RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's

[Cloud Cover]

Maybe.

I think took he home the big model of the ALSC ship. He liked to move the vehicles around on the decks and pretend he was invading Haiti.

 

[FJAG]

Goes to my point of how obsolete the Herc looks these days. Especially if you're not doing high speed SOF stuff. A fleet of 14 A400Ms could do more for use than 17 of our stretch Hercs right now.

Rumsfeld paraphrased – “You go to war with the Army (and Air Force) you have, not the Army (or Air Force) you might want or wish to have at a later time”

I know the CC330s are mostly thought of in their tanker role, but they can haul and awful lot of passengers at one go.

The air force we have is not up to the task of hauling a lot of equipment oversees, but, IMHO, it is well position as between the CC130s CC177s and CC330 to lift one brigade worth of people oversees in one go onto prepositioned equipment and stocks.

If we don't start to plan on flyover commitments and prepositioned equipment and stocks, and we continue this game of rotations that will wear out the army, then we're just not serious about our NATO commitment. There is a NATO Force Model in place.

The NATO Force Model (NFM) which includes an Allied Reaction Force (ARF) to replace the NATO Response Force (NRF) and the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF).

The NFM consists of three committed tiers of forces supplied by member nations. Tier 1 forces numbering 100,000 are to be committed within 0 to 10 days following the eruption of a crisis or a predictive warning. These will be mostly forces already in place. Tier 2 forces number 200,000 and are to be ready within 10 to 30 days. Tier 3 forces number roughly 500,000 and must be ready for action within 30 to 180 days.[1] Tier 1 and 2 forces are mostly assigned to specific geographic defence plans so that they can train for their tasks.[2] One needs to take note of these tiers as they establish readiness guidelines that can, and should, be applied to any given country’s force structures.

---

[1] John R. Deni, “The New NATO Force Model: ready for launch?” Outlook, No. 04, (Brusselles: NATO Defense College, May 2024), 2.
[2] Sven Biscop, “The New Force Model: NATO’s European Army? Egmont Policy Brief 285,” Brusseles: Egmont Royal Institute for International Relations, September 2022.

The point is that we can easily slide into that model (we used to before, I presume we still do to the extent of a brigade). The point is that we can fit into any of a number of tiers even without the need for rotos. Tier 1 can be met by a flyover onto prepositioned equipment construct. Tier 2 can include RORO sea transport and Tier 3 definitely does.

My problem with all this is that the army (and perhaps the air force) is not currently focussed on a mobilization plan that could commit up to a mechanized division spread over the three tiers. CAMO creates a force structure that can probably support one brigade indefinitely based on the 3:1 ratio.

IMHO, we continue to punch below our weight because we are not looking at the mobilization processes and objectives realistically. We continue to spend too much with the objective of doing just enough.

Yup. I'm cynical.

 

[MacNav63]

Maybe.

I think took he home the big model of the ALSC ship. He liked to move the vehicles around on the decks and pretend he was invading Haiti.

Everything is relative...

 

[Kirkhill]

Keep in mind the entire Stryker Bde concept came out of Somalia and ‘too light to fight’ mentality that the Light Divisions where viewed at.

The original Stryker was C-130 deployable, the Stryker 2.0 like the LAV 6 family is not.

Patria CAVS 6x6 is C130 deployable.

As is the LAV II.

 

[KevinB]

The possible body count involved in a NEO op 'non-permissive' would possibly bring down a Canadian government of the day as well as, you know, kill alot of people.

Potentially, but the bodies of a lot of Canadians or Dual Citizen Canadians getting ripped apart in the streets also doesn’t send a good message.

Nothing Canada has done foreign policy-wise would give any confidence that this option would be well supported, whether needed or not...

I think it would depend on where and who was affected.
The CAF ended up in FYR with the UN’s rather nebulous tasks due to Milla Mulroney being of Yugoslavian descent (I can’t recall ATM what side), and I wouldn’t put it past a current or future government for getting into something due to similar circumstances.

Patria CAVS 6x6 is C130 deployable.

As is the LAV II.

How many of those does the CAF have?

You know me, we agree the LAV should have stopped at the 2.0. Ideally there would have been 1 Bde of those and 2 of Bradley or the like for the Reg’s and double of each for the PRes.

 

[Kirkhill]

would agree if we had enough airlift to do so. Two weeks for 60 vehicles by air plus additional flights to carry the self-loading cargo vs. 1 week by sea including personnel unless you purchase enough heavy lift aircraft. Personnel by air not so much as we have sufficient A330's to do the job provided we don't have two places to supply at once. Question: why go for a ferry style vessel instead of a proper RORO freighter? Flying your people over would mean that they were rested and ready to move away from the docks whereas sending them on a ferry would put most of them out of action for several days as they recovered from the ocean trip: especially if one is looking at gale force winds and seas. Both Paul Martin and Algoma would be delighted to have the government provide them with new hulls.

If we are talking about taking up civilian vessels from trade....you don't need to use the cabins just because you have them.

 

[ytz]

I know the CC330s are mostly thought of in their tanker role, but they can haul and awful lot of passengers at one go.

This is the exact reason that the 330 is beating 767 in basically every freighter-tanker competition everywhere but the US. A single Husky can support a six pack crossing the Atlantic including Det personnel and flyaway kits. It's amazing.

The air force we have is not up to the task of hauling a lot of equipment oversees, but, IMHO, it is well position as between the CC130s CC177s and CC330 to lift one brigade worth of people oversees in one go onto prepositioned equipment and stocks.

Rated Troop carrying capacity x No. Of aircraft = fleet capacity

CC330: 250 x 9 = 2250
C-17: 134 x 5 = 670
C130J-30: 128 x 17 = 2176

Total troop movement capacity: 5096

Setting aside obvious things like the inability to move large kit at the same time and serviceability, I think this is more capacity than most would imagine.

But yeah we need to up the 330 and C17 fleets to at least 12 and 15 respectively. And not that it will ever happen. But I do think there's real value in doing what the Brits did going from the Herc to the Atlas. The Atlas can do some Strat Airlift. But also unless we want to buy even more C-17s, the Atlas is great for intra-theater lift.

I don't think a single move is realistic. But I do think something like 36-48 hrs is achievable with a well designed fleet.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Potentially, but the bodies of a lot of Canadians or Dual Citizen Canadians getting ripped apart in the streets also doesn’t send a good message.

I think it would depend on where and who was affected.
The CAF ended up in FYR with the UN’s rather nebulous tasks due to Milla Mulroney being of Yugoslavian descent (I can’t recall ATM what side), and I wouldn’t put it past a current or future government for getting into something due to similar circumstances.



How many of those does the CAF have?

You know me, we agree the LAV should have stopped at the 2.0. Ideally there would have been 1 Bde of those and 2 of Bradley or the like for the Reg’s and double of each for the PRes.

Mila is of Serbian descent.

 

[YZT580]

If we are talking about taking up civilian vessels from trade....you don't need to use the cabins just because you have them.

perhaps not but for an operator I would think that a pure cargo vessel would be more useful. There is a limited market for ferries at least on the east coast. Now if it were similar to the one operating between Denmark and the Faroes/Iceland I could see a great market for marketing it as a cruise ship circumnavigating NFLD. I know I am talking both sides but there are negatives to the ferry concept that need addressing to make it worthwhile to the operator.

 

[FJAG]

Total troop movement capacity: 5096
. . .
I don't think a single move is realistic. But I do think something like 36-48 hrs is achievable with a well designed fleet.

5,069 is enough for even one of our currently fat brigade groups.

Once the army slims down under CAMO, the brigades will be just slightly over 3,100. Throw in an artillery regiment at 600 and subtract what should be the C2 and maintenance group in theatre already and you probably have to move ~3,300 or so. Easy - peasy.

 

[ytz]

And if we're talking about building both a larger tanker fleet and a second C-17 squadron, we're really going to have to talk about building a proper annex at YEG that can hold an entire transport Wing with two squadrons.

 

[Infanteer]

How you guys got to an entire Air Wing and expansion to Edmonton International Airport from a single report of an ask by Americans for a potential production line is beyond me. Maybe Elon can put some rockets there as well?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I wouldn't use a C-17 for this. There's a good argument here for the RCAF to follow the RAF and replace the Hercs with the Atlas.

20 Atlas for 17 J-Hercs?

 

[GR66]

20 Atlas and 17 J-Hercs?

FTFY.

You can never have enough airlift, especially when geography dictates that every operation is an expeditionary operation.

 

[ytz]

How you guys got to an entire Air Wing and expansion to Edmonton International Airport from a single report of an ask by Americans for a potential production line is beyond me. Maybe Elon can put some rockets there as well?

To be fair. There's a ton of regret inside the CAF that we didn't get more C-17s. And we crushed their YFR through the GWOT. These birds are wearing out faster than planned.

So if we're getting a chance to redo this acquisition, we absolutely should be thinking big. Incidentally, this is also a huge lesson in the Carney era. The staffs that thought big and asked for more actually moved to the front of the pack.

20 Atlas for 17 J-Hercs?

10 Atlas = 17 Stretch Hercs on range-payload.
19 Atlas = 17 Stretch Hercs on rated troop carrying capacity

But really we bought the stretch Hercs for volume transport cause the analysis is that the fleet is rarely weight limited. That was before wheeled armoured vehicles started hitting 20-30 tons. Both weight and size limitations are starting to limit air movements of CA kit. If we're going by strict analysis, I think tactical/intra-theater lift demands are lower. I would rather get fewer Hercs or Atlas and more C-17s. This is why I say 14-15 Atlas and 15 C-17s. If that line reopens, the C-17 order needs to be as large as we can get away with. And after that, if the Herc fleet has to shrink or be recapitalized with the Atlas, so be it.

FTFY.

You're advocating for the exact inefficiency the Gripen advocates put forward. There is zero need for a military of our size to operate three different types of military airlifters.

 

[YZT580]

To be fair. There's a ton of regret inside the CAF that we didn't get more C-17s. And we crushed their YFR through the GWOT. These birds are wearing out faster than planned.

So if we're getting a chance to redo this acquisition, we absolutely should be thinking big. Incidentally, this is also a huge lesson in the Carney era. The staffs that thought big and asked for more actually moved to the front of the pack.



10 Atlas = 17 Stretch Hercs on range-payload.
19 Atlas = 17 Stretch Hercs on rated troop carrying capacity

But really we bought the stretch Hercs for volume transport cause the analysis is that the fleet is rarely weight limited. That was before wheeled armoured vehicles started hitting 20-30 tons. Both weight and size limitations are starting to limit air movements of CA kit. If we're going by strict analysis, I think tactical/intra-theater lift demands are lower. I would rather get fewer Hercs or Atlas and more C-17s. This is why I say 14-15 Atlas and 15 C-17s. If that line reopens, the C-17 order needs to be as large as we can get away with. And after that, if the Herc fleet has to shrink or be recapitalized with the Atlas, so be it.



You're advocating for the exact inefficiency the Gripen advocates put forward. There is zero need for a military of our size to operate three different types of military airlifters.

you are just in love with the A400. Whatever happens will have to happen soon. Unless Airbus gets a good number of orders the line will close in 4 years which means they will quit ordering parts at least a year in advance. When that happens we will only have Ukraine to supply heavy lift if they can salvage the Antonov factory and jigs. Is heavy airlift a necessary component for our forces though? We aren't going to start a war and any war we do get involved in will have us providing a support capability and Europe will probably be our destination. Pre-positioning would seem to be the better way to go supplemented by a couple of freighters or ferries to bring the force up to strength. The A330s will get the troops there and having a dozen mechanics permanently stationed with the equipment would be needed. Germany put much of theirs in storage and never bothered to check it over for years. That has cost them.
Do we still look to providing peace-making/keeping forces to the UN. That would be the one place where airlift would be advantageous.

 

[suffolkowner]

To be fair. There's a ton of regret inside the CAF that we didn't get more C-17s. And we crushed their YFR through the GWOT. These birds are wearing out faster than planned.

So if we're getting a chance to redo this acquisition, we absolutely should be thinking big. Incidentally, this is also a huge lesson in the Carney era. The staffs that thought big and asked for more actually moved to the front of the pack.



10 Atlas = 17 Stretch Hercs on range-payload.
19 Atlas = 17 Stretch Hercs on rated troop carrying capacity

But really we bought the stretch Hercs for volume transport cause the analysis is that the fleet is rarely weight limited. That was before wheeled armoured vehicles started hitting 20-30 tons. Both weight and size limitations are starting to limit air movements of CA kit. If we're going by strict analysis, I think tactical/intra-theater lift demands are lower. I would rather get fewer Hercs or Atlas and more C-17s. This is why I say 14-15 Atlas and 15 C-17s. If that line reopens, the C-17 order needs to be as large as we can get away with. And after that, if the Herc fleet has to shrink or be recapitalized with the Atlas, so be it.



You're advocating for the exact inefficiency the Gripen advocates put forward. There is zero need for a military of our size to operate three different types of military airlifters.

We do have the Kingfisher

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

There is zero need for a military of our size to operate three different types of military airlifters.

You mean, unlike what we are already doing with the CC330, C-17 and C130J?

 

[KevinB]

You mean, unlike what we are already doing with the CC330, C-17 and C130J?

To be fair, those are have different roles.

The A400 and C-130 are in a competing field - that even I (who hates to divest kit) would suggest that only one of those be retained.

To me the biggest question is what is occuring on the NGAL front. Is the USAF going to try to replace the C-17 and C-5M with a new aircraft, or is it going to tank that program and get a bunch of new C-17.

NGAL would be the program to watch IMHO, as one will then know what the future holds for Airlift, and if NGAL gets cancelled;
1) will LocMart look at re-opening the C-5 line with a NIB C-5M (or beyond) to keep their foot in the door for strategic lift, or cede that ground entirely to Boeing and a new C-17 line.
2) Will Boeing opt for new C-17 models
3) Will Airbus look at some sort of strategic lift A/C potentially based around the A380 type design.

 

[dapaterson]

A Boeing entry for NGAL will bring the same level of quality engineering and manufacturing that they are bringing to the KC-46.