What if Canadian built its own built equipement?

[caesar]

And if we don't get started building our own ships we will never get the experience and efficiency. We have intelligent engineers here in Canada that are just as good as anywhere else. Many are much superior.

When money is spent within our own country much of that money returns to the government coffers through taxation. You cannot do a straight comparison in price when in effect the work done in Canada results in refund in the form of taxes paid.

[ceemes]

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 What is it costing us to fix them and still have old outdated questionably safe subs.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?

They required extensive reworking and retrofitting to make them safe and seaworthy.

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.

Canadian naval designers, both in hardware and software have designed and built the most modern Frigates on the seas today. The Halifax Class Patrol Frigates even outshine the American Aegis Class Destroyers and Cruisers for fire control, target tracking and fire power for size.

Even the old 280 Tribal Class destroys were ground breaking when they were first laid down.

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

This is true, however they have since designed and built their own MBT's and combat 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?

Hand me down used patrol subs from the RN, sub that required a huge amount of refitting to make them seaworthy and safe.

Factory seconds as in CF-18's and other US equipment.

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?

It an overly complicated design and easily disabled. Plus it is still very subsceptable to jamming, espeically if you put a full load into the magazine, or fire for an extended time. Basically it is easily fouled by bit of dirt or burnt powder. A buddy of mine was in Yugoslavia the the PPCLI and they got into a minor firefight with one of the factions there.....and a number of their rifles jammed more then once. The FN was a good rugged and simple weapon and could take a lot of abuse.

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.

Standard or not...its still a pansy round compared to the old standard of 7.62....it has less effective range, less hitting power, less penitrating power and there is some concern that the round fragments too easily, causing what they call inhumane wounds.

[Cartman]

I believe Caesar has a strong point. If we never try to build some of our own hardware, then we will never generate a domestic industry and will always be dependent upon others. If we lose $$ in the short term, I suspect that it will be recaptured in the long run. At some point in time, we need to start helping ourselves rather than letting the UK and the US do it for us.

[daniel]

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

What else is it supposed to be labelled?

You didn't finish the sentence.

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!?

Wrong. The one job is the forrester who cut the tree. Take another guess what the extra four are in California that's not in Canada.

[

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?!?

Wrong. Right-wingers and thier big business lobbyists.

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?

A typical childish response.

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..

That's not my quote but then again why doesn't Canada have manufacturing?

[Stoker]

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.

I see what you are saying, but in the case of American requirements vs. ours, I'd rather go for any "overkill" on the cheaper American product, then "underkill" on a Canadian one.

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.

I see your point here also, but as I said above (for the most part) the Americans are one (or more) generations ahead in most areas. I rather not buy today's equipment tommorow.........

And if we don't get started building our own ships we will never get the experience and efficiency. We have intelligent engineers here in Canada that are just as good as anywhere else. Many are much superior.

When money is spent within our own country much of that money returns to the government coffers through taxation. You cannot do a straight comparison in price when in effect the work done in Canada results in refund in the form of taxes paid.

I see what your saying, but I guess we must agree to disagree on turning defence spending into government hand-outs.

They required extensive reworking and retrofitting to make them safe and seaworthy.

Are they not safe now? Have we payed more money then it would cost us to build a German or Swedish design?

Canadian naval designers, both in hardware and software have designed and built the most modern Frigates on the seas today. The Halifax Class Patrol Frigates even outshine the American Aegis Class Destroyers and Cruisers for fire control, target tracking and fire power for size.

Outshine Aegis? What version? Why are we replacing our current fire control system with a complete different one, as oipposed to upgrading it like the Americans are doing with Aegis?

Target tracking? The current radar, unlike Aegis, can't track ICBMs and I'd question if it could track next generation super sonic Russian cruise misslies.

Fire Power? The CPF at 5k + plus tons has/will have 16 ESSMs, two quad Harpoon launchers, 57mm gun, CIWS and torpedoes.

The Burke at 9k + tons has 96 mk41 VLS cells that can equiped with Standard SM-2 and SM-3, Tomahawk, and ESSM (with just ESSM, the total would be 384!), a 5 inch gun, 2 CIWS, 2 25mm guns and torepdoes.

Whats to compare?

This is true, however they have since designed and built their own MBT's and combat aircraft.

Such as?

Hand me down used patrol subs from the RN, sub that required a huge amount of refitting to make them seaworthy and safe.

.......but still cheaper then buying new and most likely if we didn't get them, our Navy would have none today.

Factory seconds as in CF-18's and other US equipment.

Define seconds? We were the first forgein operater of the Hornet.

[Hawk]

I believe it all boils down to this: you get what you pay for.

Simply put, if we spend the billions to get good quality up-to-date equipment we will actually be spending the money well. Whereas purchasing or repairing old faulty equipment has constant costs, minimum efficiency and use, in addition to major operator risk (sea king anyone?)

I personally would rather spend a couple billion on a good new sub than spend hundreds of millions on a sub that couldn't do a dam thing should it be needed (for some reason or another, perhaps because it leaked?)

I agree with those who say we should develop our own Canadian-based companies and corporations to make our own equipment, but again that will cost loooots of taxpayer dollars.. and I highly doubt your gonna convince that homeless drunk that Canadian independance and national security is more important than his homeless shelter+booze =p

Bottom line is that in order for us to get anywhere serious money is going to be needed, and unless someone is willing to put it forward things are just going to get worse. Patching a problem eventually reaches a point where it would have been cheaper to buy new, this will happen with us as well (I swear, with all the outdated equipment the Canadian military has, I can't understand how people can think that employing thousands of mechanics to constantly be fixing faulty old systems and custom-ordering out-of-date parts for outrageous prices is better than upgrading)

Thats my two cents