Canada's screwed up warship competition

[Johnny]

Unless you just want a fishing boat with a shot gun on the front? We have to be the country to join the Ausies, British, to come up with the state of the art fighting ship. Used battle boats are hard to come by, if they are still afloat. We made the mistake with the sub's so the future is going to be a very contentious place.

I am for the new ships.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Johnny said:

Unless you just want a fishing boat with a shot gun on the front? We have to be the country to join the Ausies, British, to come up with the state of the art fighting ship. Used battle boats are hard to come by, if they are still afloat. We made the mistake with the sub's so the future is going to be a very contentious place.

I am for the new ships.

If you had read what I wrote, there are proven warship designs out there and we were offered several. That includes the French-Italian consortium whose frigates are good enough the US is now going to build a version of them. They would have built them for $40b less than we are intending to some day build these new ships -  which will now arrive in something like nine or ten years.

[Army Guy]

Both the Aussies and the Brits are building their Type 26 for less than what Irving is charging us, and both of those ships have far better capabilities than ours. it is costing us more than twice as much to have it built here in Canada. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Both the Aussies and the Brits are building their Type 26 for less than what Irving is charging us, and both of those ships have far better capabilities than ours. it is costing us more than twice as much to have it built here in Canada. 

The Irving family have owned the Liberals for decades.

[Aristides]

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Both the Aussies and the Brits are building their Type 26 for less than what Irving is charging us, and both of those ships have far better capabilities than ours. it is costing us more than twice as much to have it built here in Canada. 

I don't know that they have better capabilities. The Aussi and Brit ships put more of an emphasis on anti aircraft and missile defence where the Canadian ships have more anti shipping and land capability. Underwater capability seems about the same.

[Aristides]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

If you had read what I wrote, there are proven warship designs out there and we were offered several. That includes the French-Italian consortium whose frigates are good enough the US is now going to build a version of them. They would have built them for $40b less than we are intending to some day build these new ships -  which will now arrive in something like nine or ten years.

The US can do that, they have all kinds of different ships for different jobs. We are building one ship that has to do everything.

[bush_cheney2004]

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The US can do that, they have all kinds of different ships for different jobs. We are building one ship that has to do everything.

 

The most important mission for these new frigates in Canada is....jobs and votes...same as any other defence procurement.   A dysfunctional process by design, just add this program to a long list of previous procurement fiascos.

[DogOnPorch]

6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The most important mission for these new frigates in Canada is....jobs and votes...same as any other defence procurement.   A dysfunctional process by design, just add this program to a long list of previous procurement fiascos.

 

We'll take forever to pick a new jet...and then pick the wrong one. Can't see surface ships being any different than helicopters, submarines and f/w aircraft.

Edited February 19, 2021 by DogOnPorch

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The most important mission for these new frigates in Canada is....jobs and votes...same as any other defence procurement.  

Like that isn't a factor in US defence contracts. ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Aristides said:

Like that isn't a factor in US defence contracts. ?

 

Not as much because the U.S. has to meet many mission profiles...land..sea...air...space...regardless of the politics.

The U.S. scraps/mothballs more military hardware each year than Canada can ever build.

[Aristides]

50 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Not as much because the U.S. has to meet many mission profiles...land..sea...air...space...regardless of the politics.

The U.S. scraps/mothballs more military hardware each year than Canada can ever build.

Of course and every state is after a piece of the action.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Aristides said:

Of course and every state is after a piece of the action.

 

Wyoming's ship building industry provides some challenges. 

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Wyoming's ship building industry provides some challenges. 

That's just dumb.

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

That's just dumb.

 

...and they say comedy is dead.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Of course and every state is after a piece of the action.

 

Even Canada is after a piece of the U.S. action...not nearly as much action in Canada.

Canada makes its military suffer with obsolete kit for decades...because it can always defer to the American DoD.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Not as much because the U.S. has to meet many mission profiles...land..sea...air...space...regardless of the politics.

The U.S. scraps/mothballs more military hardware each year than Canada can ever build.

 

You have mighty fine submarines as we discussed before. Federation vs Klingon, as we mused...

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

...and they say comedy is dead.

Oh, that's what it was. Many ship components and their systems are manufactured nowhere near water

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Even Canada is after a piece of the U.S. action...not nearly as much action in Canada.

Canada makes its military suffer with obsolete kit for decades...because it can always defer to the American DoD.

The US Navy wasted a whole decade building bad ships

[DogOnPorch]

Also: F-35 + Jeep Carrier = Savings Savings Savings...not to mention the fleet carrier can do something more important than it was doing before.

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Oh, that's what it was. Many ship components and their systems are manufactured nowhere near water

 

Right...but this thread is about the floaty part.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

The US Navy wasted a whole decade building bad ships

 

Built good and bad Navy ships...lots of 'em...Canada built none

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Right...but this thread is about the floaty part.

Not really, the floaty part is pretty useless without what goes in it.

[DogOnPorch]

Anyways...said it before. We should have bought those two French assault ships the Russians commissioned. Instead the Egyptians bought them...the Egyptians!

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Built good and bad Navy ships...lots of 'em...Canada built none

Not true. Canada designed and built all its own destroyers and frigates from the 50's to the present Halifax class.

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Anyways...said it before. We should have bought those two French assault ships the Russians commissioned. Instead the Egyptians bought them...the Egyptians!

Why? What use would we have for them?