[bootlegga]

llama66 llama66:

The DeWolf's only ice rating 5, we need ice rating 1 ships.

We're building one...and I do mean ONE (when we probably need four or five).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCGS_John_G._Diefenbaker

[uwish]

I agree with a nation as large as ours geographically you would require a larger navy and airforce than say, a large standing army.

[Freakinoldguy]

C'mon cut them some slack.

Who needs an effective military. FFS sailing in 40 year old antiquated ships that are incapable of defending themselves against today's new and improved weapons, flying in used aircraft that some other country thought were to old to be effective and driving in tanks with little or no protection against the new anti tank weapons is just the gov'ts way of toughening up our sailors, soldiers and airmen.

Besides that money could be better spent on things like a seat on the UN Security council, funding more corporate give away's to your friends or buying a pipeline you never intend to build.

(sarcasm off)

[uwish]

NOOOO

[llama66]

My Naval Wishlist is
new class of 20 Coastal Corvettes
Class of 20 FFG and 10 FFH's
Class of 6 DDG and 6 DDE
Class of 6 CG and maybe 2 CLC
All the above ships strengthened to operate in the Arctic
3 Carriers, all 3 carriers strengthened to operate in the Arctic, Carriers could carry 45-50 aircraft.
2 LHA's
Class of 20 SSN's
New tenders
New AO and AOE ships
New Helicopters
AWAC aircraft

A lot of ships, but we need a stronger navy and this would deliver it. We need the arctic capable carriers to project and protect our northern sovereignty.


Funding will come from the pilfered money from Alberta's coffers

[uwish]

we don't really need carriers and 20 SSN's? I think that is a stretch

but for a wishlist...I like it

[Freakinoldguy]

llama66 llama66:

My Naval Wishlist is
new class of 20 Coastal Corvettes
Class of 20 FFG and 10 FFH's
Class of 6 DDG and 6 DDE
Class of 6 CG and maybe 2 CLC
All the above ships strengthened to operate in the Arctic
3 Carriers, all 3 carriers strengthened to operate in the Arctic, Carriers could carry 45-50 aircraft.
2 LHA's
Class of 20 SSN's
New tenders
New AO and AOE ships
New Helicopters
AWAC aircraft

A lot of ships, but we need a stronger navy and this would deliver it. We need the arctic capable carriers to project and protect our northern sovereignty.


Funding will come from the pilfered money from Alberta's coffers

I love it and it's like they say, "if you're going to dream, dream big". So i'd say your list is quite doable and desirable but, given the lack of intestinal fortitude shown by any Canadian Gov't throughout our countries history you might want to lower your expectations a bit.

So may I suggest you half your want list then divide by two and subtract 50 and you might be close to what's achievable in the eyes of the gov't.

[Freakinoldguy]

uwish uwish:

[cry] NOOOO

Don't believe me?

Unfortunately I might have been flashing back to my generation of ships, some of which were over 40 years old when we paid them off. So, if past behaviour is any indicator of future behaviour and remembering that the HMCS Halifax is now 31 years old, the CPF's will at least get close to the magic 40 year number before we see a new hull on the horizon even if they start building now.

Also remember that the Leopards they're 49 years old so slapping a new turret on them along with some reactive armour doesn't make them state of the art and as for the used F18's i'll leave that critique in your wheelhouse.

[Thanos]

I'd say divide by 50 first then keep subtracting $100 million at a time until you reach zero, because that's most likely the real amount of money any Canadian government will ever invest into a genuine refurbishing of our military.

[herbie]

No longer manning a NATO base in Europe, tanks are about the most useless investment we need to worry about.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

llama66 llama66:

Fuck, the Government (both Libs and Cons) need to overhaul the procurement process. They need to take the Byzantine out of it. Procurement should take one year at most.

The Fighter replacement is in year 10? unacceptable.

^ That.

No matter how we spin it, this is not a partisan issue. The procurement process has been an absolute mess for quite some time, and no one (of ANY political stripe) wants to fix it. Pledges for funding, or tough talk on bolstering the military are nothing but hot air until this is remedied.

DND also needs to be held accountable as well.

-J.

[CharlesAnthony]

herbie herbie:

No longer manning a NATO base in Europe, tanks are about the most useless investment we need to worry about.

Tell that to the guys selling them to the house of saoud.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

C'mon cut them some slack.
Who needs an effective military.

It is not like anybody will stop the Americans from claiming northern territory.

[llama66]

$1:

Tell that to the guys selling them to the house of saoud.

Selling what? Canadian Military Bases in Europe?

$1:

It is not like anybody will stop the Americans from claiming northern territory.

We have. Twice.

[herbie]

The opinions of one who can't tell the diff between an armoured troop carrier and a tank.

[llama66]

Tank

Infantry Fighting Vehicle/APC

APC