 Navy waters down plans for Arctic patrol ships OTTAWA -- The federal government has put off asking shipbuilders for ideas on the construction of a flotilla of Arctic patrol boats, a sign that the two-year-old program is in trouble.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
Who voted on this?
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
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!
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?
"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.
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?
"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.
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.
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?