Derek 2.0

To a degree, as much as people get upset with outsourcing jobs.......Which American design are you talking about?

By the same token, it allows Trudeau an out, since he's refused to answer questions from Sun Media for several years.....I suppose we'll see in the months ahead if it will hurt him.......with that said, I don't see how his refusal to talk with a media group that is influential in a Province that his electoral fortunes will depend on, is a good idea.

Is he? His boycott of the Parliamentary Sun reporters, will surely have follow on effects through the entire Sun Media chain……I could see a boycott of Levant, even a snide retort over his lack of class, but refusing to take questions from the David Akins, Mark Dunns, Jessica Humes etc will have a follow on effect downstream with Quebecor Media…..

Though I find Levant annoying, and could understand any Politician distancing themselves from him personally, Trudeau’s boycott of Sun Media, the largest outlet within Quebec, could come back to bite him…….

Don't the South Koreans know any better?

If we do purchase the American supply vessel, I fail to see the political overtones that you suggest, likewise any negatives for the navy by increasing dramatically it’s abilities to deploy overseas at the behest of the elected Governments foreign policy. In essence, you’re complaining because the Government seeks to add an interim replacement, that is a drastic improvement to our current assets, well also procuring new vessels made by Canadian taxpayers/voters……….the problem is what exactly? Frankly, you’re looking for something to bitch and moan about, and are coming up short.

In some regards, also in many cases purchasing European programs, due to their smaller production runs, allows us to be a bigger fish, as opposed to a smaller fish in a bigger American buying pond……..of course, bigger fish are expected to pay a whole bunch more…. We could switch out anything we wanted to…….Like you could put the powertrain of a Ford Mustang into a VW Jetta, but why would you want to? The type 45/Sampson combo might be the current "greatest", thats open to debate, none the less, you could count the number of British/French systems (likewise APAR) with your fingers and toes......the American AEGIS/SPY-1 is in use by over 100 ships and more allies.....The greater numbers of the American units will ensure the costs of purchasing and upgrading will be spread over a much greater user base....... As to the Americans, their Burke design is continually being upgraded, with already three variants in service (flights I, II, IIa) with the third flight just about to go into production…….likewise AEGIS and the SPY radar receiving continual software upgrades, including a planned upgrade to include an AESA radar, which would allow the steerable beam of the radar to use as a weapon against “unfriendly” electronic devices…….There is certainly nothing wrong with the growth path of AEGIS & SPY-1, and that is why all other systems are measured against it. Crew requirements namely……..12 of our frigates require ~2700 personal, 12 Burkes would require ~3800 personal……….With the AOE/AORs, it’s expected that they’re going to eat up a large number of personal, and if we operated one of the Supply class AOEs, it would likely require about the same number of personal as our soon to be retired AORs.. It costs a lot of money…….With our current Destroyers and Frigates for example, we require two separate schools for the engine room, radars/systems etc…..likewise supply chains……….If you can combine similar systems, why wouldn’t you? For example, our current Halifax frigates use the same engines as the Burke destroyers and those American supply ships……..right now, our Halifax and Tribal destroyers use a completely different gas turbines, well our supply ships still use steam. Not yet complete, but closer........There are compromises to be made by sharing a common type. For instance, a purpose built ASW frigate will use a different hull form to optimise quietness, where as a anti air destroyer will have greater effectiveness by having their radars mounted higher (to increase the radar horizon), which requires a wider ship to maintain stability. A ship (like a corvette) that you’d want to operate in the littorals will need to be smaller to decrease the chances of being detected, where as a navy wanting a ship to be able to deploy for months on end (with Command and Control facilities) will require being quite large, but will require a far larger crew………For Canada, we require all of the above, so like most navies, a compromise in some areas is a must.

There are, but South Koreans, Spanish, Poles etc don't vote in Canadian elections nor pay Canadian taxes....

Noticed an edit to the CBC link posted earlier.......In it, comment from the Liberals and some bias: What it fails to mention, the design first put forth under the Liberals, the JSS, would have combined roles as a "troopship" and a "tanker".....what could go wrong there... And yet, several paragraphs up, the author states some question the navy's lack of ability to refuel it's own ships.......and now some will question the Government for finding a cheaper interim fix.........One can have it both ways when attacking the Conservative Government..........As for the Liberals: So the Liberals would have done what differently? The current Government came to office and had on the books, left over from the previous Liberal Government, a design for replacements (The JSS) which would have combined a supply ship (loaded with fuel and supplies for the fleet) with a transport/hospital ship/Command post for supporting the army ashore......... ......Of course the current Government had to restart the program, and after a run of accidents, is looking at interim replacements until Canadian made replacements are in service.......... A good question to ask of the Liberals, is why did they retire HMCS Provider (a previous AOR) in the 90s without a replacement........back then, there were plenty of options from allies drawing down their Cold War fleets.....Three AORs would have put less stress on the fleet and allowed a longer lifespan. The other question, why did the Liberals allow HMCS Huron (the sister Destroyer of the ones just retired) to be put into reduced operating status and finally retired and suck as a target? Like the supply ships, keeping the Huron would have allowed for spreading usage and in turn stretching the lifespan of our Destroyer fleet.......... As they say about living in glass houses......

And why they cost so much to operate...........None the less, one would certainly be a great asset to the RCN…….If they can support an entire CVBG with an UNREP 1-2 a week, well being resupplied themselves by tankers and dry store ships….One Supply class shouldn’t have a problem keeping 2-3 Canadian frigates/destroyers topped-up for an entire 6 month deployment. It would only having to top itself up a handful of times for fresh produce and dairy products, coupled with go juice………..I should think it would carry enough frozen and canned food, munitions, spare parts and JP-5 for the entire deployment….. I never knew that about the battleship guts.......learn something every day.......They certainly were targets, as I said, worked with them on various deployments, hence why the baggage train always had a couple of Sprucans and OHP/Knox figs along with them......

No doubt.......I performed VERTREPs on their (slightly smaller) predecessors in the 80s and 90s……….These beasts share the same engines as our current Halifax frigates, times two…….

The smaller CCG ships can be built concurrently on VanShips other slipways……..I doubt the icebreaker will be built first, for no other reason than the Queenstons are further along in the design process and need.......I could see the navy hanging onto the third AOR (well AOE) in an attempt to show the requirement for a third (or fourth) AOR.

And this from CBC: To add, just one of these two Supply Class AORs has nearly the combined displacement of both of our retired AORs……The intended purpose of the Supply Class was to replenish an entire Carrier Battlegroup, typically made up of a Super Carrier, cruiser and several destroyers and/or frigates……..if the deal goes through, it would be the largest ship ever commissioned into the RCN, dwarfing our previous aircraft carriers and cruisers.

Exactly, we need AORs for the navy……buy AORs…….We have a requirement for strategic sealift? Buy or lease a sealift vessel……We need the ability conduct amphibious warfare. Purchase a gator freighter……….the combining of all three roles into a single platform is the reason why the initial program folded under its own weight. As I said, I’d be very surprised if we don’t procure some form of a “baby Burke”….

As mentioned prior, the navy has been working on replacements for both the Destroyers and AORs since the 90s.......But as planned technology matured, the root design of the destroyer replacements (the Halifax class) proved to be unsuitable……….Likewise, the initial direction of the AORs, which were to a combined supply ship, amphibious assault vessel, strategic sealift, hospital ship and command ship………It’s better the initial concept of the JSS was stillborn, for what I feel our obvious reasons. I haven’t seen the latest NDP proposal, but I wouldn’t hold my breath, but as mentioned by the higher ups, interim options are being looked at………

The problem with both the British (Type 45) and French (Horizon) destroyers is that they reliant upon British and French electronics, radars, propulsion, weapons etc……..Our navy’s preference is to share similar systems with the Americans, so as to realize greater savings from a larger production and support system (often with a large impact on Canadian divisions of larger American companies), synergies and interoperability with our largest ally and strategic security, in that during a large scale conflict, replacements are just a railhead away. A flight III Burke would be the ideal replacement for our destroyers, but too costly (in both procurement and operation) to replace the entire fleet with. Why this is a problem, is that the navy wants a common root design to replace the destroyer and frigates to simplify training and the supply chain…..Along the lines as how the Burke class is the USN’s mainstay of their surface fleet, of course as already mentioned, Canada following a similar meme would be too costly. Hence why the next best thing, would be a “baby Burke” grafted onto an affordable root design.

Again, the CNO has stated the commitment to the F-35C……….and as mentioned numerous times, the purchase of additional EA-18 Growlers, a specialist electronic warfare aircraft, has the same effect on the F-35 as the USN purchasing P-8 patrol aircraft or new helicopters…. Ahh, the replacement for the Super Hornet...........why doesn't Boeing just offer the Super-Duper Hornet as a replacement?

I'm sure the LockMart info-machine will provide nice colour graphics to contrast the price reduction

That probably does factor somewhat in personal opinions of some......The LCS is a corvette in all but name, the problem, they cost nearly as much as a Frigate and are far less capable.. Warts and all, the 280s were expected to last a few years longer, but their material state worsened with the increased tempo with Operation Apollo, then the run of accidents over the last two years were the final nails in their coffins. As to final design of the replacements, based on the already signed industrial agreements between Irving and various Defense giants, a presentation earlier this year in Ottawa, rumblings of Canada potentially reopening talks on missile defense, I would be very surprised if the final selection isn’t a hybrid of the Danish Iver Huitfeldt frigates, with LM2500 gas turbines and the AEGIS combat system and SPY-1F with a newer AESA upgrade.

I'll do you one better, I'll comment once LRIP 9 info is released

The Marines are replacing their legacy Hornets (half the fleet of the same vintage as ours), the Harrier IIs and the EA-6 Prowlers with the F-35B and several squadrons of F-35Cs……The Hornet squadrons equipped with the eldest Hornets (such as the ones currently at MCAS Yuma) will be replaced first, followed by squadrons flying the F/A-18C and Harrier IIs. As has been stated prior, the Hornet, Harrier and Falcon (used by the USAF), followed by the various F-35 are multirole……As to “close air support” (aka CAS) and “bomb trucks” (interdiction/attack), coupled with “air-to air” (Air superiority & interceptors), the above aircraft can perform all of the missions (Caveat alert, the USMC’s Harriers weren’t required for “air-to-air”, but the Harriers operated by the Royal Navy did) to various degrees. The Marines have a specific emphasis on CAS (dating back to Guadalcanal), with interdiction and air superiority having lesser importance. This of course is the inverse with the RCAF, which focuses on the mentioned tasks in the reverse order…….These roles are reflected more so in training than the aircraft, hence a Canadian Hornet will be used as an interceptor, a USN Hornet to perform interdiction and a Marine Hornet used to perform CAS. As to a Canadian IOC, as mentioned prior, that would be predicated on a Canadian order……..once said order is placed, on the assumption the F-35 is in full production, a complete transition for the RCAF would take 3-5 years dependant on the rate of production and availability of training for pilots and technicians. You mentioned sequestration.........be that as it may, even if the Dems retain the Senate, I doubt the progress of the F-35 will be effected.........

That's true to an extant.......with advancements in mine warfare, going forward, stand alone types won't be required, with new methods including UUVs, airborne systems and new sonar in both ships and subs.

There certainly is some back and forth on the AOPS requirement, but with the understanding that it’s not intended to be a surface combatant, the value of it in tasks less demanding will certainly make it useful……..Though I personally would have favored funding an additional Arctic icebreaker and additional Hero-class OPVs for the CCG, then replacing 1/3rd -1/2 of the Kingston MCDVs with something along the lines as the littoral combat ship………this of course would cost substantially more, and would only offer a slight increase in capability over the mundane tasks the AOPS will fulfill. As mentioned by Smallc, it has not........with that said, based on the generational gap between our Destroyers and Frigates, it probably should have been a standalone program.

Combat ready is clearly subjective and requires further definition…….for the Marines, does it mean the F-35B will be at it technological end-state next year? Unlikely………Will it be an advancement over the Marines legacy Hornets that it has already replaced? Certainly. To date, the F-35 has been largely ring-fenced in the force wide cuts (yes some aircraft purchases have been deferred etc), I see no reason why this wouldn't continue with a GOP controlled Congress and Senate.