Politics in 2017
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Status
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,022
- Points
- 1,010
Seriously?
Just for starters, Seaspan, whether at their Vancouver or Victoria yards, then Davie. These two are already building ships for Canada and I would trust something coming out of their yards a lot more than any Irving product.
But for smaller ships or warships, you could turn to Chantier Naval Forillon, or Ocean Group, or Aecon Atlantic in Pictou, heck I even bet you that for something up to about 2500 tons, you would be surprised at a product coming out of Newdock in St-John's. Similarly, I bet that Groupe Verreault could surprise us building full size warships, given a chance.
Just for starters, Seaspan, whether at their Vancouver or Victoria yards, then Davie. These two are already building ships for Canada and I would trust something coming out of their yards a lot more than any Irving product.
But for smaller ships or warships, you could turn to Chantier Naval Forillon, or Ocean Group, or Aecon Atlantic in Pictou, heck I even bet you that for something up to about 2500 tons, you would be surprised at a product coming out of Newdock in St-John's. Similarly, I bet that Groupe Verreault could surprise us building full size warships, given a chance.
- Reaction score
- 26,340
- Points
- 1,090
Lumber said:
You've got a wicked sense of humour.
- Reaction score
- 2,131
- Points
- 1,190
dapaterson said:
If instead of a lengthy SOR-Bid-Review-Tender process, PWGSC just awarded a contract to whomever gave them the best personal incentives, then we'd have our military equipment sooo much faster!
Apply this to everything political (since this is the Politics thread and I don't want to get too off topic):
Instead of spending years bickering about whether to spend more on health-care or more on infrastructure, just throw the money at whoever's lobbyist buys the best looking escorts.
- Reaction score
- 7,930
- Points
- 1,160
Oldgateboatdriver said:
OGBD
I think the "small ship" limit for the National Shipbuilding Programme is/was 1000 tonnes or thereabouts?
How much goodness could you pack into a hull that size, and make it go fast, and have it built at one of those yards?
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,022
- Points
- 1,010
Chris Pook said:
Well, first of all, Chris, I am not referring to the National Shipbuilding Strategy or any of the artificial limits they came up with. I am talking shipbuilding in general in response to someone suggesting that only Irving can build warships.
Here is a picture of the current dry dock facility of Groupe Verreault at Les Méchouins. Yes, it's a full size Coast Guard icebreaker of the Radisson class behind a 500 feet tanker. And there are talks of expanding the dry dock. Overall, the facility is as big as the old St-John Shipbuilding facility where the frigates were built. All I am saying is we would be surprised at who could build warships in Canada, especially if they were favoured with the same type of largesses as Irving and Seaspan to "fix" their yards first.
Finally, as for small warships, well - the MCDV's won't last forever and the AOPS do not replace them for many roles they currently fulfill, so I will assume that a program will come up in a medium term horizon.
Attachments
gryphonv
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 336
- Points
- 780
Another thing to consider. (might be a bit off topic)
There are rumblings that Trump may pull the US out of NATO, or at the least try to change it. This would be disastrous to our military. Would we follow the US like a lost lamb? Or stick it out and try to balance the two (which would be a lot more expensive than we spend now).
Trump had a couple valid points about countries not pulling their weight. Canada included. I don't see us distancing ourselves from collaboration with the US. It could be very beneficial to our Military overall, or it could be disastrous.
Trump really is a wild card (both good and bad). I don't think the US will pull out of NATO, but it isn't a guarantee they won't.
There are rumblings that Trump may pull the US out of NATO, or at the least try to change it. This would be disastrous to our military. Would we follow the US like a lost lamb? Or stick it out and try to balance the two (which would be a lot more expensive than we spend now).
Trump had a couple valid points about countries not pulling their weight. Canada included. I don't see us distancing ourselves from collaboration with the US. It could be very beneficial to our Military overall, or it could be disastrous.
Trump really is a wild card (both good and bad). I don't think the US will pull out of NATO, but it isn't a guarantee they won't.
- Reaction score
- 7,930
- Points
- 1,160
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Seen OGBD - There are a number of yards that could put hulls in the water, and regardless of size I am sure that those hulls could be appropriately outfitted so that they could usefully contribute to a fleet and a maritime strategy.
The problem that I guess we struggle with is that most of those yards have been around for a while. We didn't lack for competition when we weren't building ships. We lacked for ships for them to compete over.
Back to that old hobby horse of mine - we tend to reach for that which we cannot have rather than figuring out how to make the most out of what we can. And you know I'm not talking about the folks stuck with making the kit they have work. It's more about all the lost opportunities, in my opinion, to have done something rather than nothing.
- Reaction score
- 5,687
- Points
- 1,060
I find the liebrals and the Canadian MSM very hypocritical over the whole helicopter thing. They all say it's no big deal that the PM rode in a private helicopter to a billionaires isolated retreat. A lobbyist and director of a fund supported by Canadian taxpayers. Nothing untoward there.These are the same bunch that absolutely pilloried and harangued Peter Mackay, when he was Minister of National Defence, for riding in a National Defence helicopter. :
- Reaction score
- 26,340
- Points
- 1,090
If it's any consolation, I disapprove of both...
- Reaction score
- 5,687
- Points
- 1,060
dapaterson said:
I also disapprove of both also. Both the liebrals and the Canadian MSM :rofl:
recceguy said:
These are the same bunch that absolutely pilloried and harangued Peter Mackay, when he was Minister of National Defence, for riding in a National Defence helicopter. :
Throw their core voters in that pile. The liberals I know just don't care if he commits crimes. During the Conservative reign, as a member of that party, I remember regularly pillorying my Con MP about their behavior.
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,622
- Points
- 1,210
When Trudeau was at his first town hall and someone asked about the sale of military equipment to Saudi Arabia and he replied that "We honour our contracts."
My first thought was "Really?" "Tell that to the EH-101 consortium, you lying ***** ** ****!"
My first thought was "Really?" "Tell that to the EH-101 consortium, you lying ***** ** ****!"
recceguy said:
These are the same bunch that absolutely pilloried and harangued Peter Mackay, when he was Minister of National Defence, for riding in a National Defence helicopter. :
The previous Conservative government, and likely other governments that preceded it, also donated large sums of money to the Aga Khan. I doubt that there is any story there.
I doubt that anybody would object to the helicopter ride in question, as there was, apparently, no reasonable alternative.
The nature of the passengers accompanying the Trudeaus looks a little fishy, though, but may still be explainable.
What really gets the press, and others, going, however, is secrecy and cover-up. People do not attempt to cover things up, of course, unless there is reason to do so.
Had this been done openly, nobody would have paid the slightest amount of attention. Few would even see the hypocrisy or double standard. Sunny days trump everything else. Here, how about a selfie?
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
Loachman said:
- Status
Similar threads
