What you are doing is however typically Canadian, and suggesting all you need to do is X, but ignoring the fact that to get to X there are a whole lot of other steps that you abdicate to other nations.
This, in a more general sense.
In my opinion, the primary role of a military is to be ready for full scale combat operations, so it never happens. Canada hasn’t done that, in any domain, for a long time.
We seem to always say we need enablers and sustainment, but it takes forever, and we tell ourselves “well, the need didn’t arise, so it’ll be ok.” (Navy sustainment, I’m looking at you). Does anyone remember the CAST commitment, that when tested (with a couple years warning) failed miserably. And then 5 Bde was reassigned to reinforce 4 Mech, and luckily the Cold War ended before we had to test it.
Canada needs an ability to get a reasonably employable QRF to a likely place of employment with all the appropriate enablers and sustainment in a reasonable amount of time. The strategic reason is so that we are seen as committed to securing the capitalist liberal democratic experiment.
That can be done various ways (preposition with assigned organizations so two equipment sets, rapidly deployable sea lift, or full air lift. We can’t do all of them, so pick one, develop reasonable resourcing requirements, and do it.
I would suggest that doesn’t look like a an air transportable force in the current environment, so we are looking at a much smaller force for very rapid intervention, if it is needed at all. So, is there a requirement for more C-17s?
Ironically though, when carried to its logical conclusion, this may not bode well for the RCAF. A proper exploration of Canada’s contribution may come to the conclusion the RCAFs primary expeditionary role might be fully in support of the Army or the RCN, mostly with helicopters in either case. That would make heads explode in Winnipeg.