Derek 2.0

So you would send Canadian army engineers into a quarantined region……..I trust you’ll lead them with your swagger stick over the top.

Not to treat people with cholera..........

And the result was the expansion of OERS and to strengthen communication between the Feds and the Provinces and Territories, coupled with NGOs, IGOs etc………no mention of the armed forces.

I wouldn’t assume to make such estimates, not with numbers based on an aircraft still under the R&D phase of its life, nor present them as gospel or cause for abandonment of the F-35……..this of course is the position of those nations that have placed or are in negotiations for the aircraft……….As I’ve asked numerous times, in the most simplistic form, if the naysayers are correct, why has not a single partner left the program?

Yet, PHAC is already involved in the West Africa Ebola outbreak..........and the Canadian military zilch.

Exactly, coupled with PHAC at the Federal level.

I don't think you really understand that such programs in Canada are the purview of civilian agencies at the Federal and Provincial level.....not the military.

There isn't an example, because the Canadian Forces are not trained to handle such events.......You could count on one hand the countries that have focused resources in such fields, namely those nations that have had active germ-warfare programs.

.......Sure, but not to contend with a infectious disease in the middle of Africa……..Can you cite just one example, from throughout the history of the Canadian military, of a deployment focused on contending with an infectious outbreak?

Through our version of the CDC.

Why would you think a predominantly battlefield trauma focused unit could contend with Ebola?

Indeed.......next fall is correct

........But no experience in responding to infectious disease……..best leave it to the experts found within various NGOs (Red Cross, MSF etc) and we can help via funding.

I wonder how many are from Fort Detrick......And are more concerned with Ebola being weaponized by extremist groups, as opposed to being good Samaritans?

When was the last time DART/Canadian military was used to contain/treat an infectious "outbreak"?

The GAO report states their figures are based on 2012 and 2013 numbers: So their conclusions are based upon estimates from a timeframe of up to two years prior, and serviceability figures associated with an aircraft still in the R&D phase from Spring 2013-2014………contrasted with figures from mature legacy types from nearly five years ago… And despite the “doom and gloom”, nations are still purchasing it…..

Indeed.......and what are the Japanese, Norwegians, Italians and British doing purchasing aircraft in LRIP 9?!?!?!?!

I guess you question the sampling, like I do, since it bases the F-35 costs off of figures from several years ago!!!

In this case, how is it screwed up? The supply ships, after suffering accidents, won't last until Canadian built ships are in service, so the Government will purchase/lease interim ship(s). Why would you say that? Surely if they didn't care, they wouldn't be seeking said option..........And no, we have more than a "newspaper", we have a direct quote from the head of the RCN stating they are seeking an interim replacement, of course at the direction of the elected Government

That's not what Sun news has indicated, citing their own examples of Trudeau ducking their reporters questions since he became leader........now Trudeau has an excuse.

The intent of the program is to both modernise the industry to keep it viable, and at such time as the current projected build portion is complete, we’ll be performing the midlife upgrades, then replacements to keep it sustainable.

It's been in the Sun News for awhile, when ever Trudeau has ducked a tough question, they report it.......as I said, this has been going on far longer than Levant's rant.

That's the idea This is very true, but don’t confuse the use of frigate/destroyer/cruiser……they are just labels…….Norway has anti-aircraft frigates, the Americans have had ASW destroyers and built AAW cruisers on the same hulls…..the Burke class destroyer, is the same size as their cruisers, and the size of a WW-1 era battleship. Very few navies have specialist ships anymore on cost grounds, favouring “general purpose”, with a type like the Burke, the USN can do anti-air, anti-sub, anti-ship, ballistic missile defense, land attack and support of special operations…..Whereas based on cost, for example, the British Type 45 would be hard pressed to defend itself against submarines or other ships. The RCN is looking towards the American method of all singing and dancing…

Ahh but the Burke class also features sonar/IR/radar signature reduction measures.......and far more combat agility, a single Burke has the greater ability to deal with a saturation attack by anti-ship missiles than a Type 45 and Horizon combined. Like I said with the Ford/VW……why would you want to? It would be akin to wanting the fire control system and engine of the M1 Abrams, but in a Leopard A6 hull……..It could be done with enough money, but not just purchase the Abrams or design a new tank from the ground up with the features that you desire? Now with that being said, what DND will/is doing, is looking at a design (the Danish frigate) that was intended from the onset, the ability to incorporate one of European/British/American radars, combat management systems, weapons etc….. Yes. First, the radars, combat management systems, weapons etc are by far the most expensive portion of any design......now basic economies of scale would see the advantage going to the Americans....Now the Royal Navy at first wanted 12 type 45 destroyers, but due to the costs associated with Sampson, were forced to settle on 6......but if they had of went with AEGIS/Spy-1, though probably not 12 ships, they would have got 8-9 for the same budgeted total..... The same can also be said of ongoing support.......the Americans, Japanese, Australians, Norwegians, Spanish and South Koreans will be continually be upgrading and supporting AEGIS/Spy-1, spread over 100 ships........the British will have to do likewise for just six ships.....the French and Italians likewise, over ~12 hulls..... That's not so though, AEGIS/SPY-1 are used in over 100 ships and growing.....

Ask yourself this…….how popular is defense spending with the Canadian electorate? Now how popular would defense spending that injects little to none of taxpayers’ dollars back into the Canadian economy be? This is the political reality. Normally I disapprove of corporate welfare, but I also understand that at times, the Government has to secure Canadian interests as a whole. In the case of shipbuilding, it’s an industry that isn’t competitive in most first world nations. When it is competitive commercially, you will see an industry that is heavily subsidized by Government largess……..as such, we have to do the same out of strategic interest.