Derek 2.0

In some respects yes........as I've been saying in this thread for several years, I'd doubt we'd get more than 12 new surface combatants, a trade off in numbers versus capability, and made up for with the AOPS, relieving the combatants in most domestic tasks............the difference now is the talk of examining capabilities and overall numbers by the new Government, and now, a report (paid for by Irving) stating they will need double the money. The Government should tell Irving to pound sand, offer Davie or Seaspan a crack, and if they can't deliver, go overseas........but they won't (I doubt any Canadian Government would go overseas), as you correctly pointed out, the East Coast is a Liberal bastion.......

Are we taking on the Black Pearl? I spoke to the high/medium/low mix in this thread several years ago........we've got the medium/low mix currently covered, the discussion is on if there will be a high portion.........

Lockheed didn't break any promises to the Koreans, as the technologies they promised were transferred, the US Government refused the transfer of the (Northrop built) radar, which Lockheed agreed to lobby the US Government on behalf of the South Koreans.........As to Boeing, the point is moot, as its been made clear by the US Government, they won't allow the transfer of their advanced radars and barring an Israeli order (their compensation for the Iran deal), the Eagle line will be closed in St Louis...

Well no, it wouldn't impress them........but this thought exercise is on Canada not being able to afford a modern navy.

Spreading out costs has the opposite effect.........and like any project in the North With work, most airstrips in the North could handle fighters......Canadian North and First Air fly weekly flights into gravel strips with 737s throughout most of the Western Arctic....... But why would you want to base fighters there?

We've been shot at with supersonic missiles? If we're in a shooting war, we can provide trainers and warm blankets, and be smug in the knowledge that we've saved billions......... The obvious cut is dependent on who decides......the RCN would sacrifice GP frigate numbers over modern AAD.

Why? That's what the helicopter is for.......and why would it need to be better armed to fend off drug smugglers and poachers?

Nope, remuster as a Coast Guard........

Not if we ever envision ourselves operating in a medium threat environment......see INS Hanit. Ahh no, what Canada has done operationally, since the Halifax class entered service, could have been done with the USCG's National Security Cutters........we have/had combatants in case of war, where sending naval forces abroad without a modern area air defense capability would be criminal........without an AAD capability, we're at the mercy of every third world tin-pot with a former Soviet Missile boat armed with supersonic anti ship missiles. As such, if this Government is not prepared to invest in modern defensive capacities for our navy, we'd be better off cutting our losses and build a second batch of AOPS and call it a day.....

For the money spent to allow them to enter Canadian service, we could have built several AFSBs like USNS Chesty Puller......

Not at all, but the Russian Mistrals were/are a solution looking for a problem in Canadian service.

Sure, when reality comes into play.....

Not if we're to become a coast guard.........like I was saying.

Did Saudi Arabia offer to front the money? Last estimate I heard, the cost to relabel the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet on each vessel was approaching $15 million per.......and in the 100s of millions to rewire both vessels to North American voltages.......no thanks.

Has the Government suggested they will increase the budget....... Odd that the head of the RCN didn't blame them.......you know something he doesn't?

Yes and no......an expert would tell them, if they wanted to build the vessels the RCN requires for the budget allocated, to build them in Poland/South Korea/Maine etc.........or, if they want to build the vessels the RCN requires, in the numbers they require, in Canada, to "double the budget". I can't see the Liberals doing either, hence said expert will do little.

No, as the hiring of a six figure bureaucrat doesn't equate to the shipyards building capable vessels faster and/or cheaper.

The large centers (see Yellowknife) that are connected, via roads, to the South do........that does little for the actual communities within the Arctic circle. They aren't dependent on satellites, as they have HF radio back-ups. And it would cost billions, upon billions, to build a fibre optic/microwave network, and then billions more to maintain it year round.......and to allow a capability so those in the Arctic might be able to watch Youtube videos (weather depending)........ I know, and since said report, DND has attempted to operate smaller UAVs in the Arctic, near line of sight, slightly more complex than a remote controlled model airplane.......coupled with the RCAF putting its own program, JUSTAS, on ice and very quickly rejecting the sub component from it for unmanned Arctic surveillance.......which, IIRC, was for less than half a dozen heavily modified versions of the Global Hawk (dubbed Polar Hawk), based off of one Global Hawk used by NASA for Antarctic research, which makes use of the Iridium network (Satellite phone provider) for command and control in the polar regions........ If you've ever used a Satellite phone, you'll know they are very expensive to operate, and this reflected in the estimated price of the program, which would have seen each UAV/ground station/support costs equating to $300-400 million per UAV.......

Sure, I don't disagree, but who is going to pay the billions to do it? Presently, the number of manned (civilian and military) aircraft that are able to operate in the Arctic are very limited..............I think concentrating on ensuring a single sweet potato doesn't cost $17 or a can of Coke $7 are far more pressing issues than developing the required level of reliable communications to allow the operation of a nonexistent UCAV.

Riiight...... Sure competitions where the F-35 wasn't offered.........and by "a number", do you mean two? (Sweden and Brazil).

We do, limited satellite coverage that conveys all communications in the North, even further restricted in a good blow......which happens once and while up there.........No Bandwidth, no Arctic UAVs.

So why aren't said partner nations dropping it and going for your suggested, all singing and all dancing, Gripen? Why have countries like Japan and South Korea, joined the program after competitions with the cited alternatives?

We sure do (I worked for the company that maintains them). DEW was replaced by the North Warning System, in largely the same sites........having spent most of last Fall in Kitikmeot, I can attest to the limitations of communications in the North.

Right, somehow, several prolific critics of defense spending, aided by bloggers, somehow know the program to be a failure, yet the armed forces and aerospace industries of numerous Western nations have been grifted by Lockheed......

Sure........and we could also build Imperial Star Destroyers......communications in the Arctic are very limited, let's look at once there is Arctic wide cellphone coverage and high speed internet.