news Canadian News
Good Afternoon Guest | login or register
  • Home
    • Canadian News
    • Popular News
    • News Voting Log
    • News Images
  • Forums
    • Recent Topics Scroll
    •  
    • Politics Forums
    • Sports Forums
    • Regional Forums
  • Content
    • Achievements
    • Canadian Content
    • Famous Canadians
    • Famous Quotes
    • Jokes
    • Canadian Maps
  • Photos
    • Picture Gallery
    • Wallpapers
    • Recent Activity
  • About
    • About
    • Contact
    • Link to Us
    • Points
    • Statistics
  • Shop
  • Register
    • Gold Membership
  • Archive
    • Canadian TV
    • Canadian Webcams
    • Groups
    • Links
    • Top 10's
    • Reviews
    • CKA Radio
    • Video
    • Weather

Canada, U.K. won't collaborate on warships

Canadian Content
20694news upnews down
Link Related to Canada in some say

Canada, U.K. won't collaborate on warships


Military | 206939 hits | Mar 06 6:46 pm | Posted by: Hyack
28 Comment

The Conservative government is slamming the door on a British proposal that the two countries work together in building new warships.

Comments

  1. by avatar gonavy47
    Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm
    Good move. We need Canadian-specific ships, not compromizes. Plus, we will stimulate a home-grown industry.

  2. by avatar BartSimpson  Gold Member
    Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:25 pm
    Paxton was reacting to comments made by London's top diplomat in Ottawa, who told The Canadian Press that Canada and Britain could make better use of scarce public dollars by collaborating on new warships.


    Allow me to translate this into :

    Paxton was reacting to comments made by London's top diplomat in Ottawa, who told The Canadian Press that Britain could make better use of scarce public funds by fooling Canadians into financing the development costs of new warships for the Royal Navy.

  3. by avatar GreenTiger
    Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:54 am
    "gonavy47" said
    Good move. We need Canadian-specific ships, not compromizes. Plus, we will stimulate a home-grown industry.

    The compromise would have benefited the UK a lot more than Canada.

  4. by jeff744
    Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:49 am
    "GreenTiger" said
    Good move. We need Canadian-specific ships, not compromizes. Plus, we will stimulate a home-grown industry.

    The compromise would have benefited the UK a lot more than Canada.
    That's usually how it works when somebody decides to collaborate on a military design with us.

  5. by avatar Freakinoldguy
    Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:33 am
    And why would we compromise, little own work with, the same people who sold us those sterling monuments to technical achievement, the Upholder Class Submarines??????

    Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, or as an old Cheif Cook once said to me:

    "Fuck em, let em eat fish".

  6. by avatar Tman1
    Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:34 am
    Good. The crews of the Victoria class submarines are jumping with joy.

  7. by avatar PublicAnimalNo9
    Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:59 am
    "BartSimpson" said
    Paxton was reacting to comments made by London's top diplomat in Ottawa, who told The Canadian Press that Canada and Britain could make better use of scarce public dollars by collaborating on new warships.


    Allow me to translate this into :

    Paxton was reacting to comments made by London's top diplomat in Ottawa, who told The Canadian Press that Britain could make better use of scarce public funds by fooling Canadians into financing the development costs of new warships for the Royal Navy.

    And then turn around and sell us shit they wouldn't lower themselves to use as fishing trawlers.

  8. by avatar EyeBrock
    Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:43 am
    "Freakinoldguy" said
    And why would we compromise, little own work with, the same people who sold us those sterling monuments to technical achievement, the Upholder Class Submarines??????

    Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, or as an old Cheif Cook once said to me:

    "Fuck em, let em eat fish".



    Not the same at all really. Those boats had been tied up for 8 years. You guys under Chretien decided they would be a good deal to be thrown in with rent for CFB Goose Bay, BATUS Suffield etc.

    Maritime Command had to deal with a political decision to take boats the Brits didn't want that had been rusting away for a few years.

    Don't blame the Brits for Chretien's bad decision. Blame yourselves.

  9. by avatar ShepherdsDog
    Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:19 am
    you get what you pay for, and that purchase already cost the life of one man. This was the result of having a penny wise pound foolish outlook.

  10. by Canadian_Mind
    Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:29 am
    If the Brits wanna share development costs, the can buy what we design & build.

  11. by jeff744
    Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:40 am
    "Canadian_Mind" said
    If the Brits wanna share development costs, the can buy what we design & build.

    Or pay us to make a another frigate version on the planned stock hull that suits their needs.

  12. by avatar Freakinoldguy
    Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:48 am
    "EyeBrock" said
    And why would we compromise, little own work with, the same people who sold us those sterling monuments to technical achievement, the Upholder Class Submarines??????

    Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, or as an old Cheif Cook once said to me:

    "Fuck em, let em eat fish".



    Not the same at all really. Those boats had been tied up for 8 years. You guys under Chretien decided they would be a good deal to be thrown in with rent for CFB Goose Bay, BATUS Suffield etc.

    Maritime Command had to deal with a political decision to take boats the Brits didn't want that had been rusting away for a few years.

    Don't blame the Brits for Chretien's bad decision. Blame yourselves.


    Given that logic, every used car dealer in Canada is a Saint and never knowingly sold a lemon to an unsuspecting customer. :roll:

    Yes we were idiots for buying them without really checking them out, especially after 8 years in black squadron, but hey, I suppose we never thought we'd get taken by our mother country.

    So I guess you live and learn, and we learned not to trust what Brits say when it comes to "good used vessels" and so now that distrust is being carried over to other shipbuilding ventures.

  13. by avatar EyeBrock
    Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:23 am
    I think you have it wrong FOG. Chretien went looking for cheap solutions for the CF's procurement problems in that decade of darknesss.

    I don't think the the UK's MOD went banging on doors to sell these boats. The Canadian PM of the time made this deal.

    Really, who would buy boats that had been moored for 8 years?

    Misplaced anger mate. Redirect to the Chretien government.

  14. by avatar ShepherdsDog
    Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:40 am
    Exactly. You can't buy from a scrap yard and complain later you didn't know it was a junker.



view comments in forum
Page 1 2

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

  • Login
  • Register (free)
 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile

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