Aristides

Heard where?

They aren’t voting for PP, they are voting against JT. Doug the hamster could be leading the Conservatives and they would still vote for him. You are saying that giving people more places and time to vote is somehow rigging it for the Liberals. I guess you agree with the kind of voter suppression we see in some American states.

Ya, like the f***k Trudeau crowd are voting for PP. Besides, we don’t get to decide how or why other people vote.

More people vote against something than for something. Always been that way. A nothingburger.

I don't know, we have had ships there doing anti pirate duties before.

Canada should be supporting big boys that do have carriers, not building our own and expecting other navies to provide their escorts. Otherwise, aside from our NATO commitments we should be doing things like supporting the US and Britain against the Houthis in the Gulf of Aden which is a frigate or destroyer job. We should have a ship there now.

A flawed man but Britain's greatest admiral who's men openly wept when he was killed. We have one type of combat aircraft.

So what, more types of ships means more complication and more expense, that's why we are only buying one type of fighter. Do you really believe we will be some kind of global bad ass that everyone will fear because we have a single aircraft carrier with conventional weapons?

A typical British carrier group consists of a QE class carrier, a Type 45 destroyer for anti aircraft defence, a Type 23 frigate (to be replaced the Type 26) for anti sub defence, an attack sub and a supply ship. That's four other ships to support and defend one carrier. It isn't a case of one or the other. The French also have 11 destroyers and the British six Daring class Type 45 destroyers in addition to their frigates. They also have nuclear attack subs.

You need frigates and destroyers to work with them. Each US carrier group has at least two. It isn't a case of one or the other. What good is one carrier to us with three oceans to cover separated by a continent?

Is the Type 26 really a frigate? It is 20 metres longer and 1700 tons heavier than our recent Tribal class destroyers. Maybe that's why the Brits are calling it a Global Combat Ship. Odd comment from a guy who would spend 14 billion USD and as much again for its air wing on a single ship which would cost almost as much to run as all our frigates put together.

Western countries already have overwhelming superiority in carriers, why spend the largest part of our defence budget just to add one more. As I said before, you will still need modern anti aircraft and anti submarine frigates and possibly an attack sub to protect it, either that or expect other navies to do it for you. It makes no sense. Even though they are expensive, frigates still give the best bang for the buck when it comes to surface craft. Other than carry fixed wing aircraft, they can be equipped to do just about anything larger ships can do. They've been navy's all rounders since the days of sail. Nelson was always worrying about his shortage of frigates during the Napoleonic wars.

Why would we want have our most expensive to buy and operate military asset just to be used in places like the Middle East? Certainly not a major contribution to our own defence. We certainly don't need one in the North Atlantic, it is ringed by NATO countries. Russia has one carrier, a floating rust bucket that has been in drydock for two years.

I’m not against increasing our military capability, just don’t believe carriers are the best way to do it.

Last time I looked F-35A’s were 80M USD each and F-35B’s were 109M. F-35B’s are 102M. The A is also a more capable aircraft than both if you don’t don’t need STOVL or carrier capability.

Not when you include the 65 aircraft including 35 F-35B's each will carry. You will still need anti aircraft and anti submarine frigates to protect them.

So no offensive capability at all.

Yes but not carriers. Even the old Bonaventure only had Korean War vintage Banshees for fighters right up until was decommissioned in 1970. If you want offensive nuclear capability, SSBN's make a lot more sense, they are a lot less vulnerable and can operate on their own, without escorts. The Gerrald Ford cost just under 14 billion USD. You can add at least that much again for its air wing and when you are finished you have the most expensive warship in the world to operate.

Why a carrier? Carriers are for offensive operations, not defence. F-35C's also cost 20 million USD each, more than the F-35A's we are buying. Carrier battle groups also contain frigates, destroyers and subs to protect the carrier so you need to buy them anyway unless you are only going to operate with other navies that have those capabilities.

Great, one carrier and one sub to cover three coasts.🙄

The last and only time the UN went to war was Korea. I really don't see what practical use a carrier has for Canada, they are by far the most expensive warships. If we are going to spend that kind of money, better some subs that can operate in the Arctic year round.

Our only capital ships in WW2 were a couple of heavy cruisers, the rest of our navy was small ships, nothing bigger than Tribal class destroyers.

So we share our foreign policy with all the other countries operating this carrier? What if one doesn’t agree?

It's always been popular in many US states.

Unfortunately you don’t.