bush_cheney2004 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) And your butterballs are also slower, heavier and more costly! :P Which is really bad for fighter aircraft. It's not an air superiority fighter.....and it won't capsize like your butterballs, which cost more than an F-35...lots more. No wonder Irving doubled the bogey ! Edited December 5, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 A navy can't operate across the globe if it can't defend itself. Canada has been doing such with outdated equipment for a long time. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 It's not an air superiority fighter..... There's an understatement!! Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 Canada has been doing such with outdated equipment for a long time. Sure and it started under Trudeau.......and will worsen under another Trudeau. Quote
Smallc Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 Sure and it started under Trudeau.......and will worsen under another Trudeau. Funny, I was sure we had a couple decades of Conservatives in there. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 Funny, I was sure we had a couple decades of Conservatives in there. We sure did, and Mulroney ordered the Halifax class, approved TRUMP and had planned (cancelled by the Liberals) a third batch AAD frigates.........Harper started the shipbuilding strategy, oversaw the start of construction for our first major unit since the 90s and sought an interim AOR refueling capability.............the ball is now in Trudeau's court, a court weeks ago you swore up and down included a major investment for the navy, procuring all the vessels they required (15 combatants) to ensure we maintained a blue water force........now there is talk about "reviewing" said pledge......like I said would happen. Quote
Smallc Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 the ball is now in Trudeau's court, a court weeks ago you swore up and down included a major investment for the navy There is no evidence of a change in that area. I'm simply musing about what may happen. There's certainly no evidence that Harper was ever going to fulfill any of his pledges in this area going forward. That's why I was just fine voting Liberal. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 There is no evidence of a change in that area. I'm simply musing about what may happen. There's certainly no evidence that Harper was ever going to fulfill any of his pledges in this area going forward. That's why I was just fine voting Liberal. By no evidence, you mean other than pay for the first round of the shipbuilding program, with vessels already in production, in addition, seek an interim capability the navy lost due to accidents? Inversely, there is no evidence the Liberal will keep said promise, aside from no new funds put aside in their four year fiscal plan, numerous papers inside a week being released, suggesting we can't afford their promises is writing enough on the walls for me (and a great many others that will be directly impacted)....... Quote
Smallc Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 Inversely, there is no evidence the Liberal will keep said promise, aside from no new funds put aside in their four year fiscal plan, Yes, as of now, they've demonstrated the exact same commitment as the Conservatives. Quote
Smallc Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) The reality though, is thus: Canada will not be waging war on her own. If North America is attacked, there will be a joint response from Canada and the US. Thus, there is no nation that can defeat us in our own waters other than the US. It seems that submarines sneak attacks are our worst fears. Other threats are easily countered by NORAD air defences. 15 GP/ASW (or some combination of heavier patrol craft and ASW craft) warfare ships would seem to be the best to defend Canada and serve her around the globe. Hopefully the review of our defence posture will see the logic. Edited December 5, 2015 by Smallc Quote
SpankyMcFarland Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 We sure did, and Mulroney ordered the Halifax class, approved TRUMP and had planned (cancelled by the Liberals) a third batch AAD frigates.........Harper started the shipbuilding strategy, oversaw the start of construction for our first major unit since the 90s and sought an interim AOR refueling capability.............the ball is now in Trudeau's court, a court weeks ago you swore up and down included a major investment for the navy, procuring all the vessels they required (15 combatants) to ensure we maintained a blue water force........now there is talk about "reviewing" said pledge......like I said would happen. What criticisms, if any, would you have of Harper? Did he really move as aggressively and cost-effectively on this issue as possible? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 Yes, as of now, they've demonstrated the exact same commitment as the Conservatives. So they've ordered new vessels? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 The reality though, is thus: Canada will not be waging war on her own. You know that how? If North America is attacked, there will be a joint response from Canada and the US. Unless our interests aren't always shared........The Americans didn't join in the Second World War until the end of 1941.. Thus, there is no nation that can defeat us in our own waters other than the US. And any nation with a half credible submarine force. It seems that submarines sneak attacks are our worst fears. As they've been since the First World War........And since said time, submarines have become more than a one dimensional threat Other threats are easily countered by NORAD air defences. Explain, namely in regards to asymmetric warfare or other more pronounced missions our navy takes part involving the Freedom of the Seas..... 15 GP/ASW (or some combination of heavier patrol craft and ASW craft) warfare ships would seem to be the best to defend Canada and serve her around the globe. Except they're not, and said deficiencies with such a force structure became pronounced as early as the 1970s......... Hopefully the review of our defence posture will see the logic. What logic? You're simply working backwards to defend the eventual cut in capability and broken promises of this Government. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 What criticisms, if any, would you have of Harper? Did he really move as aggressively and cost-effectively on this issue as possible? Not ordering "interim" vessels, where needs are critical, from overseas as a shot across the bows of our domestic shipbuilders.......likewise, as I outlined earlier in this thread, setting a budget than design/building vessels as opposed to the inverse. Quote
waldo Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 I think the point is a flaw of that magnitude should never have been incorporated into a final design which was sent to the shipyard. What idiots designed it? What idiot approved it? And are they designing the rest of the ships? certified engineers would have... certified... the original design. Other certified engineers (perhaps even some of the original... the article doesn't elaborate to that end) found a problem within the original design. Again, that's what engineers do. These types of highly technical concerns are easy fodder for any persons... not highly technical. Quote
Smallc Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 So they've ordered new vessels? That opportunity hasn't arisen yet, as you're already aware - but they were in the process of ordering new vessels last time they were in government. Quote
Smallc Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 What logic? You're simply working backwards to defend the eventual cut in capability and broken promises of this Government. And you're doing a lot of assuming again. I'm simply saying where I'd like to go. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 certified engineers would have... certified... the original design. Other certified engineers (perhaps even some of the original... the article doesn't elaborate to that end) found a problem within the original design. Again, that's what engineers do. These types of highly technical concerns are easy fodder for any persons... not highly technical. Agreed......The Spanish engineers involved in their submarine program misplaced a decimal point, resulting in a weight gain of the subs that would result in said subs being unable to resurface........$@!^ happens. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 That opportunity hasn't arisen yet, as you're already aware - but they were in the process of ordering new vessels last time they were in government. Of course it hasn't, but talk of reviews and spending shortfalls is a stark difference from the prior promises just weeks ago to commit to building all the vessels required to have blue water navy...... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 And you're doing a lot of assuming again. I'm simply saying where I'd like to go. Back to our fleet of the 1970s Quote
Smallc Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 Of course it hasn't, but talk of reviews and spending shortfalls is a stark difference from the prior promises just weeks ago to commit to building all the vessels required to have blue water navy...... The talk of spending shortfalls does not come from the Liberals, but bureaucrats (now free to speak)and Irving. The Liberals, it seems, had no idea what they were getting into. Quote
Smallc Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 Back to our fleet of the 1970s Of course not. We'd still have the capability to defend our ships from medium surface and air threats, with an emphasis on ASW. What's new is old again. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 The talk of spending shortfalls does not come from the Liberals, but bureaucrats (now free to speak)and Irving. The Liberals, it seems, had no idea what they were getting into. So cover to go back on their promise.......got it. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 Of course not. We'd still have the capability to defend our ships from medium surface and air threats, with an emphasis on ASW. What's new is old again. Except, sans a modern AAD capability, we won't. Quote
Smallc Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 So cover to go back on their promise.......got it. That is, again, nothing but your musings. 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.