madmax Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 As an FYI I am surrounded by Numerous Military Manufacturers making products for..... guess I can't go any further.. Things are tightly monitored in that regards.... Its quite surprising what transferable product is used/adapted for military purposes and has to be kept secret.. I am always surprised when I discover another manufacturer meeting the procurement requirements. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 8, 2011 Author Report Posted June 8, 2011 That isn't easy. The money is there, and it if way easy, it would have been done by now. Come on now, we all know that the last 10 years the Military has been concentrating on the Army, and pumping most of the recruits that way. 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 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Come on now, we all know that the last 10 years the Military has been concentrating on the Army, and pumping most of the recruits that way. Not the last year or so. They have actually had to cap many army categories because there are too many applicants and their numbers are ahead of where they wanted to be at this point. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 8, 2011 Author Report Posted June 8, 2011 That is exactly the problem, however. The long term consequence of never building anything in Canada is never being able to build anything in Canada. And in the long term, that is unconsciounable. My question is why is that a governmental problem, why should we use Tax payers coin, to fund any Canadian shipyard...when they have not done so themselfs....and in doing so have lost the ability and expertise to build war ships. Military technology is only getting more expensive as the years go on. If we always buy from others, we will sending astronomical amounts of money out of the country in perpetuity. And the consequence of that is having less money for equipment, and less money for health. It is a recipe for the poor house. Yes it is, don't get me wrong i would love to operate a Canadian built piece of equipment the LAV III is a great pice of kit....But GM took that horn by the horns and built that plant and brought in the expertise to run that project..... Besides do you really think the Majority of Canadians want more military industry here in Canada...I know they barly have the guts for purchasing it imigine the bils spent on R&D to stay active in a very cut throat industry. 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 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 ...But GM took that horn by the horns and built that plant and brought in the expertise to run that project..... And you think that an Irving LM or Davie DCNS, or North Vancouver BAE partnership would act differently? You're presupposing to the negative in a way that doesn't at all seem likely. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Military hardware is not like every trade good, however. It would also be dumb to outsource all of your food production, even if it were cheaper. We have been importing food and military hardware for a long time. The same goes for electronics and a lot of other goods. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Remiel Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 We have been importing food and military hardware for a long time. The same goes for electronics and a lot of other goods. "We import been importing food for a long time," is not the same thing as "we have exported our food security". Quote
Michael Hardner Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 "We import been importing food for a long time," is not the same thing as "we have exported our food security". Ok - we exported our food security. Shouldn't we depend on the US - at a minimum - to provide food ? Is it realistic to plan for Canada to be a fortress of solitude ? (loaded question) These questions were answered a long time ago, and we have gone a long way to adjusting for them. Canada continues to do quite well - I'm more worried for other countries than ours. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Remiel Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Ok - we exported our food security. Shouldn't we depend on the US - at a minimum - to provide food ? Is it realistic to plan for Canada to be a fortress of solitude ? (loaded question) These questions were answered a long time ago, and we have gone a long way to adjusting for them. Canada continues to do quite well - I'm more worried for other countries than ours. ? I am very surprised to hear that we do not grow food in Canada. Being, you know, from rural Canada. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 ? I am very surprised to hear that we do not grow food in Canada. Being, you know, from rural Canada. Really ? Who told you that we didn't grow food in Canada ? The binary essence of your questioning is informative - I need to ask: Should we tear up all trade agreements and make Canada a cold northern island ? Should we demand "fairer trade" with our neighbours ? Do you like grapefruit ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Army Guy Posted June 8, 2011 Author Report Posted June 8, 2011 With regards to Military Ships, they can be built here and can build to any spec given. Whether we want to do that or not is a choice. Or we can become like those 3rd world countries that really on 1st and 2nd world countries to sell them their military assest... next thing we can is hire Mercenaries just like they do and like the US now does .... Is that because the Mercenary soldier is better? Answer me that Army Guy? Building large military ships, are not mechcano sets, where you follow the instructions and poof your in bussiness....they require skill and experience...two important assets that we have already lost...what my beef is now Canadians want to rebuild that industry on the backs of this commitment...that will last alittle more than 10 years then when these ships are done it will be cut off the tax payers tit, and die once again.... If these ship yards had a good product they would still be in the business. instead what do they build now... It is the governments responabilty to ensure the defense of this country, and they have commited funding to ensure there is always a professional base in which carry on this function, more to the piont they've invested dollars to ensure we have a good product...can you say the same thing about Canadian ship yards.... Are Mercenaries better soldiers....I think i'll let you answer that question, which would you perfer... 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 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 You do realize that the contract is for 30 years, and not 10, right? Quote
fellowtraveller Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 No, it means that politicians have nothing to do with this decision. $35 billion funding decision and politicians will have nothing to do with it? Put down the bong and back away. Quote The government should do something.
Smallc Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 $35 billion funding decision and politicians will have nothing to do with it? Put down the bong and back away. I'm willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt here. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 8, 2011 Author Report Posted June 8, 2011 You do realize that the contract is for 30 years, and not 10, right? No, thats what the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy has laid out, as there is no contracts for most of the ships laid out. 30 years is unrealistic as the Navy needs alot of these ships now or within the next 10 years or so The article below a\near the very end explains my piont about having the expertise and experence in military ship building...It also makes everyones elses piont about building them in Canada. My link navy review 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 8, 2011 Author Report Posted June 8, 2011 I'm willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt here. SO stating that they have to be built in Canada, for job creation and rebuilding a dead industry was not political.... 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 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) No, thats what the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy has laid out, as there is no contracts for most of the ships laid out. 30 years is unrealistic as the Navy needs alot of these ships now or within the next 10 years or so It needs a total of 5 within the next ten years. We'll probably get 11. None of the frigates will be retired before 2020, and the only reason we're getting the AOPS is because they are additional capacity. leaves 12 to be built between 2020 and 2035, and that's just the combat yard. Many of the CCG ships, despite being needed now, will come later. There are also other vessels that will be added in the future. The agreement is for 30 years. Edited June 8, 2011 by Smallc Quote
Smallc Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 SO stating that they have to be built in Canada, for job creation and rebuilding a dead industry was not political.... That part is not only political, it's also strategic. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Why? Why not? It will all turn out. The budget is absolutely huge for the project, and allows for significant cost overruns for what others have paid for designs we're likely to use. We'll probably get the AAD models too late to replace the the 280s, yes, but it's unlikely that we'll face any significant threat in the next few years. 4 Halifax class are being fitted to fill the command and control g0p that will exist, so we're preparing on the level that we can. 35 billion is budgeted for the AOPS, SCSC and AOR replacement (Plus Coast Guard vessels)......We've 15 warships to replace inside that budget......Again, the RAN is paying 8 billion for three ships..........It's a numbers game, we'll either go way over budget and/or be forced to reduce hull numbers (Another trend amongst NATO navies).......The flag facilities added to the 330s is only a partial band-aid, it does nothing to address area air defense. What I feel will happen if the 280s are retired without a direct replacement is that when the reality of the costs of the program come to fruition, the 280s (there was a requirement for four) won’t be replaced, in effect a stealth cut…… You mean the one that can't shoot an actual air defence missile? HMS Daring & HMS Dauntless both have completed sea trials with Sea Viper.....The type 45's troubles (as I alluded to earlier) further highlight my argument about modern warships costs and development...... Quote
fellowtraveller Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 That part is not only political, it's also strategic. I'm going to go waaaaay out on a limb and suggest that part of that strategy is going to be to send a whole pile of that work to Quebec. But I'll take your word that oh no none of it is political. Quote The government should do something.
Guest Derek L Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 It needs a total of 5 within the next ten years. We'll probably get 11. None of the frigates will be retired before 2020, and the only reason we're getting the AOPS is because they are additional capacity. leaves 12 to be built between 2020 and 2035, and that's just the combat yard. Many of the CCG ships, despite being needed now, will come later. There are also other vessels that will be added in the future. The agreement is for 30 years. The 6-8 AOPS will replace the 12 Kingstons........Another stealth cut....The JSS/AOR project was intended to build 4 from the onset, this was reduced to three, now two with a possable option on the third.....another stealth cut Quote
Smallc Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 35 billion is budgeted for the AOPS, SCSC and AOR replacement (Plus Coast Guard vessels) The main cost will be the CSC, which has over $1B per ship available. Quote
Smallc Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) The 6-8 AOPS will replace the 12 Kingstons We don't know if they'll replace all of them, actually. ......Another stealth cut....The JSS/AOR project was intended to build 4 from the onset, this was reduced to three, now two with a possable option on the third.....another stealth cut That's actually not a cut, given that we currently have 2. I never did hear that there would be more than 3, 4 was just a number that Senator Kenny wanted. Anyone who can talk about cuts when the defence budget has been increased by 250% in the last ten years (not accounting for inflation, but it more than allows for that) isn't really being honest. There have been program allocation changes. Edited June 8, 2011 by Smallc Quote
Smallc Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Again, the RAN is paying 8 billion for three ships That's for the entire project. Our project numbers that you're quoting don't include 20 years of maintenance. There is $15B allowed for that. Quote
Smallc Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 I'm sure there will be problems, but we'll be fine. All of this hand wringing always goes on for nothing. It's not really a concern. 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.