news Canadian News
Good Morning 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

Navy supply ships set to join F-35 as political

Canadian Content
20697news upnews down
Link Related to Canada in some say

Navy supply ships set to join F-35 as political lightning rod in 2013


Military | 206969 hits | Jan 06 4:48 pm | Posted by: BeaverFever
53 Comment

The navy’s long-delayed, much-studied joint support ship program is expected to come under the political microscope within weeks in what is likely another defence equipment embarrassment for the Harper government.

Comments

  1. by avatar bootlegga
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:26 pm
    Another defence failure by this government...when will it end?

  2. by avatar BartSimpson  Gold Member
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:44 pm
    That's a totally absurd price for three supply ships. There's literally hundreds of perfectly fine surplus cargo ships and tankers around the world that can be had for far less money and then refit to perform most tasks at least adequately. Maybe that's not a perfect solution, but that's a buttload cheaper than building a cargo hull from scratch that costs more than most countries destroyers.

  3. by avatar saturn_656
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:45 pm
    JSS was an abortion of an idea from the beginning.

    Build resupply vessels now, build dedicated LPD/LHD ships later.

  4. by avatar Gunnair  Gold Member
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:50 pm
    "BartSimpson" said
    That's a totally absurd price for three supply ships. There's literally hundreds of perfectly fine surplus cargo ships and tankers around the world that can be had for far less money and then refit to perform most tasks at least adequately. Maybe that's not a perfect solution, but that's a buttload cheaper than building a cargo hull from scratch that costs more than most countries destroyers.




    Used... we've done well by that.

  5. by avatar BartSimpson  Gold Member
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:54 pm
    I'm talking about near-new, unused, surplus hulls. Not cast-offs that are overdue for the breakers.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive ... apore.html

  6. by avatar andyt
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:15 pm
    "bootlegga" said
    Another defence failure by this government...when will it end?


    It won't. When have they (as in any govt) ever got it right? I read an interesting article about how bidding for govt contracts works. The bureaucrats put out a call for tender that has a lot of CYA clauses in it but doesn't actually reflect what's needed. The companies then post bids that are totally not profitable for them, knowing that if they get the bid, the contract will be re-opened to be modified more to what's actually needed. Since there is no bidding on this, the company is then free to charge whatever it wants so it can make a profit (and a juicy one) on the deal. Look at the Sikorsky debacle - we still haven't got them, there are penalty clauses for late delivery, but the govt won't enforce those because they've kept moving the goalposts on the design.

    This article recommended doing away with the tendering system. Forget what it recommended instead - maybe just delivering wheelbarrows full of cash to a chosen contractor - would probably cost less.

  7. by avatar Gunnair  Gold Member
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:16 pm
    "BartSimpson" said
    I'm talking about near-new, unused, surplus hulls. Not cast-offs that are overdue for the breakers.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive ... apore.html


    They weren't cast offs meant for the breakers when we began looking at them.

  8. by avatar bootlegga
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:20 pm
    "BartSimpson" said
    That's a totally absurd price for three supply ships. There's literally hundreds of perfectly fine surplus cargo ships and tankers around the world that can be had for far less money and then refit to perform most tasks at least adequately. Maybe that's not a perfect solution, but that's a buttload cheaper than building a cargo hull from scratch that costs more than most countries destroyers.


    The difference is that the RCN is far smaller than the USN and can't afford 2-3 oilers, 2-3 replenishment ships, and 1-2 LCDs - the ALSC/JSS was designed to be a jack of all trades. Had it been built in a timely fashion, we probably could have gotten it for the original pricetag, but 7 years of pooch-screwing means we can't.

    Someone - CASR perhaps - suggested building a cargo ship and getting in on one of the USN's LCD builds, but that's likely a no go as the government wants most - if not all - of the money spent here in Canada.

    It has also been suggested we buy a ship modelled on the Dutch JSS;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_Door ... pport_ship

    That plan too is likely a no-go, because we'd probably have to build it there.

  9. by avatar saturn_656
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:21 pm
    "Gunnair" said
    I'm talking about near-new, unused, surplus hulls. Not cast-offs that are overdue for the breakers.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive ... apore.html


    They weren't cast offs meant for the breakers when we began looking at them.

    From what I read the RN never properly prepared the Upholders for long term inactivity. And we never properly inspected them prior to buying them.

    Plenty of blame to go around.

  10. by avatar Gunnair  Gold Member
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:22 pm
    "saturn_656" said
    I'm talking about near-new, unused, surplus hulls. Not cast-offs that are overdue for the breakers.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive ... apore.html


    They weren't cast offs meant for the breakers when we began looking at them.

    From what I read the RN never properly prepared the Upholders for long term inactivity. And we never properly inspected them prior to buying them.

    Plenty of blame to go around.

    Yep.

  11. by avatar Gunnair  Gold Member
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:23 pm
    "bootlegga" said
    That's a totally absurd price for three supply ships. There's literally hundreds of perfectly fine surplus cargo ships and tankers around the world that can be had for far less money and then refit to perform most tasks at least adequately. Maybe that's not a perfect solution, but that's a buttload cheaper than building a cargo hull from scratch that costs more than most countries destroyers.


    The difference is that the RCN is far smaller than the USN and can't afford 2-3 oilers, 2-3 replenishment ships, and 1-2 LCDs - the ALSC/JSS was designed to be a jack of all trades. Had it been built in a timely fashion, we probably could have gotten it for the original pricetag, but 7 years of pooch-screwing means we can't.

    Someone - CASR perhaps - suggested building a cargo ship and getting in on one of the USN's LCD builds, but that's likely a no go as the government wants most - if not all - of the money spent here in Canada.

    It has also been suggested we buy a ship modelled on the Dutch JSS;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_Door ... pport_ship

    That plan too is likely a no-go, because we'd probably have to build it there.

    There was some chatter coming out of RCN Command about those. Wishful thinking, I agree.

  12. by avatar saturn_656
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:27 pm
    "bootlegga" said
    That's a totally absurd price for three supply ships. There's literally hundreds of perfectly fine surplus cargo ships and tankers around the world that can be had for far less money and then refit to perform most tasks at least adequately. Maybe that's not a perfect solution, but that's a buttload cheaper than building a cargo hull from scratch that costs more than most countries destroyers.


    The difference is that the RCN is far smaller than the USN and can't afford 2-3 oilers, 2-3 replenishment ships, and 1-2 LCDs - the ALSC/JSS was designed to be a jack of all trades.

    2-3 resupply ships and 1-2 LHD's.

    The Australians can do it. We have no excuse.

  13. by avatar Gunnair  Gold Member
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:32 pm
    "saturn_656" said
    That's a totally absurd price for three supply ships. There's literally hundreds of perfectly fine surplus cargo ships and tankers around the world that can be had for far less money and then refit to perform most tasks at least adequately. Maybe that's not a perfect solution, but that's a buttload cheaper than building a cargo hull from scratch that costs more than most countries destroyers.


    The difference is that the RCN is far smaller than the USN and can't afford 2-3 oilers, 2-3 replenishment ships, and 1-2 LCDs - the ALSC/JSS was designed to be a jack of all trades.

    2-3 resupply ships and 1-2 LHD's.

    The Australians can do it. We have no excuse.

    We don't have the manpower.

  14. by avatar bootlegga
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:37 pm
    "saturn_656" said
    JSS was an abortion of an idea from the beginning.

    Build resupply vessels now, build dedicated LPD/LHD ships later.


    Way too expensive given our needs - especially when we need new destroyers, fighters, SAR planes and other major platforms.



view comments in forum
Page 1 2 3 4

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