RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's

[Good2Golf]

RP Ops made sure that will never happen.

Let’s agree it was a team effort.

Yay Team RPOpsArmy!

 

[Cloud Cover]

The Army made sure that won’t ever happen.

And what a stupid, stupid move that was.

 

[Good2Golf]

And what a stupid, stupid move that was.

It was quite shortsighted. Those building could have reasonable gone anywhere else than on the runway…

 

[Cloud Cover]

It was quite shortsighted. Those building could have reasonable gone anywhere else than on the runway…

Decade of Darkness b.s.

 

[DBNSG]

What kind of numbers could possibly make sense for us?
We currently have 5 (?) and they are roughly 18ish yrs old?

I thought we used to operate about 12 C-130 E's out of Namao through the 70's but YTZ would probably have better insight.
How many of the C-330's are going west?

 

[brihard]

C-17 production rumours are starting to look a bit more true:

Boeing "Encouraged" By C-17 Production Restart Discussions

Congress recently asked the USAF for a briefing on the feasibility of buying new C-17s amid major strain on the existing fleet.

www.twz.com

I’m ready to have my heart broken again.

 

[MilEME09]

How many of the C-330's are going west?

Half the fleet will be at edmonton international airport

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It is a very interesting field - the concept isn't new - but the ARC is a specific small specialized cargo system - but others are looking at non orbital stationed items.

I know enough to know that the ARC loitering orbital drop ship won't work for humans (unless you tied it into a ISS type thing for crew habitat) and that seems to be a really poor way to have a contingency force sitting in orbit for years. The rest I am totally clueless on.

I suspect the cost would make those 20 C-17 look cheap though...

Starfall might be a delivery tool to SF teams in deep.

 

[Infanteer]

Let's hope. My dream would be to see Edmonton back in the game as a transport Wing with C-17s and A330s.

The Army made sure that won’t ever happen.

RP Ops made sure that will never happen.

Even if we wanted to, the urban sprawl is now right up to the base, so I'm not sure a continuous stream of strategic lifters taking off and landing would be appreciated by the locals.

 

[Good2Golf]

Even if we wanted to, the urban sprawl is now right up to the base, so I'm not sure a continuous stream of strategic lifters taking off and landing would be appreciated by the locals.

True. Get on the pickle bus for YOD…

 

[ytz]

The Army made sure that won’t ever happen.

YEG. That's where the tankers are going. Pending some contentious negotiations with the airport authority.....

What kind of numbers could possibly make sense for us?
We currently have 5 (?) and they are roughly 18ish yrs old?

A standard C-17 squadron is 8 aircraft. For some reason, we only bought half a squadron. So I would argue full squadron + training + maintenance is something like 12 frames minimum. If we're really ambitious we get two under-strength squadrons of 6 each in Trenton and Edmonton. And then another 4-5 for the training and maintenance pipeline. 16-17 frames would be something else.

If we're really, really, really ambitious? We decided to rebaseline the entire fleet after heavy usage during the GWOT era. We buy 15-16 frames and give 4-5 frames to NATO at Papa.

How many of the C-330's are going west?

Half the fleet will be at edmonton international airport

Yep. I think it's something like a 5:4 split Trenton: Edmonton. Obviously the VVIP bird has to stay in Trenton. We're going to get more tankers too. The current order of 9 just isn't enough for what that fleet needs to support. Probably going to 12 with a 7:5 split if I had to guess.

 

[McG]

RP Ops made sure that will never happen.

RP Ops did not exist until a double digit number of years after all the major unit buildings were constructed on the runway.

 

[Halifax Tar]

A standard C-17 squadron is 8 aircraft. For some reason, we only bought half a squadron. So I would argue full squadron + training + maintenance is something like 12 frames minimum. If we're really ambitious we get two under-strength squadrons of 6 each in Trenton and Edmonton. And then another 4-5 for the training and maintenance pipeline. 16-17 frames would be something else.

If we're really, really, really ambitious? We decided to rebaseline the entire fleet after heavy usage during the GWOT era. We buy 15-16 frames and give 4-5 frames to NATO at Papa.

I don't know how the big money moves around but I would love to see the RCN kick in substantial support for more C17s with a condition that we can get constant access to them for our sustainment and pers movements needs.

 

[McG]

I don't know how the big money moves around but I would love to see the RCN kick in substantial support for more C17s with a condition that we can get constant access to them for our sustainment and pers movements needs.

L1s don't allocate money like that. The big projects get approved through a series of joint gateways where every L1 has a seat at the table. CFD runs a table that assesses and approves the requirement. VCDS runs the subsequent higher table that controls the funds. L1s can support each other or fight each other at those tables.

 

[Halifax Tar]

L1s don't allocate money like that. The big projects get approved through a series of joint gateways where every L1 has a seat at the table. CFD runs a table that assesses and approves the requirement. VCDS runs the subsequent higher table that controls the funds. L1s can support each other or fight each other at those tables.

I appreciate the insight. I hope CRCN endorses and supports further purchases of Strat Airlift.

 

[daftandbarmy]

It was quite shortsighted. Those building could have reasonable gone anywhere else than on the runway…

Is Abbotsford airport big enough?

After 'the big one' all the C-17s will likely be there anyways, assuming the runway survives

 

[Czech_pivo]

A standard C-17 squadron is 8 aircraft. For some reason, we only bought half a squadron. So I would argue full squadron + training + maintenance is something like 12 frames minimum. If we're really ambitious we get two under-strength squadrons of 6 each in Trenton and Edmonton. And then another 4-5 for the training and maintenance pipeline. 16-17 frames would be something else.

If we're really, really, really ambitious? We decided to rebaseline the entire fleet after heavy usage during the GWOT era. We buy 15-16 frames and give 4-5 frames to NATO at Papa.

Got it.
So to recap, we might get 3-4 more, right?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The Army made sure that won’t ever happen.

YEG.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Is Abbotsford airport big enough?

After 'the big one' all the C-17s will likely be there anyways, assuming the runway survives

I have personally flown in and out of Halifax Stanfield on a C17...

 

[ytz]

L1s don't allocate money like that. The big projects get approved through a series of joint gateways where every L1 has a seat at the table. CFD runs a table that assesses and approves the requirement. VCDS runs the subsequent higher table that controls the funds. L1s can support each other or fight each other at those tables.

Great explanation. Yep. CFD and VCDS are supposed to be integrating requirements across multiple elements into a cohesive vision. How well they do that though.....

I appreciate the insight. I hope CRCN endorses and supports further purchases of Strat Airlift.

Honestly, I think the CA is driving this one. The RCAF drove the Airbus buy by arguing for more and larger tankers. The biggest user and forecast demand for strat airlift is the CA though. If they come to the table and say they need to be able to move a battalion of LAV 6 to Latvia in 4 days, that drives a requirement for a fleet of 8-10 C-17s.

Got it.
So to recap, we might get 3-4 more, right?

I am personally hoping for at least 7-8. But honestly, as we see on the fighter side and increasingly on some others like space, politics is driving so much decision-making.