Government makes specific military commitments

[winchable]

Ummm so you would use these "cats" to transport army equipment through some of the roughest weather in the world with no escort and no resupply for themselves?

I was wondering myself if they would hold up in open water, mid atlantic as well as they do when they‘re running a coastal route.

What kind of retrofit would they need to be capable of transporting military goods? (armour, weapons, etc.)
Just out of curiosity.

 

[Infanteer]

You sail it to Diego, Pakistan or India and then fly stuff in. That would save a ton of money and might help show the Americans that we‘re willing to pay our own way (or at least most of it). And then when the ships are in-theatre they could be used to help the Americans move things around.

Why don‘t we fly them right from Canada in our own planes...I think that more than anything would show the Americans we can be let off their leash.

When the ships aren‘t being used they could be placed in mothballs like the Huron is right now. We could even make them Reserve vessels (seems to work for the MCDVs).

I do like that idea, it could save on costs if we bought something like this and gave it to the reserves to be pulled out when we really needed it.

 

[Jason Jarvis]

Originally posted by Che:
[qb]

Ummm so you would use these "cats" to transport army equipment through some of the roughest weather in the world with no escort and no resupply for themselves?

I was wondering myself if they would hold up in open water, mid atlantic as well as they do when they‘re running a coastal route.

What kind of retrofit would they need to be capable of transporting military goods? (armour, weapons, etc.)
Just out of curiosity. [/qb]

Come on guys, think about this for a second. Just because the Pacificat can do 35 kts doesn‘t mean it will -- but it‘ll certainly be able to keep up with the CPFs, which is more than can be said for the Preserver/Protecteur. And do you honestly think the navy would send a transport ship into a potentially hostile region without escort of some kind (if not ours, than another NATO ally)?

Why don‘t we fly them right from Canada in our own planes...I think that more than anything would show the Americans we can be let off their leash.

Why? Because I don‘t think we have enough "stuff" to keep 4-6 C-17s busy enough to justify the expense. Do we go through peak periods when they would be kept hopping? Of course we do, Afghanistan being an excellent case in point. But without crunching the numbers, I‘ve got to believe that operating these ships -- especially if crewed by reservists -- would be significantly more cost effective.

I don‘t think it‘s a question of the Americans letting us off the leash -- maybe off the hook -- it‘s more a question of our government willing to undertake unilateral military operations overseas. Considering that all our military policy revolves around coalition warfare, this is highly unlikely. Upgrading our ancient Hercs to the new -J standard would be an excellent start, however, especially if they could be refuelled in mid-air.

Imagine a battalion group performing an airlanding assault in hostile territory, reinforced by follow-up forces launched over the horizon by utility CH-149s based on militarized Pacificats and standard AORs, supported by naval gunfire and armed CH-146 Griffins. Once a beachhead is established, LAVIIIs, Coyotes, MGS, LAV-TOWs and LAV-ADATS could off-load from LSTs. CF-18s could transit into theatre, supported by aerial refuellers. . . . Oh God, it‘s getting late!

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Well when these heavy lift aren‘t busy and I‘m pretty sure they would be there is search and rescue tasks, jump crse tasks etc that they could fill.

 

[Jason Jarvis]

Originally posted by CFL:
[qb] Well when these heavy lift aren‘t busy and I‘m pretty sure they would be there is search and rescue tasks, jump crse tasks etc that they could fill. [/qb]

Considering how much more expensive C-17s or A400Ms would be to operate than even our ancient Hercs or Buffalos, do you feel this would be a prudent expenditure of public funds? Let‘s leave the GG out of this discussion.

I could see using them for jump courses if we still had an operational airborne unit, but new C-103Js and C-27Js (especially the latter) would be more than sufficient to support our current operational tempo.

 

[Slim]

Originally posted by CFL:
[qb] Well when these heavy lift aren‘t busy and I‘m pretty sure they would be there is search and rescue tasks, jump crse tasks etc that they could fill. [/qb]

SAR birds are, I believe, specially modified aircraft with a variety of tools not commonly found in general purpose airplanes and helicopters.

Simply "grabbing" an unused aircraft for that role will not be practical or safe for the searchers involved.

I would love to see us aquire "heavy lift" though!

Slim

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

So your saying that the Herc‘s the SAR techs use are modified in some way?

 

[Enzo]

I liked the proposal to acquire C-17‘s et al. When not in use, contract them out to others for heavy lift, the market is always going to be there. Make a deal with with either Airbus or Boeing and finance these things. Went not in use, rent them out.

As for the Pacificats, they are useless. They were never designed for deep water and those bloody engines?? No way. Imagine the fuel requirements for an international trip? As for those engines themselves, I can see the bills for engine replacement now. Not to mention stability and survivability. Big Pass!!