Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Canada's screwed up warship competition


Argus

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by DogOnPorch
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...