jdobbin Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0616?hub=Canada The federal government has put off asking shipbuilders for ideas on the construction of a flotilla of Arctic patrol boats, a sign that the two-year-old program is in trouble.The navy's project management office advised the defence industry on June 10th that the long-anticipated letters of intent had been delayed. "The extent of the delay is unknown at this time," said the note obtained by The Canadian Press. I'm a little confused about what the delays are. There isn't much information to figure out if the project is merely delayed or if something else is going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 And now, I have lost faith in this government for sure. The only redeeming thing that they could do is move the money over to the JSS project and fund the full project as they should have originally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Dunno. Probably found out it was gonna be over budget again and are scaling back the capabilities of the ships some more. I'm sure we'll eventually get our cute little pellet gun carrying icebreakers out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I think that they should maybe cancel the entire project. the navy needs bigger ships to patrol all 3 coasts (the Kingstons are too small) and these were supposed to do the job. If they aren't going to do it right, perhaps they should put it off until after the needed AOR replacement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 We should build a fleet of nuclear-powered supercarriers that melt the ice ahead of them with laser beams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 And now, I have lost faith in this government for sure. The only redeeming thing that they could do is move the money over to the JSS project and fund the full project as they should have originally. JSS was a project that tried to jam as much capabilities on to one hull as possiable, I've talked to lots of Navy guys and this is not what they wanted, it was what the army wanted, to be able to move troops and vehs....it's all due to lack of funds.... The Navy really needs an AOR soon....proably more than most army kit.... The Artic patrol boats are another fantasy , Navy had already said the ideal ship would be an Ice Harden frigate, plus a fleet of coastal corvettes to do fisheries, and other patrols....but we all know that is not going to happen.... the main focus is the Amry right now, Navy prgrams are going to be slashed to pay for them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Once again the penny pinching hits the Armed Forces first, and eventually the hardest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_ON Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 JSS was a project that tried to jam as much capabilities on to one hull as possiable, I've talked to lots of Navy guys and this is not what they wanted, it was what the army wanted, to be able to move troops and vehs....it's all due to lack of funds....The Navy really needs an AOR soon....proably more than most army kit.... The Artic patrol boats are another fantasy , Navy had already said the ideal ship would be an Ice Harden frigate, plus a fleet of coastal corvettes to do fisheries, and other patrols....but we all know that is not going to happen.... the main focus is the Amry right now, Navy prgrams are going to be slashed to pay for them.... That's really unfortunate, defending our Northern sovereignty was one item I was truly 100% behind Mr. Harper on. Admittedly I know precious little about DND matters but it seems to me we're much further behind the American and Russian naval capabilities than I'm comfortable with. Not that the army doesn't need love too, but given the amount of coastline in our country, it just doesn't make sense that we have such an ill equipped navy in comparison to other countries that are eyeing our resources to the north. If we can't defend our interests we will lose them. We truly need to beef up our military all around; unfortunately this is not something that most Canadians will ever get behind. This is a sad product of our co-dependency on the US which will inevitably bite us in the butt. If anyone even suggests spending another dime on the military there are cries of indignation about how "we're not Americans". While I definitely agree we shouldn't spend as much as our neighbors to the south we should definitely increase spending to ensure our forces are well equipped to do the job we've asked them to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 That's really unfortunate, defending our Northern sovereignty was one item I was truly 100% behind Mr. Harper on. Admittedly I know precious little about DND matters but it seems to me we're much further behind the American and Russian naval capabilities than I'm comfortable with. Not that the army doesn't need love too, but given the amount of coastline in our country, it just doesn't make sense that we have such an ill equipped navy in comparison to other countries that are eyeing our resources to the north. If we can't defend our interests we will lose them. We truly need to beef up our military all around; unfortunately this is not something that most Canadians will ever get behind. This is a sad product of our co-dependency on the US which will inevitably bite us in the butt. If anyone even suggests spending another dime on the military there are cries of indignation about how "we're not Americans". While I definitely agree we shouldn't spend as much as our neighbors to the south we should definitely increase spending to ensure our forces are well equipped to do the job we've asked them to do. The military could employ a lot more citizens needing work. It could consume a lot more goods that need producing in this country. It could provide a lot of secondary education for young people in this country. The military could have used all the stimulus money and bailout money and brought more jobs and security to this nation than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Unfortunately we have a lot of politicians who'd rather blow that money on EI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Admittedly I know precious little about DND matters but it seems to me we're much further behind the American and Russian naval capabilities than I'm comfortable with. Yes and it no when it comes to the Americans. We have less naval power, but our Coast guard (though not military) has much more capacity to operate in the arctic than theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 JSS was a project that tried to jam as much capabilities on to one hull as possible, I realize that, but since it's what wee have designed at the time I think that we should get something done. The JSS (or something like it) is still supposed to go forward, and we're supposed to hear within a couple of months what will be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 That's really unfortunate, defending our Northern sovereignty was one item I was truly 100% behind Mr. Harper on. ... If we can't defend our interests we will lose them. Ditto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 So everyone agrees? We need Arctic defense plans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) Yes...and again, this government is failing us. Edited June 17, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Yes...and again, this government is failing us. I agree! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I agree! Hard to disagree there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Hard to disagree there. Sure is....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I think I might actually disagree here, just for the heck of it. What good would it do even if we obtained the ships as per the original specifications? Our military and naval capabilities are utterly minuscule compared to any other nation that might seek to lay claim to the arctic. Russia has fleets of nuclear powered icebreakers, nuclear submarines that can go under the ice, carriers, etc. The capabilities of the US need not even be mentioned as they would overwhelm us utterly in any possible comparison. I guess we could maybe compete with Norway but meh, they are a tiny power as well. Canada has the economic capacity to develop a legitimate military that could really project our power and sovereignty wherever we wanted it, but only if we devoted a large chunk of our GDP to it, like the US does, or perhaps even more. But, such a development is utterly beyond any political reality in Canada. Our patrol ships are meant to be there in the north as tokens, to say that we haven't totally forgotten that the Canadian arctic exists. They are not meant to be any kind of respectable fighting force, because they are utterly inadequate in the face of any of our potential competitors. And if they are just tokens, then what does it matter if their capabilities are somewhat lower? Either other nations will accept our gesture and not bother us and respect our sovereignty, or they will ignore us and do what they want in the arctic - either way there is nothing we could do about it, whether we got the bigger ships or the new downsized ships. I wasn't kidding with my first post in this thread (besides the laser beams), because that kind of equipment is what we'd need if we really wanted to assure the sovereignty of our northern regions. If we are serious about our military, we need to increase our spending in it tenfold, so we can afford the kind of equipment that other major powers can easily deploy. Otherwise, who are we really kidding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Tokens are important. Without tokens we lose what we have. We have to be able to enforce our sovereignty....we don't have to be able to beat the Americans and the Russians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Canada does not fool anyone. We have become a wishy washy nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 We are a nation facing a budget crisis....and as one of the few nations that cares about the situation of our budget, things become difficult. I want the ships...we'll get something eventually, but we'll have to wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Tokens are important. Without tokens we lose what we have. We have to be able to enforce our sovereignty....we don't have to be able to beat the Americans and the Russians. I agree, tokens do serve some function. But how are the new downsized ships any different in the function of being a token than the originally planned ones? It's kind of a binary situation: either we have a token force up there, or we have a real force up there which could, as you put it: enforce our sovereignty We don't have to "beat" the Americans or the Russians, but we do have to be able to present a realistic deterrent if we want to "enforce" our sovereignty. With the Americans, we can perhaps rely on them to "play nice" and accept our token gesture, but what about the Russians? They may just decide to start exploiting some resources that are nominally in "our" territory. Would sending a couple of these proposed ships deter them? Probably not. Would a carrier battlegroup launching low altitude flybys over them deter them? Much more likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I agree, tokens do serve some function. But how are the new downsized ships any different in the function of being a token than the originally planned ones? The plans were changed because we need ships to patrol all 3 coasts. It was actually a smart idea....provided that the Diefenbaker is actually built. Would a carrier battlegroup launching low altitude flybys over them deter them? Much more likely. As long as you pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 We are a nation facing a budget crisis....and as one of the few nations that cares about the situation of our budget, things become difficult. I want the ships...we'll get something eventually, but we'll have to wait. We need to build ships, lots of them. I will suggest that when we finally break down and get the JSF we take the Marine and Air Force versions. The Marine version, the F35B with STOVL could be installed on ships and ideal for our use. The F35A version could be reserved for our use overland. Since this is likely the replacement for the F18's we might as well do this right and use both variants as best we can. That means some sort of frigate or destroyer with sufficient deck space to handle the bird or birds for that matter. This would be something new and different, worthy of our effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.