If you thought new fighters are expensive

[M.Dancer]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/canadas-naval-fleet/article1775793/?from=1775775

Two Destroyers done in 7 years

3 subs..10 years

2 Tenders...4 years

12 frigates---12 years

[bush_cheney2004]

Yep....makes wasted billion$ on the Gun Registry downright cheap!

[Sir Bandelot]

No problem. Just up the taxes some more, to help pay for the wars of opportunity.

[DogOnPorch]

Replacements are in the works!

[The_Squid]

And we need a plan to replace the fleet.

Will the navy opt for the most expensive technological marvels, or something that will do as good a job for a more reasonable hit to our collective wallet?

[dre]

And we need a plan to replace the fleet.

Will the navy opt for the most expensive technological marvels, or something that will do as good a job for a more reasonable hit to our collective wallet?

Judging from the F35 project theyll want the shiniest fanciest most expensive stuff available. With these type of people managing purchasing, you can be damn sure that patroling and defending Canada is gonna get an awfull lot more expensive!

[Army Guy]

Me and some of my colleges where discussing our military carears today, and all of have but a few regrets but the only one that had a common thread was this....How tight the Canadian people where with there defense dollars....how just how little they give a shit about the equipment they are willing to give our troops....

And while a good portion of Canadians do care, it is that other side that has given us concern....Canada has a long and i mean very long history of providing it's troops with poor or obsolete equipment....which dates back well before the the First world war....and while we have had some spectaclar equipment it has not been available in the numbers needed to do our jobs....and it has cost lives in the process....That is truely our only regret, that the Canadian people had the power to change that , and chose not to...

Nobody even blinked when the military budget was slashed to pieces in order to bring down the debt, Nor did they do anything when our pension fund was drained to once more bring down the debt....it's all about the cash...show me the money...when it comes to the military that is....i mean what ever happened to the G-8 sumit, let alone the games....sure we blinked but then quickly went back to sleep....shit thats what 20 to 25 planes right there....but we looked good did'nt we....

And this never really sank in until it was explained to me by a politician....if you can beleive that....infact it was even made public not so long ago by a government beaucrat at veterns affairs....a soldiers life is equated in dollars....it cost one years wages , the price of a funeral, and SSIP benifits paid out approx 250 k per soldier....see it is cheaper to have a soldier come back in a bag....than injured, or to pay for new equipment.....Thats our regret...when did that happen when did lifes become 2 and fiddle to funds...

I understand it takes alot to run this country and right now defense is not on the top of the list....i get that...but you also have to remember that when you cut something someday that is going to have to be brought back into the mix....someday that price is going to have to be paid by us the tax payer...and if your not going to pay it, then we as a nation are going to have to re address WTF our military is going to be used for....So that the men and women that currently make up it's ranks can decide if that is the organization i want to support with my very life....i mean i think we owe them that much....there are men and women including myself that would serve this nation even if we had a row boat for a navy, a kite for a plane and steel bath tub on wheels for a tank....and would be proud to do it....but when one of our comrads deaths could have been prevented it makes us second guess our commitment only because we doubt your commitment to us..

[The_Squid]

How tight the Canadian people where with there defense dollars....how just how little they give a shit about the equipment they are willing to give our troops....

THe entire premise of your thread is a fallacy. People want to see the best equipment possible for the armed forces. Canadians don't like to be swindled though... Why spend hundreds of billions when tens of billions would do the same job.

We don't need stealth fighters. Who the hell is Canada going to fight where it needs stealth technology? We are not a major military power. We will need to rely on NATO allies in WWIII. We do not need stealthy jets to get past the air defences to drop bombs on the White House or the Kremlin. Over-spending on Ferrari-fighter-jets and choppers will mean less money for other projects and equipment.

If Canada is using inferior equipment it isn't the fault of the public, who do support the concept of a well maintained military force.

[PIK]

We can thank chretien for 13 years of nothing.

[wyly]

THe entire premise of your thread is a fallacy. People want to see the best equipment possible for the armed forces. Canadians don't like to be swindled though... Why spend hundreds of billions when tens of billions would do the same job.

We don't need stealth fighters. Who the hell is Canada going to fight where it needs stealth technology? We are not a major military power. We will need to rely on NATO allies in WWIII. We do not need stealthy jets to get past the air defences to drop bombs on the White House or the Kremlin. Over-spending on Ferrari-fighter-jets and choppers will mean less money for other projects and equipment.

If Canada is using inferior equipment it isn't the fault of the public, who do support the concept of a well maintained military force.

I'd prefer a competent plane and some new ice breakers, planes aren't going to protect the NWP ships will, planes alone can not secure the ground/water and never will...so what if we have a F35 flying over the NWP how is that going to stop intruders? they know we won't bomb them because of the ecological damage that would cause, an armed Polar 8 icebreaker can stop and board unwanted vessels...if we're going to spend billions, spend it on equipment that matters that are relevant, equipment that have a practical use other than a quick flyover or a photo-op for the PM or minster of defense...until that day(not far off) when unmanned fighters take over the skies a less expensive plane such as the F18 or other option will do the job just fine...

[dre]

Me and some of my colleges where discussing our military carears today, and all of have but a few regrets but the only one that had a common thread was this....How tight the Canadian people where with there defense dollars....how just how little they give a shit about the equipment they are willing to give our troops....

And while a good portion of Canadians do care, it is that other side that has given us concern....Canada has a long and i mean very long history of providing it's troops with poor or obsolete equipment....which dates back well before the the First world war....and while we have had some spectaclar equipment it has not been available in the numbers needed to do our jobs....and it has cost lives in the process....That is truely our only regret, that the Canadian people had the power to change that , and chose not to...

Nobody even blinked when the military budget was slashed to pieces in order to bring down the debt, Nor did they do anything when our pension fund was drained to once more bring down the debt....it's all about the cash...show me the money...when it comes to the military that is....i mean what ever happened to the G-8 sumit, let alone the games....sure we blinked but then quickly went back to sleep....shit thats what 20 to 25 planes right there....but we looked good did'nt we....

And this never really sank in until it was explained to me by a politician....if you can beleive that....infact it was even made public not so long ago by a government beaucrat at veterns affairs....a soldiers life is equated in dollars....it cost one years wages , the price of a funeral, and SSIP benifits paid out approx 250 k per soldier....see it is cheaper to have a soldier come back in a bag....than injured, or to pay for new equipment.....Thats our regret...when did that happen when did lifes become 2 and fiddle to funds...

I understand it takes alot to run this country and right now defense is not on the top of the list....i get that...but you also have to remember that when you cut something someday that is going to have to be brought back into the mix....someday that price is going to have to be paid by us the tax payer...and if your not going to pay it, then we as a nation are going to have to re address WTF our military is going to be used for....So that the men and women that currently make up it's ranks can decide if that is the organization i want to support with my very life....i mean i think we owe them that much....there are men and women including myself that would serve this nation even if we had a row boat for a navy, a kite for a plane and steel bath tub on wheels for a tank....and would be proud to do it....but when one of our comrads deaths could have been prevented it makes us second guess our commitment only because we doubt your commitment to us..

Me and some of my colleges where discussing our military carears today, and all of have but a few regrets but the only one that had a common thread was this....How tight the Canadian people where with there defense dollars....how just how little they give a shit about the equipment they are willing to give our troops....

Welcome to the real world. Professionals in virtually every field on earth have that exact same conversation.

but when one of our comrads deaths could have been prevented it makes us second guess our commitment only because we doubt your commitment to us.

Theres preventable deaths in almost every industry, and my guess is that being in the Canadian Military isnt even one of the ten most dangerous jobs in the country.

when did that happen when did lifes become 2 and fiddle to funds...

When humans as a race became sentient. Like it or not theres a price on anything... A convenience store owner could probably spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on making sure his clerks are safe from violent robberies (its one of the most dangerous jobs on earth btw). The reality is though he has to make a value judgement based on how much he has to spend, and an assessment of the risk in the first place.

but when one of our comrads deaths could have been prevented it makes us second guess our commitment only because we doubt your commitment to us

Thats probably what a crab fisherman thinks when he loses a crewmate as well, about the people holding the purse strings.

Its normal for people to feel that way... but the reality is that nobody is going to spend an infinite ammount of resources on emloyee safety. Its a numbers game, and a value judgement has to get made. Before I would even accept your premise that Canadian soldiers are being put at undue risk based on budgetary concerns Id want to see some data and some evidence. Is it statistically more dangerous to serve in the Canadian military than it is other militaries? Is it statistically more dangerous than other industries where risk is inherent? Is it getting more dangerous over time, or is it getting safer?

Edited October 28, 2010 by dre

[ToadBrother]

No problem. Just up the taxes some more, to help pay for the wars of opportunity.

The fact that we have one of the largest coastlines on the planet doesn't factor into it? Or are you still expecting that the US will patrol our coasts for us?

[punked]

Yah but we can build those here and we are. In the harbours of NS, NB, and BC that money is going right into Canadian pockets to build a Canadian product to show the rest of the world we can do just as good here as anyone else in the world. That is the biggest difference.

[Topaz]

Today, one of the journalist on the CBC panel said that Brazil opened it up for bidding and they saved 2 BILLION by doing so. I don't see what the problem is about an open bid. The Tories are using all kinds of reason or excuses , which ever way one looks at it and the latest they are using are the jobs to Canadians. Well, where were they when the mining workers in northern Ontario needed help, where were they when Navistar workers needed help. They didn't stand by these companies for the workers and it seems they pick and choose whcih workers they want to help.

[punked]

Today, one of the journalist on the CBC panel said that Brazil opened it up for bidding and they saved 2 BILLION by doing so. I don't see what the problem is about an open bid. The Tories are using all kinds of reason or excuses , which ever way one looks at it and the latest they are using are the jobs to Canadians. Well, where were they when the mining workers in northern Ontario needed help, where were they when Navistar workers needed help. They didn't stand by these companies for the workers and it seems they pick and choose whcih workers they want to help.

I don't know where they where they were when the Mining workers from Ontario needed help probably with the Liberals who help a meeting in the same town as the mine strike and didn't even go down to talk to them. Jack Layton was on the picket line talking with and supporting workers is all I know.

I am not for saving money if all that money is leaving the country. If we can build a ship here for an extra cost I say do it.

[Wilber]

We don't need stealth fighters. Who the hell is Canada going to fight where it needs stealth technology? We are not a major military power. We will need to rely on NATO allies in WWIII. We do not need stealthy jets to get past the air defences to drop bombs on the White House or the Kremlin. Over-spending on Ferrari-fighter-jets and choppers will mean less money for other projects and equipment.

Stealth helps defeat radar, anyones radar not just that belonging to super powers. In any kind of combat, the guy who sees or detects the other guy first usually wins. The fewer number of a weapon you buy, the fewer you can afford to lose so you better buy one that is hard to detect in the first place and even harder to defeat if it is. Over 80 coalition aircraft were lost or damaged during the first Gulf War. None of them were F-117's

[wyly]

Stealth helps defeat radar, anyones radar not just that belonging to super powers. In any kind of combat, the guy who sees or detects the other guy first usually wins. The fewer number of a weapon you buy, the fewer you can afford to lose so you better buy one that is hard to detect in the first place and even harder to defeat if it is.

no it doesn't, it's advantage will be lost very quickly it gave up superior flight technology for stealth which will be overcome sooner than later...I found this on a technical assesment on the F22

"Stealth was not fully achieved because in being the largest fighter in the sky it is the most visible. It is “visible” to infrared sensors and identifiable by its sound. Its radar can be sensed by high-tech Russian sensors. Its radar signature is admittedly small in the forward quarter but only to airborne radars. The aircraft is detectable by high-power, low-frequency ground based radars." low-frquency, L band radar which is now in the newest Russian planes SU T50 and the L-Band upgrade cost for existing planes is expected only to cost 1-2 million per plane...

Over 80 coalition aircraft were lost or damaged during the first Gulf War. None of them were F-117's

claiming invincibility for a plane that flew against aged stripped down planes of Iraq is hardly a convincing endorsement, how many non stealth CF18's did Canada lose in Gulf War 1? or over Yugoslavia?...none...

[Wilber]

Double Post

Edited October 29, 2010 by Wilber

[Wilber]

but only to airborne radars. The aircraft is detectable by high-power, low-frequency ground based radars.

If it can't be seen by the aircraft and missles that can destroy it what's your point?

claiming invincibility for a plane that flew against aged stripped down planes of Iraq is hardly a convincing endorsement, how many non stealth CF18's did Canada lose in Gulf War 1? or over Yugoslavia?...none

Sure it is, these are the kind of conflicts we are most likely to be engaged in. These are the very conditions where stealth will be the most effective.

[M.Dancer]

We don't need stealth fighters. Who the hell is Canada going to fight where it needs stealth technology?

Given we have in the last 20 years we have flown sorties against FRY and Iraq, both of whom possessed radar guided AA weapons, I have to ask why you feel putting equipment and lives in greater danger is cost effective?

[M.Dancer]

, how many non stealth CF18's did Canada lose in Gulf War 1? or over Yugoslavia?...none...

And for that you can thank the US and the UK who flew anti radar missions along side of all the bombing sorties...

That isn't a luxury you can always count on, unless we want to upgrade 30 or so hornets to carry HARM missiles..

[Army Guy]

THe entire premise of your thread is a fallacy. People want to see the best equipment possible for the armed forces. Canadians don't like to be swindled though... Why spend hundreds of billions when tens of billions would do the same job.

History must be full of fallacy then ....it's all out there from the day we arrived in Afghanistan until today, we are still replacing kit we should have had before our government and people of Canada sent us over there....The fallacy part is the media covered it all, including all the deaths from IED's, our lack of air support, our lack of helo transport, our lack of direct fire support, our Armoured vehs the entire gambit and none of it would have been replaced until soldiers started coming home in bags.....yes sir that is fallacy....and from the end i was sitting on, you can't bullshit me and say the people wanted the best equipment for our armed forces....when infact they did not no what gear we had in the first place, because it was already to old for battle....

The people, it's funney you talk about people...do the people pick out what fire truck the fire dept get, what type of police cars the RCMP get....but all of sudden we have the people who are experts in military equipment they know exactly what we need and the qty's we need it in....AND shit we don't like to be swindled, great i don't like to be swindled either as a tax payer ...nor do i like my ass getting blown off because we went cheap on some wpn sys....

When was the last time a white papar on defense written....So DND has to base it's 20 to 25 year future plan based on this old document, which clearly spells out what THE PEOPLE expect our our forces to accomplish, it also clearly spells out how much funding is to be made available, what equipment we are to purchase etc etc etc ....The real experts in the case of the F-35 are the Canadian Airforce which has spelled it out for you....of all the aircraft available the F-35 is the one they have chosen after over 10 years of research....it is the aircraft that fulfills all the missions our government and the people have tasked DND with.

But Now there is so called experts all across the country demanding we purchase everything from A-10 ground attack planes to Euro fighters....most of these aircraft where looked at in this study, OK maybe not the A-10 ....and turned down....Plus the other options such as Unmanned fighters, to air defense systems where also looked at ...

And because you don't understand or have not read the study, or our government has done a shitty job once again in explaining why we have chosen the F-35 ....the People decide they are being swindled....and some fat airforce gen is getting a big check for selling the F-35.....not true....

[Army Guy]

Theres preventable deaths in almost every industry, and my guess is that being in the Canadian Military isnt even one of the ten most dangerous jobs in the country.

I'm sure there is , however preventable only because they are profit driven, cutting corners and putting lives at risk is due to greed....

In DND we are not profit driven, in fact we are tasked driven, close with and destroy the enemy, and destroy more of them than they destroy of us.....and do it as quickly as possiable because it cost money to have a force on the battle field big money.....

As far as not being the most dangerous job in the country, shit sure pick what every one you want....my last tour in Afghan i spent 195 days in country 163 outside the wire and my Company was involved in 197 TICS, or engagements with the enemy, which ranged from getting blown up, to shoot outs, etc etc.......and if i could pick being in Afghanistan or on some crab boat....i know which one i'm choosing....Now i may be wrong but i never heard of any suicide crabs, or them planting IED's, and while it is not my intention to diss or take anything away from crab fishers,but if they want the title then so be it....what i do know is i've walked a few miles in my boots, and i've not done any crabbing....

When humans as a race became sentient. Like it or not theres a price on anything... A convenience store owner could probably spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on making sure his clerks are safe from violent robberies (its one of the most dangerous jobs on earth btw). The reality is though he has to make a value judgement based on how much he has to spend, and an assessment of the risk in the first place.

I agree there is a price on everything...but once again your making the wrong comparison, he is making that call or judgement in view of profit, DND job is not profit driven, we are the last tool in the box of diplomancy, and when that fails the military is called in....

Another piont that fails to come up is we as a nation decided to cut funding for DND for more than 10 years, in order to pay down debt....which is fine, however those 10 years of purchasing and replacing equipment must be made up some where, OR you need to decide to cut capabilities, meaning give up something in order to have status quo....And we knew that when we decided not to fund purchases for that 10 years....As for the risk factors, i can not for the life of me figure out why our government does not lay out this purchase and the needs for it...instead of using the weakest one of all Mother Russia.

Its normal for people to feel that way... but the reality is that nobody is going to spend an infinite ammount of resources on emloyee safety. Its a numbers game, and a value judgement has to get made. Before I would even accept your premise that Canadian soldiers are being put at undue risk based on budgetary concerns Id want to see some data and some evidence.

I think i've covered this on another post, there is clear evidence that lives have been placed at risk or could have been minimized with better equipment....it's all been covered in the media, but i'll give you a few for starters, Ilits jeep, helo transports, helo gunships, indirect and direct fire power, shit we arrived in green Cad pat and for more than a few years stood out like sore thumbs in the desert....the evidence is out there...all we have to do is research each death of each soldier and ask why? or could it have been prevented....or research the very reasons stated to purchase equipment we already have on order, chinnoks, TPAV vehs, Leo II A6M tanks....each one of those purchases where made or being made because Soldiers paid for them in lives...

Is it statistically more dangerous to serve in the Canadian military than it is other militaries?

Not all militaries are created equal or armed equally, or are in the same postion of danger...but looking at most contingents i would say yes, however no one can compare to the US military, as they have all the toys, nor would it be fair to compare us to the British Para's who are light inf.....but i'd also say we are continueing to climb the ladder slowly....

Is it statistically more dangerous than other industries where risk is inherent? Is it getting more dangerous over time, or is it getting safer?

[Jack Weber]

Has'nt ther gov't earmarked 1 billion dollars over the next ten years,or something to that effect for both the Navy and merchant marine fleet construction?

I thought McKay announced something like that several months ago?

If so,I'm keenly interested in seeing how much new construction will take place,and additionally where it will take place...

I assume the naval construction will take place in either Esquimalt or Halifax(or both places)...The Merchant Fleet is a different story because since the fed's pi$$ed away the shipbuilding industry over the last 25 years,there are'nt alot of dry dock facilities left on the Great Lakes.When I worked at the Port Weller Dry Docks,the Navy had offices on site but admitted that they would prefer to have ships built on the coasts because if there was a war,they could be easily put out to sea once construction was complete.This is obviously not the problem with lake freighters.

[Smallc]

This isn't really going to be a problem...but it will cost. The JSS is pretty much sorted out, and the result will probably be the purchase of 2 -3 Canadianized Berlin Class ships from Germany. The AOPS is designed to replace 1/2 to 3/4 of the the Kingston class fleet with the rest being kept for their original purpose of mine hunting (though the AOPS will be more lightly armed but will carry a helicopter and be much larger). The Single Class Surface Combatant, now called the Canadian Surface Combatant, is well underway. $26B has been budgeted for the project over about 20 years staring in 2015 (which despite what the article says, is enough. The FREMM for examples is only about $500M per ship, excluding maintenance and equipment). The CSC will likely be based on a either the FREMM frigate or the smaller variant called the FM 400. 3 of the ships will be configured for area air defence and the other 12 will be general purpose. It will be the largest procurement project ever. As for the SSKs (Victoria), they'll probably have a life extension program as they are thoroughly modern (the best diesel electric submarines in the world). I believe the figure is wrong in that there are now 2 Victorias active and 2 in refit. The hope is that after summer 2011, there will always be 3 active and 1 in refit.

Why do I say this won't be a problem? Because by spring - summer , the government will have a binding contract with two shipyards (likely Washington Marine [Vancouver] and Irving Shipbuilding [Halifax] - Irving wants the combat contract). They {the government} will have to carry out their end of the deal by ordering the stated number of combat vessels (AOPS and CSC) and non combat vessels (JSS and CCG). The contracts can also be extended for more vessels (there will need to be about 5 - 7 more icebreakers, for example, as well as about 10 other large coastguard vessels).

Edited October 29, 2010 by Smallc