[Newsbot]

Title: Buying Canadian will short-change military, defence officials warn
Category: Military
Posted By: saturn_656
Date: 2013-07-30 18:59:11
Canadian

[Jabberwalker]

Yes, but buying Canadian means that every other generation re-learns how to design and make these systems. Do you want to have a high tech sector in Canada? What a great way to subsidize one. That's exactly how the Americans do it ... and the French, British, Russians, etc.

[bootlegga]

Can we make everything the CF needs? No, but the stuff we can make, we should. For everything else, we should be looking at getting it built in Canada under license or by a subsidiary if at all possible.

Sure buying Canadian has got us 'wonders' like the Ross Rifle, Ram Tank and the Iltis, but it also gave us excellent warships, fighters and the LAV III chassis.

The thing we need to do is be better at procurement and properly identifying our needs.

The CF brass may want all sorts of goodies, but the question the government really needs to ask & answer is do we need them to fulfill the roles we expect of the CF. If yes, then they should be bought, if not, then we can do without.

[Jabberwalker]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Can we make everything the CF needs? No, but the stuff we can make, we should. For everything else, we should be looking at getting it built in Canada under license or by a subsidiary if at all possible.

Sure buying Canadian has got us 'wonders' like the Ross Rifle, Ram Tank and the Iltis, but it also gave us excellent warships, fighters and the LAV III chassis.

The thing we need to do is be better at procurement and properly identifying our needs.

The CF brass may want all sorts of goodies, but the question the government really needs to ask & answer is do we need them to fulfill the roles we expect of the CF. If yes, then they should be bought, if not, then we can do without.

We've had to re-learn how to design and build warships every other generation but the last three generation of them that we've produced have been revolutionary is some way or other and have improved the design of our allies fleets as well ... in modest but important ways. We have quietly led from time-to-time ... in smaller warship, albeit.

[bootlegga]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Can we make everything the CF needs? No, but the stuff we can make, we should. For everything else, we should be looking at getting it built in Canada under license or by a subsidiary if at all possible.

Sure buying Canadian has got us 'wonders' like the Ross Rifle, Ram Tank and the Iltis, but it also gave us excellent warships, fighters and the LAV III chassis.

The thing we need to do is be better at procurement and properly identifying our needs.

The CF brass may want all sorts of goodies, but the question the government really needs to ask & answer is do we need them to fulfill the roles we expect of the CF. If yes, then they should be bought, if not, then we can do without.

We've had to re-learn how to design and build warships every other generation but the last three generation of them that we've produced have been revolutionary is some way or other and have improved the design of our allies fleets as well ... in modest but important ways. We have quietly led from time-to-time ... in smaller warship, albeit.

I don't know if I'd go as far as every generation - although I'd agree we haven't built any major warships in the last generation.

Since 1939, Canada produced warships with great regularity, from the massive navy during WW2 to the St. Laurents in the 1940s to the Restigouche of the 1950s, the Mackenzies in the 1960s and the Iroquois in the 1970s, followed by the Halifaxes in the 1980s/early 90s. Additionally, shipyards in Canada have been kept busy refitting frigates and destroyers for the past fifty years, adding new weapons mounts, replacing electronics, etc.

Still, I get your point. It's been a major lapse in government planning that we haven't built a new major combatant in 20 years. I had thought the Conservatives would have changed that, but seven years on and we still don't even have a design finalized, nevermind construction.

[jeff744]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I don't know if I'd go as far as every generation - although I'd agree we haven't built any major warships in the last generation.

Since 1939, Canada produced warships with great regularity, from the massive navy during WW2 to the St. Laurents in the 1940s to the Restigouche of the 1950s, the Mackenzies in the 1960s and the Iroquois in the 1970s, followed by the Halifaxes in the 1980s/early 90s. Additionally, shipyards in Canada have been kept busy refitting frigates and destroyers for the past fifty years, adding new weapons mounts, replacing electronics, etc.

Still, I get your point. It's been a major lapse in government planning that we haven't built a new major combatant in 20 years. I had thought the Conservatives would have changed that, but seven years on and we still don't even have a design finalized, nevermind construction.

Really we need to pick a couple things we want to be really good at and stick to them and get them good enough that other nations come to buy them too so they continue to advance when our gov isn't in a buying mood. Just based on our past and location I would say we should stick to things like warships specialized for the north, icebreakers, and infantry transportation (IFV, trucks, etc).

We also need to cut the government out of the process as much as we can, let the DoD make the orders and pick what they want and all the politicians have for a say is a simple yes/no. If it fails the idea can be altered or scrapped by the DoD but the politicians cannot alter the bill itself. Keeps them out of it with what they think needs replacement and lets the DoD figured out what actually needs replacement, when, and by what.

[Jabberwalker]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Can we make everything the CF needs? No, but the stuff we can make, we should. For everything else, we should be looking at getting it built in Canada under license or by a subsidiary if at all possible.

Sure buying Canadian has got us 'wonders' like the Ross Rifle, Ram Tank and the Iltis, but it also gave us excellent warships, fighters and the LAV III chassis.

The thing we need to do is be better at procurement and properly identifying our needs.

The CF brass may want all sorts of goodies, but the question the government really needs to ask & answer is do we need them to fulfill the roles we expect of the CF. If yes, then they should be bought, if not, then we can do without.

We've had to re-learn how to design and build warships every other generation but the last three generation of them that we've produced have been revolutionary is some way or other and have improved the design of our allies fleets as well ... in modest but important ways. We have quietly led from time-to-time ... in smaller warship, albeit.

I don't know if I'd go as far as every generation - although I'd agree we haven't built any major warships in the last generation.

Since 1939, Canada produced warships with great regularity, from the massive navy during WW2 to the St. Laurents in the 1940s to the Restigouche of the 1950s, the Mackenzies in the 1960s and the Iroquois in the 1970s, followed by the Halifaxes in the 1980s/early 90s. Additionally, shipyards in Canada have been kept busy refitting frigates and destroyers for the past fifty years, adding new weapons mounts, replacing electronics, etc.

Still, I get your point. It's been a major lapse in government planning that we haven't built a new major combatant in 20 years. I had thought the Conservatives would have changed that, but seven years on and we still don't even have a design finalized, nevermind construction.

That old St Laurent Class and it's derivatives back in the 50's (referred to as "Cadillacs", back then) were well developed and relatively sophisticated escorts but not revolutionary at first. What made them so was the Canadian innovation of operating large, powerful helicopters off of them. Every Frigate and Destroyer in the world is configured that way now and it began with the St. Laurent, Saguenay, and her DDH sisters. The 280 Class 'New Tribal" were the first all gas turbine powered warships in the world and they also operate TWO of those large helicopters. They are powerful ships in themselves but the most powerful weapon system that they carry are those helicopters. The Halifax Class Frigates are pioneers in radar and infrared stealth as well as integrated command and weapons control computerization. These are significant Canadian achievements and all have created spin-offs way beyond the weapons biz. I would much rather pay twice as much and leave a smarter Canada behind me than cheap out and go "off the rack" and leave bright, young educated Canadians looking for work.

[jeff744]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

That old St Laurent Class and it's derivatives back in the 50's (referred to as "Cadillacs", back then) were well developed and relatively sophisticated escorts but not revolutionary at first. What made them so was the Canadian innovation of operating large, powerful helicopters off of them. Every Frigate and Destroyer in the world is configured that way now and it began with the St. Laurent, Saguenay, and her DDH sisters. The 280 Class 'New Tribal" were the first all gas turbine powered warships in the world and they also operate TWO of those large helicopters. They are powerful ships in themselves but the most powerful weapon system that they carry are those helicopters. The Halifax Class Frigates are pioneers in radar and infrared stealth as well as integrated command and weapons control computerization. These are significant Canadian achievements and all have created spin-offs way beyond the weapons biz. I would much rather pay twice as much and leave a smarter Canada behind me than cheap out and go "off the rack" and leave bright, young educated Canadians looking for work.

The problem being we can only pay double for so much and we need to spend money advertising this stuff. If we build an awesome frigate we need to aggressively sell that frigate to allied countries so that the industry isn't reliant on us always paying them double. Hell, if we made awesome icebreakers we could make a killing on selling them with all this arctic interest lately.

[Jabberwalker]

jeff744 jeff744:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

That old St Laurent Class and it's derivatives back in the 50's (referred to as "Cadillacs", back then) were well developed and relatively sophisticated escorts but not revolutionary at first. What made them so was the Canadian innovation of operating large, powerful helicopters off of them. Every Frigate and Destroyer in the world is configured that way now and it began with the St. Laurent, Saguenay, and her DDH sisters. The 280 Class 'New Tribal" were the first all gas turbine powered warships in the world and they also operate TWO of those large helicopters. They are powerful ships in themselves but the most powerful weapon system that they carry are those helicopters. The Halifax Class Frigates are pioneers in radar and infrared stealth as well as integrated command and weapons control computerization. These are significant Canadian achievements and all have created spin-offs way beyond the weapons biz. I would much rather pay twice as much and leave a smarter Canada behind me than cheap out and go "off the rack" and leave bright, young educated Canadians looking for work.

The problem being we can only pay double for so much and we need to spend money advertising this stuff. If we build an awesome frigate we need to aggressively sell that frigate to allied countries so that the industry isn't reliant on us always paying them double. Hell, if we made awesome icebreakers we could make a killing on selling them with all this arctic interest lately.

Do you want to have a high tech sector or not? This is how the Americans maintain theirs. Defence spending is a way of subsidizing various sectors of their economy besides the obvious part of maintaining a large standing army. If you buy off of the shelf, you are supporting the brainy part of some other country and we just shovel our tax money there without any benefit besides a shiny new ship.

[jeff744]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Do you want to have a high tech sector or not? This is how the Americans maintain theirs. Defence spending is a way of subsidizing various sectors of their economy besides the obvious part of maintaining a large standing army. If you buy off of the shelf, you are supporting the brainy part of some other country and we just shovel our tax money there without any benefit besides a shiny new ship.

A large scale high tech industry that can't bring in any foreign money and just sucks in cash is little more than a company living on bailouts. If we try to become a jack of all trades we will go bankrupt, we aren't America. We don't have the tax based or the economic base to support a massive arms complex that can't even bring in foreign funds to sustain development. People need to stop comparing us to the largest military industrial complex in the world and be more realistic about what Canada is capable of.

[bootlegga]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I don't know if I'd go as far as every generation - although I'd agree we haven't built any major warships in the last generation.

Since 1939, Canada produced warships with great regularity, from the massive navy during WW2 to the St. Laurents in the 1940s to the Restigouche of the 1950s, the Mackenzies in the 1960s and the Iroquois in the 1970s, followed by the Halifaxes in the 1980s/early 90s. Additionally, shipyards in Canada have been kept busy refitting frigates and destroyers for the past fifty years, adding new weapons mounts, replacing electronics, etc.

Still, I get your point. It's been a major lapse in government planning that we haven't built a new major combatant in 20 years. I had thought the Conservatives would have changed that, but seven years on and we still don't even have a design finalized, nevermind construction.

That old St Laurent Class and it's derivatives back in the 50's (referred to as "Cadillacs", back then) were well developed and relatively sophisticated escorts but not revolutionary at first. What made them so was the Canadian innovation of operating large, powerful helicopters off of them. Every Frigate and Destroyer in the world is configured that way now and it began with the St. Laurent, Saguenay, and her DDH sisters. The 280 Class 'New Tribal" were the first all gas turbine powered warships in the world and they also operate TWO of those large helicopters. They are powerful ships in themselves but the most powerful weapon system that they carry are those helicopters. The Halifax Class Frigates are pioneers in radar and infrared stealth as well as integrated command and weapons control computerization. These are significant Canadian achievements and all have created spin-offs way beyond the weapons biz. I would much rather pay twice as much and leave a smarter Canada behind me than cheap out and go "off the rack" and leave bright, young educated Canadians looking for work.

You may be willing to pay twice the cost, but the sad fact is most Canadians are not. Many want a national daycare program, better health care, tax cuts and a host of other things before defence spending ever pops up on their radar.

Personally, I like the idea of spending defence money in Canada, but the reality is that with the high costs associated with defence R&D, we can't afford to build everything here in Canada.

Having said that, if at all possible, we should get things built here under license if at all possible - just like the Aussies are doing with their NH-90 purchase.

[llama66]

Slightly off topic, but what happened to the IFV project? I thought the Goverment was looking at the CV90 or something similar...

[llama66]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I don't know if I'd go as far as every generation - although I'd agree we haven't built any major warships in the last generation.

Since 1939, Canada produced warships with great regularity, from the massive navy during WW2 to the St. Laurents in the 1940s to the Restigouche of the 1950s, the Mackenzies in the 1960s and the Iroquois in the 1970s, followed by the Halifaxes in the 1980s/early 90s. Additionally, shipyards in Canada have been kept busy refitting frigates and destroyers for the past fifty years, adding new weapons mounts, replacing electronics, etc.

Still, I get your point. It's been a major lapse in government planning that we haven't built a new major combatant in 20 years. I had thought the Conservatives would have changed that, but seven years on and we still don't even have a design finalized, nevermind construction.

That old St Laurent Class and it's derivatives back in the 50's (referred to as "Cadillacs", back then) were well developed and relatively sophisticated escorts but not revolutionary at first. What made them so was the Canadian innovation of operating large, powerful helicopters off of them. Every Frigate and Destroyer in the world is configured that way now and it began with the St. Laurent, Saguenay, and her DDH sisters. The 280 Class 'New Tribal" were the first all gas turbine powered warships in the world and they also operate TWO of those large helicopters. They are powerful ships in themselves but the most powerful weapon system that they carry are those helicopters. The Halifax Class Frigates are pioneers in radar and infrared stealth as well as integrated command and weapons control computerization. These are significant Canadian achievements and all have created spin-offs way beyond the weapons biz. I would much rather pay twice as much and leave a smarter Canada behind me than cheap out and go "off the rack" and leave bright, young educated Canadians looking for work.

You may be willing to pay twice the cost, but the sad fact is most Canadians are not. Many want a national daycare program, better health care, tax cuts and a host of other things before defence spending ever pops up on their radar.

Personally, I like the idea of spending defence money in Canada, but the reality is that with the high costs associated with defence R&D, we can't afford to build everything here in Canada.

Having said that, if at all possible, we should get things built here under license if at all possible - just like the Aussies are doing with their NH-90 purchase.

Is it bad to want both Better Health Care and a Better Military?

[bootlegga]

llama66 llama66:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

That old St Laurent Class and it's derivatives back in the 50's (referred to as "Cadillacs", back then) were well developed and relatively sophisticated escorts but not revolutionary at first. What made them so was the Canadian innovation of operating large, powerful helicopters off of them. Every Frigate and Destroyer in the world is configured that way now and it began with the St. Laurent, Saguenay, and her DDH sisters. The 280 Class 'New Tribal" were the first all gas turbine powered warships in the world and they also operate TWO of those large helicopters. They are powerful ships in themselves but the most powerful weapon system that they carry are those helicopters. The Halifax Class Frigates are pioneers in radar and infrared stealth as well as integrated command and weapons control computerization. These are significant Canadian achievements and all have created spin-offs way beyond the weapons biz. I would much rather pay twice as much and leave a smarter Canada behind me than cheap out and go "off the rack" and leave bright, young educated Canadians looking for work.

You may be willing to pay twice the cost, but the sad fact is most Canadians are not. Many want a national daycare program, better health care, tax cuts and a host of other things before defence spending ever pops up on their radar.

Personally, I like the idea of spending defence money in Canada, but the reality is that with the high costs associated with defence R&D, we can't afford to build everything here in Canada.

Having said that, if at all possible, we should get things built here under license if at all possible - just like the Aussies are doing with their NH-90 purchase.

Is it bad to want both Better Health Care and a Better Military?

Not at all, as long as you're willing to pay enough taxes for both, because both are hideously expensive.

However, most Canadians are NOT willing to pay more, so we wind up cutting one - and cuts to the military costs far less votes than cuts to healthcare.

[Jabberwalker]

Is it bad to want both Better Health Care and a Better Military?[/quote]

Not at all, as long as you're willing to pay enough taxes for both, because both are hideously expensive.

However, most Canadians are NOT willing to pay more, so we wind up cutting one - and cuts to the military costs far less votes than cuts to healthcare.[/quote]


... and so we hand our defences ... and ultimately a large part of our ability to make sovereign decisions, over to another power ... one who acts in it's own self-interest (as it should). We get by with the arrangement because very often, at this particular point in our histories, our national self interests happen to overlap a lot. This has not always been the case and probably will not continue to be so, to such an extent, into the future. We really have no voice ... no say at all unless we can bring some sort of military power to the table. Like it or not, this is an important part of how every nation maintains it's independence. Soft power eventually peters out without some sort of solid substance behind it.
This is one of the ugly truths about our species and all of the flowers and "kumbayas" in the World can't alter it.