[Canadian_Mind]

CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Thanos Thanos:

Well hell, I did say inspect them first instead of just relying on the salesman to tell the 'truth' this time. It's just a good opportunity to jump at a chance to get a entire fleet for almost free. We really ought to take a shot at grabbing that carrier before the Brazilians or Indonesians get it first. It'd be goddamn cool to have one of those babies in the fleet again.

No manpower for it.

How do you figure?



-J.

You couldn't crew one aircraft carrier even with every member of the Canadian Navy: Regular, Reservist, and even the damned CICs with the cadet corps.

[Thanos]

Current British carriers aren't anything like modern US Navy supercarriers, and certainly do not require the same manpower and logistics support that the Americans are capable of providing. The British ones, thanks mostly to the VTOL technology provided by having the Sea Harriers as the main aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm, are considerably smaller, maybe even as small as (or at least not much larger than) the carriers the Royal Navy had in WW2.

I know it'll never happen, no matter how totally cool it would be for Canada to do this. I just find it very interesting as a conversation item, that's all.

[Scape]

Russia Deploys New Missile Frigate For Caspian Sea



70-year dream of aircraft carrier close to reality



And we have 1960 vintage ships to counter.

[Gunnair]

CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Thanos Thanos:

Well hell, I did say inspect them first instead of just relying on the salesman to tell the 'truth' this time. It's just a good opportunity to jump at a chance to get a entire fleet for almost free. We really ought to take a shot at grabbing that carrier before the Brazilians or Indonesians get it first. It'd be goddamn cool to have one of those babies in the fleet again.

No manpower for it.

How do you figure?



-J.

No manpower... means not enough to man an aircraft carrier.

Thought it was pretty self explanatory.

[Gunnair]

Thanos Thanos:

Current British carriers aren't anything like modern US Navy supercarriers, and certainly do not require the same manpower and logistics support that the Americans are capable of providing. The British ones, thanks mostly to the VTOL technology provided by having the Sea Harriers as the main aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm, are considerably smaller, maybe even as small as (or at least not much larger than) the carriers the Royal Navy had in WW2.

I know it'll never happen, no matter how totally cool it would be for Canada to do this. I just find it very interesting as a conversation item, that's all.

Irrespective of this, there ain't enough manpower.

[Thanos]

Awesome jobs creation program though that would like totally piss off the Libs and Dippers.

[Gunnair]

Thanos Thanos:

Awesome jobs creation program though that would like totally piss off the Libs and Dippers.

It would, but there generally has not been enough people interested, and the army has been taking a lot of the seats just to cover attrition.

Fact is, not many wish to join the navy and airforce. Afghanistan is sexy, but it takes a lot of the people out of the equation after tour number three or four.

[Canadian_Mind]

yea, seems pretty common for guys to go army first, then switch to black or blue later after they realise the army doesn't necessarily suit their lifestyle or needs.

[Scape]

Combat mission means more pay and a fast track to promotions. Also our recruitment numbers are finite as we can only train so many so fast. It will take years to not only maintain the current numbers from attrition but to expand them to such a number to crew and maintain ships.

[QBall]

As glad as I am that one of the leaders is giving the Navy a mention in this election I don't believe for a second that Smiling Jack is going to spend one penny on the Navy, never mind any other branch. I have no problem he'd cut, but the chances of him adding is as good as the NDP being elected to power federally.

[CommanderSock]

I agree with Thanos, we could use some of that British hardware.

Either that, or we could on the flipside buy from unconventional sources, IMO US hardware is too expensive and the Americans strip too much of it before selling it off.

We'd be better of buying German, Russian or Swedish ships and maintaining it ourselves.

Not big on fighter jets.

[BartSimpson]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

IMO US hardware is too expensive and the Americans strip too much of it before selling it off.

No, what's expensive is the recurring and damnable Canadian insistence on making unique Canadian versions of near everything you order, regardless if it's from the USA or not. You did it with the Leopard tanks and you did it with the CF-18 sufficiently that US avionics don't play with your planes.

If you order ships from someone else, like say the French, and then insist that they customize the ships to use Canadian content from Quebec, Ontario, and etc. (to please MPs from those provinces) then you end up having to carry the R&D costs of a whole new platform instead of just profiting off of someone else's experience. You also end up with what happened with the Leopards where the damned Canadian-made targeting optics were useless in hot weather and then the tanks were idled until the optics were replaced.

That said, if Canada would be a little more pragmatic about things you'd buy hulls that use American spare parts and that, in a pinch, could be serviced in any American base around the world (and if your ships are supporting one of our missions you know we won't even bill you for the spares or fuel). It would also solve the problem of spending billions to refit the yards at Halifax or Esquimalt because you'd be able to leverage the facilities at Bremerton, Portsmouth, and Bath.

[saturn_656]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

No, what's expensive is the recurring and damnable Canadian insistence on making unique Canadian versions of near everything you order, regardless if it's from the USA or not. You did it with the Leopard tanks and you did it with the CF-18 sufficiently that US avionics don't play with your planes.

You're right, to an extent (CP 140 also springs to mind), but the CF-18's were a straight off the shelf buy for the most part.

There isn't much that differentiates them from a USN jet. Interoperability problems likely stemmed from the fact it took us so damn long to update our "A" model Hornets to the "C" standard.

$1:

That said, if Canada would be a little more pragmatic about things you'd buy hulls that use American spare parts and that, in a pinch, could be serviced in any American base around the world (and if your ships are supporting one of our missions you know we won't even bill you for the spares or fuel). It would also solve the problem of spending billions to refit the yards at Halifax or Esquimalt because you'd be able to leverage the facilities at Bremerton, Portsmouth, and Bath.

The Canadian Navy was having serious issues with American arms regulations, so much so that in the FELEX refit they directed the contractor to use as little ITAR controlled equipment as possible for the upgrade.

http://www.canada.com/business/Navy+say ... story.html

$1:

Faced with delays and restrictions about what it can and cannot do with U.S. technology, Canada’s navy has opted to modernize its frigates using as much non-American equipment as possible for key systems on the ships.

The Defence Department had stipulated that the command-and-control systems on the multibillion-dollar frigate upgrade be free of U.S. regulations, say officials with Lockheed Martin Canada in Ottawa, the company handling the contract.

$1:

“It was a desire (by the customer),” Don McClure, Lockheed Martin Canada’s vice- president of business development, said of the decision to use technology that wasn’t controlled by ITAR. “The primary thing is during the life of a warship there is the need to modify certain tactics or add certain sensors and the navy didn’t want to be restricted to having to ask permission (from the U.S.) for that.”

$1:

Ottawa-based Thales Canada Defence and Security, which is also working on the frigate modernization, has noticed a spike in the desire for ITAR-free equipment at the Defence Department and from military forces around the world, said company official Conrad Bellehumeur. “Telling them something is ITAR-free produces a great interest” at DND, he added.

It's a pain in our ass, obviously.

[herbie]

$1:

It would also solve the problem of spending billions to refit the yards at Halifax or Esquimalt because you'd be able to leverage the facilities at Bremerton, Portsmouth, and Bath.

You seem to miss the whole point. We don't want to buy someone else's stuff AND give them all the work too.

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

IMO US hardware is too expensive and the Americans strip too much of it before selling it off.

No, what's expensive is the recurring and damnable Canadian insistence on making unique Canadian versions of near everything you order, regardless if it's from the USA or not. You did it with the Leopard tanks and you did it with the CF-18 sufficiently that US avionics don't play with your planes.

If you order ships from someone else, like say the French, and then insist that they customize the ships to use Canadian content from Quebec, Ontario, and etc. (to please MPs from those provinces) then you end up having to carry the R&D costs of a whole new platform instead of just profiting off of someone else's experience. You also end up with what happened with the Leopards where the damned Canadian-made targeting optics were useless in hot weather and then the tanks were idled until the optics were replaced.

That said, if Canada would be a little more pragmatic about things you'd buy hulls that use American spare parts and that, in a pinch, could be serviced in any American base around the world (and if your ships are supporting one of our missions you know we won't even bill you for the spares or fuel). It would also solve the problem of spending billions to refit the yards at Halifax or Esquimalt because you'd be able to leverage the facilities at Bremerton, Portsmouth, and Bath.

The point lost on you is that Canada does not want off the shelf US platforms that will transport building and maintenance jobs to the US.