Harper Announces Six Arctic Patrol Boats

[jdobbin]

Years and years overdue, grudgingly, obstinately, resentfully, and aiming not for military efficiency or effectiveness but for how much money and jobs could be put into government ridings - and even then they only ordered a dozen when we needed two.

The actual awarding the shipyard building contracts was of the Tories doing.

You won't have any disagreement from me that the ships should have been built sooner and that at least two dozen built.

[jdobbin]

The reason why the Kingston class vessels are not up "to the challenge" is because the original intent behind ordering them was to get mine sweepers, as we at that time had no capacity for mine clearing. Somehow this evolved, in political fashion, perhaps to make the ships more appealing and "economical" to a "multi purpose" ship which the reserves could practice on, and then to a "patrol ship" which could serve yet more functions. The Kingston serves well as a minesweeper, however. And is also useful for the reserves to practice on. It just isn't fast enough, because of the design of the ship (needed for mine clearing), to serve as a real patrol vessel.

As I said, the Tories were trying to kill two birds with one stone. To be fair, the Navy was supportive of this combination of uses at the time.

[AndrewL]

I know. Me and most of my friends, not even completely done school making unheard of salaries, having nice condos and cars. It's truly terrible. I mean, I'd rather trade in my import, sell my condo and live as an unemployed fisherman in Newfoundland. My life is just so terrible in Alberta! All the opportunity and the lack of excuses for laziness! It's so stressful!

Now that my sarcasm is over... your not from here, are you?

Ive spent most of my life in AB. I would much rather go back 10 years. It was a much better place. Health care was much better, education was better, there was far less crime, housing was affordable. There was jobs to be had. Houses to buy for cheap. In fact, my favorite little summer spot is now overrun by jackasses who do nothing but destroy and pollute the land. For that one reason alone, even if it were not for all the other stuff, i hate the oil sands with a passion.

I could care less about 'unheard of salaries', condos are an eyesore and I can't imagine living like that. Yuck.... all those neighbors suck and they are so cheaply built they will fall apart in less than a decade. Nice expensive cars don't do anything for me. Id rather ride my bike or walk.

The traffic on Deerfoot sucks. The people that don't know how to budget and live on the street, oh well, their choice (A two bedroom is found for easily $1100 a month in Calgary... two people making $15 an hour, what you can make at the deli counter at Superstore... make over $3000 a month after tax. If people don't have a place to live, it's because they choose not to). Really, those are two small issues. Whoop de do.

10 years ago you could of had your own house for far less. The bums you see on the street came here from elsewhere because so people can throw change at them. In Edmonton we have people living on the street who have full time jobs, and still cant afford rent or a mortgage.

Chronic unemployment, depression, stagnant economies, low productivity and a frosty investment climate are far worse than a bunch of poor budgeters and a 30 minute commute.

Alberta had a tiny bit of downswing when the government laid people off a few decades back. But otherwise the economy was doing just fine. A good quality of life was far more affordable for people before the recent 'boom'.

Andrew

Edited July 11, 2007 by AndrewL

[Bonam]

We need a fleet of:

- 200 nuclear powered icebreaker aircraft carriers with capacity for 200 fighters each

- 400 nuclear submarines equipped with icecap piercing ICBMs

- 1600 icebreaker destroyers, frigates, cruisers, to escort our polar aircraft carriers in battlegroups

- thousands of new amphibious fusion powered hovercraft that can navigate through our oceans (whether frozen or thawed) as well as our arctic islands without pause, at speeds of no less than 500km/h

- all icebreaker vessels will be able to automatically transform into more standard configuration during summer months, for increased speed

Also, to support this, we need:

- 16 new major cities built along the coast of the arctic ocean and on islands in the arctic area, all with modern fortification systems including anti-missile laser arrays, to make sure these new ports are safe against retaliation

- development of covert facilities buried below the floor of the arctic ocean, which can be used as secret bases for our submarine fleet

- advanced underground maglev vaccuum tube transportation systems which will allow rapid translocation of forces to areas of necessity

- recruitment of approximately 5 million more armed services personnel

In addition, for intelligence purposes to be able to apply these new forces correctly we will need:

- a new system of Canadian Earth monitoring satellites which can provide us with simultaneous 1 cm resolution video of the entirety of the Earth's surface, including multispectral and gravitational imaging to enable detection of submarine and subterranean activites

- systems for the eradication of possible competitor nation orbital surveillance networks, including autonomous armed missile, laser, and reactionless cannon satellites, satellites armed with nuclear EMPs, and manned orbital battlestations

- systems to prevent the destruction of our surveillance satellites by hostile nations, including decoy satellites, autonomous countermeasures, stealth technology, and rapid maneuvering capability

This can all be achieved for a paltry cost of:

- 300 trillion dollars

[ScottSA]

We need a fleet of:

- 200 nuclear powered icebreaker aircraft carriers with capacity for 200 fighters each

- 400 nuclear submarines equipped with icecap piercing ICBMs

- 1600 icebreaker destroyers, frigates, cruisers, to escort our polar aircraft carriers in battlegroups

- thousands of new amphibious fusion powered hovercraft that can navigate through our oceans (whether frozen or thawed) as well as our arctic islands without pause, at speeds of no less than 500km/h

- all icebreaker vessels will be able to automatically transform into more standard configuration during summer months, for increased speed

Also, to support this, we need:

- 16 new major cities built along the coast of the arctic ocean and on islands in the arctic area, all with modern fortification systems including anti-missile laser arrays, to make sure these new ports are safe against retaliation

- development of covert facilities buried below the floor of the arctic ocean, which can be used as secret bases for our submarine fleet

- advanced underground maglev vaccuum tube transportation systems which will allow rapid translocation of forces to areas of necessity

- recruitment of approximately 5 million more armed services personnel

In addition, for intelligence purposes to be able to apply these new forces correctly we will need:

- a new system of Canadian Earth monitoring satellites which can provide us with simultaneous 1 cm resolution video of the entirety of the Earth's surface, including multispectral and gravitational imaging to enable detection of submarine and subterranean activites

- systems for the eradication of possible competitor nation orbital surveillance networks, including autonomous armed missile, laser, and reactionless cannon satellites, satellites armed with nuclear EMPs, and manned orbital battlestations

- systems to prevent the destruction of our surveillance satellites by hostile nations, including decoy satellites, autonomous countermeasures, stealth technology, and rapid maneuvering capability

This can all be achieved for a paltry cost of:

- 300 trillion dollars

You must be Inuit.

[Army Guy]

White Doors:

Thanks for the links, they made for some interesting reading.

[White Doors]

Well I live in Alberta and I love it.

my house has doubled in 3 years.

My stocks are doing very well and the problems you speak about are due to growth. Good problems to have.

I grew up in the maritimes. The problems associated with NOT growing are much worse, trust me.

These are awful problems to have. And they will only get worse.

Andrew

Awful problems?

In your opinion I suppose.

if you think economic prosperity and crime go hand in hand, you should see what happens when an economy goes south.

Who said the economy had to go south?

There was an acceptable level of prosperity before the oil sands. And we did not have all these problems to boot.

Andrew

I see, so your problem is really with the immigrants coming here to get what you have, is that it?

[White Doors]

White Doors:

Thanks for the links, they made for some interesting reading.

Not a problem.

All in all, they look like pretty cool ships.

[weaponeer]

Well Canada has sovereignty over the oil sands and all the monetary benefits go to foreign companies. There are some pathetic royalties, and we got a $400 bribe from Klein once.

Yes, all the benefits go to foreign companies. They fly all their own workers in, buy all their material from foreign countries and return nothing to the local economy.

Very well-informed and thoughtfully presented sir.

So where is the benefits? Where is the glory? A few jobs have been created for a transient work force that has made edmonton the murder capital of canada... how glorious.... It has had an enormously negative environmental impact... very glorious..... we get pathetic royalties that the klein government did nothing with anyway.

Where are the benefits? If you think it is jobs think again... Hollywood employs more poeple in Alberta than the oil sands do.

The entire thing is a mess and all the real benefits go straight to foreign companies.

Im convinced america would treat the arctic and it people much better than Canada would. At least they do in Alaska.

Andrew

I see once again you have managed to hijack a topic and take it in another direction. What does the fact you cannot cope with life in Alberta have to do with Arctic Patrol Boats???

[M.Dancer]

Chronic unemployment, depression, stagnant economies, low productivity and a frosty investment climate are far worse than a bunch of poor budgeters and a 30 minute commute.

For me the worse thing about prosperity and cylical markets is the taxes and the fact that my wife expects the income to be the same when the boom ends.....No i tell her, that why we have savings...

[Army Guy]

Some more interesting reading

My Webpage

[White Doors]

Some more interesting reading

My Webpage

I agree 100% with the Senator.

[Remiel]

Relatively speaking, does it cost more today to build and fund military hardware than it did for the equivalent capability of yesteryear?

[bush_cheney2004]

Relatively speaking, does it cost more today to build and fund military hardware than it did for the equivalent capability of yesteryear?

Yes, it costs a lot more because the entire life cycle from development to disposal involves a lot more requirements spread over far fewer production units.

[jdobbin]

As I suspected, the Navy was more interested in finding a replacement for the slow Kingston-class ships rather than having heavy icebreakers in the north.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...11?hub=Politics

The Conservative government's plan to build Arctic patrol ships could send some of Canada's maritime coastal defence vessels into early retirement.

Already short of sailors and struggling with budget shortfalls, the navy is working out how to crew and operate the six-to-eight new ice-capable corvettes that were announced this week by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"We think that these vessels are going to be the natural replacement for the (coastal defence vessels),'' Commodore Kelly Williams, vice chief of maritime staff, said Wednesday in an interview.

The $3.1-billion program to build armed Class 5 medium icebreakers to enforce Canada's northern sovereignty was announced Monday with much fanfare at Esquimalt, B.C., the navy's principle West Coast base.

[geoffrey]

I could care less about 'unheard of salaries', condos are an eyesore and I can't imagine living like that. Yuck.... all those neighbors suck and they are so cheaply built they will fall apart in less than a decade. Nice expensive cars don't do anything for me. Id rather ride my bike or walk.

Condos are a reality of the future. Urban sprawl is not sustainable and condo life is far more environmentally friendly and socially responsible. How about it?

I ride competitively and commute to work on my bike everyday, so ya, I've got that covered. Nice to head out at night in the BMW though.

10 years ago you could of had your own house for far less.

Definitely. I also wouldn't be even close to where I am at, at my age. It's a trade off.

In Edmonton we have people living on the street who have full time jobs, and still cant afford rent or a mortgage.

Then they should get a second.

Alberta had a tiny bit of downswing when the government laid people off a few decades back. But otherwise the economy was doing just fine. A good quality of life was far more affordable for people before the recent 'boom'.

A good quality of life cost less, but people also made less. Alberta's GDP is competitive with the world leaders in standard of living, 150% of that of Ontario per capita. I have a hard time believing that my life costs 150% more in Calgary than Toronto, so I find it quite safe to assume that I live better here.

A comparable job in Vancouver pays 10% less and in Toronto 15% less than what I make in Calgary. My cost of living is about on par in all of those cities.

[xul]

We need a fleet of:

- 200 nuclear powered icebreaker aircraft carriers with capacity for 200 fighters each

- 400 nuclear submarines equipped with icecap piercing ICBMs

- 1600 icebreaker destroyers, frigates, cruisers, to escort our polar aircraft carriers in battlegroups

- thousands of new amphibious fusion powered hovercraft that can navigate through our oceans (whether frozen or thawed) as well as our arctic islands without pause, at speeds of no less than 500km/h

- all icebreaker vessels will be able to automatically transform into more standard configuration during summer months, for increased speed

Also, to support this, we need:

- 16 new major cities built along the coast of the arctic ocean and on islands in the arctic area, all with modern fortification systems including anti-missile laser arrays, to make sure these new ports are safe against retaliation

- development of covert facilities buried below the floor of the arctic ocean, which can be used as secret bases for our submarine fleet

- advanced underground maglev vaccuum tube transportation systems which will allow rapid translocation of forces to areas of necessity

- recruitment of approximately 5 million more armed services personnel

In addition, for intelligence purposes to be able to apply these new forces correctly we will need:

- a new system of Canadian Earth monitoring satellites which can provide us with simultaneous 1 cm resolution video of the entirety of the Earth's surface, including multispectral and gravitational imaging to enable detection of submarine and subterranean activites

- systems for the eradication of possible competitor nation orbital surveillance networks, including autonomous armed missile, laser, and reactionless cannon satellites, satellites armed with nuclear EMPs, and manned orbital battlestations

- systems to prevent the destruction of our surveillance satellites by hostile nations, including decoy satellites, autonomous countermeasures, stealth technology, and rapid maneuvering capability

This can all be achieved for a paltry cost of:

- 300 trillion dollars

The next America government would really need such kind of proposal to maintain their huge defence industries' operation if they withdrew from Iraq.

[AndrewL]

Condos are a reality of the future. Urban sprawl is not sustainable and condo life is far more environmentally friendly and socially responsible. How about it?

Another reason why i hate economic and population growth. Our quality of life is constantly degraded by this.

Definitely. I also wouldn't be even close to where I am at, at my age. It's a trade off.

I suppose. I might have a few more 'dollars' these days but ive discovered that i don't care all that much about dollars. I need more primal pleasures. And they are harder and harder to find.

Then they should get a second.

Maybe they should. But this only proves my point that an economic boom does not necessarily translate into benefits and glory. Who the fuck wants to work one full time job just to survive, let alone two?

A good quality of life cost less, but people also made less. Alberta's GDP is competitive with the world leaders in standard of living, 150% of that of Ontario per capita. I have a hard time believing that my life costs 150% more in Calgary than Toronto, so I find it quite safe to assume that I live better here.

The only point i care about is quality of life, and what percentage of my income has to go towards it. If the percentage stays the same but the quality goes down, it sucks. If the percentage is less and the quality goes down it still sucks. Only if the percentage goes down, and the quality goes up will i think there is a benefit. So far in Edmonton, being here before and now during this boom, the percentage has goen up and the quality has gone down. That really fucking sucks. (i measure quality not by fancy cars and nice clothes, but by things that are more real, like quality of the environemnt, quality of health care, quality of government, quality of people, quality of community, and so on... these are worse now in edmonton than they were a decade ago, and the percentage of my income spent on living was less).

A comparable job in Vancouver pays 10% less and in Toronto 15% less than what I make in Calgary. My cost of living is about on par in all of those cities.

That is the exact direction alberta is headed.

Andrew

Edited July 12, 2007 by AndrewL

[weaponeer]

Condos are a reality of the future. Urban sprawl is not sustainable and condo life is far more environmentally friendly and socially responsible. How about it?

Another reason why i hate economic and population growth. Our quality of life is constantly degraded by this.

Definitely. I also wouldn't be even close to where I am at, at my age. It's a trade off.

I suppose. I might have a few more 'dollars' these days but ive discovered that i don't care all that much about dollars. I need more primal pleasures. And they are harder and harder to find.

Then they should get a second.

Maybe they should. But this only proves my point that an economic boom does not necessarily translate into benefits and glory. Who the fuck wants to work one full time job just to survive, let alone two?

A good quality of life cost less, but people also made less. Alberta's GDP is competitive with the world leaders in standard of living, 150% of that of Ontario per capita. I have a hard time believing that my life costs 150% more in Calgary than Toronto, so I find it quite safe to assume that I live better here.

The only point i care about is quality of life, and what percentage of my income has to go towards it. If the percentage stays the same but the quality goes down, it sucks. If the percentage is less and the quality goes down it still sucks. Only if the percentage goes down, and the quality goes up will i think there is a benefit. So far in Edmonton, being here before and now during this boom, the percentage has goen up and the quality has gone down. That really fucking sucks. (i measure quality not by fancy cars and nice clothes, but by things that are more real, like quality of the environemnt, quality of health care, quality of government, quality of people, quality of community, and so on... these are worse now in edmonton than they were a decade ago, and the percentage of my income spent on living was less).

A comparable job in Vancouver pays 10% less and in Toronto 15% less than what I make in Calgary. My cost of living is about on par in all of those cities.

That is the exact direction alberta is headed.

Andrew

What does any of this garbage have to do with Arctic Patrol Boats???????

[KO2]

Does anyone really believ that this fleet of summer pop gun cruisers is anything but political posturing, mainly to Canadians?

Yes we need something up there but this is only a token, on the cheap no less.

Our country simply can't afford to arm itself in todays world with the population we have at the momment.

This is necessary but it might not mean much in the long run.

I wouldn't tie any hope to it.

[capricorn]

Does anyone really believ that this fleet of summer pop gun cruisers is anything but political posturing, mainly to Canadians?

Yes we need something up there but this is only a token, on the cheap no less.

Our country simply can't afford to arm itself in todays world with the population we have at the momment.

This is necessary but it might not mean much in the long run.

I wouldn't tie any hope to it.

If Harper does any political posturing, I certainly hope it's directed at Canadians. I don't think he's addressing Russians. I'm a sucker for arctic sovereignty.

What we need up there is AndrewL. He does not want population growth. He'll fit right in.

"Necessary" "but not mean much"? Sounds contradictory. Oh, well, maybe the 5th beer I just drank is making things fuzzy. How are you feeling KO2?

[Argus]

Does anyone really believ that this fleet of summer pop gun cruisers is anything but political posturing, mainly to Canadians?

Yes we need something up there but this is only a token, on the cheap no less.

Our country simply can't afford to arm itself in todays world with the population we have at the momment.

This is necessary but it might not mean much in the long run.

I wouldn't tie any hope to it.

If we can't afford it then who can? Our population is among the largest in the world. Our wealth is among the greatest in the world. Aside from eight or ten large wealthy nations who can afford to arm themselves better than we can?

[Bonam]

Our population is among the largest in the world.

Umm? I agree Canada needs and should invest in sufficient assets to assert its sovereignty, but lets stick with facts here. Canada has roughly 32 million people. Countries that have populations "among the largest in the world" have 10-40 times more than that.

As for affording to arm ourselves, it's not a matter of the wealth of the country as much as of its priorities. Canadians do not and would not support a large portion of the GDP being used on the military, due to prevalent political views and the general feeling that Canada is safe as is. Some countries that are much smaller, with smaller population and economies, can and do have substantially more powerful militaries, where it's a higher national priority.

In the case of Canada, we pretty much have relied on the US to be able to protect us in case anything ever really happened where Canada would be threatened. The US protecting us still holds true, except in the case of opposition just between the US and Canada. And in that particular scenario, if the US really wanted to use military force against Canada, then no military that Canada could realistically deploy could match the US military, and we all know that.

If it came to disagreement between the US and Canada, and specifically in the area of arctic sovereignty, do you really think an armed icebreaker would change anything? Either the US decides to respect Canadian claims in those regions, in which case the absence of armed icebreakers won't matter, or the US decides not to respect our claims, in which case even if we had a carrier battlegroup up there in the arctic, they wouldn't dare to use military force against a US vessel, knowing that that would be disasterous for Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

If it came to disagreement between the US and Canada, and specifically in the area of arctic sovereignty, do you really think an armed icebreaker would change anything? Either the US decides to respect Canadian claims in those regions, in which case the absence of armed icebreakers won't matter, or the US decides not to respect our claims, in which case even if we had a carrier battlegroup up there in the arctic, they wouldn't dare to use military force against a US vessel, knowing that that would be disasterous for Canada.

True...Canada will continue to solve such a confrontation as it has in the past by granting passage/transit permission after the fact. It is a very cheap solution.

[bush_cheney2004]

Bump

Edited July 16, 2007 by bush_cheney2004