Strawman. Who has ever proposed crisscrossing the Arctic with roads?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?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.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.
At it’s heart, yes, I think we do build roads for commercial purposes.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.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.
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.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.
110%. Heck even the JEF Light forces and JSOC units have prepositioned equipment.@KevinB
This Rand study assessed the ability to move a brigade from Fort Lewis to Skopje.
![]()
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 reason I was specific on the C-17 was to give rough field and parachute deployment options.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.
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.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.
No.Pardon my ignorance (I am Navy!) but, does a "light battlegroup" includes MBT's, LAV's and 155 Howitzers with their ammo and parts?
The problem is the provinces will look at at augment and see replace. The ability to dump the costs whilst simultaneously blaming the feds is seen as a feature not a bug so to speak.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.
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
