justme

Back to carriers, some Canadian history: HMCS Magnificent One of the last roles of the Magnificent was to transport a Canadian peacekeeping force in response to the Suez crisis. Yes, a carrier was used in what the left considers to be one of Canada's greatest moments. HMCS_Bonaventure Carriers are not alien to Canada. "In 2003, the former Canadian Forces Major General Lewis MacKenzie had declared that Canada must consider a carrier-capable version of the F-35 Lightning II" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Canadian_Amphibious_Assault_Ship When Harper first ran for office, the Conservative plan called for two carriers. Rick Hillier agreed that Canada needed what he called, "big honking ships". An interesting read by Colonel Gary H. Rice, CA/CF Ret’d (linked from an article on The Ottawa Citizen)

Which doesn't answer the question. And how do you figure when two of five shipyards will be used? I doubt that they'll finish a large ship each year. A plan that may allow a future government to jeopardize the procurement of equipment that the armed forces need. Although I tend to vote Conservative, I believe a citizen of a democratic country should question government, and I do not agree with everything they do.

An assumption "The JSS wil serve Canada's needs." - Smallc (posted yesterday) If you have so much confidence in it, why delay replacement ships by a couple years? Can you tell me what these "current needs" are? Of course not, but you can sound like you're regurgitating a press conference. Whether you have one shipyard for large ships and one for small, or one for combat and one for non-combat, it'll still be the better part of a decade or more before you see these ships enter service. In your opinion. In mine, you are wrong. It doesn't have to be a binary outcome. You can both accelerate the process to deliver replacements in a timely way and put in place a plan to eliminate the cycle. Sure they can plan, but whatever they put off to the distant future may not materialize at all. But you're ok with $16 billion on fighter jets and have yet to object to the billions that the government spends in other areas. Once again, I'm ok with the fighter jets too, but be consistent. Sounds like another regurgitated press conference.

LOL

Smallc, I think you're being a little too rosy about military procurement announcements. The JSS was originally announced in 2004 and it was expected to take 5-7 years for it to enter service. Here we are half-way through 2010 and the government announced that there'll be another 2 year design period before they start building them, which will take years. Also, if the JSS will meet all our needs as you suggest, why is it that they're taking another 2 years for design? If it is good as is, they should be able to begin building with the existing design. Either this is foot dragging or it is to improve the design of the ship. Which is it? Like the Sea Kings, the supply ships that are currently being used will be pushing 50 years old by the time they're replaced. One of them is on dry dock for maintenance, which leaves only one for use. And speaking of the Sea Kings, they're supposed to be replaced with Cyclones by now. If only one ship yard will be used for large ships, will it be able to handle building more than one ship at a time? Probably not, and given that the JSS will probably be the first to be built, that means the the destroyers are not likely to be replaced for a decade or more. And the icebreakers will have to wait in line. Limiting it to one ship yard creates a bottleneck. As much as it pains me to say this, I agree with the NDP in that the work should just be allocated to shipyards and they should get on with it. Ironically though, this is the exact opposite position that that opposition parties are taking with the F-35. While I agree with the Conservatives that there should be a long-term procurement plan that's stable instead of the pathetic start and stop cycle that Canada is famous for, how can they reliably plan so far into the future? Who knows what the government will be like decades into the future and what it'll do to defence spending. Also I agree with the Conservatives that the defence budget should be restored to 2% of GDP, but what they're actually doing is gradually raising the budget to $30 billion or so by 2027-2028. When you take GDP growth into consideration, $30 billion would most likely be a lower percentage of GDP at that time than we're spending now. At 2% of GDP, the 2010 budget should be $32 billion. I think the government should move faster and consider other capabilities such as amphibious assault ships, and I certainly think the country is capable of it, but be realistic. Unless the government starts thinking big and gets more aggressive about military procurement, it's not going to happen any time soon.

Let me know when you figure out the difference between a soldier and a social worker.

Ok, to be accurate, STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing). Canada could buy a small number of F-35Bs for carrier use with the bulk being another variant, as recommended in Australia. Typically, only about half a dozen fighter jets are sent for overseas operations anyways. I can't see any maintenance being worse than that which is required for the Sea Kings. Assuming the F-35C is available, I agree. The crew requirement of the Queen Elizabeth class carrier, which is almost as big as the Nimitz, isn't too bad either.

Maybe in your imagination, but not according to the navy. So what you're saying is that you have no source for such an announcement? By the way, it's not likely to be the F-35C because according to reports, only the US will use it. That could change, but that's what I've read. Nice dodge. Isn't that what I said? I do believe those are the larger ships. Maintaining capability is a top priority, but if given the opportunity, I'm sure they'd go with something better. The list of problems they've had is well known, but hey, if you want to put a positive spin on it.... Which is about 1.3% of GDP. Man, that's going to break the bank. A deficit caused by stimulous spending due to the recession, which won't last forever. So, why not use ship building to stimulate the economy?

Ok, so what does the Griffon have to do with comparing the helicopters that are being used to Chinooks? You say it's supposed to land and fuel Chinooks, but the capabilities listed on the official navy website states that it holds a maximum of four smaller helicopters. I've already provided a link in a previous post. To the best of my knowledge, the government hasn't announced which variant of the F-35 they are buying. Can you provide a link to such an announcement? The F-35B can take off and land vertically thus eliminating the need for a long runway or catapult system. Regular armed forces are being increased to 70,000 and you're arguing that they can't come up with a few hundred people to man a couple carriers? Come on... You also argued that most people prefer the air force, but the whole point of having carriers is to carry aircraft. It stands to reason, by your own argument, that there'd be more interest in the navy if it had carriers. Ok, the largest ships are around 40 years old, and the subs are lemons. A dozen frigates do most of the heavy lifting - with helicopters that are nearly 50 years old. That better? And that might sound like a lot of money, but it works out to about a billion per year, which is about the same amount of money that the government spends on the CBC. Can't possibly spend more money on defence than the left's mouth piece and recruitment office for Liberal Governor Generals? Is that right? Such as?

Griffons? Do you even bother to research what you're talking about? The navy uses Sea Kings, which will be replaced by Cyclones, and neither are near the capability of a Chinook. Maybe you can squeeze a Chinook on the JSS... whoop dee doo. There's no comparison between that and having half a dozen Chinooks and, if necessary, fighter jets. A whole extra crew of 160 with the armed forces being increased by the thousands. And maybe people would want to join the navy if they weren't using 40 year old ships. Peter MacKay makes a good point that having new equipment helps with recruitment. Two ships with the option to buy a third, and plans to replace/add other ships as well. With regards to the cost, as I've already stated, it will creat jobs in Canada, and good paying jobs also means taxes going back to the government. It would be good for the people that it would employ and good for the country. And a couple billion on ships is peanuts compared to $16 billion on fighter jets. This is not to suggest that I think the fighter jets are a waste of money, I don't, but let's put things in context.

He was only the Chief of the Defence Staff, and one of the best.

"The operation of up to four Maritime Helicopters" http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/10/10-a_eng.asp?id=463 That means four of the same helicopter found on frigates: the Sea King or the replacement - CH148 Cyclone - not Chinooks. You keep trying to make that arguement, but a flat deck for more aircraft doesn't require more crew. The JSS has a "standard crew of up to 165 people" and the french Mistral carrier has a crew of 160. Since many of the capabilities, aside from air lift, are redundant between the JSS and a carrier, chop the JSS down to 2 ships from 3, add 2 carriers, and you have an increase of only 1 ship with a whopping 160 additional crew required - give or take.

And you know more about it than Rick Hillier.

Offensive weapons in the armed forces? Oh my god, what a shock! Go hug a tree. Are Chinooks or C-17s offensive? No, but what they can hold may be. Likewise, a carrier simply gives greater ability to deploy, and Canadian fighter jets do get involved in overseas operations, such as Kosovo and Desert Storm. Really? That's why the Canadian navy was involved in the response to the earthquake in Haiti and Katrina in the US.

I disagree with you, but more importantly, Rick Hillier disagrees with you: And you don't need a complement the size of that on the Wasp. That was just an example. The British are building a Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier that's almost the same size as the American Nimitz carrier that only requires a complement of 600 - compared to nearly 5000 on the Nimitz. The french Mistral carrier has a complement of 160. And if you think that's too much, consider that Australia, a country with only about two thirds of our population and a smalller economy, is building two Canberra class carriers. There's nothing magical about having more deck space for aircraft and lifts to be able to store them inside the ship that makes it overwhelming for Canada, but it would give Canada ability to deploy aircraft that it would not otherwise have. In a natural disaster, the hardest hit areas where people need help the most are usually the harest to reach. Chinooks, which I doubt the JSS will be able to hold, can fill the role of reaching these areas, and a carrier can serve as a base of operations for the Chinooks. Should the Canadian Air Force be called upon to serve in a conflict, again, a carrier can be used as a base of operations outside of Canada for fighter jets and the JSS can't. I remember reading about how the Canadian government was considering sending F-18s to Afghanistan, but it was plagued with problems. Granted Afghanistan is a land locked country, but in most cases, a carrier would eliminate logistical and basing problems. Without a carrier, or for people that want to argue semantics, amphibious assault ship, you can kiss these important capabilities good bye. Meanwhile, many of our allies, including one smaller than Canada, are building these ships. As for cost, they're far less expensive than fighter jets and create jobs in Canada.

Death threats are already covered under the Criminal Code. The HRC uses Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is an anti-hate speech law that was created originally to deal with phone messages and later expanded to cover the internet in 2001. The section deals with hate messages not threats of violence. "Diversity is one of Canada's greatest strengths, and the Government of Canada is taking steps to protect it." (from the above link) Read: The Liberals want to protect the agenda they put in place to transform Canada from criticism and opposition. The whole diversity thing started with Trudeau in the late 60s, and personally, I think it's an oxymoron. How is it a strength to import Jamaican gang violence, Muslim honour killings, or Indian pre-arranged marriages? But if you point out the FACT that these behaviours are part of cultures that often fall within racial boundaries, you enter what you call "grey area". Did we need the level of security that we now have at airports before diversity? No, yet it's one of our greatest strengths apparently. In order to avoid offending anyone, and to preserve the illusion, we must not do profiling at airports, for minority rights trump ours. "As well, there are Criminal Code amendments that would create a new offence of mischief motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin, committed against a place of religious worship or associated religious property." (from the above link) But it's ok for Muslims to preach hate of the West in the Mosques that they build in our country.

Who cares about the Trudeau Charter of Rights and Freedoms? It's a flawed document. For example, it starts off with this clause: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Hate speech is an example of a restriction on the right to free speech. If you disagree with homosexuality or voice opposition to immigration, are you guilty of hate speech? If you refuse to accept a culture that condones killing your own child (ie honor killings) as an equal to Western culture and you're vocal about it, are you guilty of hate speech? Free speech is just that, free speech, and there should be no restrictions on it - otherwise, it isn't free. In contrast, the US Bill of Rigbhts: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. That alone makes the Bill of Rights superior to Trudeau's Charter.

In the US: In Canada Although Trudeau officially announced his policy of multiculturalism on October 8th, 1971, the immigration point system went into effect in 1967 while Pearson was Prime Minister - a year before Trudeau took his place. Trudeau's immigration act was created in 1976 and went into effect in 1978. Notice that the 1967 change in Canadian immigration closely followed the deceptive 1965 change in US immigration with similar results. It is interesting to note that Trudeau was reduced to a minority government in 1972. Today: More than 80% of the nearly 250,000 immigrants in 2008 came from developing countries. From 1999-2008, the top three source countries by far were: China, India and Philippines. Although immigration came from more than 165 countries in 2008, the top three countries made up nearly a third of all immigration. Despite the fact that the US is our neighbour with which we share close ties, history and values, from 1999-2008, 3-6 times more Chinese were granted permanent resident status than Americans. Source for immigration numbers: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/research-stats/facts2008.pdf In the UK: Do the racist bigot accusations sound familiar anyone? And why are the Democrats dragging their feet with regards to the millions of illegals entering the country? Like the way Labour wants the immigrant vote to make white people less relevant in the UK, the Democrats want the latino vote to counter the number of white people that vote Republican. Political correctness is used in an attempt to limit free speech and further advance this agenda. Of course, this limit doesn't apply to the left when they openly attack the people that built this country as exemplified by Margaret Wente:

One of the many reasons why Trudeau was the worst Prime Minister in Canadian history. In his youth, Trudeau admired Hitler and Mussolini, was an anti-Semite and a separatist. He carried these views well into his twenties as documented in the biography Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada, 1919-1944. Father of Canada my ass. He continued to show poor judgment throughout his life - be it alienating the west, his invasion immigration policy, using martial law (something the Conservatives are accused of, yet only a Liberal is guilty of), his ridiculous spending, etc. Nobody has done more damage to this country. We're still feeling the negative effects of decisions he made.

It's not so much the carrier that is offensive, but what it can carry, which can be a variety of things, but yes, the military does and should have offensive weapons -- go figure. They aren't boy scouts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_%28LHD-1%29 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/06/29/ns-queen-navy-review.html?ref=rss

A large carrier like a Nimitz would be too much, yes, but not a smaller carrier like the Wasp. My understanding is that the cost is about a billion, but the cost of each JSS is supposed to be $700 million and the hold up is that they can't find anyone to make it for that price. In other words, they'll either have to spend more or cut the number of JSS built from 3 to 2. So the navy will continue to use ships that are already 40 years old for the forseeable future. The destroyers are about 30 years old with no sign of a replacement as well.

The F-117 and B-2 aren't available for export either, yet they remain. The US may limit the number of F-22s and restrict it to American use only, but they won't can it.

Why would a carrier variant matter? Is there a carrier variant of the A-10 or B-2? The US military is large enough to afford specialized equipment and has plenty of planes for carriers. Speaking of carriers, since the JSS is in limbo and the Conservatives originally wanted to go with a couple small carriers, I could see something like the USS Wasp, which is in Halifax right now, working well for Canada. It can hold multiple helicopters, including Chinooks, troops with landing craft and probably F-35s. Combine that with a couple supply ships and replace the destroyers, and the navy would be pretty good shape. But instead, they want to pack all capabilities into one ship at a low cost which is going nowhere, and the supply ships and destroyers are about 30-40 years old with no sign of a replacement.

The 2009 cost of the F-22 is $150 million. If the $9 billion that Canada is spending on F-35s is for planes only, the cost per F-35 would work out to about $138 million. That's not that much of a difference for a superior plane.