CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30650
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:35 am
 


Title: High risk that new navy supply ships won't get built: documents
Category: Political
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2015-06-24 13:08:18
Canadian


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 334
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:35 am
 


What a load of crap. This so called reporter obviously cherry picked the one item in the risk matrix that looked sensational. Every project ever created will have lack of qualified labour on its risk matrix, because it is always a possibility.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:25 am
 


Hell, when the plans for these ships were published I recall posting on CKA that I didn't expect them to be built.

My comment at the time was to the effect that you can't defend Canada with the navy you're always just PLANNING to build. :idea:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:22 am
 


High risk ?

No,it's guaranteed. :lol:


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 54164
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:06 pm
 


It's ok, we can refit some container ships to meet the need. :roll:


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19986
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:21 pm
 


Yeah, if they retrofit one or two vessels as stopgap supply ships sooner or later they'll decide the stopgap ships are good enough for now so why waste more money to replace them with new ships....let the next government worry about it.....

.....Welcome to Canada in the 21st century..... :roll: :roll:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21611
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:44 pm
 


:|


Last edited by Public_Domain on Sun Feb 23, 2025 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23092
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 6:15 am
 


Given that none of the three main political parties give a damn about the armed forces, I was already skeptical that these would ever get built. If the Conservatives get re-elected there's a chance they will get built, but I doubt the Liberals will care and if the NDP get elected, they almost certainly will NOT be built because many Dippers hate the military.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 6642
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:30 am
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
Given that none of the three main political parties give a damn about the armed forces, I was already skeptical that these would ever get built. If the Conservatives get re-elected there's a chance they will get built, but I doubt the Liberals will care and if the NDP get elected, they almost certainly will NOT be built because many Dippers hate the military.



I'm not so sure about this. Under Layton the platform called for a minor increase in spending over then 2008 & 2011 levels. However, most of that would go to things that we need for self defence, not offence. So I believe we would have had supply ships under Layton, just not supply ships with battle group transport capabilities (like the ships we are slated to build).

Not sure about under Mulclair though.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23092
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:41 am
 


Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Given that none of the three main political parties give a damn about the armed forces, I was already skeptical that these would ever get built. If the Conservatives get re-elected there's a chance they will get built, but I doubt the Liberals will care and if the NDP get elected, they almost certainly will NOT be built because many Dippers hate the military.



I'm not so sure about this. Under Layton the platform called for a minor increase in spending over then 2008 & 2011 levels. However, most of that would go to things that we need for self defence, not offence. So I believe we would have had supply ships under Layton, just not supply ships with battle group transport capabilities (like the ships we are slated to build).

Not sure about under Mulclair though.


I wasn't very clear, but that's because I'm doing this on my phone and not the laptop and find typing long replies a pain in the ass. :lol:

Maybe they don't hate the CAF, but a fair number do hate the reason they exist (to fight and kill).

The defence policy from the Dippers has always to get rid of our alliances and divest ourselves of ant sort of offensive military capabilites (since the 1980s anyways).

There is no real need for the JSS if the armed forces were converted to the peacekeeping and coastal patrol force the Dippers want.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 480
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 6:43 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
you can't defend Canada with the navy you're always just PLANNING to build. :idea:


That's the Cons' rouse...tell everyone that you are intent on defending the nation and creating a more secure environment but blow most of the money on consultation and big ads on TV. By the time that the people who voted them in realize that they have been hood-winked, it no longer matters and someone else has to deal with the stuff that nobody got built yet.

9 years in power and all they have done is take stuff away from working people while delivering nothing.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12398
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 7:44 pm
 


What "stuff" would that be?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.