bush_cheney2004 Posted March 13, 2016 Report Posted March 13, 2016 It's a redo of a concept from the early seventies like the B737 900 owes its origins to the B737 100 of the sixties, not a completely new type like the Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale, F-35 or Bombardier's C series. Agreed...the Super Hornet is the bastard child of circumstances in U.S. procurement programs and budgets. If it was such a good solution, Canada would have purchased them years ago and saved billions of dollars on CF-18 upgrades. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Army Guy Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 Sure, but then most of the money is reinvested in the economy and is available to government. I'm in favour of building off shore, but there are definite positives to keeping our industry. But not their warships. The whole program that the Conservatives started is based on lessons learned last time. So there should be no issues of investing the additional dollars the program is going to need. I've had this same discussion with Derek, the are positives to building ships here, but I think we loose fact of the main objective which is to give our navy guys the best ships for their money...But then again that is never the main priority is it.... No not their Warships, but then again the already have a world class ship building program, that has and is building world class ships..... What lessons did they learn, was it a ship building program is very expensive to maintain, to keep employees current is hard to do unless they building warships....that maintaining the facilities is expensive....And yet Irving sold it all off, release most of the experience workers, and went to work building what fishing boats....not just Irving but on the navy side as well those with experience are gone....as are the ship rights and other experts.... Many of the other nations offered to build what ever we wanted, including France and Germany and i'm sure Britain would be on board if we had asked..to build a better warship, with more capabilities, for cheaper.... Want an employment project lets start with our infra structure....not with gaining back an art that we lost, at the expense of the navy... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Smallc Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 So there should be no issues of investing the additional dollars the program is going to need. There is still only so much money. No government program ever gets all the money wanted, nor should it. There has to be some kind of restraint. What lessons did they learn, was it a ship building program is very expensive to maintain, to keep employees current is hard to do unless they building warships We let the capability atrophy. A slow continuous build will prevent that. We can't have all the ships we need right now as a result, but over the long term, that's a good thing. The Conservatives started the program a few years too late, that's the real problem at the moment. Many of the other nations offered to build what ever we wanted, including France and Germany and i'm sure Britain would be on board if we had asked..to build a better warship, with more capabilities, for cheaper.... So they say. When you account for money lost from the economy, I don't see it being cheaper. Want an employment project lets start with our infra structure. I assume that means you voted for Trudeau. Quote
Wilber Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 (edited) We let the capability atrophy. A slow continuous build will prevent that. We can't have all the ships we need right now as a result, but over the long term, that's a good thing. The Conservatives started the program a few years too late, that's the real problem at the moment. That would be the smart way to do it but that is not what our governments do, Liberal or Conservative. There is no commitment to such industry, we just wait till stuff wears out before we think about replacing it. I don't see that changing. Edited March 14, 2016 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
kimmy Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 Is that true? Other countries do the same thing as well. Military industrial complexes are an important part of quite a few economies. ... That's right, or you wouldn't have had a split of the Type 45 from the Horizon, the NH90, the Rafale spilt from the Typhoon, etc. Canadians are really a grass is greener on the other side bunch. Sure, other countries do the same thing, but not all of them. I think that most of the Arab countries, for example, just buy the planes because they're not under the illusion that they'll build a national avionics industry if they try to gravy-train enough local contractors into their purchase. Brazil just bought off-the-shelf (so to speak) Gripens... I gather the Czech Republic didn't even buy their Gripens, they're leasing them instead. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Smallc Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 That would be the smart way to do it but that is not what our governments do, Liberal or Conservative. There is no commitment to such industry, we just wait till stuff wears out before we think about replacing it. I don't see that changing. The whole idea behind the NSPS was to change that. Quote
kimmy Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 As SC alluded to, you would have to do a much more in-depth economic analysis than just looking at the sticker price. Money that stays in our economy will swirl around the system and be spent thousands of times. Capital flight on the other hand builds the current account deficit. Even if our own ships cost twice as much and are of slightly lower quality it might be a wise macro-economic decision to build VS buy. I'm nothing saying it IS... just saying it COULD be. Same goes for the F35. We probably cant build a GEN5 fighter that's comparable. But 95% of what our air force does is fly routine patrols, and we could build a plane that does THAT... and keep tens of billions in our economy plus spin-off industries, etc. What if instead of buying F35s or embarking on a ridiculous mission to build our own jet fighter, we bought an existing product? If we decided that we needed to stimulate the economy as well as buy jet fighters, then we could dump the bags of money we saved into the streets. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Topaz Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 I've heard it through the grapevine that some in Canada want to bring back the Arrow but update it. On the other hand, to keep up with other countries... Russia has a very outstanding fighter.......................... http://www.inquisitr.com/1638419/russian-stealth-fighter-jet-super-weapon/ Quote
segnosaur Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 I've heard it through the grapevine that some in Canada want to bring back the Arrow but update it. Some might want to do it, but it would be a really foolish idea. The Arrow was a very specialized plane... designed to fly really fast in one direction in order to intercept Russian planes. Its ability to maneuver or engage in ground targets (as our planes are sometimes called on to do) was very limited. Plus, computer technology has changed so much that all of its avionics would need to be completely replaced. Any attempt to 'update' the plane to give it a more all-around capability would probably require so many changes that you'd be better off scrapping the designs and starting from scratch. On the other hand, to keep up with other countries... Russia has a very outstanding fighter.......................... http://www.inquisitr.com/1638419/russian-stealth-fighter-jet-super-weapon/ First of all, I would hesitate in calling the Russian TA-50 PAK FA an 'outstanding fighter'. It is still in the development phase (Its not even at the same stage as the F35), and there are significant questions regarding its capabilities. India is involved in the program, but flight engineers there called the engineering on the plane "unacceptable". There have been issues with the engines, and its thought that while the plane is going for 'stealth', the avionics are not what you would expect from a 5th generation fighter. It should also be pointed out that the Russians themselves have cut back their expected purchase of the plane, and are expected to only buy a dozen of them for their own air force. (Since the plane isn't in production, its not known how much they will cost, but it will possibly be in the $100+ million range, more than the F35.) http://www.defenceaviation.com/2014/01/indian-air-force-not-happy-with-sukhoi-t-50pak-fafgfa.html http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/india-and-russia-fail-to-resolve-dispute-over-fifth-generation-fighter-jet/ http://www.janes.com/article/58166/singapore-airshow-2016-analysis-pak-fa-s-asian-export-hopes-stymied-by-lack-of-fifth-generation-qualities Secondly, what exactly is the relevance? Canada would be extremely foolish to select a Russian plane regardless of the quality. While its doubtful we will ever get into a "shooting war" with the Russians, its certainly possible that we might end up having to deal with things like trade sanctions (e.g. over Russia's handling of the Ukraine), and I'd rather not be in a situation where we can't get spare parts because Putin is being a putz. Quote
segnosaur Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 That is a major problem with any military purchase, it is not just the fact we want to buy a piece of equipment, but it must also provide a whole slew of of other conditions as well, It must provide jobs in Canada , it has to have a percentage of Canadian content, it needs to provide a large percentage of off shoots for Canada in other industry areas, such as if the contract is worth x bil , the contractor must also spend x amount in Canada....There is a lot more conditions each contractor must live up to...all of it must be met or no sale... I wish it was as simple as you suggested, but it is not often the equipment we want is not available because of the above conditions and we settle for something DND really don't want.. It is true that sometimes the issue of job creation takes a back seat to what the military actually needs, which is unfortunate. But, I don't think that's the issue here. If anyone has any contradictory information I could be convinced otherwise, but from what I've heard, the Military (or at least the air force portion) is in favor of the F35. So, its a case where the military request actually might actually match the option that could generate the best industrial benefits. Quote
segnosaur Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 What if instead of buying F35s or embarking on a ridiculous mission to build our own jet fighter, we bought an existing product? -k I guess the big question is, why NOT try to get some industrial benefit from buying the F35? Assuming multiple options that equally suit our needs and roughly equal costs, doesn't it make sense to pick the one that could end up giving some economic boost to our own country? Granted it does make plane comparisons a little more difficult, but if we're dealing with a multi-billion dollar program I'm sure a little extra paperwork shouldn't be a deal breaker. If we decided that we needed to stimulate the economy as well as buy jet fighters, then we could dump the bags of money we saved into the streets. The problem is, even if we ignored the benefits of stimulating the economy, the alternatives might be more expensive in the long run. The Typhoon and Rafale already have a higher fly-away cost than the F35 (depending on the model), and while other planes may appear cheaper, they will likely end up being orphan planes, potentially making long-term costs higher. Even without the benefits of economic stimulation, the F35 is probably the best choice. The industrial side benefits are just icing on the cake. Mmmmmm... cake. Quote
Army Guy Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 There is still only so much money. No government program ever gets all the money wanted, nor should it. There has to be some kind of restraint. Exactly my point, There is only a limited amount of resources, we've always known that and yet we continue to add conditions that soak these resources up. Job creation nice concept but when the Ship building program was it created, was funding attached to it for the purpose to creating jobs....was funding attached to it to cover grants and loans made to ship builders so they could improve there ship yards to actually build war ships....Some say, today that the ship building program is vastly under funded, and to achieve that goal originally set out bils more will be needed...If there is no more funding coming, then the original plan is worth nothing more than paper it is written on, DND will be forced to trim the fat, meaning less ships or less capabilities.... Had we just gone ahead and had say Germany build us something similar as say one of the new Meko class, or another design we could have provided the navy with All the ships the original asked for, with all the capabilities we could only dream of and saved bils ....And as Kimmy suggested dumped those savings into other projects that will create jobs else where.... We let the capability atrophy. A slow continuous build will prevent that. We can't have all the ships we need right now as a result, but over the long term, that's a good thing. The Conservatives started the program a few years too late, that's the real problem at the moment. Yes we did, Problem with a long term building program , while it solves the issues of employment , maintaining ship building capabilities is that the costs go up every year, have those costs been added to the forecasted funding ? along with new tech improvements, 5 years from now new tech might change our cofiguation of the ship, or change the capabilities of a ship....or the threat may change....there is a lot to consider and only so much funding....then to add to all these problems we add in job creation, and some crazy scheme to re build a ship building industry, that in most cases will fade into the sun set once the last naval ves is built....Why not just come to the realization that that industry is long gone....and move on....what is next building our own aircraft, because long ago we were good at it .....waste of money.... So they say. When you account for money lost from the economy, I don't see it being cheaper. Maybe you should look again, use the funding saved for other projects, or infra structure upgrades.....build jobs and get our infra structure repaired.... I assume that means you voted for Trudeau No, I voted Con, but Trudeau does not own the idea of infra structure improvements or a vehicle for job creation....And to be honest with you I thought Trudeau would have bombed long before now, but I guess there is more to him than being a school teacher good on him, and I hope he truly does fix a lot of the problems this nation has.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 It is true that sometimes the issue of job creation takes a back seat to what the military actually needs, which is unfortunate. But, I don't think that's the issue here. If anyone has any contradictory information I could be convinced otherwise, but from what I've heard, the Military (or at least the air force portion) is in favor of the F35. So, its a case where the military request actually might actually match the option that could generate the best industrial benefits. Your absolutely right, This one project is a rare thing, Some would say the specs of what the military wanted were written to rule out most aircraft. When the military asks for a new piece of equipment it does through writing up a specs request....it does not mention any name, or brand or manufacture, just specs, I need it to do this, fly this fast, carry this and that....it is PWSG a civilian organization that goes out and rounds up everything that comes close to those specs....A while the military will test everything, even make recommendations, but the final say is made by government...who will squeeze every dollar out of a program it can, to ensure it has Canadian content, Canadian jobs, etc etc ...the end result normally ends up being something that DND has passed over, or bottom of the pack.....Kind of like your wife picking out your tools.... In the case of the F-35 is unique because nobody is offering a similar product.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Wilber Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 Canada's military isn't large enough to support an industry that builds major weapons systems. If we want such an industry, we will need to build stuff that other countries want to buy, like Saab and BAE etc. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
dre Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 Why not just come to the realization that that industry is long gone....and move on....what is next building our own aircraft, because long ago we were good at it .....waste of money.... The problem is that you could ask that same question about a number of industries. Almost everything Canadians do besides part of the services sector could be off-shored to the lowest global bidder. But if we keep doing that until we don't produce anything then our currency will decline against the currencies of productive nations and we will no longer be able to afford their imports... and well be left with nothing but a bunch of rusty shuttered factories. Economic development should be a consideration for every single dollar our government spends. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Army Guy Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 The problem is that you could ask that same question about a number of industries. Almost everything Canadians do besides part of the services sector could be off-shored to the lowest global bidder. But if we keep doing that until we don't produce anything then our currency will decline against the currencies of productive nations and we will no longer be able to afford their imports... and well be left with nothing but a bunch of rusty shuttered factories. Economic development should be a consideration for every single dollar our government spends. So we are down to drawing a line in the sand. which happens to be ship building ? we haven't built war ships in over 20 years. As far as the defense industry goes here in Canada it is already filled with rusted out factories.....sure there is a few examples left....Such as GD LAV plant....our small arms plant in Quebec....a very few small un heard of companies making armoured cars.....And even those few companies do not enjoy a level of support from Canadians see LAV's sold to Saudi....It's not like this all happened yesterday, most of these industries have been closed forever and a day....the last fighter to be produced in Canada was what exactly ? the last combat ship was when ? the last tank, or major army piece of equipment is when? Our military contracts are not worth gearing up a major industry to produce long term.....nor are they ready to compete on the international market.....But hey...here in Canada we waste money to employ a few guys with bils of tax dollars the real winners here are going to be the Irvings and other ship yards who keep there money off shore.... If Canada does not have the stomach nor financial strength to compete in these industries then why bother....So we are left with they create jobs and it is good for the economy as the funding stays in Canada....well most of it stays in Canada, the wages earned from Canadian workers, most of the other companies are HQ's in other nations....and the Irvings well most of their wealth is hidden in banks off shore.... So is saving bils in dollars in contract costs and using it to actually create more jobs than the few created in ship yards.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Wilber Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 If we are going to have a defence industry, let's try and make it a real business instead of just another exercise in pork. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 If we are going to have a defence industry, let's try and make it a real business instead of just another exercise in pork. Canadian defence products are sold all over the world. It's in the tens of billions of dollars. Quote
Wilber Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 Canadian defence products are sold all over the world. It's in the tens of billions of dollars. We haven't developed and built one major weapons system that has been sold outside Canada. When was the last time we developed and built one period? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 I'll give you one if you want to call it a major system. LAV series armored vehicles were sold to New Zealand and the US. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 https://www.defenceandsecurity.ca/UserFiles/File/IE/KPMG.pdf Page 6 Canadian defence sales are 50/50 domestic and foreign. The industry exports almost $6.5B worth of equipment and services every year. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 Canadian defence products are sold all over the world. It's in the tens of billions of dollars. Yes, they are, but it is almost done apologetically because of domestic politics. Canada's war materials exports to the United States are purposely obscured and hidden from public review or disclosure. Why ? Here is a recent example for arms exports to Thailand...note the tone of the article: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-thai-army-has-bought-millions-of-dollars-of-canadian-weapons-since-2010 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 (edited) I'll give you one if you want to call it a major system. LAV series armored vehicles were sold to New Zealand and the US. https://www.defenceandsecurity.ca/UserFiles/File/IE/KPMG.pdf Page 20 breaks it down by sector. The LAV is a huge part of the industry, as are aerospace products. LM Canada recently upgraded New Zealand's Anzac class ships with the package used on the Halifax class. There are many things going on. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/new-zealands-anzac-frigates-getting-a-combat-upgrade-023815/ Edited March 15, 2016 by Smallc Quote
Smallc Posted March 14, 2016 Report Posted March 14, 2016 Here is a recent example for arms exports to Thailand...note the tone of the article: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-thai-army-has-bought-millions-of-dollars-of-canadian-weapons-since-2010 An anti war media organization will tend to do that. Nice try. Quote
Wilber Posted March 15, 2016 Report Posted March 15, 2016 https://www.defenceandsecurity.ca/UserFiles/File/IE/KPMG.pdf[/url]Page 6Canadian defence sales are 50/50 domestic and foreign. The industry exports almost $6.5B worth of equipment and services every year. But it is mostly components, not systems like ships, aircraft, missile systems etc.That's not bad but it is far from building the whole thing from the ground up. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
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.