RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's

[dapaterson]

The CAF wants to invest the bare minimum into the training system (writ large) rather than understanding that military training capacity is a strategic asset to be maintained. Value engineering the IT&E system to almost be able to meet steady state means you lack capacity to expand, or to sustain after a catastrophic set of losses.

 

[Kirkhill]

The CAF wants to invest the bare minimum into the training system (writ large) rather than understanding that military training capacity is a strategic asset to be maintained. Value engineering the IT&E system to almost be able to meet steady state means you lack capacity to expand, or to sustain after a catastrophic set of losses.

From a national defence point of view, if not a civil liberties point of view, then every citizen would have a militarily useful set of skills. Not necessarily military skills but skills that are militarily useful.

 

[ytz]

How about having the aircraft flown by RCAF types that fly a desk in peace time?

My gut tells me that part of our pilot issue is that we don't have enough aircraft. We need a certain base number of pilots in non-flying staf positions to support the various capabilities that we have. When the fleet sizes are small then the ratio of staff positions to flying positions is pretty high. If you were to say double the number of aircraft operated by the RCAF but kept the number of Wings/Squadrons the same then the ratio would be much lower and pilot availability for flying positions would be higher.

Of course you'd need to dramatically improve the training pipeline and support trades to maintain those aircraft but there are potential solutions ($) to that as well.

This isn't as much of an issue as the past. There's the AOO trade to take some of the ground duties and planning from pilots. And staff jobs are starting to go to other trades more often. We now sometimes have pilots who ask for ground jobs to get a break.

 

[ytz]

IF production of C-17's should actually restart I'd suggest that significantly expanding our fleet would be one of the best contributions to NATO/the Indo-Pacific that we could make. Strategic logistics support is definitely an area where the non-US West is seriously lacking. Two squadrons (one active and one Reserve) would make us very popular with our allies.

With 9x 330s coming and if we doubled the C-17 fleet to say 10-11 frames, what exactly is the need of a whole other squadron of C17s? You're asking to 4x the current C17 fleet on top of the Huskies.

I don't think some of you understand how much the 330s can move for us. Each one can carry a third more payload than the Polaris. So 9x Husky is like 12 Polaris. And there's already rumours that we'll buy more.

If we want to contribute more, maybe tack on one extra frame to donate to the NATO airlift wing at Papa.

But airlift growth will come from the 330 and 130J too. Incidentally, it's easier to have reserve pilots fly 330s with special agreements with the airlines.

 

[Kirkhill]

With 9x 330s coming and if we doubled the C-17 fleet to say 10-11 frames, what exactly is the need of a whole other squadron of C17s? You're asking to 4x the current C17 fleet on top of the Huskies.

I don't think some of you understand how much the 330s can move for us. Each one can carry a third more payload than the Polaris. So 9x Husky is like 12 Polaris. And there's already rumours that we'll buy more.

If we want to contribute more, maybe tack on one extra frame to donate to the NATO airlift wing at Papa.

But airlift growth will come from the 330 and 130J too. Incidentally, it's easier to have reserve pilots fly 330s with special agreements with the airlines.

I think, in large part, it comes down to how close is the nearest civvy field to the active theater and what is the quality of the destination runway.

For a lot of the kit we can get it moved intercontinentally by freighters. And by 330.

The civvy's want fly into bullets. The 330s might but that would be foolish.

Getting loads forward may only require a small number of tactical lifters, large or small, if they only have to fly a short distance and can maintain a high sortie rate.

I believe even the 330s can carry pickup truck sized vehicles.

 

[FJAG]

The RCAF is tapped out as it is, so we'd need to look at other L1 activities divest in order to bring this expanded capability on.

How about we retrain aviation pilots to multi engine and recruit new aviation "warrant officers" off civvy street or through a military aviation training program classification transfer that doesn't need new pilots to go through 4 years of RMC first? Shorten the pipeline.

 

[Kirkhill]

....

If I really wanted to get a battle group forwards in a hurry....

MV Highlanders - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Commandeer Highlanders (she was bought with federal dollars)
2678 lane-meters
28,000 GT

She is a bluewater capable RORO.
A week to get from Shearwater to Prestwick via Stranraer. Use our 5 C17s and a dozen Hercs to move the vehicles from Prestwick to Warsaw, a 2.5 hour flight.

The troops and their weapons and 72 hours worth of supplies can go direct from Trenton to Warsaw by 330.

Of course, weather and pllitics permitting Highlanders could dock at Gdansk.

 

[dapaterson]

But airlift growth will come from the 330 and 130J too. Incidentally, it's easier to have reserve pilots fly 330s with special agreements with the airlines.

Only Big Red flies them in Canada; WJ and Porter don't touch Airbus.

 

[PrairieFella]

While getting more C-17s would be an extreme benefit for the CAF, what would we decide not to do in order to train and man a full Squadron or 2? The RCAF is tapped out as it is, so we'd need to look at other L1 activities divest in order to bring this expanded capability on. Would the CA give up 100-200 positions to benefit the increased Strat capability?

A Reserve Sqn would likely never get off the ground, both figuratively and literally. Qualified commercial airline pilots would never have enough flight hours available to do both jobs based on the type of flying we do with the C-17 (long haul strat lift). We'd also never get the techs or LMs needed, as the reason most leave the Reg F is they want more pay and less military BS, or are literally too broken to continue to do the job. There also isn't the same mentality here in Canada as in the US to support an Air National Guard type organization.

Why not walk and chew bubblegum? Im sure in the decade give or take it would take to procure these aircraft and in the following 10 years to reach FOC we can train a couple of squadrons worth of pilots and techs, especially with the force growth effort coming down the pipe.

(Not that I really see the need for that many new C17 squadrons, but arguing can be fun lol)

 

[ytz]

I think, in large part, it comes down to how close is the nearest civvy field to the active theater and what is the quality of the destination runway.

For a lot of the kit we can get it moved intercontinentally by freighters. And by 330.

The civvy's want fly into bullets. The 330s might but that would be foolish.

Getting loads forward may only require a small number of tactical lifters, large or small, if they only have to fly a short distance and can maintain a high sortie rate.

I believe even the 330s can carry pickup truck sized vehicles.

I don't know why you regularly insist on talking about things you have no experience on.

Well aware that "civvies won't fly in to bullets". Most strat airlift is inter theatre and not flying into bullets. For the small part that is, it's where the C-17s come in. Right tool for the job. Or do you use a sledgehammer every time you want to hang up a picture frame?