Shipbuilding contracts

Derek 2.0 · September 30, 2015

The F100 frigates certainly do.

Ahh no, they don't, the F100 class are equipped with the recycled commercial sonars from their 70s era, domestically produced, Descubierta corvettes.....the same sonars since retired by other "capable" navies in the region like Morocco and Egypt........and is why the RAN's Hobart class don't share the parent design's (and are now vastly over budget) sonar.

But hey, thanks for coming out.

Smallc · September 30, 2015

So ahh, change that 1 system.

Derek 2.0 · September 30, 2015

So ahh, change that 1 system.

:lol:

Yeah, just rebuild the entire vessel, simple as that......until then, the used Kilo subs of the Algerian navy, in a shooting war, could keep your "capable" Spanish navy in port.

Smallc · September 30, 2015

Yeah, just rebuild the entire vessel, simple as that......until then, the used Kilo subs of the Algerian navy, in a shooting war, could keep your "capable" Spanish navy in port.

Just don't attack them from the air. 1 Mig could now take out the entire ready Canadian force.

Derek 2.0 · September 30, 2015

Just don't attack them from the air. 1 Mig could now take out the entire ready Canadian force.

You realize, a submarine operates under water right? 1 MIG eh?

Argentina once had a capable navy too, with a real life aircraft carrier and a big gunned heavy cruiser armed with exocets, that is until the RN chased them back to port with a handful of WW II era torpedos........ :rolleyes:

Argus · September 30, 2015

The Spanish had an aircraft carrier for example, but were forced to retire it due to lack of funds a few years ago,

Us too. Fifty years ago, in fact. But they still have an amphibious ship with harriers.

Furthermore, half the Spanish surface fleet is comprised of obsolete frigates,

Uh... good thing that's not the case with us!

their submarine program has been plagued with problems since its inception

Are you being ironic here?

and their Navy has a whole, has been little more than a coastal/Mediterranean force for decades, relegated to lesser tasks by NATO.

Canada has 12 20+ year old frigates and a few old, slow patrol boats, and subs that have never worked. I don't think we get to brag.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Argus

Derek 2.0 · September 30, 2015

Us too. Fifty years ago, in fact. But they still have an amphibious ship with harriers.

I know, my father flew off it.

Spain has an amphibious ship that stays in port, and Harriers that will require the Spanish Government (when they can afford it) to scour the boneyard in Arizona to keep flyable.....using your standards, Thailand also has a "capable" navy since it too has a "carrier" and a handful of harriers....that its been to sea over the last decade for no more than several collective months and it harriers are considered no longer flyable, maters not.

Uh... good thing that's not the case with us!

Yes indeed.

Are you being ironic here?

Not the slightest, our subs are in operational service.....the new Spanish built subs aren't safe to operate, fore when they copied the design off the French, the Spanish builders miss placed a decimal point and built the subs too heavy, so heavy in fact, that if they submerged the subs, they wouldn't be able to resurface.......ooooops

Canada has 12 20+ year old frigates and a few old, slow patrol boats, and subs that have never worked. I don't think we get to brag.

Canada, alongside the British and Chilean navy, have the most capable surface ASW platforms in the World, coupled with over 3/4s of a century of operational and practical experience.......Spain hasn't had a "capable" naval force since the 1500s.......Likewise, the Canadian navy, is the only navy capable of being fully integrated into a United States Navy Task Group.......we have plenty to brag about when compared to the vast majority of navies in the world.

Smallc · October 8, 2015

we believe it’s possible with a $26 billion budget to build between 11 and 15 surface combatants.”

Does Jason Kenny know what he's talking about? I assume yes.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/number-of-canadian-surface-combatants-could-be-as-low-as-11-confirms-jason-kenney

Derek 2.0 · October 8, 2015

we believe it’s possible with a $26 billion budget to build between 11 and 15 surface combatants.”

Does Jason Kenny know what he's talking about? I assume yes.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/number-of-canadian-surface-combatants-could-be-as-low-as-11-confirms-jason-kenney

Sure, your point? If Canada is able to obtain more capable vessels, all of modern modular designs, resulting in greater availability rates (The Danish and German designs have twice the availability rates as current vessels such as our 330 class) I fail to see the issue.

With that said, the MND stated 11-15 vessels, even though a final design has yet to be selected. For example, 11-12 “Baby Burkes” (as offered to the RAN) with a 50% availability rate would be a far better option (see capable) than 14-15 improved F125s with a similar availability rate, likewise, either option would be an improvement over our current 13 ship surface fleet……..

I hope you noticed, despite your assuming otherwise, that neither the Liberals or NDP have included any new money for the Canadian Forces, including the Navy, in either of their spending updates.

Smallc · October 8, 2015

Sure, your point? If Canada is able to obtain more capable vessels, all of modern modular designs, resulting in greater availability rates (The Danish and German designs have twice the availability rates as current vessels such as our 330 class) I fail to see the issue.

This isn't what you said earlier. You assured me that there would be no possibility of a reduction in the number of hulls.

I hope you noticed, despite your assuming otherwise, that neither the Liberals or NDP have included any new money for the Canadian Forces, including the Navy, in either of their spending updates.

They don't plan to reduce it as you assumed either (and to be accurate, the Liberals specifically mentioned shifting money from other areas to the Navy).

Derek 2.0 · October 8, 2015

This isn't what you said earlier. You assured me that there would be no possibility of a reduction in the number of hulls.

Where did I assure you of that? I clearly stated, with $26 billion, we could fund nearly an equal number of flight III Burkes..........Lockheed Martin and Gibbs & Cox are both apart of the CSC process, likewise the RCN has stated a requirement for the CSC to be in the range of ~7000 tons, with a return to a 5" main gun, improved electrical generation, ABM capability etc............figure it out :rolleyes:

They don't plan to reduce it as you assumed either (and to be accurate, the Liberals specifically mentioned shifting money from other areas to the Navy).

The Liberals said any savings from gutting the future of the RCAF would go to the RCN to:

By purchasing more affordable alternatives to the F-35s, we will be able to invest in strengthening our Navy, while also meeting the commitments that were made as part of the National Shipbuilding and Procurement Strategy. Unlike Stephen Harper, we will have the funds that we need to build promised icebreakers, supply ships, arctic and offshore patrol ships, surface combatants, and other resources required by the Navy.

Yet, in their four year budget outlook, not a single cent of new money for the RCN.........They are promising to fund the current plan by gutting the future of the RCAF, of which, in their four year budget outlook, there is not a single cent of new money promised.

The only Party with new money budgeted for the Forces to date are the CPC.......

Smallc · October 8, 2015

The only Party with new money budgeted for the Forces to date are the CPC.......

The Liberals plan to maintain the current increases that the Conservatives brought in with budget 2015.

Derek 2.0 · October 8, 2015

The Liberals plan to maintain the current increases that the Conservatives brought in with budget 2015.

Where does it state that in their spending outline?

Smallc · October 8, 2015

We will maintain current National Defence spending levels, including current planned increases.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/investing-in-our-military/?shownew=1

Derek 2.0 · October 8, 2015

We will maintain current National Defence spending levels, including current planned increases.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/investing-in-our-military/?shownew=1

Yet not a single additional cent in the next four years.........also, from your link:

We will not let Canada’s Armed Forces be shortchanged, and we will not lapse military spending from year to year. We will also reinvest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military, including adequate support systems for military personnel and their families.

Leaner, as in smaller............how do they plan to "reinvest" when they haven't added any new funding? Clearly that means either the Tories fund the Forces enough for future investment, or based on their fiscal plan, they don't actually plan to invest in anything........or, as stated above, a smaller Canadian Forces will require less investment....

Smallc · October 8, 2015

Yet not a single additional cent in the next four years.........

Because they're already planned. They have the exact same military spending plans as the Conservatives. If they really won't let spending lapse, it's more money.

Derek 2.0 · October 8, 2015

Because they're already planned. They have the exact same military spending plans as the Conservatives. If they really won't let spending lapse, it's more money.

I thought you decried the Tories spending plans?

And how is it more money? You think instead of returning unused funds each year, pissing it away is better for taxpayers?

Smallc · October 8, 2015

I thought you decried the Tories spending plans?

It's still not enough. The rest of Trudeau's plans are far better for me personally, so right now that's where I'm leaning.

And how is it more money? You think instead of returning unused funds each year, pissing it away is better for taxpayers?

Keeping it for future use is more like what they're planning.

Derek 2.0 · October 8, 2015

It's still not enough. The rest of Trudeau's plans are far better for me personally, so right now that's where I'm leaning.

Good, you'll be paying for it far longer than I.

Keeping it for future use is more like what they're planning.

You base that on what?

-They have said they will keep the current funding increases (but don't account for it in their 4 year fiscal plan)

-They will continue with the shipbuilding program as is.......but

-They will reduce the Hornet replacement budget to fund the navy, even though long term budgeted items are already forecast into future funding

-They will make the Canadian forces "leaner", i.e. smaller

-And of course, they will "review" all existing capabilities of the armed forces......I would assume that means the size of the fighter force, subs, combat capability of the navy, tactical helicopter fleet, tanks and artillery.........The last time a Trudeau "reviewed" the military, we lost our last carrier, saw the surface fleet reduced by a 1/3rd, cut the air force in half and cut the army by ~25%.

Another Trudeau would be great for the armed forces :rolleyes:

ToadBrother · October 8, 2015

-And of course, they will "review" all existing capabilities of the armed forces......I would assume that means the size of the fighter force, subs, combat capability of the navy, tactical helicopter fleet, tanks and artillery.........The last time a Trudeau "reviewed" the military, we lost our last carrier, saw the surface fleet reduced by a 1/3rd, cut the air force in half and cut the army by ~25%.

Another Trudeau would be great for the armed forces

Isn't it getting a little old to complain about PET? He's been out of office for 31 years, dead for 15, and other than the name, is there any particular reason you think his son would just turn into PET 2?

Derek 2.0 · October 8, 2015

Isn't it getting a little old to complain about PET? He's been out of office for 31 years, dead for 15, and other than the name, is there any particular reason you think his son would just turn into PET 2?

I don't think it's "a little old" at all, when the son is promising to continue his Father's work........When PET came to power, he promised a review of the Canadian military, much like his son's promise of a "leaner" force today, reviewing capabilities and slashing procurement for the air force's (then) fighter replacement program.....the result?

When PET came to power in '68, the Canadian Forces stood at just over ~100k members, by the mid 70s, the Forces were reduced to ~77-75k members. The review of capabilities saw our last aircraft carrier go, the then current destroyer escort force cut by a third (some vessels were then only 10-15 years old) and slashed the navies destroyers program down to four vessels (the 280s). Likewise, the army was was gutted (Gone were the Canadian Guards, and the reg-force Black Watch, Fort Garry Horse, and 4th regiment of Royal Canadian horse artillery) by ~25% of its combat formations, and the air force also saw a drastic downsizing.

So no, when Justin promises to do what his Father did, I don't see a problem in comparing the two.

waldo · October 8, 2015

So no, when Justin promises to do what his Father did, I don't see a problem in comparing the two.

citation request... when 'Trudeau the younger' promises to following, as you say, 'his Father'. It's sure a good thing you can readily point to the accomplishments of Harper Conservatives in "re-building the Canadian military" and addressing, "what his Father did", right? Plus the bang-up job done for Canadian military veterans, right?

ToadBrother · October 8, 2015

I don't think it's "a little old" at all, when the son is promising to continue his Father's work........When PET came to power, he promised a review of the Canadian military, much like his son's promise of a "leaner" force today, reviewing capabilities and slashing procurement for the air force's (then) fighter replacement program.....the result?

When PET came to power in '68, the Canadian Forces stood at just over ~100k members, by the mid 70s, the Forces were reduced to ~77-75k members. The review of capabilities saw our last aircraft carrier go, the then current destroyer escort force cut by a third (some vessels were then only 10-15 years old) and slashed the navies destroyers program down to four vessels (the 280s). Likewise, the army was was gutted (Gone were the Canadian Guards, and the reg-force Black Watch, Fort Garry Horse, and 4th regiment of Royal Canadian horse artillery) by ~25% of its combat formations, and the air force also saw a drastic downsizing.

So no, when Justin promises to do what his Father did, I don't see a problem in comparing the two.

Trudeau has also criticized a number of his father's initiatives and policies, so this idea that he's going to be a Pierre Trudeau clone is unwarranted.

I'm sorry, Derek, I simply do not believe that the son should bear the sins (real or perceived) of the father. If you want to criticize Justin Trudeau's proposals, I'm completely cool with that, but if you're going to start criticizing him based on a three decade old government, then yeah, I have a big problem with that.

Derek 2.0 · October 8, 2015

citation request... when 'Trudeau the younger' promises to following, as you say, 'his Father'. It's sure a good thing you can readily point to the accomplishments of Harper Conservatives in "re-building the Canadian military" and addressing, "what his Father did", right? Plus the bang-up job done for Canadian military veterans, right?

The links to the current Liberal platform are cited above.

PIK · October 8, 2015

It is quite the site sitting on my deck watching the chinooks fly by. And I see the cyclones are now being delivered to the navy. Things are happening.