Aristides

So that is what Republicans do stand for.

So did all the Americans who fought and died do it so the US could degenerate into a single party state like the Soviet Union? Is that what Republicans stand for?

Ya, ya, any election your boy doesn't win is rigged. Man you guys are getting old. It's nice to see that Brazilians could still dump Bolsonaro in spite of all his efforts to suppress the vote. It gives one a little hope in these dark days for democracy.

Depends how the are configured, the Brit ships have 48.

Modern 5" or 127 mm naval guns using Volcano guided ammunition can hit targets 80 km away with an accuracy within 5 metres. Even their guns are lethal. The maximum range of the large caliber naval guns used by battleships was less than half that.

The are the same missiles.

Trump was begging for 11,000 votes and you were cheering him.

That's also true of the US.

As a NATO member, one of our commitments is to be compatible with things like carrier task forces. Frigates make up a major part of them. When you look at the shape the world is in today, there is no way of knowing what will be required of our forces in future.

That is debatable because the wars could not have been won without them. Cochrane was the father of the Chilean navy and destroyed Spanish naval presence in the eastern Pacific. He did the same for the Brazilians against the Portuguese. He wreaked havoc with the French in the Mediterranean but never commanded a ship of the line. He was the real Master and Commander. The Mauritius campaign between the English and French was fought entirely by frigates. Driving the French out of the Ionian and Aegean Seas was accomplished by frigates. That was Hoste. Frigates were the commerce raiders of their era and could destroy a country's trade. In effect, the U Boats of their age. The American threat to Britain in 1812 wasn't to the RN but to British merchant vessels and it was British frigates that strangled American trade, not ships of the line.

Fleet actions were very rare during the the Napoleonic Wars. There were really only four over a period of 20 years. St. Vincent, Camperdown, Finistere which was prelude to Trafalgar and Trafalgar itself. Line of battle ships were used mostly to keep French and Spanish fleets blockaded in their ports. Most of the fighting was done by frigates. In the case of the War of 1812 all the major actions were between frigates. Frigates and then cruisers were the ships of empire. They could go anywhere, do almost anything and carried enough marines to be effective in limited ground operations. Frigate captains such as Cochrane, Hoste, Mundy, Smith, Broke and Pellew were the military rock stars of their day.

Frigates were the backbone of the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic wars. Horatio Nelson. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/the-frigate-sailing-ship-pride-of-the-british-royal-navy/

Battleships were used for coastal bombardment as late as the 80's in Lebanon and during the first Gulf War.

This is the gun carried by the Danish ships

Norwegian and Danish arctic patrol ships mount 58 and 76mm guns plus secondary machine gun armament and missile and torpedo carrying capability. Our DeWolfes have a 20mm gun and a couple of 50 cal machine guns and no missile or torpedo capability. The Scandinavian ships are real warship's, ours are just there to show the flag.

The DeWolfes are little more than glorified police boats with their Bushmaster popgun as main armament.

Irving is not an arms company just as Bombardier is not an arms company. We don't have any real arms companies like SAAB or BAE. Every time we do one of these once every 40 year projects we almost have to start from scratch. Most of the people who worked on the Halifax frigates we are replacing are retired by now.

The Type 26's are quite a bit larger than the FREMM's. As you say, more like destroyers. The UK has designated it a "Global Combat Ship".

Our two carriers, the Magnificent and Bonaventure were British light carriers that were built during WW2. The only jets they ever carried were Korean War vintage Banshees on the Boneventure.

You know the Doomsday bomb only existed in Dr. Strangelove. The thing about nukes is you need ways of delivering them which are far more expensive than the weapons themselves.

We will probably pay more than we need to because we have never tried to build a defence industry in this country that is capable of export, unlike say, Sweden but someone here name any military procurement in any country that hasn't gone over budget.

Like any vehicle, options can add considerably to the price. It depends on what we need them to do and the cost of equipping them accordingly. As I said about the carriers. The QE class can carry up to 40 F-35B's and 14 helos. The F-35's alone would cost almost 5 B USD plus plus cost of operating them. Also, the carriers air defence will be mostly handled by its escorting Type 26's. That's why I hate BS comparisons like the PBO estimate quoted in your link.

Several NATO countries sent troops to Afghanistan. Canada declined to participate in Iraq 2 and rightly so. Why should have NATO gone to Iraq, it didn't attack a Nato country.

So committing suicide is your defence go too?

So why come up with some bullshit cost based on 65 years of operation and disposal? Did you read your own post?