RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's

[ytz]

Buy gobs of them, and ice strengthened shipping, and it would still be cheaper than building roads to service 60 communities spread out over 4,000,000 km2.

Strawman. Who has ever proposed crisscrossing the Arctic with roads?

 

[ytz]

@KevinB

This Rand study assessed the ability to move a brigade from Fort Lewis to Skopje.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB3042.html

It should explain why Stryker Brigades were eventually prepositioned. Even the Americans don't want to suddenly have to dedicate a third of their total C-17 fleet to simply moving one brigade when tensions ramp.

The other thing that becomes obvious is that simply moving a light battlegroup and using more than C-17s, means you need a lot less C-17s. I would bet than a force of 10 C-17s and 10 330s could move a light battlegroup from Canada to the Baltics or Northeast Asia in 4 days. 5-6 Husky flights is all that is necessary to move all the personnel over (let's say 1400-1500 pers). Would take 10-12 C-17 sorties to do the same. This is why I say right tool for the job.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Pardon my ignorance (I am Navy!) but, does a "light battlegroup" includes MBT's, LAV's and 155 Howitzers with their ammo and parts?

 

[lenaitch]

Buy gobs of them, and ice strengthened shipping, and it would still be cheaper than building roads to service 60 communities spread out over 4,000,000 km2.

I'm not sure how roads would help when more than half of Nunavut's communities are on islands.

If Canada needs a large fleet of heavy lift and ice-strengthened commercial ships for military needs, the case needs to be made on its own merits. If we want goods to cost the same up there as they do down here, subsidize the goods, not the transport. Goods are already shipped via air and sea; adding expensive kit isn't going to make Kumquats cheaper for someone in Arctic Bay.

It reminds me of when I was involved in drafting submissions the Management Board (Treasury Board) for some new thing and we were encouraged to add in a whole range of other 'cuddly' uses that we knew would never happen.

 

[Kirkhill]

Do we build roads purely for commercial purposes?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Do we build roads purely for commercial purposes?

At it’s heart, yes, I think we do build roads for commercial purposes.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Do we build roads purely for commercial purposes?

Governments build roads to service a community and support commercial enterprises. Normally those commercial enterprises pay a fee to use heavy vehicle on the road. The commercial enterprise would likley pay fully for a access road off of the main road. Government owned roads are part of a economic plan and political strategy to help an area become a contributor to the Provinces revenues. The government of the day and the next few will likely lose money on the road for awhile, but so far the majority of new roads have increased the Provinces revenue sources.

Roads are only part of it, the government has to be willing to issue land use permits, mining and forestry permits along the corridor. To build said road , a smart government today, needs to work with both the indigenous and non-indigenous communities impacted by the proposed road to build a land use management plan that the majority buy into, prior to any road construction.

 

[Kirkhill]

Governments build roads to service a community and support commercial enterprises. Normally those commercial enterprises pay a fee to use heavy vehicle on the road. The commercial enterprise would likley pay fully for a access road off of the main road. Government owned roads are part of a economic plan and political strategy to help an area become a contributor to the Provinces revenues. The government of the day and the next few will likely lose money on the road for awhile, but so far the majority of new roads have increased the Provinces revenue sources.

Roads are only part of it, the government has to be willing to issue land use permits, mining and forestry permits along the corridor. To build said road , a smart government today, needs to work with both the indigenous and non-indigenous communities impacted by the proposed road to build a land use management plan that the majority buy into, prior to any road construction.

If roads are strictly a commercial venture why are so many people on this site so exercised about where they are posted?

Isn't ease of communication related to quality of life? Doesn't the pursuit of happiness relate to freedom of movement?

Yes, it is important to have groceries in the store. But that doesn't explain the popularity of the personal motor vehicle and politicians being berated for potholes and traffic jams.

Roads may originate to serve commercial and military purposes but they persist to serve the communities that formed to serve those original ventures and that survived after the original ventures were long gone.

Bridges, tunnels and ferries are all part of that network that contributes to that sense of freedom that contributes to quality of life.

We pay taxes for, and support politicians that contribute to, our quality of life.

The northerners want the same qualty of life they perceive southerners as having.

.....

As to building road networks across the north...

The discussion is about completing a road link down the MacKenzie Valley, another from Yellowknife to Gray's Bay, potentially a coastal road up the west coast of Hudson Bay and yet another from Schefferville to Ungava and points north.

Any one of those is going to cost billions.

Is there another more cost effective means of achieving the same ends? Namely bringing southern comforts to northern communities and giving them similar freedom of movement.

I think it is worth spending a penny to tie those communities to Canada before they decide there might be better offers on the table.

 

[Navy_Pete]

No.

The second the Feds signal intrusion into the wildfire tanker business, every Province will dump their tanker fleets, save money and blame the feds when things burn.

There are some technologies that let you do some airdrops from standard rear ramp planes and helos, but more intended for fire breaks and hotspots, vice actively burning fires the tankers hit.

Would make sense to look into that to augment provincial resources when we're getting called in, but honestly some kind of pooled resource of tankers that aren't part of the CAF probably makes way more sense as that levels of wildfires is now the norm, not the exception.

 

[KevinB]

@KevinB

This Rand study assessed the ability to move a brigade from Fort Lewis to Skopje.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB3042.html

It should explain why Stryker Brigades were eventually prepositioned. Even the Americans don't want to suddenly have to dedicate a third of their total C-17 fleet to simply moving one brigade when tensions ramp.

110%. Heck even the JEF Light forces and JSOC units have prepositioned equipment.

The other thing that becomes obvious is that simply moving a light battlegroup and using more than C-17s, means you need a lot less C-17s. I would bet than a force of 10 C-17s and 10 330s could move a light battlegroup from Canada to the Baltics or Northeast Asia in 4 days. 5-6 Husky flights is all that is necessary to move all the personnel over (let's say 1400-1500 pers). Would take 10-12 C-17 sorties to do the same. This is why I say right tool for the job.

The reason I was specific on the C-17 was to give rough field and parachute deployment options.

I hundred percent agree with you on the fact that aircraft purpose built basically for small cargo and passengers would be a much more practical aspect, for doing airport to airport travel, but if you’re looking at some sort of joint forceful entry option, you really left with the C17 or the C130 Hercules. Hercules obviously has less Personnel and lot longer time of the year to get where you wanna go

 

[SeaKingTacco]

There are some technologies that let you do some airdrops from standard rear ramp planes and helos, but more intended for fire breaks and hotspots, vice actively burning fires the tankers hit.

Would make sense to look into that to augment provincial resources when we're getting called in, but honestly some kind of pooled resource of tankers that aren't part of the CAF probably makes way more sense as that levels of wildfires is now the norm, not the exception.

If the Feds think that the provinces are short of tankers, they can set up a line of credit in the name of each province at DHC. The provinces can then buy and operate the tankers that suit them.

If the Feds wade into this, it will destroy the entire program.

 

[McG]

Pardon my ignorance (I am Navy!) but, does a "light battlegroup" includes MBT's, LAV's and 155 Howitzers with their ammo and parts?

No.