the availability of military equipment and personnel. It projects that 60 per cent of the air force inventory is "unserviceable" and likely not fit for deployment should NATO call upon this country.

Its sad at how badly those 2nd hand Australian F18's and those ex-Air Force One Marine Helo's can skew our operational numbers.....
 
For some reason I find it always slightly concerning when a capability like that of our C17s is being used at something like 80-90% capacity during routine peacetime operations.

To me that sounds like the capability is massively under resourced and will be highly overstretched to meet wartime requirements.
I remember talking with a C17 crew member at Shearwater airshow back in 2014. He said the RCAF had asked for 6 got 4 and there was work for 8. Now that we know what they can do perhaps 12, should the line reopen.
 
I remember talking with a C17 crew member at Shearwater airshow back in 2014. He said the RCAF had asked for 6 got 4 and there was work for 8. Now that we know what they can do perhaps 12, should the line reopen.
The RCAF's main limiting factor is aircrew and maintainers, not airframes.
 
I remember talking with a C17 crew member at Shearwater airshow back in 2014. He said the RCAF had asked for 6 got 4 and there was work for 8. Now that we know what they can do perhaps 12, should the line reopen.
I would be cautious about accepting the thoughts of a tactical level operator as reflective of actual decisions and influences within a project. Much like the average supply tech does not really have some magical insight into equipment projects. Maybe they know something, but probably they have the same Reddit gossip as anyone else.
 
I would be cautious about accepting the thoughts of a tactical level operator as reflective of actual decisions and influences within a project. Much like the average supply tech does not really have some magical insight into equipment projects. Maybe they know something, but probably they have the same Reddit gossip as anyone else.

Strategic and tactical levels need to be careful talking in each others lanes.
 
Stop requiring all pilots to go through RMC.

Get them while they are young and eager and impressionable.

🍻
Go full commonwealth air training plan, get airfields across the prairies doing basic pilot training.
 
Back
Top