"abandon ship" link doesn't work, Kate.

It's 2006...are humans necessary in warships, tanks, and airplanes? Is it cost-effective to design war machines around humans? I say no. You don't need to feed or pension a UAV. Let's not feed the military-industrial complex. Let's be world leaders in low cost / high technology defence systems, and develop a bleeding edge, Made In Canada, efficent force capable of efficently and effectively defending Canada and Western Civilization.

Link not working! 8-(

Looks like a link to Babbling Brooks. Second post? Guessing...

We should of got nuke subs long ago. We're either sovereign in the Arctic, or we're not...If so, nuclear subs are the only rational answer.
Of course, that is impossible politically for the liberal/left to swallow, so we'll likely stumble along in our typically half-assed manner and do nothing of any real-world relevence.

*sigh*

Further food for thought:

"There is nothing so expensive as a 'second-best' military".

-Robert A. Heinlein-

There should be no talks with contractors.We should be shaving with the scraped steel we could get from it.Thats nuts and im emailing my mp to demand that it be scraped.Crock of bullshit to even try and fix the dam thing.

scrap the chicoutimi, use it for spare parts if there are any still useable.

That is the problem with the mindset of the Public Service and the Canadian Government. Why will they spend 100 million fixing a used sub, because there is virtually no red tape involved with this, just fund allocation. If the CF wanted to buy new, the red tape will sink a battleship.....and then you have the political interference....and then there is PWGSC to deal with....and then there is the public uproar....and of course the opposition parties who all want a piece of the action. It's no bloody wonder the military is falling to pieces! Who wants to navigate that labrynth?

One curious thing about the whole submarine affair is that the CF increased it's holding of operational submarines (4) rather than keeping the same number as before (3) or even reducing the number, as has happened in every other part of the CF. The Chicoutimi was the first of class (albeit last delivered to Canada) and was a dog in RN service. It should have been reduced to spares and used as an alongside training aid.

But I'm just speculating. The real issue here is that there was no operational analysis done to say whether Canada needed one sub, no subs, twenty honkin' big nukes, whatever. Instead, this was the tight fisted Liberal government throwing the CF a bone by buying a bargain. It's a little like you going to the shops to buy soap. You see a bulk packet of shoe polish on sale and you buy it. You needed soap. You still don't have soap. But you don't have any money left. That cheap shoe polish isn't going to get you clean, and buying military equipment that is not suitable for the tasks at hand isn't going to keep you safe.

Odie441...id wager that we could layoff 5,000 civil servants and not miss a beat in this country.Its top heavy and the gov't should not be in the employment busniess.Mr Harper your dead line is closing fast to get back to work.Now that you have mr wilson in the USA and a solid choice that was..home front has to be taken care of.Mr Emerson..whats the saying...getting in bed with a liberal is like having oral sex with a shark.

Anonalogue you said:

"It's 2006...are humans necessary in warships, tanks, and airplanes? Is it cost-effective to design war machines around humans? I say no"

Is that a joke? Our government can't scrape up enough money to buy proper equipement in the first place and your suggestion is to create an entirely new type of military force.

Yes lets see Canada lead the way in developing an unmaned military force, the likes of which the world has never seen. It's 2006, not 2600 stop watching so much scifi. For your plan to be even remotely possible Canada would already have to be a military power in the realm of the US (funding and all) and we are clearly not.

Just what is the problem?? When push comes to shove, there are 3 perfectly good subs at West Edmonton Mall.Christ. The Digby shrimp fleet is better run then our military. But in a socialist country like ours, red-tape bureaucracy jobs are more important then defense of the nation. Did I say nation? What nation??

Mad Mike...That was both depressing and accurate as hell.

*sigh*

"Canadian Observer"

Indeed. Maybe even more for me since I'm in the Navy.
I regularly have the wry thought that I've sworn to defend my fellow Canadians - in spite of themselves!

Gaak!

Anonalogue: We tried that unmanned thing a long time ago. It was called the Bomark missle. Got a hell of a deal if only we would scrap our "Made in Canada" high tech Avro Arrow. Read the history books to see how that turned out.

The linked sight did have some worthy ideas though. Both the German and Swedish subs look interesting and probably more affordable. It add to the automobile analogy, think Mercedes and Volvo instead of just about any English car. [Wife had a Triumph Spitfire, was neat to drive but had a maintenance to driving ratio of a SeaKing. ;-( ]

What to do with the crap we have now? a. Sell them to Lichtenstein, Afghanastan, or b. Make some more diving reefs.

Our so called navy is sad. On our small street we have more opperational "vessels" then the entire country! I can also tell you that the overhead on fixing and repair old ships is not worth the time and effort. So,if we look at it on a bigger scale, sell for scrape metal! Invest in modern equipment.(Afterall it is only our military risking their lives to protect our country....)

...gives new meaning to "toot toot".

Turn it into a museum like the WW2 sub in Pearl Harbour.

It will be repaired in Quebec and it will cost $200 million.

http://www.theodoretugboat.ca/

I've located the replacement craft that was selected by an all party parliamentary committee.

Mad Mike,for every 1 Canadian with their head in the ozone layer there are 100 that deeply respect the service of our armed forces. Be safe man!

I think "CLOSE THAT HATCH" would have been better.

Actually it was a French Canadian Captain.

he said "Ferme la fenetre" and they thought he said. "put on a sweater"----pure laine no doubt.

Cal2 -- You get the "made me laugh" award today. You know what, they should never have been bought. I seem to recall there were all sorts of assurances from our UK friends about these things, that they would be seaworthy after years of being moth-balled. Well, the first sign of problems, and they should have been sent back for a full refund. Even if we got zero refund, we would be at least one life ahead. Go and look at alternatives. This was a bad decision from day one. How many subs could we have bought for what has been dumped into the gun registry so far? Even one would be nice.

Sorry to post this unrelated item on this string (with all due respects to Kate), but I am really curious to see folks on this site react to this story. Before everybody jumps down my throat - just to let you know I support the farmers - but how best to do that?

Subsidize farms or let them die
Economist: Society must choose course of action: prof
Click here to find out more!


Article Tools

* Printer friendly

* E-mail

Font:

* *
* *
* *
* *

Janet French, The StarPhoenix
Published: Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Family grain and oilseed farms can no longer turn a profit and society is at a crossroads where it must choose whether to subsidize them or let them fade away, a University of Saskatchewan professor says.

Agriculture economics Prof. Hartley Furtan said an analysis of Statistics Canada data from 2003 shows family farms were kept afloat only by government subsidies and income earned outside farm gates.

With similar data expected from 2004 and 2005 and a bleak outlook for 2006, it's time for society to make a choice, Furtan said.

"If the sector is not important enough to warrant more financial support, let the market process take its course and we will have fewer farm families with less grain and oilseed production," Furtan writes in his policy paper, Whither Goes Prairie Agriculture. "If it is the families we care about, we need to consider new policies such as guaranteed annual income for farmers."

In 2003, the average farm household market income for business-focused farms was $27,000. Subtracting off-farm incomes, farm income is negative, Furtan said, and that number doesn't account for the depreciation of land and equipment and the cost of family labour on the farm.

Furtan said he's not recommending either subsidization or a laissez-faire approach -- he's merely saying society must choose.

Resisting an intervention and letting some farms fold would lower government costs and shouldn't affect food prices, he said.

"The con would be, once these people leave, we're never going to get them back," Furtan said. "Having them exit the local community would not be a good thing. We would lose part of our cultural heritage by not having a vibrant agricultural industry -- that's also a con."

Farmers who abandon the land would also have to seek a different livelihood and might need more training, he said.

Furtan is set to present his perspective at a Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy forum at the university's Faculty Club Wednesday afternoon.

Stewart Wells, president of the National Farmers Union, said he's disappointed Furtan is presenting government intervention or bust as the only two paths.

"He's certainly right in thinking times are tough for family farmers," Wells said. "We're in a dysfunctional marketplace right now where everyone except the farmer is being rewarded."

Globalization has pitted Canadian farmers in competition with growers across the globe, he said.

The corporations that sell farmers supplies and process their grain and oilseeds are consolidating to dominate market power and turn record profits, he said.

To keep the family farm alive, the government must support initiatives that give farmers power, such as the Canadian Wheat Board and the Farmer Rail Car Coalition, Wells said.

The government also needs to move to prevent the sale of so-called terminal seeds, which grow for one year before dying.

Government aid won't solve farmers' problems in the long-term, he said.

"In terms of stewardship (and) environmental practices . . . family farmers are absolutely essential," Wells said. "If you start turning over the food production system to the boardrooms of these international corporations, those corporations are bound legally to maximize returns to their shareholders."

Governor General's Award-winning novelist Guy Vanderhaeghe and political studies professor emeritus David Smith will also talk at Wednesday's forum, entitled Footprint of the Farm. To register, call (306)-585-5869.

jfrench@sp.canwest.com
© The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2006

Give it das Boot.

What ever happened to the HMCS Brador? Seems odd that there is nothing-even on Google-for this.

Then there was the 'Bonaventure', our last aircraft carrier (yes, we had a real flat-top aircraft carrier) which got a $$$millions refit and was scrapped a few months later. I expect the same for the Chicoutimi.

As I recall, the "Bonnie" was also "purchased" from the Brits. Have we become a metal-recycler for Britain? I wonder if some 'higher-up' thought the F86 could have been refitted for carrier ops?

I'd like to see an analysis of how the upholder deal went from being quality used goods, to klunkers, good for nothing scrap.

Did no one kick the tires? Did the seller prevaricate? Did whomever we sent over just think that's all we're gonna get?

Also If we want to throw up our hands. Don't forget the australian Collins class, I have heard VERY good things (american fleet groups getting thier asses handed to them on exercise), and though they are pricey, they are true blue water capable - not inshore specialized subs, new, and I'm sure the Aussies would be thrilled to build more and get the per unit price down.

My personal opinion is that these vessels were an awful acquisition.

It was further absurdity to spend a fortune to "Canadianize" them which included pulling the Harpoon capability, switch from Spearfish to Mk48 Torpedo systems, and most importantly (and time consuming) re-engineering the interior to add female facilities because the British have unisex crews. (I'm all for women having a role in our military, but this was just not a good use of scarce resources).

But now that all this money has been spent, the question is "Is the operational cost of these vessels justified?"

My answer since they are pretty much limited to fisheries patrols and providing targets for training our Frigates is "no".

Bottom Line: If we're going to operate submarines, we need to go with a system that has extended range and an AIP system to allow artic sovereignty patrols, the primary contenders being the French Scorpene-class, the German U214-class and the Swedish Gotland-class. As such, we should immediately reduce the fleet to three operational vessels, use them to keep our crews trained, but start the replacement program for new vessels within the year.

From North Sask:...As Joni said..."They paved paradise, put up a parking lot". This is another issue which continues to sneak up on us. We have to eat and a lot don't completely realize where our food comes from. I believe there are too many who still feel..."those rich farmers". The multi-conglomerates and marketing boards have contributed in ruining the concept of thefamily farm and this special way of life.

I vote to subsidize. More tax $'s are wasted on lesser issues and they only feed the well-to-do or create nothing. We can't dine on Liberal "feel-good" cuisine. There are always problems inherant with subsidies of any kind. I think this is one that has to be done and the problems worked out.

My 2 cents worth! (to quote another SDA regular).

The root causes of the problems with the ex-Upholder class submarines was told to me by a serving submariner. The way he sees it is:

The Upholders are a good, relatively modern design. The Brits, however, didn't want to have two totally different types of sub so decided to sell the Diesel subs and concentrate their resources on their nuclear-powered types. They were still operational (albeit with some teething problems) when a desperate Canadian government came looking for a cheap fix to our clapped out Oberons.
Believing Canadian intimations of a quick sale, the RN did NOT "mothball" the subs. They sat neglected alongside while the Canadian government dithered. And dithered. And delayed. By the time the Canadian Navy could show up to get them, they had been sitting unmaintained in a corrosive environment for a DECADE.
Imagine if you took the family car, a low mileage buy-back, and parked it with the windows open on a rocky outcrop in Newfoundland. Do you think you could walk up to it ten years later, turn the key and drive it to Vancouver? NOT!

-The Upholders were actually a pretty good boat.
-The Canadian Navy personnel are some of the best in the world. Even when neglected and treated like dirt by Liberal governments.
-The problems are not the equipment (even though the boats are a poor compromise for new Nuke boats).
-The problem was politicians.

Surprised?

They should be doing with the subs what they should have been doing with the Sea Kings. Have an 'emergency evacuation' drill so that everybody is off the sub, and the last guy out trips on the scuttling valves.

Thanks for your input Mike.

I am of the opinion that in the area of defense, Canada and the USA are a team and a good team at that.

I doubt that Canada will ever have nuclear subs and therefore the patrol of the Artic by the USA is already a fact.

If the plan that PM Harper has put forward for Canada in the Artic will compliment and add to what the USA is already doing there it should benefit everyone.

US money and Canadian resources gets it done every time.

There is no way for Canada, a nation of 30 million to afford ALL the capabilities necessary.

A NA defense alliance is a fact of life for the citizens of Canada and the USA.

Canada and the USA should make the best of it.

Also, I think that using the subs Canada has now to train Canadian frigates is not a bad thing.

dave:...re: FHE 400 Bras d'Or..e-mail shortly.

"concrete":

Agree with you 100%.
We already have a functional and logical defense pact - NORAD.
We are presently developing a similar maritime defense understanding with the US.
The US is determined to do its utmost to secure its borders, whether we like it or not. The Americans need to work with us for practical reasons...A 5000 km border consisting of everything from ocean to mountain range is simply not practically defensible. Anyone can sail or walk across almost anywhere and not be noticed.
The only even slightly practical option is to attempt to defend the continent as a whole. That is a geographical reality, and indifferent to politics.
The issue of Arctic sovereignty could be approached thusly:
We sign a comprehensive defense pact with the US, sharing all aspects of continental defense, regardless of environment. As part of this we have the US acknowledge our Arctic sovereignty. Responsibility for Arctic patrols splits between Canada, with an ice-capable surface fleet and a new Arctic base, and the US subsurface fleet with facilities for their stuff at our base- a la Argentia in the past.
Active leadership and cooperation like that would be a tremendous encouragement for the US to acknowledge our sovereignty.
If it can work for over half a century with NORAD, why not? American aircraft and ships patrol our territory now. Canadian warplanes patrolled above the Superbowl, and Americans didn't scream about their sovereignty.
Further, a continental view of defense and security would encourage freer trade and less cumbersome access for commerce and tourism between the two countries.
Of course, we Canucks would have to deal with our "Great Canadian Insecurity Complex". Might do us some good!

I know, can we lease the ones at WEM (West Ed Mall)?

They can't go under water either, but hey what's the diff? At least the WEM's look prettier...

I guess neither country is completely happy about having to work with "outsiders" while at the same time both are blessed with having a wealthy, friendly and mostly cooperative neighbor.

Re: "As part of this we have the US acknowledge our Arctic sovereignty."

Here we encounter the ultimate "sticky wicket".

I think it is not just the USA who disputes Canadas claims.

I think the USA should recognize the claim but it will probably be a continued exercise in headbutting between Ottawa and Washington.

I'll be happy if they continue to sit at the table while taking the necessary measures to get the job of Arctic patrol and maritime security done.

Thank you for your service Mike.

IMO, Canada has always maintained human forces that are first class.

Thanks Mike for putting me straight.
Concrete -- Good idea --imagine, working WITH our neighbors down south? I can see the headlines already in every liberal newspaper in the country if that were to happen. The trolls will come clamoring out from under their rocks.

The US mocked our claim to soverignity in the Arctic when they did the "USS Manhattan" run, so many years ago...forgot what year...still discussing it...on the Washington diplomatic circuit...more wine please.........

Remember, folks:

Sovereignty claims are only credible if you take it, stand on it, hold it, develop it, and defend it.

Otherwise you're just making silly noise.

Logic, my friends, logic. As an ex-military person, we always co-managed the north with the Americans.

They are a great bunch with only the odd lemon like any group. Although, I never met one during my time in the mix.

Our economy can not ever support full marine and air security in the north. Stands to reason that we should share some of the natural assets with the USA as they invest $billions to help us secure the north.

No point being too selfish and end up owning 100% of nothing.

Americans are hard bargainers, but they are fair for the most part.

27% soft wood tarriff, you say?

Many Liberal gifts of $450 million to the soft-wood sector allows Canadian lumber to sell for much less than US lumber in, say, Georgia. That's after we pay shipping.

Don't try to screw Americans. They are tough but fair negotiators. TG