Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 I just really think we aren't spending enough money on the military or the airforce. Australia is really where we should be headed, though we should do it over the next 10 years. We need increased capabilities in terms of afloat logistics and various areas of the airforce. I'd simply like to see more. As I said, all programs in various stages of progress.........The RCAF has had a stated requirement for actual strategic airlift since the 1960s (Once the Starlifters entered service with the USAF), likewise a replacement for tactical airlift......programs completed under the current Government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 We're not even considering amphibious vessels or AEWC, things that other nations are seeing as very important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 We're not even considering amphibious vessels or AEWC, things that other nations are seeing as very important. That's not exactly true.......the CP-140s provide many of the same functions as both an AWACS and JSTAR, in addition to their traditional role.....likewise the Government will be purchasing shortly ~4 Battlefield ISR aircraft........With the RCN, it (along with the army) has conducted annual amphibious training with the Americans (for nearly a decade) and most recently the French: By happenstance, the RCN had tire kickers aboard RFA Larges Bay, likewise the Mistral class.......just because its not reported by the media (or in the public sphere) doesn't mean its not happening.........or being explored in the very least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 I guess I haven't been paying much attention lately...but I'll still believe that we're pursuing amphibious capability when I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 I guess I haven't been paying much attention lately...but I'll still believe that we're pursuing amphibious capability when I see it. That is fine, but your skepticism is largely unfounded, a rudimentary capability will be afforded by the arrival of the AOPS........an actual capability could happen sooner then you might expect (of course if you think never, there is quite the wiggle room present) Of course its all dependent upon (elected) Government direction, budgetary realities and what could fall into our laps........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 I don't know if ships designed for Russia are what we need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 I don't know if ships designed for Russia are what we need. Yes and no.........electrical and electronics...not some much, but heightened hangers and ice hardened hull.......if the price to both purchase and Canadianize them isn't too great, it could very well happen, to say nothing of granting the PM an eye poke to Putin... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Yes and no.........electrical and electronics...not some much, but heightened hangers and ice hardened hull.......if the price to both purchase and Canadianize them isn't too great, it could very well happen, to say nothing of granting the PM an eye poke to Putin... Harper tried that eye poke to putin. He just came off looking like a dumb farm boy....again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Harper tried that eye poke to putin. He just came off looking like a dumb farm boy....again. No one saw it that way but you. In fact, I've never once heard that opinion before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Yes and no.........electrical and electronics...not some much, but heightened hangers and ice hardened hull.......if the price to both purchase and Canadianize them isn't too great, it could very well happen, to say nothing of granting the PM an eye poke to Putin... Well that's actually rather exciting. Even 1 of the ships would bring huge capability to the Canadian Forces...of course there is the problem of what Putin would do in retaliation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 I generally trust your opinion on military stuff, even if I still think you were wrong about Ebola Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 I've always been a fan of the Mistral class. I think it would work really well for Canada, given that it was designed for use in the Atlantic by a country that has a history in designing this kind of ship...I'm not sure though if an offshore purchase would be politically acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 No one saw it that way but you. In fact, I've never once heard that opinion before. Oh, because you never heard it before you can assume no one else saw it? Got news for ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Show me something that your opinion is shared by anyone with a balanced opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 I've always been a fan of the Mistral class. I think it would work really well for Canada, given that it was designed for use in the Atlantic by a country that has a history in designing this kind of ship...I'm not sure though if an offshore purchase would be politically acceptable. I'm not a huge fan of all things French, but if both could be had for less than 1.5 billion purchase, then Canadianized for that again, they would make in certain missions an ideal replacement for the 280s (in terms of a C&C asset), and if fitted with more extensive RAS gear, a stand-in AOR.......to say nothing of their actual intended purpose....... Politically, the "Canadianization" would take place in Canadian yards, likewise continual support (they would fit into the Vic-Ship graving dock, probably require a floating drydock out East), likewise, as mentioned discourage Putin, well weakening the Russian navy......they wouldn't be my first choice, but would be better than our current LHDs.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 The Mistral just seems like a well designed ship that fits it's intended purpose. I actually would have preferred the smaller version of the ships, but if we can get these, I won't complain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Show me something that your opinion is shared by anyone with a balanced opinion. I'm certainly no fan of Putin's but Harper's feeble attempt to try and look tough and get a photo op was laughable. All talk, no action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 I'm certainly no fan of Putin's but Harper's feeble attempt to try and look tough and get a photo op was laughable. All talk, no action. Did you want him to invade Russia? Who is doing more than Canada on this file? We have personnel and aircraft in Eastern Europe and the heaviest sanctions of any country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Did you want him to invade Russia? Who is doing more than Canada on this file? We have personnel and aircraft in Eastern Europe and the heaviest sanctions of any country. 6 F 18's in Romania and a frigate in the Med. Whoopee! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Why would you be "upset" once the Government of Canada purchases the F-35? I might not be - that's the point - until I see what we're actually buying - and for how much, there's no real reason to be upset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Quite obviously the elected government guided by technical experts who are not just the people who are about to shove a truckload of my dollars into their pockets. The only technical experts the government has are the people at DND who are telling them to buy the F-35. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 The scathing report by the AG on this file claims, to start with, that there are actually guidelines on how to accurately project the costs of a project. Sure. I've no doubt governments know how much it costs to operate a bus for years too, including all the fuel, spare parts, insurance, the cost of the driver, the garage, etc. But it's never a part of the announced cost. Ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Bottom line, single source procurement not a good idea, especially with such an expensive program. It's worked quite well in the past. Single sourced does not mean you don't have a look at what else you can get for what price. It just means there isn't a formal bidding competition. You single source all your purchases. Why shouldn't the government do it, on occasion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Wow, now I'm impressed....and that's not sarcasm. You're impressed they're paying $1.7 billion for a $200 million airplane? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 This is why I have no respect for the media: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/conservative-government-looks-at-purchasing-another-c-17-transport-aircraft-for-the-rcaf Questioning why the costs are so high (those are lifecycle costs) when they criticized the government for not reporting lifecycle costs in the past (F-35). Maybe because it's a stupid way to announce a cost? Would you tell people you just bought a Hyundai for $150,000 because you're including all costs including the snow removal on your driveway for the next ten years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.