Canada Kicks Ass
Joint Support Ship Scrapped

REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next



DerbyX @ Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:53 am

EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Five years ago the Liberals were not ordering C17's or CH47's.
There has been more procurement in the past 3 years than the previous 10. Hence Hillier's term 'decade of darkness'.



The CPC cancels a very important naval purchase and still the darts are aimed at the Liberals?

No, your belief is wrong and hillier is a tosser who is to stupid to realize just how difficult it is to maintain an army when the entire country is broke. its all fine and good for him to have a cushy govt job with all the perks and military provided healthcare plan but for the poor taxpayer working night and day just to make ends meet being told to pay more and more taxes to support people who then turn around and dump on us ofr not providing enough ......

In 93 we were broke and in debt up to our eyeballs. The Liberals came in and saved us. Period. Unlike the US or the UK our economy cannot sustain deficit spending, or at least cannot sustain it as long as they can.

Our money was devalueed and depending on which set of govt books you reference we were spending between 57 and 67 cents on the dollar servicing debt. That decade of darkness was echoed in all the other depts also but guess what?

When the deficit was eliminated and large debt repayments were made the money flowed back into the military so much so that socialist groups started complaining about it and were even quoted by none other then tricycle boy. Lets not forget that the Liberals were still paying for the aquisition of the new frigates and coastal patrol craft during the worst of the debt crisis. Lo and behold when the light at the end of the tunnel was daylight and not an oncoming train the money went back in. New kit was purchased. Vehicles, subs, choppers, etc were all procured under the Liberals who were also still paying for PC military purchases yet all they got was bitching and complaining.

Sure I think the military was underfunded but then I grew up and moved off base and started paying taxes for myself and sudden;y find myself on the opposite side of the fence where I'm called a coward or traitor (not by you of course) for not supporting a war I don't agree with and not wanting the bulk of my taxes to support an institution that vilifies my political side and party every chance it gets and gives them no credit whatsoever for all the good it did do while handing over gushing and fawning praise to a party that has done nothing more then spend the same amount well thats too much.

A bit thick perhaps? Maybe but Harper has shelved indefinately or cancelled Liberal military purchases that were every bit as important as those helicopters the Liberla cancelled and yet he has no good excuse other then buying votes.

The Liberals were vilified for cancelling a 5+ billion dollar purchase at a time when the govt was running 25 billion dollar deficits and almost 600 billion in the hole and Harper cancels military purchases after being handed a red-hot economy and a 13 billion dollar surplus. :?

Yet all we keep hearing about is whining about the so-called decade of darkness by some fuckwit general too stupid to realize even basic economics let alone the fact that all the taxpayers of Canada expect things like healthcare and education for their money and don't like the idea that a large chunk of it going to paying interest. Christ we are just giving our money right to the banks.

Sorry to dump on you like thie Eyebrock but in this regard you can't seem to take a fair perspective. You vilify the Libs for cancelling the helo deal back in 93, a deal for which Mulroney would have received all the credit for a purchase the Liberal would have had to pay for and be held accountable for not being able to balance the books yet Harper cancels a naval purchase every bit as important and he gets ...... well nothing. The Liberal were obviously at fault for this too.

Harper cancels replacement SAR plans forcing them to fly with planes they no longer make propellers for yet he was praised for giving them some awards in leiu of equipment.

In all honesty I think you guys think you are supporting the military but to me it seems like you are creating the conditions for Liberals like me who do support the CF getting better funding deciding that enough is enough and that if the Liberals are going to be damned for being "full on left hating military" then they might as well adopt that persona fully.

The last time this was a debate issue the numbers came down that as a %GDP Harper was less then or equal to the previous 30 years. In essence he wasn't spending anymore then any of the previous PMs yet he receives fawning praise.

Thats bollocks.

   



Scape @ Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:03 pm

This also shows how close we are to going in the red. After slashing the taxes and upping the spending we have gone from billion dollar back to back decades long surpluses to Brian Mulroney fiscal polices. We need these ships, and the tender put out for them was woefully low balled and naive or at least manipulated to fail. This is a priority for the navy that has instead been converted into a political football for a party platform.

   



EyeBrock @ Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:05 pm

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
I think this is another signal that the writ is about to be dropped.
I would think a decision on a cheaper ship or something 'off the shelf' will be made post election by which ever leader scrapes another minority government in.
The C17's and the CH47's were and still are top priority because of combat in the Stan.
Maritime Command isn't taking an active role in this mission so resources are going to the Army.
I agree that we need new support vessels but we need rotary lift and strategic airlift more the new ships at the moment.

Really we just need to spend a lot more cash on the military after the 'decade of darkness', especially on ships and combat aircraft but I doubt we will get our wish with an economic downturn beckoning.
All will be on hold until an election.
See you in the voting booth.


Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree.

While the mission in Afghanistan is very important and we do need kit there and fast, I believe that national security/domestic issues and sovereignty come first above all else. What good is fighting a war half-way around the world if you don't even have the proper kit to defend and assert your soveignty over your own homeland?


Fleet support vessels are mainly meant to give logistical support to naval units deployed in various parts of the globe, not for 'home defence'.
The previous governments, including Mulroney's Tories, neglected every aspect of the CF.
Harper at least has made sure that the sharp end is getting some of the kit they need.

It would be great to have more ships but that would mean a lot more cash, is the Canadian public up for multi-billion dollar ship purchases? I think we will find out after the next election.
I've not heard too much from the Liberals on increased procurement and capital program defence expenditure, just a load of stuff about extra taxes.

   



Gunnair @ Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:12 pm

EyeBrock EyeBrock:
I think this is another signal that the writ is about to be dropped.
I would think a decision on a cheaper ship or something 'off the shelf' will be made post election by which ever leader scrapes another minority government in.
The C17's and the CH47's were and still are top priority because of combat in the Stan.
Maritime Command isn't taking an active role in this mission so resources are going to the Army.
I agree that we need new support vessels but we need rotary lift and strategic airlift more the new ships at the moment.

Really we just need to spend a lot more cash on the military after the 'decade of darkness', especially on ships and combat aircraft but I doubt we will get our wish with an economic downturn beckoning.
All will be on hold until an election.
See you in the voting booth.


Understood that the priority now is Army and Afghanistan, however, that's set to end in 2011. The first JSS wasn't likely to appear until 2012 or so - which meant further extending the use of the old Protectuer class. Procuring the new ships was planned along with the Chinooks and C117s so I'm not buying the priority shift.

I wonder if the demands made on the platform were ultimately too expensive. I wonder now if there will be a push towards procuring a cheaper off the shelf European design or a possible lease of some US ships.

   



EyeBrock @ Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:19 pm

Gunnair Gunnair:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
I think this is another signal that the writ is about to be dropped.
I would think a decision on a cheaper ship or something 'off the shelf' will be made post election by which ever leader scrapes another minority government in.
The C17's and the CH47's were and still are top priority because of combat in the Stan.
Maritime Command isn't taking an active role in this mission so resources are going to the Army.
I agree that we need new support vessels but we need rotary lift and strategic airlift more the new ships at the moment.

Really we just need to spend a lot more cash on the military after the 'decade of darkness', especially on ships and combat aircraft but I doubt we will get our wish with an economic downturn beckoning.
All will be on hold until an election.
See you in the voting booth.


Understood that the priority now is Army and Afghanistan, however, that's set to end in 2011. The first JSS wasn't likely to appear until 2012 or so - which meant further extending the use of the old Protectuer class. Procuring the new ships was planned along with the Chinooks and C117s so I'm not buying the priority shift.

I wonder if the demands made on the platform were ultimately too expensive. I wonder now if there will be a push towards procuring a cheaper off the shelf European design or a possible lease of some US ships.


Buying ships not built in Canada will be a very hot political potato, like I said, I think this has more to do with an election than procurement.
You are probably right about what the CF wanted/needed bumping up the price. This one is an interesting one. As a navy guy what do you think?

   



Gunnair @ Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:55 pm

EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Gunnair Gunnair:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
I think this is another signal that the writ is about to be dropped.
I would think a decision on a cheaper ship or something 'off the shelf' will be made post election by which ever leader scrapes another minority government in.
The C17's and the CH47's were and still are top priority because of combat in the Stan.
Maritime Command isn't taking an active role in this mission so resources are going to the Army.
I agree that we need new support vessels but we need rotary lift and strategic airlift more the new ships at the moment.

Really we just need to spend a lot more cash on the military after the 'decade of darkness', especially on ships and combat aircraft but I doubt we will get our wish with an economic downturn beckoning.
All will be on hold until an election.
See you in the voting booth.


Understood that the priority now is Army and Afghanistan, however, that's set to end in 2011. The first JSS wasn't likely to appear until 2012 or so - which meant further extending the use of the old Protectuer class. Procuring the new ships was planned along with the Chinooks and C117s so I'm not buying the priority shift.

I wonder if the demands made on the platform were ultimately too expensive. I wonder now if there will be a push towards procuring a cheaper off the shelf European design or a possible lease of some US ships.


Buying ships not built in Canada will be a very hot political potato, like I said, I think this has more to do with an election than procurement.
You are probably right about what the CF wanted/needed bumping up the price. This one is an interesting one. As a navy guy what do you think?


Well I don't like to speculate too much, but I can't ignore the coincidence that the government scrapping the made in Canada procurement strategy a couple of weeks after tossing around the idea of a Dutch built platform. :?

I agree with the political hot potato, mind BC did it with the three C CLass ferries, with mixed results. The fact the jobs were outsourced was bad, but no one could argue that taxpayers saved money on the deal and ships were delivered on time.

As a taxpayer, I have no problem with tanks made in Germany, CF 18s, Chinooks, and C117s made inthe US, so if my gov could buy an off the shelf ship that does the job cheaper than the long process of building it here (like our three ferries) then who am I to complain.

The concellation of the off shore coastguard ships is confusing as well, and in some ways, makes less sense with the new emphasis on soveriegnty.

   



Pimpbrewski @ Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:03 pm

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
So one of the most important thigns that are needed right now, are getting out off because it's too expensive...Even though we just spent billions on FOUR heavy Transport Aircraft... :? :roll:


Well then, perhaps you, and only you AM, should pay more taxes so that the Canadian Govt be able to afford new toys.

ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL Nah, just kidding.


Seriously, it would be a good thing for Canada to get some more Heavy Duty ships. Crap, we might as well get an Aircraft Carrier while at it no joke. Any Government, Libs or Cons, should be less concerned with useless social programs and invest into the military. But then again, it's only a matter of opinion. :)

   



stokes @ Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:39 pm

The biggest issue we face right now is personnel, we hardly have enough for the ships we have, with a lot of guys "jetty jumping".

We need new supply ships NOW as the replacement parts for these ships have to be made to order because they are no longer available off the shelf, this is a bad idea to cancel this and I am really really disappointed. I have been going to sea since 1995 and the first ship that I sailed was built in 1963 and had cracks in her superstructure and shook like crazy when going fast....I was hoping those days of young canadians serving their country in old out of date ships was coming to an end.

Hopefully if WE build it they will come

   



EyeBrock @ Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:07 pm

$1:
Well I don't like to speculate too much, but I can't ignore the coincidence that the government scrapping the made in Canada procurement strategy a couple of weeks after tossing around the idea of a Dutch built platform. :?

I agree with the political hot potato, mind BC did it with the three C CLass ferries, with mixed results. The fact the jobs were outsourced was bad, but no one could argue that taxpayers saved money on the deal and ships were delivered on time.

As a taxpayer, I have no problem with tanks made in Germany, CF 18s, Chinooks, and C117s made inthe US, so if my gov could buy an off the shelf ship that does the job cheaper than the long process of building it here (like our three ferries) then who am I to complain.

The concellation of the off shore coastguard ships is confusing as well, and in some ways, makes less sense with the new emphasis on soveriegnty.


Again we are on the same page about buying the best kit. But for some reason ships are different. It's seen as a lack of nationhood not to be able to build your own ships.
The Brits and Aussies are the same as Canada. Both have expensive independant ship building programs.
It's a mindest that has provided jobs but at a very inflated procurement cost.
Why are ships so politically sensitive?

   



Gunnair @ Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:34 pm

EyeBrock EyeBrock:
$1:
Well I don't like to speculate too much, but I can't ignore the coincidence that the government scrapping the made in Canada procurement strategy a couple of weeks after tossing around the idea of a Dutch built platform. :?

I agree with the political hot potato, mind BC did it with the three C CLass ferries, with mixed results. The fact the jobs were outsourced was bad, but no one could argue that taxpayers saved money on the deal and ships were delivered on time.

As a taxpayer, I have no problem with tanks made in Germany, CF 18s, Chinooks, and C117s made inthe US, so if my gov could buy an off the shelf ship that does the job cheaper than the long process of building it here (like our three ferries) then who am I to complain.

The concellation of the off shore coastguard ships is confusing as well, and in some ways, makes less sense with the new emphasis on soveriegnty.


Again we are on the same page about buying the best kit. But for some reason ships are different. It's seen as a lack of nationhood not to be able to build your own ships.
The Brits and Aussies are the same as Canada. Both have expensive independant ship building programs.
It's a mindest that has provided jobs but at a very inflated procurement cost.
Why are ships so politically sensitive?


Not sure. I suspect it is because they are seen as the ultimate martial representation of a nation's industrial might.

That and the jobs of course.

   



bootlegga @ Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:47 am

This is truly staggering.

Yet another bad defence decision by the Conservatives. Cancelling these ships will essentially return to what Canada had during the interwar years, a fleet of small ships barely capable of patrolling our coasts. Without these ships (or new DDHs), we will go from a blue water navy to one that operates barely off its coastline.

Say what you want about the Liberals, cutting defence budgets and scrapping the Bonaventure, at least they had enough sense to make sure we had some blue water capability. So welcome to the 21st century, when the Canadian Navy goes from a serious medium-level blue water navy to that of a third world banana republic.

   



bootlegga @ Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:54 am

DerbyX DerbyX:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Five years ago the Liberals were not ordering C17's or CH47's.
There has been more procurement in the past 3 years than the previous 10. Hence Hillier's term 'decade of darkness'.



The CPC cancels a very important naval purchase and still the darts are aimed at the Liberals?

No, your belief is wrong and hillier is a tosser who is to stupid to realize just how difficult it is to maintain an army when the entire country is broke. its all fine and good for him to have a cushy govt job with all the perks and military provided healthcare plan but for the poor taxpayer working night and day just to make ends meet being told to pay more and more taxes to support people who then turn around and dump on us ofr not providing enough ......

In 93 we were broke and in debt up to our eyeballs. The Liberals came in and saved us. Period. Unlike the US or the UK our economy cannot sustain deficit spending, or at least cannot sustain it as long as they can.

Our money was devalueed and depending on which set of govt books you reference we were spending between 57 and 67 cents on the dollar servicing debt. That decade of darkness was echoed in all the other depts also but guess what?

When the deficit was eliminated and large debt repayments were made the money flowed back into the military so much so that socialist groups started complaining about it and were even quoted by none other then tricycle boy. Lets not forget that the Liberals were still paying for the aquisition of the new frigates and coastal patrol craft during the worst of the debt crisis. Lo and behold when the light at the end of the tunnel was daylight and not an oncoming train the money went back in. New kit was purchased. Vehicles, subs, choppers, etc were all procured under the Liberals who were also still paying for PC military purchases yet all they got was bitching and complaining.

Sure I think the military was underfunded but then I grew up and moved off base and started paying taxes for myself and sudden;y find myself on the opposite side of the fence where I'm called a coward or traitor (not by you of course) for not supporting a war I don't agree with and not wanting the bulk of my taxes to support an institution that vilifies my political side and party every chance it gets and gives them no credit whatsoever for all the good it did do while handing over gushing and fawning praise to a party that has done nothing more then spend the same amount well thats too much.

A bit thick perhaps? Maybe but Harper has shelved indefinately or cancelled Liberal military purchases that were every bit as important as those helicopters the Liberla cancelled and yet he has no good excuse other then buying votes.

The Liberals were vilified for cancelling a 5+ billion dollar purchase at a time when the govt was running 25 billion dollar deficits and almost 600 billion in the hole and Harper cancels military purchases after being handed a red-hot economy and a 13 billion dollar surplus. :?

Yet all we keep hearing about is whining about the so-called decade of darkness by some fuckwit general too stupid to realize even basic economics let alone the fact that all the taxpayers of Canada expect things like healthcare and education for their money and don't like the idea that a large chunk of it going to paying interest. Christ we are just giving our money right to the banks.

Sorry to dump on you like thie Eyebrock but in this regard you can't seem to take a fair perspective. You vilify the Libs for cancelling the helo deal back in 93, a deal for which Mulroney would have received all the credit for a purchase the Liberal would have had to pay for and be held accountable for not being able to balance the books yet Harper cancels a naval purchase every bit as important and he gets ...... well nothing. The Liberal were obviously at fault for this too.

Harper cancels replacement SAR plans forcing them to fly with planes they no longer make propellers for yet he was praised for giving them some awards in leiu of equipment.

In all honesty I think you guys think you are supporting the military but to me it seems like you are creating the conditions for Liberals like me who do support the CF getting better funding deciding that enough is enough and that if the Liberals are going to be damned for being "full on left hating military" then they might as well adopt that persona fully.

The last time this was a debate issue the numbers came down that as a %GDP Harper was less then or equal to the previous 30 years. In essence he wasn't spending anymore then any of the previous PMs yet he receives fawning praise.

Thats bollocks.



R=UP

   



martin14 @ Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:01 am

EyeBrock EyeBrock:
$1:
Well I don't like to speculate too much, but I can't ignore the coincidence that the government scrapping the made in Canada procurement strategy a couple of weeks after tossing around the idea of a Dutch built platform. :?

I agree with the political hot potato, mind BC did it with the three C CLass ferries, with mixed results. The fact the jobs were outsourced was bad, but no one could argue that taxpayers saved money on the deal and ships were delivered on time.

As a taxpayer, I have no problem with tanks made in Germany, CF 18s, Chinooks, and C117s made inthe US, so if my gov could buy an off the shelf ship that does the job cheaper than the long process of building it here (like our three ferries) then who am I to complain.

The concellation of the off shore coastguard ships is confusing as well, and in some ways, makes less sense with the new emphasis on soveriegnty.


Again we are on the same page about buying the best kit. But for some reason ships are different. It's seen as a lack of nationhood not to be able to build your own ships.
The Brits and Aussies are the same as Canada. Both have expensive independant ship building programs.
It's a mindest that has provided jobs but at a very inflated procurement cost.
Why are ships so politically sensitive?



its the 1000 jobs for 5 years that go with it, and all the votes along the way.

   



Arctic_Menace @ Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:23 pm

Pimpbrewski Pimpbrewski:
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
So one of the most important thigns that are needed right now, are getting out off because it's too expensive...Even though we just spent billions on FOUR heavy Transport Aircraft... :? :roll:


Well then, perhaps you, and only you AM, should pay more taxes so that the Canadian Govt be able to afford new toys.

ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL Nah, just kidding.


Seriously, it would be a good thing for Canada to get some more Heavy Duty ships. Crap, we might as well get an Aircraft Carrier while at it no joke. Any Government, Libs or Cons, should be less concerned with useless social programs and invest into the military. But then again, it's only a matter of opinion. :)


If I knew that my higher taxes would ensure that we get an arctic Capable navy and finally get a better anvy/airforce period, then I'd gladly pay those higher taxes...

   



Rable2136 @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:47 am

I reached a whole new level of pissed off when I heard we were scrapping the project.

   



REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next