Smallc Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Why? That's what the helicopter is for.......and why would it need to be better armed to fend off drug smugglers and poachers? The gun armament would need to be larger for pirate operations. I think in the absence of $15B, we may see a Hi-Low-Med mix as I'm proposing, especially if we keep some kind of AAD variant. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Build an artificial island just outside Canadian waters...heh, heh...then we'll notice a need. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Smallc Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Well no, it wouldn't impress them........but this thought exercise is on Canada not being able to afford a modern navy. Canada can afford it. Are people willing to spend the money? Are you willing to? You seemed to be of the opinion until recently that everything was fine in terms of funding. Suddenly, that's changed. Quote
Smallc Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Build an artificial island just outside Canadian waters...heh, heh...then we'll notice a need. That seems like an unlikely scenario, I would say. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 That seems like an unlikely scenario, I would say. Best inform North Viet...errrr...Viet-Nam that this is an unlikely scenario. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Hey, do these cost arguments include people power to crew the new ships ? Last episode, Canada was having difficulty recruiting and retaining navy personnel. Shiny new ships might improve things. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) Best inform North Viet...errrr...Viet-Nam that this is an unlikely scenario. Perhaps consult a map? Edited December 4, 2015 by Smallc Quote
DogOnPorch Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Perhaps consult a map? Are you saying Red China is a mere regional player? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Derek 2.0 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 The gun armament would need to be larger for pirate operations. I think in the absence of $15B, we may see a Hi-Low-Med mix as I'm proposing, especially if we keep some kind of AAD variant. Are we taking on the Black Pearl? I spoke to the high/medium/low mix in this thread several years ago........we've got the medium/low mix currently covered, the discussion is on if there will be a high portion......... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Canada can afford it. Are people willing to spend the money? Are you willing to? You seemed to be of the opinion until recently that everything was fine in terms of funding. Suddenly, that's changed. In some respects yes........as I've been saying in this thread for several years, I'd doubt we'd get more than 12 new surface combatants, a trade off in numbers versus capability, and made up for with the AOPS, relieving the combatants in most domestic tasks............the difference now is the talk of examining capabilities and overall numbers by the new Government, and now, a report (paid for by Irving) stating they will need double the money. The Government should tell Irving to pound sand, offer Davie or Seaspan a crack, and if they can't deliver, go overseas........but they won't (I doubt any Canadian Government would go overseas), as you correctly pointed out, the East Coast is a Liberal bastion....... Quote
Smallc Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 and now, a report (paid for by Irving) stating they will need double the money. Hence the independent experts and 5 reports a year. Now we'll know where our money is going and how much we should actually need. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Hence the independent experts and 5 reports a year. Now we'll know where our money is going and how much we should actually need. Huh? We either have enough money and Irving is grifting us, or we don't have enough money, and we'll either need more or accept less capability/ships......seems pretty straight forward, I don't know what another bureaucrat is going to do with a report every 2 1/2 months. Quote
Smallc Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Huh? We either have enough money and Irving is grifting us, or we don't have enough money, and we'll either need more or accept less capability/ships......seems pretty straight forward, I don't know what another bureaucrat is going to do with a report every 2 1/2 months. We need to know how much money we actually need for what we want - not necessarily what Irving tells us we need. The truth is probably less than they say but more than we've committed thus far (this is all very preliminary anyway). Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 We need to know how much money we actually need for what we want - not necessarily what Irving tells us we need. The truth is probably less than they say but more than we've committed thus far (this is all very preliminary anyway). So the Government is going to dictate how much Irving can charge us? Quote
Smallc Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 So the Government is going to dictate how much Irving can charge us? Both contracts signed thus far have a price ceiling. We need to know where that ceiling should be. Quote
Argus Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) Your navy is tres impressive. Why Canada can slip a few billions your way for proper ships 'n subs is beyond me. Because then there would be no jobs for the local boys. Mind you, it would save billions, which means maybe billions in less taxes, which would help the economy too. Edited December 4, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Probably. But so are countless 'Syrian' refugees which promise to suck billions if not more....more zeros, that is. That will cost them billions, which is not accounted for in any budget. In addition, according to CD Howe they're several billion short in their hope of balancing their tax bribe to the middle class with an offsetting hike in taxes to the successful. And according to the BPO their current announed plans would, without taking the former into account, still lead to a $10 billion gap in their budget in coming years. They're not going to throw billions more into military purchases. Quite the contrary. I expect cuts to military spending. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 That will cost them billions, which is not accounted for in any budget. In addition, according to CD Howe they're several billion short in their hope of balancing their tax bribe to the middle class with an offsetting hike in taxes to the successful. And according to the BPO their current announed plans would, without taking the former into account, still lead to a $10 billion gap in their budget in coming years. They're not going to throw billions more into military purchases. Quite the contrary. I expect cuts to military spending. Don't forget that they're also cancelling income splitting and several as of yet unnamed tax credits. Quote
Argus Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) Don't forget that they're also cancelling income splitting and several as of yet unnamed tax credits. Do you think the PBO ignored that? Its report still put them $10 billion short without taking into consideration the refugee cost or this new CD Howe report which suggests a $2.5 billion gap in what the Liberals thought they would be collecting from 'rich' people like me. So add that and the refugee costs and we're looking at a shortfall of about $14-15 billion from their projections. And every expert in sight has laughed at Trudeau's suggestion he can save enough from the fighter purchase to fund the ship purchases. No, they're going to be needing to find money somewhere, and I'm guessing the military is in for further downsizing. Edited December 4, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
overthere Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 That will cost them billions, which is not accounted for in any budget. In addition, according to CD Howe they're several billion short in their hope of balancing their tax bribe to the middle class with an offsetting hike in taxes to the successful. And according to the BPO their current announed plans would, without taking the former into account, still lead to a $10 billion gap in their budget in coming years. They're not going to throw billions more into military purchases. Quite the contrary. I expect cuts to military spending. Yep. It is a long Liberal tradition to send our armed forces into dangerous places with substandard equipment, armaments and training. It allows them to bray that "Canada is back" while our allies wonder " WTF, not this failure again". We are back all right, way way back where we cannot be seen or heard , not doing our share as we have agreed to do with our allies. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Smallc Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Only partisans could blame the Liberals for Conservative military procurement failures. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Both contracts signed thus far have a price ceiling. We need to know where that ceiling should be. Huh? The RCN requires 15 vessels, Irving says the money budgeted will only allow for half that number........our options are very clear and could be counted on one hand. Quote
Smallc Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Huh? The RCN requires 15 vessels, Irving says the money budgeted will only allow for half that number........our options are very clear and could be counted on one hand. Do you think that the analysis by Irving is fair and balanced? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 Do you think that the analysis by Irving is fair and balanced? It doesn't mater...........if you go to Canadian Tire to buy some winter tires and you think their price is unfair, your options are? Quote
Smallc Posted December 4, 2015 Report Posted December 4, 2015 It doesn't mater...........if you go to Canadian Tire to buy some winter tires and you think their price is unfair, your options are? This isn't anything like that. There's a reason we have contract negotiations, price ceilings, targets, benchmarks, etc. 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.