[Newsbot]

Title: Dutch to build ship that Canada mulled for 6 years
Category: World
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2010-01-17 21:40:42
Canadian

[bootlegga]

$1:

The executive director of the Navy League of Canada says last week's earthquake and the overwhelming demand for humanitarian relief demonstrates how badly Ottawa needs capable support ships.

"The tragedy in Haiti shows why we should never let our navy assets fall into disrepair," said Jerrod Riley.

"The navy has consistently been the first major resource Canada brings to bear during times of crisis, and our sailors always do a great job with the equipment they've got.

"The proposed Joint Support Ship would be the ideal asset for missions such as this. Unfortunately, due to a deficient procurement process, our sailors don't have the best platform for the job."

Hmm, I've been saying that for a long time...

[DoyleG]

Yet it would've matter little since it would've been, under ideal circumstances, another 2 years before such a ship would've sailed.

[bootlegga]

DoyleG DoyleG:

Yet it would've matter little since it would've been, under ideal circumstances, another 2 years before such a ship would've sailed.

Perhaps you didn't read this part of the article;

$1:

Last week, Ottawa was unable to deploy its existing East Coast naval replenishment ship, HMCS Preserver, for relief operations in Haiti because the more than 40-year-old vessel was stripped down for a life-extending refit, set to begin in April.

If we had gotten off our asses 6 years ago, maybe one of the JSS would be ready now, or at least, the Preserver could have gone instead of getting ready for a refit.

Even if we didn't use it in Haiti this time, we still the capability to respond to future events like hurricanes or earthquakes in other places or long range patrols like those off the coast of Somalia or in the Persian Gulf (like after 9/11).

[DoyleG]

I did read the article and its doesn't help your case one bit. You complain in other threads about the fact that getting off one's ass even 6 years ago would've made no damn difference. It still takes time to design and lay down the ship and the 2012 date was a realistic one.

Your complain failed to take in the last part of the article that discusses the collapse of the shipbuilding industry. The Dutch will be building the ship since they have a state-of-the-art ship building industry. Proven in this case is that many Dutch designs are serving with navies around the world.

[martin14]

$1:

Defence insiders say part of the problem is that Canada hasn't run a major naval shipbuilding program for over 15 years. The last warships constructed in this country were patrol frigates and much of the expertise has either been lost or is outdated

Sorry to say it, but we only have ourselves to blame here.

[bootlegga]

DoyleG DoyleG:

I did read the article and its doesn't help your case one bit. You complain in other threads about the fact that getting off one's ass even 6 years ago would've made no damn difference. It still takes time to design and lay down the ship and the 2012 date was a realistic one.

Your complain failed to take in the last part of the article that discusses the collapse of the shipbuilding industry. The Dutch will be building the ship since they have a state-of-the-art ship building industry. Proven in this case is that many Dutch designs are serving with navies around the world.

See, you still don't get it do you?

If the JSS had been built and was going to be ready in 2012, do you think the Navy would be spending millions of dollars refitting a 40 year old ship? Of course not, it would still be active.

But the fact is we don't even have a blueprint for this ship (nevermind a hull laid down), which Harper/MacKay set on the backburner in 2008. And yes, the Dutch will build it far faster than us because of their shipbuilding capabilities, but the fact is that had we started it 6 years ago, that probably wouldn't be the case, now would it? Instead, the Dutch will get theirs going and in the water because we've spent 6 years bitching about specs, prices, and other BS.

So again, if we had gotten off our asses 6 years ago, then we could have sent the Preserver south with our other ships. Things like the medical and dental facilities on board the Preserver probably would come in handy in helping injured people in Haiti don't you think?

[BartSimpson]

Hard to believe today that Canada at one time sported a more powerful navy than did the UK.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hard to believe today that Canada at one time sported a more powerful navy than did the UK.

Not to sound critical, but when was that?

The high time for Canada was WW2, when we had the world's 3rd biggest navy, behind the USA and UK. Even if our navy was at any time larger, it was never more powerful because we never operated more than one fleet carrier at a time and never operated any battleships.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hard to believe today that Canada at one time sported a more powerful navy than did the UK.

Not to sound critical, but when was that?

The high time for Canada was WW2, when we had the world's 3rd biggest navy, behind the USA and UK. Even if our navy was at any time larger, it was never more powerful because we never operated more than one fleet carrier at a time and never operated any battleships.

That was a debate way back when. Who had the more powerful navy in WW2? The UK or Canada? While Canada had a frigate navy compared to the UK's deep investments in capital ships, the Canadian Navy had legs while the UK was dependent on US support during the war. Canada had a greater ability to project power back then while the bulk of the post Dec. 7th UK fleet was the Home Fleet and Canada had a presence in the Pacific while the UK effectively didn't.

The debate I was in way back then reduced the discussion to a Canada vs. UK scenario in which Canada had the ability to support a prolonged campaign against the UK while the UK did not have the same capability to run a prolonged campaign against Canada. Ergo, Canada had the more powerful fleet.

Interestingly, at the outset of WW2 Canada had better force projection than did the US. The US Navy was centered around its bases while the RCN was better balanced with her own dedicated support ships.

[bootlegga]

I find that argument highly dubious, as at the outset of the war, the Royal Canadian Navy consisted of six destroyers (albeit new and powerful ones) and four older minesweepers, while the RN had dozens each of minesweepers, frigates, destroyers, cruisers, submarines and capital ships. Admittedly, they weren't all focussed in the Atlantic like the RCN, but even the only the ships at Scapa Flow would far more powerful than the tiny RCN. Add in the Pacific, Mediterranean and Indian Ocean squadrons and the RN was vastly more powerful than the RCN.

The Canadian presence in the Pacific was more than respectable (a couple of ex-RN cruisers and some destroyers/frigates), but that wasn't until 1943-44, while the RN contributed at least one carrier and supporting vessels (based at Ceylon after the fall of Singapore and Hong Kong) for most of the war.

Don't get me wrong, Bart, I'm delighted that you think the RCN was more powerful than the RN during WW2, but I just can't agree with that argument, given Canada's near total lack of submarines and fleet carriers.

[BartSimpson]

The thing about the fleet at Scapa Flow was that they had no real ability to get out of their home waters. But, of course, they were meant to be the Home Fleet. Sure, Canada had not much in the way of being able to hit anyone but the RCN had an ability to deliver a punch a long way from home.

And the Royal Navy's (and a heck of a lot of America's) Pacific assets were on the bottom in short order thanks to the Japanese.

[sandorski]

Different time, different situation. There was no way Canada could have maintained that large of Navy long term without a severe Economic penalty. There's no shame in doing what's best for the country and no Pride in a large Military that's an anchor around your neck.