RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's

[KevinB]

Both have their place.

True but for coastal adjacent operations something like a Mistral has massive advantages. The ability to operate a significant number of helicopters and provide a secure environment to work from.
The JSS doesn’t offer that.

But large naval vessels can also be large targets in hostile environments. The tactical air transport fleet doesn’t need to sit exposed for long periods of time.

The main issue is what does the Canadian Government want, and what is the Canadian public willing to pay…

Unfortunately I believe you are going to see less and less American in the world. Which will result in the burden for both humanitarian operations and recovery of nationals from non permissive areas falling on smaller militaries that aren’t as well equipped, as well as those incidents becoming larger in number.

 

[FJAG]

Unfortunately I believe you are going to see less and less American in the world.

Well, there's always the Caribbean.

 

[Kirkhill]

5x CC-177

Too valuable to waste carrying people
Adding a troop of 3 Leos to a light battalion would be a better use of them.

17x CC-130J30

55 ft long cabin excluding the ramp
ISV is 17 ft long (3 per J30)
MRZR D4 is 12 ft long (4 per J30)
92 paratroopers fully loaded
128 soldiers (TALO?)

12x CC-130H

40 ft long cabin excluding the ramp
ISV is 17 ft long (2 per J30)
MRZR D4 is 12 ft long (3 per J30)
64 paratroopers fully loaded
90 soldiers (TALO?)

9x CC-330 (is this true?)

Passenger and cargo configurations

• Standard passenger: The CC-330 can carry over 250 passengers, though its primary military role allows for more flexible configurations.
• Aeromedical evacuation: In this role, it can carry up to 144 passengers, 24 aeromedical evacuation crew members, and multiple patients, including 6 ambulatory patients, 2 critical care patients, and 8 non-critical care patients.
• Cargo: The CC-330 can also transport cargo, with a maximum payload of 45 tons.
• Mixed capacity: When configured for a mix of passengers and cargo, it can carry up to 37 metric tons of cargo along with passengers.

CC-330s to move people and break-bulk cargo long distances quickly from Canada to a regional support hub. Preferably close to the point of ingress.

CC-130s to move vehicles to the support hub and then to commence shuttle runs into theater - short hops

CC-177s to move outsize vehicles in small number to hub, possibly over a period of time. Then short hops to deliver vehicles to theater.

A Light Battle Group reinforced with a battery of M777s, a couple of troops of ACSVs and a troop of Leos? 1 week? Need a GBAD capability, or two and a security force for the hub.

 

[Baz]

Both have their place.

True but for coastal adjacent operations something like a Mistral has massive advantages. The ability to operate a significant number of helicopters and provide a secure environment to work from. The JSS doesn’t offer that.

I think we need to understand it’s not a JSS, it’s an AOR, which is what the Navy wanted all along. The JSS part was a failed attempt to get it accelerated by saying it was for HADR and the army, even though the Army didn’t want it. Lack of focus, on the part of both the Navy and the government, has resulted in a gap in at sea sustainment, and that is becoming increasingly important. Even though it’s “just” an AOR we need more, preferably four.

Even though I’m a supporter of littoral maneuver and concentration of air power, a “big honking ship” is too much for Canada right now. How are we going to protect it? Ironically, that is part of the “Bonnie” pronblem.

We should get the AOPS helo certified. Two or three of them would be a perfect HADR platform. What you loss in concentration you gain in dispersed flexibility. Will a Chinook fit? The Protecteurs come into their own by providing sustainment to keep them on station and bring in relief supplies (so get good at heavy jack-stays). This capability also is a good fit for our North, plus aerial surveillance and ice capable subs.

We should show commitment to Latvia by making a scalable (to a full Canadian brigade group?) by prepositioning, including appropriate “divisional” enablers (including aviation) and sustainment. So the 330s can get that spun up with people, quickly. Everything that is prepositioned should be duplicated in Canada, and when they go there should be a plan for the reserves to take up that equipment.

So that leaves a light QRF. What size? How armoured? What is the sustainment footprint? What is the deployment availability, both timeline and distance (worldwide)? What are the consumption rates?

Figure out what that is, and that will tell you whether we need more C-17s.

Which leaves the Navy figuring out what they are missing to:

• escort (civilian cargo) a follow on Brigade (and divisional HQ and enablers?) and sustainment to Europe
• have a meaningful presence in SE Asia

Which means an “escort carrier” might be a consideration in the far future, for concentration of air power, and possibly air only literal maneuver (ASW and well deck hulls aren’t the same thing). Which means F-35Bs, because they need to protect themselves with layered air defence. Something in the 20,000 ton range… so a new “Bonnie.” (Bonnie’s?) And a bunch of new helos… make no mistake, this thought bubble isn’t cheap.

 

[KevinB]

5x CC-177

Too valuable to waste carrying people
Adding a troop of 3 Leos to a light battalion would be a better use of them.

Why? If you need tanks, the role isn't for a Light unit.

The MPV role in something like a NEO is why I liked the Bison, and somewhat the Stryker, as the original configurations could fit into Hercs.
You can jump in a LIB to seize the airfield, then you can land some Bison for the Escort and Cordon folks as well as the overt SOF teams if the environment calls for that sort of thing.

17x CC-130J30

55 ft long cabin excluding the ramp
ISV is 17 ft long (3 per J30)
MRZR D4 is 12 ft long (4 per J30)
92 paratroopers fully loaded
128 soldiers (TALO?)

12x CC-130H

40 ft long cabin excluding the ramp
ISV is 17 ft long (2 per J30)
MRZR D4 is 12 ft long (3 per J30)
64 paratroopers fully loaded
90 soldiers (TALO?)

You generally cannot fit vehicles "nut to butt", each airframe has specific load plans for vehicles - and without the SMU Waiver there is no getting around that - and that's solely for those units with NLI mission sets.

Also the Herc load numbers for jumpers and soldiers is a little optimistic. LocMart's marketing brochure seems to be based around a short Ft Bragg training jump - as opposed to flying 3+hrs NOE to do a cbt jump

9x CC-330 (is this true?)

Passenger and cargo configurations

• Standard passenger: The CC-330 can carry over 250 passengers, though its primary military role allows for more flexible configurations.
• Aeromedical evacuation: In this role, it can carry up to 144 passengers, 24 aeromedical evacuation crew members, and multiple patients, including 6 ambulatory patients, 2 critical care patients, and 8 non-critical care patients.
• Cargo: The CC-330 can also transport cargo, with a maximum payload of 45 tons.
• Mixed capacity: When configured for a mix of passengers and cargo, it can carry up to 37 metric tons of cargo along with passengers.

CC-330s to move people and break-bulk cargo long distances quickly from Canada to a regional support hub. Preferably close to the point of ingress.

CC-130s to move vehicles to the support hub and then to commence shuttle runs into theater - short hops

CC-177s to move outsize vehicles in small number to hub, possibly over a period of time. Then short hops to deliver vehicles to theater.

A Light Battle Group reinforced with a battery of M777s, a couple of troops of ACSVs and a troop of Leos? 1 week? Need a GBAD capability, or two and a security force for the hub.

I think you are being unrealistic with what the RCAF can move, and how fast the CA could be ready to move.
Leo will take a Globe - so that is 4 chalks for a troop.
ACSV will go 2 per Globe - so 2 chalks per troop/Platoon, and depending on what you mean by a "a couple" that could be 4-8 chalks, for this discussion lets say 6 chalks for 2 Platoons.
M777 1/ Herc but the vehicle you have for them won't fit in a Herc - so you now need 6 177 Chalks.
Any Aviation support? That will burn up 177 Chalks as well as the Griffons nor Chinooks won't fit in Herc's

Lets ignore the movement to theatre for the personnel for the moment.

Also those 5 CC-177 Globemasters, you won get them all, the CAF still has other stuff on the go, and if you are putting a Light BG somewhere - odds are that CANSOF is using the 177's too.
So lets say the CF side of the CAF has 3 177 airframes to work with, and be fairly generous with the fact 1 flight will be a 24hr period (load, fly, unload, refuel, swap crews and fly home).
So in 5.3 days after the units are ready you have been able to deliver the 4 Leo's, 8 ACSV and the 777 Bty, plus the 18+hrs NTM that your force is on (and lets face it outside of the IRU LIB's ain't no part of the CA getting out the door inside 24hrs).
The Herc's can move the troops and light vehicles - but your C-177 fleet cannot accomplish what you want inside 7 days.

The CC-330, the cargo cube is more of a limiting factor than weight - as the cargo space I listed above isn't as conducive to moving cargo as the ramp or nose load dedicated cargo airframes.

There is a reason why even with the air movement ability of the USAF that the US Army prepositions heavy equipment, and also why XVIII Airborne Corps are the ones to go first.

If you want an actual light armored vehicle for your task force, you need to find something that the C-130's can carry (and here is where we go back to the Bison, as it is a heck of a lot more practical than armored Suburbans...)


Sea lift is the only reasonable way to move anything heavier than a Bison/LAV 2.0 series vehicle, and that is not just for Canada - it is for everyone.

 

[KevinB]

I think we need to understand it’s not a JSS, it’s an AOR, which is what the Navy wanted all along. The JSS part was a failed attempt to get it accelerated by saying it was for HADR and the army, even though the Army didn’t want it. Lack of focus, on the part of both the Navy and the government, has resulted in a gap in at sea sustainment, and that is becoming increasingly important. Even though it’s “just” an AOR we need more, preferably four.

Even though I’m a supporter of littoral maneuver and concentration of air power, a “big honking ship” is too much for Canada right now. How are we going to protect it? Ironically, that is part of the “Bonnie” pronblem.

We should get the AOPS helo certified. Two or three of them would be a perfect HADR platform. What you loss in concentration you gain in dispersed flexibility. Will a Chinook fit? The Protecteurs come into their own by providing sustainment to keep them on station and bring in relief supplies (so get good at heavy jack-stays). This capability also is a good fit for our North, plus aerial surveillance and ice capable subs.

We should show commitment to Latvia by making a scalable (to a full Canadian brigade group?) by prepositioning, including appropriate “divisional” enablers (including aviation) and sustainment. So the 330s can get that spun up with people, quickly. Everything that is prepositioned should be duplicated in Canada, and when they go there should be a plan for the reserves to take up that equipment.

So that leaves a light QRF. What size? How armoured? What is the sustainment footprint? What is the deployment availability, both timeline and distance (worldwide)? What are the consumption rates?

Figure out what that is, and that will tell you whether we need more C-17s.

Which leaves the Navy figuring out what they are missing to:

• escort (civilian cargo) a follow on Brigade (and divisional HQ and enablers?) and sustainment to Europe
• have a meaningful presence in SE Asia

Which means an “escort carrier” might be a consideration in the far future, for concentration of air power, and possibly air only literal maneuver (ASW and well deck hulls aren’t the same thing). Which means F-35Bs, because they need to protect themselves with layered air defence. Something in the 20,000 ton range… so a new “Bonnie.” (Bonnie’s?) And a bunch of new helos… make no mistake, this thought bubble isn’t cheap.

You posted more of less what I was trying to portray a lot more clearly, in greater detail, and less argumentatively.

 

[Kirkhill]

Why? If you need tanks, the role isn't for a Light unit.

The MPV role in something like a NEO is why I liked the Bison, and somewhat the Stryker, as the original configurations could fit into Hercs.
You can jump in a LIB to seize the airfield, then you can land some Bison for the Escort and Cordon folks as well as the overt SOF teams if the environment calls for that sort of thing.



You generally cannot fit vehicles "nut to butt", each airframe has specific load plans for vehicles - and without the SMU Waiver there is no getting around that - and that's solely for those units with NLI mission sets.

Also the Herc load numbers for jumpers and soldiers is a little optimistic. LocMart's marketing brochure seems to be based around a short Ft Bragg training jump - as opposed to flying 3+hrs NOE to do a cbt jump


I think you are being unrealistic with what the RCAF can move, and how fast the CA could be ready to move.
Leo will take a Globe - so that is 4 chalks for a troop.
ACSV will go 2 per Globe - so 2 chalks per troop/Platoon, and depending on what you mean by a "a couple" that could be 4-8 chalks, for this discussion lets say 6 chalks for 2 Platoons.
M777 1/ Herc but the vehicle you have for them won't fit in a Herc - so you now need 6 177 Chalks.
Any Aviation support? That will burn up 177 Chalks as well as the Griffons nor Chinooks won't fit in Herc's

Lets ignore the movement to theatre for the personnel for the moment.

Also those 5 CC-177 Globemasters, you won get them all, the CAF still has other stuff on the go, and if you are putting a Light BG somewhere - odds are that CANSOF is using the 177's too.
So lets say the CF side of the CAF has 3 177 airframes to work with, and be fairly generous with the fact 1 flight will be a 24hr period (load, fly, unload, refuel, swap crews and fly home).
So in 5.3 days after the units are ready you have been able to deliver the 4 Leo's, 8 ACSV and the 777 Bty, plus the 18+hrs NTM that your force is on (and lets face it outside of the IRU LIB's ain't no part of the CA getting out the door inside 24hrs).
The Herc's can move the troops and light vehicles - but your C-177 fleet cannot accomplish what you want inside 7 days.

The CC-330, the cargo cube is more of a limiting factor than weight - as the cargo space I listed above isn't as conducive to moving cargo as the ramp or nose load dedicated cargo airframes.

There is a reason why even with the air movement ability of the USAF that the US Army prepositions heavy equipment, and also why XVIII Airborne Corps are the ones to go first.

If you want an actual light armored vehicle for your task force, you need to find something that the C-130's can carry (and here is where we go back to the Bison, as it is a heck of a lot more practical than armored Suburbans...)


Sea lift is the only reasonable way to move anything heavier than a Bison/LAV 2.0 series vehicle, and that is not just for Canada - it is for everyone.

So a light battle group in a week is feasible then with what we have. Certainly within Canada and probably to western Europe.

And what happens in week 2?

Another light battle group? Or do you start thickening up with heavier enablers? What does the situation look like after a month? Three months? A year?

Afghanistan didn't happen over night. And pre-positioning takes time.

Could we send a couple of chartered RoRo over? Absolutely. That will take about a month.

What can we achieve with our existing lift in that month?

....

We can't do a shock and awe drop of a division into a situation. If that is what the situation demands then we won't be there. But a rapid deployment of a battle group and a follow on of a brigade within the next month or two?

 

[KevinB]

So a light battle group in a week is feasible then with what we have. Certainly within Canada and probably to western Europe.

Depending upon what your definition of Light and BattleGroup is, yes.
I am still unsure of why anyone would want to send a Light BG to Western Europe - when it is clearly better to pre-position heavier forces, and fly troops over to fill that equipment.

And what happens in week 2?

Another light battle group? Or do you start thickening up with heavier enablers? What does the situation look like after a month? Three months? A year?

Situationally dependent.
Generally the goal for an RDF is to either accomplish the task or be replaced/reinforced by heavier forces in 30 days.

Remember the Stryker came out of the Somalian adventure - where 10th Mnt and TF Ranger didn't have any armored vehicles, Hummer's and M35 unarmored trucks where the only ground mobility.
However the Stryker grew and grew - and lost any advantage it had with being able to be easily airlifted - as it size and weighted itself out of the Herc.

Afghanistan didn't happen over night. And pre-positioning takes time.

Could we send a couple of chartered RoRo over? Absolutely. That will take about a month.

RoRo should be around 2 weeks - assuming availability of ship and equipment.

What can we achieve with our existing lift in that month?

You would run crews ragged trying to do much with 3-5 available CC-177 beyond a Light Brigade.
It is highly impractical to fly heavy equipment - the juice is not worth the squeeze -- if you really need heavy equipment to conduct the mission, then it is going to take longer to assemble, and then sealift is your friend.

....

We can't do a shock and awe drop of a division into a situation. If that is what the situation demands then we won't be there. But a rapid deployment of a battle group and a follow on of a brigade within the next month or two?

Cardinal rule being never send less than a Bde.
So either ensure that Canada can align to other nations to make a CotW Bde, or pony up the bar to ensure that you can support a Bde.

 

[Kirkhill]

Depending upon what your definition of Light and BattleGroup is, yes.
I am still unsure of why anyone would want to send a Light BG to Western Europe - when it is clearly better to pre-position heavier forces, and fly troops over to fill that equipment.

Situationally dependent.
Generally the goal for an RDF is to either accomplish the task or be replaced/reinforced by heavier forces in 30 days.

Remember the Stryker came out of the Somalian adventure - where 10th Mnt and TF Ranger didn't have any armored vehicles, Hummer's and M35 unarmored trucks where the only ground mobility.
However the Stryker grew and grew - and lost any advantage it had with being able to be easily airlifted - as it size and weighted itself out of the Herc.



RoRo should be around 2 weeks - assuming availability of ship and equipment.

You would run crews ragged trying to do much with 3-5 available CC-177 beyond a Light Brigade.
It is highly impractical to fly heavy equipment - the juice is not worth the squeeze -- if you really need heavy equipment to conduct the mission, then it is going to take longer to assemble, and then sealift is your friend.

Cardinal rule being never send less than a Bde.
So either ensure that Canada can align to other nations to make a CotW Bde, or pony up the bar to ensure that you can support a Bde.

Strange thing is Kev, you and I find opportunities to argue about stuff we agree on.

For me the bottom line is I would sooner do something than nothing and that means working within my, usually, limited means.
Nobody has ever given me a blank cheque.

Light Brigades in Europe? There seem to be a lot of them.
And even the most ardent light warrior probably wouldn't object to some heavier weaponry joining. Even if it is just some 7.62, 30 and 76mm stuff in a 6 tonne vehicle. Your USMC tanks were generally used in penny packets with your MEUs, most of which expected to fight light.
RoRo in 2 weeks, assuming the RoRo and the kit are both at the docks. If they have to get there from Edmonton and Shilo it could be a minute.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Lack of focus, on the part of both the Navy and the government, has resulted in a gap in at sea sustainment.

No, no, no and no, on the Navy part. How many times do we have to spell it out: Moving and/or landing the Army is not repeat not a Navy decision. it is an Army one: If and when the Army decides it needs the capability and convinces the government of such, the Navy will tell the government what ships are needed and once acquired, will operate them as required. But the Navy will not acquire ships and capabilities the Army hasn't asked for just in case they suddenly decide they want it.

Make the decision at the Army/government level, issue us marching orders (and put the money where your mouth is) and the Navy will fall in line.

 

[ytz]

You manage to be a condescending ass a lot of times.

And I'll keep doing it everytime y'all insist on talking about shit far outside your lane with authority.

Having done the whole transatlantic thing in a CC-130 it wasn’t fun, and no one came out of it ready to do anything. I’ve done longer trips in a C-17 and had a decent rest and been able to function operationally after.

Cool. But comfort is not on the requirements matrix for a small air force. Doing the job is. So if an air bridge of strat and tactical airlift does the job, that's what matters. And this is exactly how 8 Wg plans.

My previous math was based on actual operational load plans.
The J-30 Herc has more room for troops, but still doesn’t offer any vehicle options with the troops, as the width doesn’t allow for it.
The C-17 isn’t packed like a sardine and offers room between the jumpers. I have no experience on the A400M to know what can or can’t be fit.

So you used the book number for the standard J and then decided a 15 ft fuselage extension only adds 6 additional jumpers? You clearly have no idea how much more room a stretch J has. Do you now get why I become condescending?

But for the sake of a forum discussion, let's at least stick to published numbers.

I have no inside knowledge on what Canada’s take on the readiness state for the GRTF.

And yet you knew that there wasn't enough airlift to move it?

The problem is that handful of SOF guys need support.
I don’t think you have any sort of clue as the amount of support that is required to send even a troop out the door.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm just saying that I have never seen anything that says we need to be able to move to masses of force you suggest. Whatever we plan is clearly going to be within scope for policy and capabilities. And let's not forget that this tangent started with a discussion on doing JFE which I'm not even sure the CA or CANSOF has as an actually required mission set.

Now I’m not suggesting that JTF-2 needs 6 C-17’s earmarked for them at all times, but even a modest support force would entirely empty Canada’s Air Lift.

Again. Let's see your math. What are you basing this on? Basically your view is that you have no idea what the lift requirement is, but you know that whatever it is the RCAF can't do it. What's the point of a discussion here?

 

[DBNSG]

No, no, no and no, on the Navy part. How many times do we have to spell it out: Moving and/or landing the Army is not repeat not a Navy decision. it is an Army one: If and when the Army decides it needs the capability and convinces the government of such, the Navy will tell the government what ships are needed and once acquired, will operate them as required. But the Navy will not acquire ships and capabilities the Army hasn't asked for just in case they suddenly decide they want it.

Make the decision at the Army/government level, issue us marching orders (and put the money where your mouth is) and the Navy will fall in line.

Well here is a maybe far off strategic Idea that would satisfy a number of the Government's new found interest in Real Canadian capabilities and does it in the old fashioned cheap Canadian way.

The Feds should purchase a fifth Marine Atlantic Ferry as a hot surplus 2600 lane meter capability that would back up the other ships and fill in as other ships go down for unannounced maintenance issues. It happens. Not all the time so that fifth Ship is earning revenue while extending the life of the other Ships. The Argentia -Sydney run ends Sept 19 or so every Summer.
Send that fifth Ship to North Sydney and turn the Sydney Garrison (600 PY reserve/reg positions) into a ready to go Infantry/Engineer task group that sails to Europe every September to Train and leave gear. The Ship flys an RCN auxiliary
flag , just like Asterix. The Civilian crews get a European trip. Canada could ship whatever we want using a National asset that pays for itself with Folks supporting the Newf Economy.

I await the flame.

 

[Baz]

No, no, no and no, on the Navy part. How many times do we have to spell it out: Moving and/or landing the Army is not repeat not a Navy decision. it is an Army one: If and when the Army decides it needs the capability and convinces the government of such, the Navy will tell the government what ships are needed and once acquired, will operate them as required. But the Navy will not acquire ships and capabilities the Army hasn't asked for just in case they suddenly decide they want it.

Make the decision at the Army/government level, issue us marching orders (and put the money where your mouth is) and the Navy will fall in line.

I completely agree, but that’s not what I said.

it was the Navy who muddied the waters and turned the AOR replacement into JSS, which then got wrapped up in the “Big Honking Ship.” The Navy tried to make the AOR something that nobody wanted, and it just confused the issue.

When it came down to it, we ordered an AOR (Wikipedia’s says the German Navy calls them Einsatzgruppenversorger which can be translated as "task force supplier"), yet continue to call them Joint Support Ships. They aren’t what the Navy was talking about in the 2005-2010 timeframe, but nobody is going to say that now.

What the Navy initially wanted is what they got and what they need. The intervening confusion is all on them, and probably delayed the whole thing.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

No, no, no and no, on the Navy part. How many times do we have to spell it out: Moving and/or landing the Army is not repeat not a Navy decision. it is an Army one: If and when the Army decides it needs the capability and convinces the government of such, the Navy will tell the government what ships are needed and once acquired, will operate them as required. But the Navy will not acquire ships and capabilities the Army hasn't asked for just in case they suddenly decide they want it.

Make the decision at the Army/government level, issue us marching orders (and put the money where your mouth is) and the Navy will fall in line.

I am going to disagree with you, it's a political decision, not an army, RCAF or RCN decision. If the government feels the need to move troops by sea and want the abilty to land them at austere locations with heavy equipment, then it's the CAF job to tell them how they are going to do it. The government might decide that building two Mistrals here is good politics and then tell the CAF; "You are getting these and you better make us look good and figure out how to use them".

 

[Baz]

And I'll keep doing it everytime y'all insist on talking about shit far outside your lane with authority.

Y’all is a plural statement, so I’m wondering who you mean. If you think you’re going to educate all of us you may be sorely disappointed.

Given that the CAF is god awful at explaining how it’s requirements flow from defence policy, the government is just as bad at explaining what and why that policy is, if it even exists, and the RCAF has a less than stellar reputation at understanding or caring what it’s role as a supporting organization is when supporting the army and navy, are you particularly surprised that people on the internet don’t agree with you.

If you want to be taken as an expert, at least start by telling as who you are in your profile. There’s nothing that tells me in these discussions you’re anymore of an expert than anyone else.

Edited to add: I think the basic problem in this conversation is that everybody agrees that we have a need to move a QRF somewhere, by ourselves, and sustain it. What isn’t agreed on, in no small part because neither the CF or the government has stated it, is what the QRF looks like. It’s hard to say the RCAF or 8 Wg knows they have the right mix of assets when they don’t know for sure what that likes like, where to, how quickly, and for how long. People are concerned that there may be a fleeting window to get more capability to hopefully we can move it if and when they need to, and they have every right to voice that opinion if for no other reason then they are taxpayers (most of them).

 

[Baz]

Well here is a maybe far off strategic Idea that would satisfy a number of the Government's new found interest in Real Canadian capabilities and does it in the old fashioned cheap Canadian way…

OK… what defence need does that meet, and how does it support Canada’s foreign policy goals?

 

[dapaterson]

Returning to the C17 topic title, the solution is to engage in a costly developmental program to convert a Twin Otter into a strategic airlift platform.

 

[Kirkhill]

Is this at all relevant?

 

[Baz]

Returning to the C17 topic title, the solution is to engage in a costly developmental program to convert a Twin Otter into a strategic airlift platform.

No, I think we should trust Elon, go into a prepaid firm contract for at least 100 Srarships configured point to point, and train our QRF to withstand reentey Gs. By may calculation a point to point Starship should be able to carry 2 Leapord 2s.

One Starship per company of troops = 6
4 LAV-6’a per Starship = 20
2 Leopards per Srarship = 9
A bunch of trucks = 20
Some gas in jerrycans = 20
Food and beer = 15
Bullets = 10

Edited to add: would used starships make a suitable replacement for mod tents?

 

[DBNSG]

OK… what defence need does that meet, and how does it support Canada’s foreign policy goals?

Latvian reinforcement for one as I don't see Canada walking away from that commitment any time soon.
It could lead to perhaps Arctic experimentation as the present fleet is Ice Strengthened. Send a Reserve Engineer unit North on Summer to see just how hard it is to do things but build Capacity. Escort the Ferry with a CCG Ice Breaker and an AOPS .
Leave the Army gear at Grays Bay since there are rumors' a road is going to be there. The Ferry's have the Hotel capacity to host hundreds of folks.

I agree that there are many easy NO's but perhaps this government is open to more Yes's and willing to spend and take a risk.