afransen
Senior Member
Seems like NATO should try to at least specialize. Maybe we make everyone's APCs or something, and we buy our subs from people who actually know what they're doing and not the New Brunswick mob (aka the Irvings).
|
|
|
F-35 Fighter Jet Purchase
- Thread starter BMO
- Start date
kEiThZ
Superstar
Never going to happen. What's the plan to tell a country that their aerospace sector gets cut?
Also, there's an element of strength in the diversity of solutions.
afransen
Senior Member
Can't we buy subs that work and then just drop a few pallets of unmarked bills at the Irving residence and call it a day? Probably more cost effective.
lenaitch
Senior Member
It's important to remember that the process to build new warships domestically didn't really start in earnest (meaning the government of the day could no longer ignore the problem) until after existing hulls were found to be unseaworthy, and then fund the rebuilding of shipyards and skills that had been allowed to rot on the vine. It's a typical Canadian approach; keep equipment until long past obsolescence, experience a crisis which reveals a price tag a timeline that scares the pants off everybody. You can't maintain facilities and skills based on half-century cycles.
Even with properly funded and managed programs, building complex warships from the keel up takes time. You have to start before you need them.
We would have to do it like the F-35 program, with baked-in industrial offsets. I really don't see a domestic program being started from scratch. Whatever the number, it wouldn't be large enough to develop, justify and sustain the necessary skills and facilities; and hoping to build something for other countries butts up against other nations wanting to do the same thing.
kEiThZ
Superstar
The entire point of the National Shipbuilding Strategy was to create a pipeline of work that sustains at least two shipyards (Irving and Season) for 30 years (2010-2040). The government has now added Davie in Quebec and additional ships. That pipeline of works creates a skills base and sustains them with a steady stream of projects for decades.
This is why, it's hard to speed up construction of any ships. It breaks the pipeline. The government can shuffle a bit. For example, getting fewer Arctic patrol ships will speed up frigate construction. And it is basically doing that by not exercising additional options on the AOPS.
The coming budget is likely to add more non-combatant ships that Seaspan and Davie can build. Additional science vessels for the Coast Guard and another oiler for the navy. Those would be good choices.
Ultimately, there's priorities that the CAF needs to open projects on. Subs are just one. We have aging maritime patrol aircraft and air tankers (needed for NORAD/homeland defence). Our army doesn't have air defences beyond some shoulder fires Manpads. We never signed on to Ballistic Missile Defence. So the radars up north languished. And we have growing needs in space and cyber that need to be addressed, but aren't sexy enough to have wikipedia pages for the public to surf, with nice pictures. So any desire for subs or any specific capability needs to be situated in that hierarchy of priorities.
This is why, it's hard to speed up construction of any ships. It breaks the pipeline. The government can shuffle a bit. For example, getting fewer Arctic patrol ships will speed up frigate construction. And it is basically doing that by not exercising additional options on the AOPS.
The coming budget is likely to add more non-combatant ships that Seaspan and Davie can build. Additional science vessels for the Coast Guard and another oiler for the navy. Those would be good choices.
Ultimately, there's priorities that the CAF needs to open projects on. Subs are just one. We have aging maritime patrol aircraft and air tankers (needed for NORAD/homeland defence). Our army doesn't have air defences beyond some shoulder fires Manpads. We never signed on to Ballistic Missile Defence. So the radars up north languished. And we have growing needs in space and cyber that need to be addressed, but aren't sexy enough to have wikipedia pages for the public to surf, with nice pictures. So any desire for subs or any specific capability needs to be situated in that hierarchy of priorities.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
And now these bozos….
nofighterjets.ca
Do they want the RCAF to follow the RNZAF and drop any fighter capability whatsoever?
HOME — No Fighter Jets
The campaign to stop Canada's planned warplane purchase. Canada does not need to buy fighter jets, and 2022 is our critical opportunity to stop this purchase before it happens. Join the #NoNewFighterJets campaign!
nofighterjets.ca
Do they want the RCAF to follow the RNZAF and drop any fighter capability whatsoever?
lenaitch
Senior Member
Meh. Groups like this will always exist. Their not particularly against the F-35 purchase, they're against any military spending. They're a little off with their history of CF-18 deployment as well.And now these bozos….
HOME — No Fighter Jets
The campaign to stop Canada's planned warplane purchase. Canada does not need to buy fighter jets, and 2022 is our critical opportunity to stop this purchase before it happens. Join the #NoNewFighterJets campaign!
Do they want the RCAF to follow the RNZAF and drop any fighter capability whatsoever?
kEiThZ
Superstar
And now these bozos….
HOME — No Fighter Jets
The campaign to stop Canada's planned warplane purchase. Canada does not need to buy fighter jets, and 2022 is our critical opportunity to stop this purchase before it happens. Join the #NoNewFighterJets campaign!
Do they want the RCAF to follow the RNZAF and drop any fighter capability whatsoever?
Yep. Groups like that have always been around. They are particularly useful for adversaries like Russia and China. Unfortunately, they've been helped by American blunders like Iraq. But with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, we have to hope that it's more clear to the average Canadian why sharing the security burden with our allies is the best path to ensuring global peace and stability in our benefit.
I will add that the cause of these groups is helped by the way we talk about defence spending in Canada. Military procurement in Canada is always announced with both system procurement and 20 yr support contracts. Costs are often discussed with 30 yr lifecycle estimates. Imagine we discussed healthcare, public transit, etc the same way. How many hospitals and subways would be build?
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
And I've never understood that. I can understand including any infrastructure costs necessary to support a purchase, but not full life cycle costs. We are either unique or in a small minority of countries that do that. To the best of my knowledge it doesn't follow normally accepted accounting principles if, for no other reason, it is impossible to base them on a credible estimating method.
Not only is it disingenuous, it distorts the perception of the taxpayer and voter (maybe that's the goal).
afransen
Senior Member
Haven't we started pricing transit projects that way, hence the $6B Hurontario LRT?
kEiThZ
Superstar
Only for DBFOM contracts. But even here, the operations and maintenance costs are not often trumpeted the same way as construction costs universally. For example, Ottawa's LRT is DBFOM. Try and find the value of the maintenance contract.
afransen
Senior Member
Ottawa has signed a contract for 88 F35 for $19B. I hear we're also buying some second hand f18s from Australia.
lenaitch
Senior Member
We already have. The oldest of our fleet is 40 years old. They been through upgrades but we need to maintain a viable fleet until the F-35 becomes operational. The article says 2029.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
With the exception of whatever replaces the ancient CP-140 Auroras in the mid 2030s, the F-35 is probably the last manned fixed wing combat aircraft Canada will ever operate. By the 2080s when we retire the F-35 it will be all Skynet.
afransen
Senior Member
I think there is going to be plenty of Skynet with the F35. I guess there are thoughts that 6th gen fighters will be bigger to support crews of two, with the second operator managing various unmanned platforms. One would think that it will be easier to make very stealthy unmanned ordinance carrying platforms.