What if Canadian built its own built equipement?

[Big Blue Machine]

If Canada built its own equipement, then we wouldn't have to buy second-hand equipement from the US and Britain. Plus we have the metal right here in canada...no need to import it....duty on foreign made boats is 25%

We could have had the Arrow but Diefenbunker (misspelling intended) cancelled. We have Bombardier, SNC lavalin, and others. Plus it wouldn't create jobs for shipyears and aircraft companies and steel works

I know the other side of the argument is we should buy the equipement from the professionals like Lockceed Martin or Beoing or someone else. Plus, it would probably cost too much for developing the defence programs.

Did you people know that our first navy was two old British cruisers called the Rainbow and the Auroua? You could feel the fear of the enemy, "Look Out! The Rainbow is coming at us! They going to pelt us with flower power!" But our navy helped win the Battle of the Altantic twice. We had the fourth largest navy in the world when WW2 ended.

We should advertize the military and navy more. Does the army and navy pay for the soldiers education like the states? They should. Every Canadian should also do 1-2 years mandatory military service. Every Canadian who can do it of course.

What do you poeple think?

[Bro]

If this would happen.it would go to Bombardier,the only problem with that is,the Canadian taxpayer already funds that company in the billions of dollars,I think a savings of any kind would be a miracle with this company involved,although quebec liberal cronies would once again

benefit.

[takeanumber]

I think the USA and Britain have economies of scale that allow us to buy their equipment cheaper than we could make it at home.

Moreover, if building frigates in Canada means we have to give money to Irvings, no thank you.

We'll buy American and British if that's the case.

[Stoker]

Did you people know that our first navy was two old British cruisers called the Rainbow and the Auroua? You could feel the fear of the enemy, "Look Out! The Rainbow is coming at us! They going to pelt us with flower power!" But our navy helped win the Battle of the Altantic twice. We had the fourth largest navy in the world when WW2 ended.

Actually it was the Rainbow and the Niobe.

We should advertize the military and navy more. Does the army and navy pay for the soldiers education like the states? They should. Every Canadian should also do 1-2 years mandatory military service. Every Canadian who can do it of course.

Why should we do mandatory service? Conscription is on the way out in first world nations armed forces.

I think the USA and Britain have economies of scale that allow us to buy their equipment cheaper than we could make it at home.

Moreover, if building frigates in Canada means we have to give money to Irvings, no thank you.

We'll buy American and British if that's the case.

I agree 100%

[August1991]

Sometimes you eat in, and sometimes you order out. Same diff. I'm surprised we're even discussing this.

I am certain that absolutely nobody posting here made their own shirt. They bought it. IOW, they ordered out. Or outsourced the job. But I have friends who grow their own tomatos. Eating in.

Same principle applies to ships and BBM's "equipment".

Can we move on?

Every Canadian should also do 1-2 years mandatory military service. Every Canadian who can do it of course.

You want to impose a very strange tax. We won't pay money to the government, we'll pay with our time, two years! Will women have to pay this tax? Old guys?

-----

Moreover, if building frigates in Canada means we have to give money to Irvings, no thank you.

PS. The issue ain't fairness or equity.

[caesar]

I think it would be a good idea to start building our own navy ships. We do have chronic unemployment in the maritimes provinces and we are always paying out there extra EI etc. The fishing industry in pretty sad now I believe. Those submarines we bought from England were in much worse shape and cost too much to get into shape. We are surrounded by oceans; time we started building our own ships.

[Big Blue Machine]

It be ironic if we bought all our navy ships from other countries.

[Stoker]

I think it would be a good idea to start building our own navy ships. We do have chronic unemployment in the maritimes provinces and we are always paying out there extra EI etc.

But at what cost? IOW, whats cheaper paying out EI to ship builders and buying ships overseas or paying additional costs to build them at home and keep a few thousand workers employed?

The estimates for the program (CADRE) to replace four of our destroyers are in the ballpark of 5.2 billion dollars CDN or about 4 billion US. That translates into about a billion dollars (US) per ship, in the 5K-6K ton range.

Now compare that to the price of an American Burke class destroyer, which are more capable surface combatants then we plan to build, which has a price tag of about 900 million.

I'm all for getting a person that wants to work to work, but not if it means paying hundreds of millions (Billions?) of dollars, to purchase an inferior Canadian built product when it comes to defence.

Those submarines we bought from England were in much worse shape and cost too much to get into shape. We are surrounded by oceans; time we started building our own ships.

We have payed under a billion dollars for four Subs, if we had of built our own or bought them overseas, it would likely have cost close to a billion dollars per sub. We got capable subs for close to 75% off.

It be ironic if we bought all our navy ships from other countries.

Whats Ironic about it? I'd call it prudent if we bought cheaper, more capable American ships........

[Big Blue Machine]

Its ironic because Canada is surrounded by water.

[Stoker]

Its ironic because Canada is surrounded by water.

I still don't follow...............over 80% of the planet is water......so?

[August1991]

Surrounded? On one side, the water is frozen year round. On another side, the Americans and Brits ganged up to take away our coastline. On the third side, true there is water. The fourth side is land.

Anyway, most Canadians live near fresh water, not the ocean.

[takeanumber]

PS Most maritimers do NOT live in Saint John and ARE NOT shipbuilders.

I fail to see how giving more pork to the Irvings is going to solve anything.

Regards,

Takeanumber.

[caesar]

We have payed under a billion dollars for four Subs, if we had of built our own or bought them overseas, it would likely have cost close to a billion dollars per sub. We got capable subs for close to 75% off. 

Those subs are rotten and dangerous. What is it costing us to fix them and still have old outdated questionably safe subs.

You have no real basis for estimating what it would cost to build new ships here in Canada. The first may be expensive but costs can be trimmed and efficiency improved with experience.

[ceemes]

If a country like Iraq can design and build their own home grown MBT's and combat aircraft, then I don't why Canada can't.

Sure it would mean heavy investment in R&D along with plant building, but it could free us from buying hand me downs from the UK or factory seconds from the US.

First thing I 'd like to see is a Canadian designed and built rifle that has a heavier punch, better range and accuracy and reliability then the Canadianized M-16 piece of shit the forces are currently using. Call me biased, but I am from the FN-C1 generation, and believe that the old adage of there is no replacement for displacement is equally true for small arms rounds....ie....the 7.62 round will always top the pansy 5.56

[Stoker]

Those subs are rotten and dangerous. What is it costing us to fix them and still have old outdated questionably safe subs.

Please explain further. Whats rotten? Whats dangerous?

You have no real basis for estimating what it would cost to build new ships here in Canada. The first may be expensive but costs can be trimmed and efficiency improved with experience.

Thats the government's estimate, based on past purchases and current labour costs.

If a country like Iraq can design and build their own home grown MBT's and combat aircraft, then I don't why Canada can't.

Iraq bought and has Soviet tanks and aircraft

Sure it would mean heavy investment in R&D along with plant building, but it could free us from buying hand me downs from the UK or factory seconds from the US.

What hand me downs? What factory seconds?

First thing I 'd like to see is a Canadian designed and built rifle that has a heavier punch, better range and accuracy and reliability then the Canadianized M-16 piece of shit the forces are currently using.

Has there been any major problem reported with the current Diemaco design?

Call me biased, but I am from the FN-C1 generation, and believe that the old adage of there is no replacement for displacement is equally true for small arms rounds....ie....the 7.62 round will always top the pansy 5.56

5.56 is the NATO standard.........get over it.

[caesar]

What's dangerous about the used subs??

It was only when our submariners began to take possession of the British subs that things really began to unravel. Numerous embarrassing media reports surfaced about the project: all the hulls needed extensive re-welding, the British had sealed up torpedo tubes to prevent leaking, and it was discovered that at least one of the Upholders had a bent frame (indicating the sub had been involved in an undisclosed collision).

Last year, when CBC correspondent Dan Bjarnson set out to document the historic cross-Atlantic delivery of the first new sub, renamed HMCS Victoria, the trials and tribulations experienced by the crew turned the report into a comic adventure.

Equally hilarious was then-defence minister Art Eggleton, who was constantly trying to spin the sub purchase into something positive. After the discovery of yet another setback, which will delay the submarines from entering operational service until 2004, Eggleton delivered his master stroke. According to his logic, Canadian taxpayers should be happy that we not only saved money by buying used subs, but that the navy was continuing to save money by not deploying them. (Presumably, if these submarines were actually at sea, they would use fuel, the crew would consume rations, etc.)

[daniel]

If Canada built its own equipement, then we wouldn't have to buy ...

What do you people think?

What if Canada had viable design and manufacturing? Then came Dief the chief who killed the Arrow. And then came Pearson/Kennedy's Autopact which guaranteed manufacturing plants in Canada on the condition that Canada does not produce it's own automobile. And then came Mulroney's FTA which basically turned any other manufacturer into a warehouse, sealed the fate of Canadian resources to the control of the US market.

Any form of protection of Canadian resources for Canadian use was labelled "protectionism" and revolted against by Canadian resouce companies who want rather to sell overseas and by US manufacturers who want to control them.

I forgot the exact figures but at one point, one tree cut in BC yield one job while one tree cut in California yields five.

Today, Canada can be in the forefront of green energy technology with thousands of jobs created in many many fields. Guess what's holding that back?

What if Canada had viable design and manufacturing? Ask our governments who come up with the policies we got, the people who vote them in, and the lobbyists who brainwash us wth their narrowminded motives.

[Big Blue Machine]

Why don't we have a competition between a top Canadian shipbuilder, and a top American one, and picked the best. If the differences are big, I would go wit the Canadian one.

[August1991]

Any form of protection of Canadian resources for Canadian use was labelled "protectionism" and ....

What else is it supposed to be labelled?

I forgot the exact figures but at one point, one tree cut in BC yield one job while one tree cut in California yields five.

That makes Canada's labour productivity five times greater than California's!

Today, Canada can be in the forefront of green energy technology with thousands of jobs created in many many fields. Guess what's holding that back?

Uh... Protectionism?

What if Canada had viable design and manufacturing? Ask our governments who come up with the policies we got, the people who vote them in, and the lobbyists who brainwash us wth their narrowminded motives.

Do you mean Canada is a country of brainwashed automatons? Are you brainwashed?

Why don't we have a competition between a top Canadian shipbuilder, and a top American one, and picked the best.

I think that's what BC Ferries did. A German firm was deemed best.

[Stoker]

What's dangerous about the used subs??

QUOTE 

It was only when our submariners began to take possession of the British subs that things really began to unravel. Numerous embarrassing media reports surfaced about the project: all the hulls needed extensive re-welding, the British had sealed up torpedo tubes to prevent leaking, and it was discovered that at least one of the Upholders had a bent frame (indicating the sub had been involved in an undisclosed collision).

Last year, when CBC correspondent Dan Bjarnson set out to document the historic cross-Atlantic delivery of the first new sub, renamed HMCS Victoria, the trials and tribulations experienced by the crew turned the report into a comic adventure.

Equally hilarious was then-defence minister Art Eggleton, who was constantly trying to spin the sub purchase into something positive. After the discovery of yet another setback, which will delay the submarines from entering operational service until 2004, Eggleton delivered his master stroke. According to his logic, Canadian taxpayers should be happy that we not only saved money by buying used subs, but that the navy was continuing to save money by not deploying them. (Presumably, if these submarines were actually at sea, they would use fuel, the crew would consume rations, etc.) 

Have they not been fixed? HMCS Victoria has just finished her sea trails on the West Coast with no apparent problems. Once the shps have been "Canadainized", I've heard of no problems and any delays in getting the subs into service on time have been caused by tight budgets and lack of crewmen due to the war on terror.

And the fact of the mater doesn't change..........they were cheap and we now have three (soon to be four) modern submarines at bargin basement prices.......

Why don't we have a competition between a top Canadian shipbuilder, and a top American one, and picked the best. If the differences are big, I would go wit the Canadian one.

Why? None of the major Canadian shipbuilders could hold a candle to Northrop Grumman.........infact, all Canadian shipbuilders combined couldn't match Northrop's production...........As I said above, thats why the United States can build cheaper, more capable ships then Canada.

I think that's what BC Ferries did. A German firm was deemed best.

I think it was a Polish firm, regardless the point still stands, in that if a private company deems it cheaper to build a flat bottom ferry in Eastern Europe, I can't see how anybody can justify building something as complex as a warship in Canada anymore.

[idealisttotheend]

Have they not been fixed? HMCS Victoria has just finished her sea trails on the West Coast with no apparent problems. Once the shps have been "Canadainized", I've heard of no problems and any delays in getting the subs into service on time have been caused by tight budgets and lack of crewmen due to the war on terror.

I think casear's point was that they barely got the damn things across the ocean as they started leaking (quite bad in a submarine and one of them managed 500 litres). The cost of repairs is at least 200 million over budget and they are way behind the original schedule. In short this was no great deal and as with all things you get what you pay for.

I think it was a Polish firm, regardless the point still stands, in that if a private company deems it cheaper to build a flat bottom ferry in Eastern Europe, I can't see how anybody can justify building something as complex as a warship in Canada anymore

Defence contracts are valuable not only for the cost of just building the thing, but for the technological spinoffs and such that they breed. Furthermore military production can be combined with civilian production to achieve the require economy of scale. So say if ferries and destroyers were built in Canada you could probably get the required effeciencies. Furthermore you might even be able to export some things.

[Stoker]

I think casear's point was that they barely got the damn things across the ocean as they started leaking (quite bad in a submarine and one of them managed 500 litres). The cost of repairs is at least 200 million over budget and they are way behind the original schedule. In short this was no great deal and as with all things you get what you pay for.

And my point still stands........they are fine after a refit, and even if they are 200 million over budget, thats still 2.5-3 billion dollars cheaper then if we purchased "new" subs.

Defence contracts are valuable not only for the cost of just building the thing, but for the technological spinoffs and such that they breed. Furthermore military production can be combined with civilian production to achieve the require economy of scale. So say if ferries and destroyers were built in Canada you could probably get the required effeciencies. Furthermore you might even be able to export some things.

How? We set-up a production run for 3-4 Destroyers, how is that going to even match the effeciencies from an American run of over 60. Not to mention the fact that we operate with Americans often, so why not use the exact same equpiment, for the ease of training and logistics (not to mention the increased capablitiy) as the Americans?

[idealisttotheend]

How? We set-up a production run for 3-4 Destroyers, how is that going to even match the effeciencies from an American run of over 60. Not to mention the fact that we operate with Americans often, so why not use the exact same equpiment, for the ease of training and logistics (not to mention the increased capablitiy) as the Americans?

Saul states in Volataire's Bastards that standardization with respect to NATO is really a way for the world's largest arms exporter to sell more arms and I am not sure I disagree. I'd also put to you that a nation with 3-4 destroyers has markedly different needs for those vessels than a country with hundreds.

I see your point that it would be difficult to set up a production run for 3-4 destroyers unless you could find a comprable civilian hull to base it on. We had a hell of a time with the frigates though I blame the 'unique' plan of building half the thing in Quebec and half in the Mariatimes. Still, there are options. You could make a deal with Gruman to make a component of the destoryer's production run or you could work within the NATO alliance to ensure that say we produce destroyers for the NATO countries and another produces the tanks etc. etc. so that production is shared fairly equally, by countries with specific core competencies while still being efficient. We get left out since the European's have their consortiums and America is, well, America.

In short I think defence procurement like all trade should be based on a variant of the Auto Pact, for each unit bought in country, a comparably valued unit should be produced in country. I know you are strong supporter of increased defence spending (as am I but probably not as strong) so you should consider that defence spending might make a lot more political sense if the money stayed in Canada and created jobs of some sort or another.

[Stoker]

Saul states in Volataire's Bastards that standardization with respect to NATO is really a way for the world's largest arms exporter to sell more arms and I am not sure I disagree.

.........or the idea behind NATO standardization could be that it was to simplify the logitisics train in the time of war Call me crazy.

I'd also put to you that a nation with 3-4 destroyers has markedly different needs for those vessels than a country with hundreds.

And what needs would those be? We need a Destroyer designed to counter all threats posed towards it from the air, land, surface and sub surface of the sea, and added to it's list recently, the ablitiy to defend against ICBMs. The Americans have that destroyer, and it just so happens to be the best of the best and cheaper and more capable then anything we could build.

In short I think defence procurement like all trade should be based on a variant of the Auto Pact, for each unit bought in country, a comparably valued unit should be produced in country. I know you are strong supporter of increased defence spending (as am I but probably not as strong) so you should consider that defence spending might make a lot more political sense if the money stayed in Canada and created jobs of some sort or another.

To be honest, I don't care if there are any "fringe benefits" when it comes to national defence if it means that we are/would be paying more money then nessary on a piece of equipment that is inferior when compared towards an American counterpart.

The numbers/results don't lie. The Americans make the best of the best in almost every defence system. You spoke of European defence contractors.......case in point the "new" Eurofighter. This aircraft (along with comparable French and Russian aircraft) have only now been able to start competeing with the American F-15......The F-15 was desigend in the early 70s.....

Now perhaps we could arrange some form of industrail offsets if we "buy American". That would be good, but shouldn't be a deal breaker that will force us to "buy Canadian".

[idealisttotheend]

And what needs would those be? We need a Destroyer designed to counter all threats posed towards it from the air, land, surface and sub surface of the sea, and added to it's list recently, the ablitiy to defend against ICBMs. The Americans have that destroyer, and it just so happens to be the best of the best and cheaper and more capable then anything we could build.

I don't know much about the destoyer in question but the Americans tend to deploy their navy in task groups and Canadian vessels operate either alone or in very small task groups. So maybe the requirements are the same but that was my point.

The numbers/results don't lie. The Americans make the best of the best in almost every defence system. You spoke of European defence contractors.......case in point the "new" Eurofighter. This aircraft (along with comparable French and Russian aircraft) have only now been able to start competeing with the American F-15......The F-15 was desigend in the early 70s.....

The American's have the most money for R and D. They do have the best systems now but historically they have not always been the best. The Zero and Mig 29 were both better than their American counterparts at the time. The Patriot system was considered less than effective in 1991, the Sparrow never worked all that well etc. etc. The Europeans are feeling their way through since they have bought American for the last fifty years and are now trying to reestablish an industry. The competition will be good for everyone involved.

To be honest, I don't care if there are any "fringe benefits" when it comes to national defence if it means that we are/would be paying more money then nessary on a piece of equipment that is inferior when compared towards an American counterpart.

If you think about it's pretty hard to pay more for a piece of equipment. After all labour costs are usually 70-80% of the costs and of that money those labourers pay taxes back to same government (at a rate of nearly 50%) so really that leaves you a lot of wiggle room. I still think having each NATO country build one system (the States can build four or five given their economic size ) would be the best way.