RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's

[ytz]

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).

A lot of these discussions completely ignore opportunity cost. Money and people don't grow on trees. 20 C-17s means something else is getting dropped.

 

[Baz]

There was a time when they did. There were whole sets of structures devoted to just that. The Defence Research Establishments and other related functions existed to be a pipeline into industry. We actually let contracts to explore these issues and provide decision makers with the right info. I do worry that is very, very broken.

When I was in NATO, they were still doing it. For example, the Joint Air Power Competnece Centre was formed for just that purpose. I have no idea whether it has fulfilled it's promise or is a self licking ice cream cone.

I was in the UK for a general election a few years ago. They had a specific debate night on BBC that included the defence "Experts" from each party, some appropriate ex-military types, industry types, and foreign policy types. They debated, for the enitre country, what the UK military's role in the world should be and how to make that happen. They did something similar for foreign policy/ I can never remeber that happening in Canada.

 

[ytz]

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

Governments aren't doing force design. The CAF is. All the government needs to do is decide what tasks the CAF has to be able to do.

 

[ytz]

I was in the UK for a general election a few years ago. They had a specific debate night on BBC that included the defence "Experts" from each party, some appropriate ex-military types, industry types, and foreign policy types. They debated, for the enitre country, what the UK military's role in the world should be and how to make that happen. They did something similar for foreign policy/ I can never remeber that happening in Canada.

Colonial mindset. Canada has always plugged into a larger power. Post WWII we basically swapped the US and the British Empire.

So even now and even in places like this forum, a lot of discussion is simply about what we should buy that plugs into the US. It's not a policy discussion.

 

[Kirkhill]

Governments aren't doing force design. The CAF is. All the government needs to do is decide what tasks the CAF has to be able to do.

Sorry, but...

Everything comes with a cost and a risk.

Does the government appreciate all the courses of action available to it and their respective costs and risks?

Do they know enough to understand when smoke is being blown?

....

I think we are saying much of the same.

What I don't think we have is a government sufficiently sure of its data and sources to trust itself to make a good decision. The fall back position is to make the same decision the last guy made.

 

[Baz]

Governments aren't doing force design. The CAF is. All the government needs to do is decide what tasks the CAF has to be able to do.

I don't think we can entrust a military with that level of responsibility, nor do we. The military is not directly responsible to the people who pay with treasure and blood, the government is. Ultimately, the government is the only one held responsible. As Kirkhill says, the government needs to have the right information to make those decisions.

We do have the political structures in place to ensure that is true. Most of governments work happens in committee. Here is a random quote from the Standing Committee on National Defence, Thursday, October 23, 2025:

James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC):
I'll go back to the F-35s. You're actually considering, then, to go to a mixed fleet even though it requires two sets of hangars, different pilots and different mechanics. Is that what you're considering? A mixed fleet is okay for fighter jets but not good for your submarines.

I would suggest that is indicative of the level to which governments take the responsibility of force design. Committees actually have budgets to engage with Defence Research, industry, etc. As I don't read all the minutes of the Standing Committee on National Defence I can't say for sure that there level of a priori knowldge is insufficient, but my gut feel is we could do better.

Editted: it took centuries to get to the place where this type of work was done in a public forum (hence why all the minutes and video is published), yet most of the public is unaware and doesn't care it is going on. My gut feel is we could all do better wrt that...