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.