[Newsbot]

Title: Navy waters down plans for Arctic patrol ships
Category: Misc CDN
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2009-06-16 17:33:32
Canadian

[mikewood86]

I get frustrated reading stuff like that. Just buy the right stuff the first time and in the long run you will save money.

[Hyack]

The original proposal in 2005-06 was to build three armed, heavy icebreakers to enforce Canada's northern sovereignty.

Harper said in July 2007 that the navy would acquire six to eight ice-capable vessels for nearly year-round operation in the Arctic.

The navy now envisions purchasing just six Class 5 ice-cutting ships and arming them with 25-mm cannons -- the same calibre carried on the army's light armoured vehicles.

Ken Bowring, an analyst with the Navy League of Canada, described the gun as a "peashooter" and says the symbolism of what it means for the Arctic, especially with a resurgent Russia is hard to miss.

And what will we end up with.....



Or even worse....




Welcome to Canada eh!

[Gunnair]

Need to fix the sign to Team Harper...

[bootlegga]

Frankly, the armament to me isn't the important part of the article. as long as the ship is modularized like comparable ships (the Dane's Svalbard for example), it would be able to add heavier weapons and/or missiles to the mix prior to deployment.

The most important tidbit is that the plan now is to buy six ships, instead of up to eight. That's a big difference, as it essentially means at least one, maybe even two fewer ships for deployment, based on the typical rotation of rest, refit/repair, and operations.

It was bad enough when Harper cut it from three heavy icebreakers capable of year round operations to these 'Arctic patrol vessels', capable of maybe six months operations up there. Now, we're going to lose two of these less capable ships as well?

$1:

He said the Conservatives have been trying to shoehorn their purchases into a pre-arranged budget rather picking equipment that makes sense.

"As Canadian citizens, our government should decide what it needs to do the job and then budget accordingly, not pick a budget and then look to see what you can get," said Bowring.

"If this happens, we will wind up spending billions of dollars on ships that can't do the jobs we need, or not have enough of them to job when and where we need it."

This is the reason why we "can't" afford the JSS, yet another of the Conservative's key programs from their 'Canada First' platform.

So much for Harper and the Conservatives loving the CF.

[DerbyX]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Frankly, the armament to me isn't the important part of the article. as long as the ship is modularized like comparable ships (the Dane's Svalbard for example), it would be able to add heavier weapons and/or missiles to the mix prior to deployment.

The most important tidbit is that the plan now is to buy six ships, instead of up to eight. That's a big difference, as it essentially means at least one, maybe even two fewer ships for deployment, based on the typical rotation of rest, refit/repair, and operations.

It was bad enough when Harper cut it from three heavy icebreakers capable of year round operations to these 'Arctic patrol vessels', capable of maybe six months operations up there. Now, we're going to lose two of these less capable ships as well?

$1:

He said the Conservatives have been trying to shoehorn their purchases into a pre-arranged budget rather picking equipment that makes sense.

"As Canadian citizens, our government should decide what it needs to do the job and then budget accordingly, not pick a budget and then look to see what you can get," said Bowring.

"If this happens, we will wind up spending billions of dollars on ships that can't do the jobs we need, or not have enough of them to job when and where we need it."

This is the reason why we "can't" afford the JSS, yet another of the Conservative's key programs from their 'Canada First' platform.

So much for Harper and the Conservatives loving the CF.

Wait a minute. Are you saying Harper is going back on his word yet again over the military? Well at least he isn't compromising on EI and budget points to avoid an election because then he would lose all credibility.

[EyeBrock]

Well, choices have been made and the largest chunk of the money is going to support the Afghanistan mission.

I'm sure if there was more cash around that we would have these ships.

Any ideas which programs we should cut Boots? That auto bail-out package would have paid for these ships and more.

[bootlegga]

Well, had Harper not cut taxes and increased spending (on everything but the CF it seems), we could had this, the JSS, you name it. However, Harper sadly, like all the other politicos in Ottawa, has come to the realization that increased defence spending does NOT mean increased votes, so he's scaled back everything he initially promised. At least that's the way it appears from my vantage point.

In reality, the solution is easy. Spend most of our defence dollars in Canada, by purchasing Canadian whenever possible (which is what most of our allies do).

>SAR planes = Viking Buffaloes, built in Victoria and Calgary
>Naval patrol planes = Bombardier R-1 Sentinel, airframes built in Canada (electronics built by Raytheon god knows where)
>JSS = built new in Canadian shipyards (along with new DDHs and Arctic patrol ships) You pick from shipyards in Vancouver, Quebec, St. Johns'. By the time their finished with that work, we'll need new frigates too.
>LAV III = Built in London ON, and serviced in Edmonton AB.

Extra bonuses;

Get Navstar to build some sort of trucks at its Chatham plant. Get MDA to design a long-range UAV for use in the Arctic/Pacific/Atlantic coastlines. Get someone else to design a Canadian-built submarine capable of use in the Arctic.

That's all win-win. Big spending on the CF (for all three services I might add), plus tons of jobs in a variety of manufacturing industries, all located here in Canada. If we're going to have a $50 billion deficit, why not benefit from it? Hell, most of the 'problems' with programs of recent is that they will cost $3.2 - $3.5 billion instead of $3 billion. Why not just ante up the extra dough and go another couple billion in the hole?

Now, if I can come up with that, why can't the government?

[mikewood86]