Army Guy Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 here's an interesting read, which seems to bring up a few questions even here in the Army. The government already announced that it plans to purchase well over 35 Bil dollars worth of ships both military and Coast guard, which has ship builders across the country in a feeding frenzy...The article questions why some builders should be favoured over others, even pionts to some having the sense of entiltement... Some of the posters below the article seem to ask the same question but going one step futher and ask why any of them should be awarded the contracts at all. Yes it would be nice to rebuild our nations ship building capabilities but should it be at our tax payers expense, it seems that Irving ship yards is the favoured builder, but what real experence do they still have or maintain in building large warships, or any large ships for that matter, what is it that they build now tugs and off shore supply ves....what experence do they have with modern naval tech and wpns....It just seems we are willing to hand off 35 bil with out knowing what we can expect in return except jobs created and maybe some experence in ship building which will be lost by the time we are ready to build more ships... what about quality of the product after all it is our own military that will have to fight and die in them, for the next 30 years or so.... There are plenty of ship builers in world today that are more than capable of building big ships, even have proven models and class of ships, yes it would mean that the 35 bil is spent in another nation, but the real question here are we purchasing ships or ship building experience and job creation.... Shipbuilding bonanza: We aren’t entitled; we have to earn it Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
PIK Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 When employing canadians, it does not matter the price ,the rewards will cover it all. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Smallc Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) Why should we send this money somewhere else? We have at least 3 shipyards here that are capable of the work, let them do it. That does not, btw, mean that we won't purchase foreign designs, such as the FREMM or FM 400. Edited June 7, 2011 by Smallc Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 Now why does that not apply to airplanes folks? Quote
Smallc Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 Now why does that not apply to airplanes folks? It does. The F-35 (and not just ours) will have many components built in Canada. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 It does. The F-35 (and not just ours) will have many components built in Canada. Apples and oranges my friend. Quote
Bonam Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 Now why does that not apply to airplanes folks? Because, unlike the ships, we don't have any companies that are even remotely capable of building a 5th generation fighter, not in their wildest dreams. It would take, at the very least, decades and hundreds of billions of investment, if we wanted to build up one of our domestic aerospace companies to the point that it could compete with the products put out by Lockheed and Boeing. Not only that, we'd need to create entire new university departments to create a new generation of aerospace engineers and we'd need to invest in constant advanced military R&D in the style of the US to keep these people's skills and experience sharp and up to date. If you think we can just give $16 billion (or whatever) to Bombardier and have them deliver planes comparable to F-35s within a decade, you couldn't be more wrong. Quote
bjre Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) Why should we send this money somewhere else. We have at least 3 shipyards here that are capable of the work, let them do it. That does not, btw, mean that we won't purchase foreign designs, such as the FREMM or FM 400. That is the QUESTION we should ask. Build the ship in Canada means there will be more job opportunities and more workers that can have more purchase powers that can contribute to other domestic economy areas. However, all politicians selected by votes, which is controlled by mainstream media, will not like this idea, because this will not good for US weapon industry take more Canadian tax dollars. Even build the ships here in Canada, US weapon industry can still take a lot by providing parts, and the private banks will rob a lot as well by output another digit to its bank computer database and ask for interest from Canadian tax payers. Edited June 7, 2011 by bjre Quote "The more laws, the less freedom" -- bjre "There are so many laws that nearly everybody breaks some, even when you just stay at home do nothing, the only question left is how thugs can use laws to attack you" -- bjre "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 Because, unlike the ships, we don't have any companies that are even remotely capable of building a 5th generation fighter, not in their wildest dreams. It would take, at the very least, decades and hundreds of billions of investment, if we wanted to build up one of our domestic aerospace companies to the point that it could compete with the products put out by Lockheed and Boeing. Not only that, we'd need to create entire new university departments to create a new generation of aerospace engineers and we'd need to invest in constant advanced military R&D in the style of the US to keep these people's skills and experience sharp and up to date. If you think we can just give $16 billion (or whatever) to Bombardier and have them deliver planes comparable to F-35s within a decade, you couldn't be more wrong. You suggest that the third largest manufacturer of aircraft in the world could not build a fifth generation fighter "on license" ?? Because that would be a level comparison of Canada building a foreign ship builders design under license would it not? Quote
Uncle 3 dogs Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 Now why does that not apply to airplanes folks? Because, thanks to Deifenbaker, we don' have the expertise. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 7, 2011 Author Report Posted June 7, 2011 Why should we send this money somewhere else. We have at least 3 shipyards here that are capable of the work, let them do it. That does not, btw, mean that we won't purchase foreign designs, such as the FREMM or FM 400. Why,for many reasons, a better warship for one, built by a company with experience and proven quality.. No we have 3 ship yards that have built smaller ships, Yes Irving did build most of our Frigates some 20 plus years ago, and have since move the yard to Halifax...and most of those staff have moved on...they now build tugs and off shore resupply ships....not even close to a mordern warship....And if buying the designs makes you a ship builder, count me in...i once built a wooden canoe... Someone mentioned it would employ Canadians....and the rewards would be worth it...I guess this type of thinking only appiles to the government and not to the rest of the country, when was the last time any of us checked the orgin of any product to see if it was made in Canada....i mean you really have to struggle to find anything not made in China....same thing....which brings back the question what is the main concern here ships for the navy, or job creation. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Smallc Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) Why,for many reasons, a better warship for one, built by a company with experience and proven quality.. No we have 3 ship yards that have built smaller ships, Yes Irving did build most of our Frigates some 20 plus years ago, and have since move the yard to Halifax...and most of those staff have moved on...they now build tugs and off shore resupply ships....not even close to a mordern warship....And if buying the designs makes you a ship builder, count me in...i once built a wooden canoe... Do you know who they're planning to partner with (according to rumours)? Lockheed Martin Canada. They've been working on the design for the AOPS. If that's the case, the designs may be original, like the Halifax Class. Do you think they are bad ships? Because I've heard otherwise. Someone mentioned it would employ Canadians....and the rewards would be worth it...I guess this type of thinking only appiles to the government and not to the rest of the country, when was the last time any of us checked the orgin of any product to see if it was made in Canada....i mean you really have to struggle to find anything not made in China....same thing....which brings back the question what is the main concern here ships for the navy, or job creation. Both, as well as the creation of an industry capable of producing warships. We've done it before, we'll do it again. Edited June 7, 2011 by Smallc Quote
CPCFTW Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 Someone mentioned it would employ Canadians....and the rewards would be worth it...I guess this type of thinking only appiles to the government and not to the rest of the country, when was the last time any of us checked the orgin of any product to see if it was made in Canada....i mean you really have to struggle to find anything not made in China....same thing....which brings back the question what is the main concern here ships for the navy, or job creation. There are strong arguments for subsidizing a defense industry. What if China became the country with the comparative advantage in defense production? Free trade would dictate that we import all our arms from China and trade them oil and natural resources. That's pretty sweet in theory until China decides it just wants to take our natural resources rather than trade arms for them. Quote
bjre Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 There are strong arguments for subsidizing a defense industry. What if China became the country with the comparative advantage in defense production? Free trade would dictate that we import all our arms from China and trade them oil and natural resources. That's pretty sweet in theory until China decides it just wants to take our natural resources rather than trade arms for them. It is enough to think Canada itself, need not to think everything with China. US will not allow Canada sell arm to China. China will soon build aircraft carrier in this year, and it build 5 generation of aircraft itself, and it send human being to airspace, and sent satellite to moon, all by itself. Canada is not able to do all those. Why Canada can not build it, it is because bank want take more money, US weapon makers and many other US interest groups want take more from Canada. This lead to the labour cost too high because too high tax rate, so that more and more jobs go to nations that have lower cost, knowledgeable people go to other countries when industry here moves out. And the bad education system bullied by CAS makes smart people less and less. See the awards in the interational competition you can find it. Among too many examples we can just look at the one: In the ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest, Canada only take the first place 12 years ago in 1999: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACM_International_Collegiate_Programming_Contest thank this result to the CAS and the Canadian education system. Quote "The more laws, the less freedom" -- bjre "There are so many laws that nearly everybody breaks some, even when you just stay at home do nothing, the only question left is how thugs can use laws to attack you" -- bjre "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
Army Guy Posted June 7, 2011 Author Report Posted June 7, 2011 Do you know who they're planning to partner with (according to rumours)? Lockheed Martin Canada. They've been working on the design for the AOPS. If that's the case, the designs may be original, like the Halifax Class. Do you think they are bad ships? Because I've heard otherwise. As far as i know there is no plan yet, nor a design as of yet, which adds to the confusion and doubt that we should limit our chioces to 3 shipyards that have no real experience with large modern war ships. I've read serveral articles written by Navy pers and they all perfer a proven US design...but that is perhaps wishful thinking on their part. As for an orginal design, one would hope that an experence ship builder would do that, but other than harbour tugs and off shore resupply ves, where are they getting this experience...that and the time factor to design a new class of ships and have it proved is a lenghty process...Navy is operating without a destroyer class now... Halifax ships were not without their problems, as with any new design or class, but some were made with standard fastners some with metric some with both....thats not quality thats not having the experience or expertise....and while after 20 years that has all been worked out, is it what we should expect for 35 bil... Both, as well as the creation of an industry capable of producing warships. We've done it before, we'll do it again. Why, we have not done it with any other maj piece of equpment we've ordered....we are not building the herc in Canada, nor the C-17, nor the F-35....so why do we have to fund a industry to build warships every 20 to 30 years....when the last frig or destroyer is built how long is this yard going to be in full production...how many Canadians while be looking for work.....So really we are looking for temp employment of Canadians, and for that we will sacrifice the QTY to be built plus quality.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted June 7, 2011 Author Report Posted June 7, 2011 There are strong arguments for subsidizing a defense industry. What if China became the country with the comparative advantage in defense production? Free trade would dictate that we import all our arms from China and trade them oil and natural resources. That's pretty sweet in theory until China decides it just wants to take our natural resources rather than trade arms for them. Name some? since we are talking war ships how many City class ships did we export, how many other warships were built by Irving yard after the completion of the Frig contract. My piont was not to have the ships built in China, but rather the US, my example was Canadians think these ships should be built in a Canadian yard, and yet they fail to hold themselfs to the same standard, by purchasing goods from other countries, such as china.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Smallc Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 Navy is operating without a destroyer class now... No, two of the destroyers are in service, and one is in refit. You're misinformed. There are many capable off the shelf designs out there that we could use with just a few modifications, so time isn't a problem once the contract is signed in the fall. Halifax ships were not without their problems, as with any new design or class, but some were made with standard fastners some with metric some with both....thats not quality thats not having the experience or expertise....and while after 20 years that has all been worked out, is it what we should expect for 35 bil... We didn't spend that last time. This budget should allow us sto buy pretty much any design in the world. Why, we have not done it with any other maj piece of equpment we've ordered....we are not building the herc in Canada, nor the C-17, nor the F-35....so why do we have to fund a industry to build warships every 20 to 30 years.... That's not how shipbuilding works under this plan. The destroyers and frigates will be phased out, one at a time, between 2015 and 2030. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 7, 2011 Author Report Posted June 7, 2011 It is enough to think Canada itself, need not to think everything with China.US will not allow Canada sell arm to China. China will soon build aircraft carrier in this year, and it build 5 generation of aircraft itself, and it send human being to airspace, and sent satellite to moon, all by itself. Canada is not able to do all those. Sometime you can be really funney Bjre, have you read any US intel on China's new aircraft Carrier....and it's new 5 th gen Aircraft has not worked out all it's bugs out either, just look at the engines still using Russian, one because Chinese are unreliable.....not much to brag about...although your right it is more than Canada has done.. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
fellowtraveller Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 We should do this the Canadian way and award the shipbuilding contracts to a Winnipeg based shipbuilder. But we already know that the bulk of the work will go to Quebec. Quote The government should do something.
Smallc Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 My piont was not to have the ships built in China, but rather the US, my example was Canadians think these ships should be built in a Canadian yard, and yet they fail to hold themselfs to the same standard, by purchasing goods from other countries, such as china.... The ships that the US are building, other than the AB, aren't all that impressive. The Spanish, Germans, Dutch, Danes, and French/Italians have ships that are much more suited to our purpose. The F100, F124 or 125, FREMM, FM 400 and several others are far more suited to our purposes. How many cars and commercial aircraft do we buy from China? Quote
Smallc Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 But we already know that the bulk of the work will go to Quebec. It is extremely doubtful that davie will get the combat ship contract. That will probably go to Irving, or possibly Washington Marine. There is a chance that Davie may get the non combat project, but there is also rumour of an amphibious capability build that may be outside of the program. They may in fact get that. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 Colour me politically astonished if Quebec does not get a disproportionate amount of work. Quote The government should do something.
Smallc Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 Colour me politically astonished if Quebec does not get a disproportionate amount of work. Have you seen some of the statements by the government ministers? They have told the shipyards not even to bother hiring lobbyists. The competition has at it's core international and Canadian maritime and shipbuilding experts. This seems to have very little political purpose and much more of a military/industrial one. The best shipyard will win, I'm pretty certain of that. The consensus of critics is that the best shipyard is in fact Irving. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 7, 2011 Author Report Posted June 7, 2011 No, two of the destroyers are in service, and one is in refit. You're misinformed. There are many capable off the shelf designs out there that we could use with just a few modifications, so time isn't a problem once the contract is signed in the fall. Your right they are in service, however the Navy does not have enough sailors to man all it's ships, and concetrate manning the newer Frigs, when was the last time we heard anything about our destroyers on a mission....being tied to the dock is hardly operational. Yes they're are plenty of designs out there, but my piont is why trust 35 bil to a yard with no experience in building them.... That's not how shipbuilding works under this plan. The destroyers and frigates will be phased out, one at a time, between 2015 and 2030. Really that is what they said last time we built frigs....but what happen to the Irvingyard in St John NB again.... Again That's not how shipbuilding works under this plan. The destroyers and frigates will be phased out, one at a time, between 2015 and 2030.youseem that once we have the plans we could build anything, which is false, they don't have the experience that you need to build large ships , not the experience in modern warships.... How many cars and commercial aircraft do we buy from China? None, but if one added up all the good imported in from China, there would be no comparison in dollar value....so why do we insist our government gives out 35 bil dollar hand outs when we ourself can't maintain the same standards. The ships that the US are building, other than the AB, aren't all that impressive. The Spanish, Germans, Dutch, Danes, and French/Italians have ships that are much more suited to our purpose. The F100, F124 or 125, FREMM, FM 400 and several others are far more suited to our purposes. Really i thought the Arliegh Burke class or the ships viaing for the Destroyer X program were very impresive.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Bonam Posted June 7, 2011 Report Posted June 7, 2011 The point of investing in our military is to ensure our nation's security and sovereignty and influence. Being able to produce our own military equipment, rather than relying on other nations, certainly furthers that goal. For this reason, wherever Canadian producers have a realistic chance of making what we need, they should be given significant preferential consideration when it comes to the acquisition of military equipment by the federal government. It should also be noted that even a significantly more expensive contract, if spent in Canada, is less expensive for Canadian taxpayers than one that is filled by a foreign company. When we contract a Canadian shipyard, much of that money comes back in taxes to the government. If we instead spend the money in the US, that money exits Canada's economy. So, a contract to a Canadian manufacturer is cheaper for Canadian taxpayers than a foreign contract, even if the explicit dollar value of the contract is higher. This same reasoning would also apply to the acquisition of fighter aircraft, if any Canadian company had a hope in hell of building something usable in a reasonable timeframe, which they don't. Quote
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.