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...

 

[OldSolduer]

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...

The Canadian public support for the military is scant - when the military is needed to fight a fire or a flood or an ice storm the military are the greatest people on earth.
When there is no public emergency the military has been ignored and in one case at least has had its budget cut to pay for something else.

All political parties are not above using the military to curry favor with the public whether its good for the military or not.

 

[Kirkhill]

Just to add a bit more seasoning to the debate.....

UGVs - both the THeMIs and the Mission Master SP (the Canadian Argo 8x8) fit on the PMC/P6P pallet. In their base configuration, without an RWS it looks like they will both fit through the forward and aft lower cargo hold hatches. 8 pallets in the forward hold and 4 pallets in the aft hold would give the passengers 12 mobile platforms to assist their deployment.

And, in the CC-130 they could be stacked.

 

[GR66]

According to the minutes of this Standing Committee on National Defence meeting, "Currently 400 vehicles have been deployed for the support of Latvia". Given that Canada is committed to deploying an additional Light Infantry Battalion to Latvia in event of a conflict and presumably may consider expanding our military contribution (consider the reports of the CAF examining how to potentially expand our Reserves to 400,000) I would think it's fair to expect that the requirement for substantial airlift capacity to support such a force would be evident.

Just look at the vehicle loss rates in Ukraine. Waiting 2+ weeks for sealift deployment of vehicles to replace combat losses may result in our pre-deployed forces becoming combat ineffective before that equipment arrives. And what if we were to become involved in a conflict with China at the same time? What if we want to deploy our (planned) AD assets, HIMARS and/or a Light Battalion (with vehicles) for security to the Indo-Pacific? Trenton to Japan is around 1.6 times the distance of Trenton to Latvia. How much of our CC-330 fleet will be tasked with AAR duties for getting our transports to Europe/Asia and supporting our fighters rather than moving troops and ammunition?

It's easy to say that we don't need more C-17's because the government hasn't specifically stated what they want moved by air in scenario X, Y or Z but realistically the CAF should take a look at the state of the World right now and realize what the potential for conflict is and understand the massive logistical effort that will be required to support those potential conflicts.

I don't claim to have any high level expertise in air movement plans but I'm pretty darn confident that if/when the SHTF 5 x C-17's won't be enough to do what we need to do.

 

[ytz]

I don't claim to have any high level expertise in air movement plans but I'm pretty darn confident that if/when the SHTF 5 x C-17's won't be enough to do what we need to do.

There's a different between more than 5 and 20+.

And again, everything has an opportunity cost. Money and people don't grow on trees. If we're fielding two dozen C-17s, some other capability is being given up. What would you cut to have 20 C-17s?

Sure in the new world of 2%+ we'll have more money and people. But given all the other priorities being addressed, quadrupling the C-17 fleet is easily over a decade out.

 

[KevinB]

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

This is the part of the Venn diagram where you, @ytz and I all overlap.



Canada has defined a GRTF currently, as 1 x LIB (based on various GoC websites and releases).
It has defined a time frame for deployment, ( I am reliably told it has ).
* I looked for NTM and NLT’s but haven’t found any, so I’m guessing they aren’t public at this juncture.

 

[YZT580]

There's a different between more than 5 and 20+.

And again, everything has an opportunity cost. Money and people don't grow on trees. If we're fielding two dozen C-17s, some other capability is being given up. What would you cut to have 20 C-17s? WHY?

Sure in the new world of 2%+ we'll have more money and people. But given all the other priorities being addressed, quadrupling the C-17 fleet is easily over a decade out.

A quick google on France reveals they have 37 A300 delivered or on order by 2030. They have 18 C130s all for a country the size of our maritime provinces less NFLD and located right in the middle of the primary location for any peer to peer conflict. We on the other hand are at the extreme end of a very long supply chain to any potential war. One of our greatest needs is for logistical transport: both surface and airborne. Adding a dozen or 20 transport shouldn't require giving up anything. It should be looked at as expanding our forces to what should have been decades ago

 

[Fabius]

In this entire conversation there is one question in my mind, I’m curious about if the CA 4-5 years ago as it was building this GRFT ORBAT and the NTM ideas actually discussed this with the RCAF.
From my knowledge of the process it was a CA only process inside the CA HQ, the Div HQs and the 3rd battalions.

CJOC and SJS involvement to define requirements for force employment and timelines and RCAF involvement to determine the air assets needed was all absent from my SA outside of perhaps some conversations at the Armed Forces Council level between the L1 commanders.

I would be surprised to discover that the GRFT was build as a joint force effort vs an Army effort.

Editing to add that in all the discussion on ORBATs etc there was very very limited, to zero discussion on how many chalks and airframes the ORBAT COAs represented and what was viable in the NTE timelines.

 

[ytz]

A quick google on France reveals they have 37 A300 delivered or on order by 2030.

And yet relied on us to provide airlift during incidents in Mali.

They have 18 C130s all for a country the size of our maritime provinces less NFLD and located right in the middle of the primary location for any peer to peer conflict. We on the other hand are at the extreme end of a very long supply chain to any potential war.

Again. It really depends on what you have to move, how far and how fast.

One of our greatest needs is for logistical transport: both surface and airborne. Adding a dozen or 20 transport shouldn't require giving up anything. It should be looked at as expanding our forces to what should have been decades ago

It's rather rare these days for us to rely on allied airlift. We generally do fine with what we have and some contracted lift for outsized items and passenger movements. And that latter category will be dramatically reduced once all the 330s are delivered. I have serious doubt that's we'd ever need or procure more than 5-7 C-17s if the line reopened.

 

[ytz]

In this entire conversation there is one question in my mind, I’m curious about if the CA 4-5 years ago as it was building this GRFT ORBAT and the NTM ideas actually discussed this with the RCAF.
From my knowledge of the process it was a CA only process inside the CA HQ, the Div HQs and the 3rd battalions.

CJOC and SJS involvement to define requirements for force employment and timelines and RCAF involvement to determine the air assets needed was all absent from my SA outside of perhaps some conversations at the Armed Forces Council level between the L1 commanders.

I would be surprised to discover that the GRFT was build as a joint force effort vs an Army effort.

Editing to add that in all the discussion on ORBATs etc there was very very limited, to zero discussion on how many chalks and airframes the ORBAT COAs represented and what was viable in the NTE timelines.

There's a new L1 (Joint Force Command) coming on 01 December. One of their roles will be Joint Force Development.