RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's

[Baz]

I agree that there are many easy NO's but perhaps this government is open to more Yes's and willing to spend and take a risk.

I’m not convinced, but I’m pretty biased because I’m not a fan of defining capabilities before policy and requirements.

 

[dapaterson]

Skipping Definition never ever at all causes problems.

See: Tactical Control Radar.

 

[ytz]

If you want to be taken as an expert, at least start by telling as who you are in your profile. There’s nothing that tells me in these discussions you’re anymore of an expert than anyone else.

I'm not doxing myself for randos.

We should be able to have a discussion on a topic like this without getting in to a dick measuring contest based on simple facts. Airlift is not that hard a discussion. It's questions of what has to be moved, how far and in how much time.

I'm frustrated here by the simply random assertions based on zero evidence or fact. For example, the assertion that a stretch Herc can only carry half a dozen more jumpers based on nothing but feels. Or the assertion that even if it's moving a company and associated support that 8 Wg will never be able to do it. The idea that 5 C17s and 17 stretch Js can't move that is pure ignorance.

If we're doing to get into a discussion of how much more airlift needs to grow, we should at least lay out what needs to be moved. A company sized team? A battalion? What's the support tail? After that we can discuss how far and how fast. Then we can compare to the capabilities we have and figure out the delta.

Will add too, I've explicitly said that I think it would be great if we could double the C-17 fleet if the line ever reopened. This then devolved into some madness on how we need two dozen C17s because we can't do Joint Forces Entry.

 

[KevinB]

And I'll keep doing it everytime y'all insist on talking about shit far outside your lane with authority.



Cool. But comfort is not on the requirements matrix for a small air force. Doing the job is. So if an air bridge of strat and tactical airlift does the job, that's what matters. And this is exactly how 8 Wg plans.

Of course the job for the RCAF is to get people from Point A to Point B and don't give a shit about their effectiveness at the end?

So you used the book number for the standard J and then decided a 15 ft fuselage extension only adds 6 additional jumpers? You clearly have no idea how much more room a stretch J has. Do you now get why I become condescending?

I don't accept the book answer for the original Herc body, and pointed that out above a few times - as it is based off a soldier that is around 30lbs lighter, and isn't wearing any of the PPE that is worn/brought today. You now deal with a much heavier and larger soldier - as well as vastly increased equipment bulk and weight. I also pointed out that the C-17 body is vastly larger - you can put up hammocks and leave room for others to nap on the jump seats - you really can't do the same in a Herc
The 60-70's soldier that the Herc jump seats where set for wasn't carrying an additional 90lbs of gear on their bodies - rucksacks have also gotten larger.

But for the sake of a forum discussion, let's at least stick to published numbers.

They don't work - it is like saying that the Griffon can carry a Section and a Toboggan group - when realistically it is a 4 man Det and the toboggan.

And yet you knew that there wasn't enough airlift to move it?

Understanding what goes into similar TF's - yes.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm just saying that I have never seen anything that says we need to be able to move to masses of force you suggest. Whatever we plan is clearly going to be within scope for policy and capabilities. And let's not forget that this tangent started with a discussion on doing JFE which I'm not even sure the CA or CANSOF has as an actually required mission set.

The CA doesn't currently do JFE, as it doesn't have the tools to do it, CANSOF can do JFE as part of coalition efforts.

Again. Let's see your math. What are you basing this on? Basically your view is that you have no idea what the lift requirement is, but you know that whatever it is the RCAF can't do it. What's the point of a discussion here?

I know the JFE requirements - I know what goes into a SOTF, and so yes, I know what the RCAF can and cannot do.

 

[ytz]

I don't accept the book answer for the original Herc body, and pointed that out above a few times - as it is based off a soldier that is around 30lbs lighter, and isn't wearing any of the PPE that is worn/brought today. You now deal with a much heavier and larger soldier - as well as vastly increased equipment bulk and weight. I also pointed out that the C-17 body is vastly larger - you can put up hammocks and leave room for others to nap on the jump seats - you really can't do the same in a Herc
The 60-70's soldier that the Herc jump seats where set for wasn't carrying an additional 90lbs of gear on their bodies - rucksacks have also gotten larger.

They don't work - it is like saying that the Griffon can carry a Section and a Toboggan group - when realistically it is a 4 man Det and the toboggan.

A Herc isn't weight limited when dropping troops a few hours away from an APOE. It's space limited. That is what the 64 jumper capacity on a standard Herc and 92 on a stretch Herc are based on. Space. Not weight.

You'll note that I never suggested flying a Herc from Trenton to a drop point across the Atlantic. I specifically said there will need to be a stop where people kit transition from strategic to tactical airlift. That's how an air bridge works. And in that scenario you'll be packed nut to sack on that Herc. That's how the air bridge works.

The CA doesn't currently do JFE, as it doesn't have the tools to do it, CANSOF can do JFE as part of coalition efforts.

Exactly what I said before.

I know the JFE requirements - I know what goes into a SOTF, and so yes, I know what the RCAF can and cannot do.

So we agree the CAF doesn't do this mission set. So all of this was for you to show how smart you are?

I bow to your American greatness.

 

[ytz]

Is this at all relevant?

Yes. This is what normal strat airlift looks like for Canada. But apparently some think nothing short of jumping into Moscow guns blazing counts.

 

[brihard]

I'm not doxing myself for randos.

Totally fair and reasonable- and prudent. Just for what it’s worth, to wind things down slightly and to ease your mind, I and a few others here do know who Baz actually is, and he’s both knowledgeable and trustworthy.

Nobody here will fault you adhering to PERSEC at all.

 

[ytz]

Totally fair and reasonable- and prudent. Just for what it’s worth, to wind things down slightly and to ease your mind, I and a few others here do know who Baz actually is, and he’s both knowledgeable and trustworthy.

Nobody here will fault you adhering to PERSEC at all.

It's not Baz I'm concerned about to be honest. And I absolutely share his opinion that force design and procurement needs to be based on policy. That was the Genesis of this entire tangent when I suggested it's ridiculous to buy Globemasters by the dozen.

 

[brihard]

It's not Baz I'm concerned about to be honest.

Rightly so.

 

[KevinB]

I'm not doxing myself for randos.

I'm not concerned with that - based on your other posts you clearly have a good institutional knowledge background.

We should be able to have a discussion on a topic like this without getting in to a dick measuring contest based on simple facts. Airlift is not that hard a discussion. It's questions of what has to be moved, how far and in how much time.

I'm frustrated here by the simply random assertions based on zero evidence or fact. For example, the assertion that a stretch Herc can only carry half a dozen more jumpers based on nothing but feels. Or the assertion that even if it's moving a company and associated support that 8 Wg will never be able to do it. The idea that 5 C17s and 17 stretch Js can't move that is pure ignorance.

I added more info as to that - and why I feel that LocMart's suggestion on the pax number for Cbt troops and jumpers is RTFO.

If we're doing to get into a discussion of how much more airlift needs to grow, we should at least lay out what needs to be moved. A company sized team? A battalion? What's the support tail? After that we can discuss how far and how fast. Then we can compare to the capabilities we have and figure out the delta.

This is the rub. Right now Canada has a Light BN for GRTF. From my understanding all of the equipment if pre-deployed in Latvia - so all that needs to be done for a Latvian ramp up is get on a pax ac and fly over.
The issue comes up with if that GRTF tasking is elsewhere, or requires more than 1 Light Infantry Bn.
I don't know the current planned number of ISV/LUVW for the LIB's., I have heard several different numbers from small to large.
If we pick a median number of 75, and those are expected to move with the GRTF, then I think you have a lot of issues.

I joined long enough ago to remember one doesn't (shouldn't) do separate operations below Bde (and what is old is new again) so I believe that Canada should have the ability to deploy a Bde for the GRTF - not needing to do it at all time, but the ability.

Will add too, I've explicitly said that I think it would be great if we could double the C-17 fleet if the line ever reopened. This then devolved into some madness on how we need two dozen C17s because we can't do Joint Forces Entry.

I did say recommended not needed< I also suggested that it is in Canada's best interests to have a solo JFE capability -

 

[Baz]

I'm not doxing myself for randos.

Completely understandable. It's pretty easy to figure out exactly who I am from my profile, and that may not be such a great decision on my part.

However, you must realize that it is easy to characterize you as a "rando" as well?

Ironically, looking in from the outside, it seems you and the primary focus of your disagreement actually agree with a basic fact... the problem isn't defining what it takes to lift an appropriate QRF, it's the lack of a definition of what an appropriate QRF is. It seems to me unfortunate you're getting bogged down in minuscha (sp?), but that is the reality of the internet.

 

[KevinB]

A Herc isn't weight limited when dropping troops a few hours away from an APOE. It's space limited. That is what the 64 jumper capacity on a standard Herc and 92 on a stretch Herc are based on. Space. Not weight.

I'm going to be as polite as I can at this point and suggest that if you think about the gear, and the larger solider -- the width a soldier takes up is vastly different than one from the 70's
You physically cannot get that many bodies into the seats when everyone is wearing full gear.

You'll note that I never suggested flying a Herc from Trenton to a drop point across the Atlantic. I specifically said there will need to be a stop where people kit transition from strategic to tactical airlift. That's how an air bridge works. And in that scenario you'll be packed nut to sack on that Herc. That's how the air bridge works.

Well considering I've been jammed into a Herc for a transatlantic plus flight on a CC-130, I will agree that is how it is supposed to work -- not necessarily how it does work.

Exactly what I said before.



So we agree the CAF doesn't do this mission set. So all of this was for you to show how smart you are?

I bow to your American greatness.

Continuing being an ass - fantastic work.

I point out it is a skill and ability that Canada for its own best interests should invest in - sooner than later.

 

[Baz]

This is the rub. Right now Canada has a Light BN for GRTF. From my understanding all of the equipment if pre-deployed in Latvia - so all that needs to be done for a Latvian ramp up is get on a pax ac and fly over.
The issue comes up with if that GRTF tasking is elsewhere, or requires more than 1 Light Infantry Bn.

To me, that cuts right to the heart of the issue; I think Canada is cutting corners by doing it that way. I would prefer if we had a heavier formation earmarked for Latvia, and come up with a force generation model to support that, with prepositioned equipment. The LIB would be earmarked for everything else, and we would plan on airlifting it wherever it need to be. It would be a completely separate line of tasking, with it's own force generation model, and appropriate deployment and sustainment assets.

 

[ytz]

Completely understandable. It's pretty easy to figure out exactly who I am from my profile, and that may not be such a great decision on my part.

However, you must realize that it is easy to characterize you as a "rando" as well?

Ironically, looking in from the outside, it seems you and the primary focus of your disagreement actually agree with a basic fact... the problem isn't defining what it takes to lift an appropriate guidance, it's the lack of a definition of what an appropriate QRF is. It seems to me unfortunate you're getting bogged down in minuscha (sp?), but that is the reality of the internet.

I'm not the one bogged down in the minutiae. It's Kevin. Go back a few pages. This whole tangent started because I said we didn't need 20+ C17s, because we don't mass drop battalions like the Americans do.

And I think you agree that you can't have a discussion without actually looking at the problem being solved. So I'm not sure what exactly is the problem being solved in this discussion of buying C-17s by the dozen. My only assertion was that we should buy a few more C-17s if the line reopens. At least enough to have a full squadron size.

 

[ytz]

To me, that cuts right to the heart of the issue; I think Canada is cutting corners by doing it that way. I would prefer if we had a heavier formation earmarked for Latvia, and come up with a force generation model to support that, with prepositioned equipment. The LIB would be earmarked for everything else, and we would plan on airlifting it wherever it need to be. It would be a completely separate line of tasking, with it's own force generation model, and appropriate deployment and sustainment assets.

This is pretty close to the CA's restructured model, no?

 

[Baz]

I'm not the one bogged down in the minutiae. It's Kevin. Go back a few pages. This whole tangent started because I said we didn't need 20+ C17s, because we don't mass drop battalions like the Americans do.

My apologies... my "you're" was meant for both of you. I honestly think it is just one of those unfortunate internet discussions that has escalated needlessly. God knows I've done that before, on these very boards. I do take his basic point (I think it's his basic point) at face value: the day will come that we can't rely on others to help deliver the national effect we are looking for.

And I think you agree that you can't have a discussion without actually looking at the problem being solved. So I'm not sure what exactly is the problem being solved in this discussion of buying C-17s by the dozen. My only assertion was that we should buy a few more C-17s if the line reopens. At least enough to have a full squadron size.

My experience has been exactly that: define the problem, develop courses of action (which necessarily needs to take into account resourcing), pick the best one, develop a plan, actually assign the resources (why does it seem that this is where Canada routinely fails), and execute. It would have to be a VERY good deal for me to support randomly getting 20+ C-17s, given all the other shortfalls. If if they were free it still represents a massive investment in infrastructure (even if they're parked), and personnel (to some degree even if they're parked).

 

[Baz]

This is pretty close to the CA's restructured model, no?

Not sure that discussion belongs in this thread, but that's not what I understand. I am certainly not the right person to ask... anyone?

 

[KevinB]

I'm not the one bogged down in the minutiae. It's Kevin. Go back a few pages. This whole tangent started because I said we didn't need 20+ C17s, because we don't mass drop battalions like the Americans do.

I was solely justifying why I felt the RCAF (and CAF) would benefit from those.
Canada does (or used) to drop Battalions (- well the CAR) while down here a Div JumpEx was routine (and quite frankly as someone who went thru CABC ) - the entire idea of the sky filled with that many jumpers is insane - not just from a scale aspect - but the entire safety issue.

I'm not a big believer in mass parachute drops (beyond BN) - I think that for most tasks a BN can accomplish the tasks that would likely be needed (but the whole 1 is none etc - you end up with 3 BN's anyway - and while you may only need to jump one in for a port or airfield seizure - the ability to put more down if needed is a plus.

And I think you agree that you can't have a discussion without actually looking at the problem being solved. So I'm not sure what exactly is the problem being solved in this discussion of buying C-17s by the dozen. My only assertion was that we should buy a few more C-17s if the line reopens. At least enough to have a full squadron size.

For years the CAF has run on American good will, and DoD support -- right now our extremely dysfunctional Administration has managed to ruin our relationships with our closest allies. I think it behooves the GoC to ensure the CAF has certain capabilities that will not require American support - as it may not be coming.

Now maybe that is the A400M, instead - and one replaces (or augments then replaces) the Herc fleet with those - instead of more C-17 type airframes, but I don't for one minute think the current RCAF airlift is sufficient to launch the GRTF as it currently stands in any manner outside of a permissive environment pax deployment.

 

[Baz]

... I think it behooves the GoC to ensure the CAF has certain capabilities that will not require American support ... but I don't for one minute think the current RCAF airlift is sufficient to launch the GRTF as it currently stands in any manner outside of a permissive environment pax deployment.

But would you agree the necessary first step is for Canada defines what that GRTF is and how quick it needs to be deployed?

 

[Kirkhill]

I’m not convinced, but I’m pretty biased because I’m not a fan of defining capabilities before policy and requirements.

I general I agree with you but my problem is that I don't think the government has any clearer understanding of what is possible and the range of costs and risks than most of us here.

Do they know enough to ask the right questions of the people with the answers?

Are the people with the answers going to restrict themselves to self-serving responses?

Often that is the reason that businesses feel the need to step outside their internal pool of SMEs.