วีดีโอ

How often do you need air conditioning in the high arctic?

Begging for applause is for glorified clerks & brainwashed idiots. Take your pick.

South Korea has vast options for not only the RCN but the other two services as well. Amphibious ships, IFV’s , fighter jets, missiles etc.

What a lot of people need to understand is that the Canadian coast guard arnt armed, so that particular capacity falls to the Canadian military. The AOPS are not warships, they are comparable to the US armed coast guard cutters. That's being said the main weapon of the AOPS isnt the gun, its the helicopter. The ship can carry a cyclone which has full ASW capability, including the ability to carry torpedo's and harpoon missiles. The Harry dewolf CAN do anti-ship warfare, it just does it in a way where the ship itself isnt directly threatened. Another strength of the ship is the sheer utility options of it. It has a crew compliment of 65, but accommodation for almost 90, it also has a huge vehicle bay and a 20T crane for launching landing boats. If necessary, the AOPS could be used as a type of landing ship. The modular payloads on the quarter decks are nuts. One of the modules is a towed array ASW sonar, and im sure there's other modules they they have plans for which would add other combat capability, but they don't want to spoil the surprise on. Hell, if they had a fuel tank as a modular payload, together with the massive crane it could probably refuel other ships at sea. It would also be really cool if they somehow were able to integrate one of those Mk 48 VLS modules from the Halifax class frigate as a modular payload on the quarter deck, but that's just a dream :P With those cranes at the back they could even get away with just one module and independently reload it at sea.

Is there now any regret in mothballing the largest ship building facility in the world in saint john creating jobs and building bigger ships and fleets for USA and other nato allies if tooling and skills Canada was once great at was preserved and not sent west to oil fields or south to usa

What a joke of a ship this thing is. It literally can not defend itself against modern threats. Making it 100% useless in a modern theater of war. Lets list the things the harry dewolf can defend against: 1. Speed boats. Oh that's it. Holly hell, going to be a real deterrent to Russia and china up there in the arctic. Not like they operate nuclear submarines and ships capable of attacking far beyond the horizon, way past the Harry Dewolfs radar range. Modern warfare will not wait around for Canada to catch up, and these things will be easily sunk in any sort of conflict, as the waters they are intended for have our adversaries in far more capable vessels. Also did the head of the Navy just say he wants to send our new "Ice Breakers" to freaking Africa? It never ceases to amaze me at how utterly stupid our government and military are.

The point I was trying to make is that the ship is poorly armed.

What a joke this ship can't even defend it self from Somalia pirates.

Canada made a big strategic & economic mistake by gutting its own shipbuilding industry. It's not just military and coast guard projects; there are civilian shipbuilding needs too (like BC Ferries), that should should have the capability right here in Canada. The key is matching the shipbuilding capability to what we need, and avoiding some boom/bust cycle for the companies. Considering the long time scale of any project (literally decades top plan and build things), it should be clear what we need is long term planning of both aspects. There will always be those "taxpayers federation" types who take a "dollar store" approach to procurement, just wanting cheap foreign-made everything and mentally downgrading anything Canadian-built. They would gladly dismantle Canada's manufacturing and self-reliance to make Canada into nothing but a cheap resource supplier for others to profit from. However, this is shortsighted ideology (not to mention servile & demeaning). Being at the mercy of other nations for your own needs is a weakness not a strength; having crucial supply chains stretching world wide can endanger your citizens when there is a crisis. Obviously anything military is the most expensive type of project, but more could be saved by keeping very strong financial and ethical oversight in place, and not allowing decisions to go through "development hell".

My personal "we should choose this" for subs is so go in for some Canadianized version of the German type 212CD fuel cell AIP subs. Reasons are its extremely good stealth, the under-ice possibilities that are second only to nuclear, the possible multi-role uses, the NATO interoperability already factored in, and the domestic industrial side of it. The industrial arguments are that Canada has an advanced fuel cell industry already, so a partnership with the German ones is possible. plus Canada can also produce clean hydrogen from our abundant hydroelectric power (in NL, Quebec, BC) for the supply of such vessels' H2 needs on both coasts. That means that we would have more innate capability to maintain our own subs without having to reach across an ocean to do it. The South Korean AIP sub idea should get some consideration though; Canada can benefit there if we are smart about it. (Plus if we can negotiate a major repair capability here, it can act as a backup facility for South Korea if NK or China interfere with theirs.) Some people like to talk about getting nuclear subs, but I really think that would be much greater expense & complexity, and a much tougher sell politically. However, if we did go nuclear, maybe consider the French Baracuda? France would be a good partner for Canada, and might not demand as much political puppet strings as others.

there is a strategic opportunity for us to strengthen relations with s. korea. canada had been looking at establishing a 'mini' military base there and that should be looked at. in addition to submarines, we should look at their dokdo class light aircraft carrier. we could procure two of them for under USD 1 billion dollars. this will also align with our indo pacific strategic

You can state all the things you want, the Liberal government doesn’t care, they don’t want a properly equipped military, they have proven that….all we see is minimal equipment, not proper equipment given to the CAF….save your panels, the government doesn’t care

Thank You Prof.Sal very informative. and worrying going forward .The US needs her own ships, for sure , especially the support vessels.

Thoroughly enjoyed learning more about this monumental deployment on which my son was a crew member (on his very first sail!) Thanks so much for sharing.

Needs a main gun with greater range. Wouldn't hurt a SAM system and two more heavy MGs aft in two remote turrets. This is an expensive arctic vessel that deserves a better suite of self defense tools. If it's top speed is only 17 knots,(plus puts to sea w/o a chopper) perhaps it should be, "as prickly as a porcupine." I am.of the opinion this captive audience was coached to NOT bring up its pathetic armaments.

I dispute your thesis of how great China and Russia are doing. They are both in significant decline.

Great speaker!

Thanks my uncle, I learn knew things from this MSC conference

Thanks for the organizing the wonderful webinar. Dr. Chao's comparison of the four previous continental navies (France, Imperial Germany and Russia and Soviet, plus imperial Japan) helps explaining PRC's naval policy and naval building program. It reminds me of President Dwight Eisenhower's reminding of "military-industrial complex". What kinds of roles does the PRC's military-industrial complex" play in the rise of the PLAN?

Excellent discussion and thank you for sharing knowledge across borders with organizing this event. As correctly said...IOR island nations are more over inward looking with the non-TS issues and great powers are more concerned about traditional security aspects and gap between these two areas need to be considered. Ms. Darshana how do you see the conference diplomacy as a tool to make a bridge between small island states and great powers to address above mention gap?

It's a pity those data are not show to many people. I attended this conference and it was a marvelous presentation by Dr. Daniel Pauly. Overfishing is a great problem that is not been addressed properly by the government and media.

Silver phoenix your answer is it wasn't planned by the RN to cut the Harriers and the light carriers early. There wasn't going to be much of a gap, but the budget cutter pencil pushers in the government swung the axe. HMS Ocean remains in service maintaining some carrier crews, while other carrier crews are training with the US Navy and Marines. It takes more than a year to train carrier crews properly, even to switch from one aircraft to another. China, Russia, India, Brazil, Italy, Spain, France, and the US operate aircraft carriers.

Another epic swizz. The MoD are the biggets wasters of taxpayers money ever. Of course all the defence crooks, sorry CON tractors (most of which are foreign) creaming off their share all this talk about offset costs and other bollocks I`m reading here is just words.

thx for info on what the Yanks offered. I can't find any info on it. Only what Woodward said but I can't remember him saying they offered a LPH?

The Ford is costing a lot more than that puny amount. Most likely you can double that amount for one, whereas the British are getting two for less.

No, Sandy Woodward said it best, if one of the British carriers was sunk, the British would need American sailors to operate the American ship. Different combat systems, sensors, and engine plant. And that is what the Americans offered, an Iwo Jima LPH, not a super carrier.

i dont think it was a super carrier at that time we had over 100 carriers i beileve ...they arent as big as they are now

I think it's because the UK wants to try to save cash and plug the deficit. We know that any big war would be fought within the NATO framework you see. If a situation such as the Falklands were to arise (we wouldn't need carriers this time but let's say we do for the sake of this debate) then the US would even be willing to lend us a super carrier Seriously man. You guys offered us one of your super carriers in 1982 We had to turn it down only because we had to make a move quickly

why dont the royal navy use the american LHDs for now? war can happen at any moment.....im only 14 and in 7 years ill already be in the army and id have itme to finish college and maybe become an officer....

The Queen Elizabeth ship will be launched in 2014 but will undergo stringent testing where she's expected to be fully operational by 2020. That shouldn't really come as a surprise since the F-35 needs to be fully completed and combat ready. 7 years isn't that far away my friend. Under current plans the Prince of Wales ship will also be full operational by 2020 although they will take a decision in 2015 as to the future of that carrier

If you have to ask how much a aircraft carrier costs, then you can't afford them. The question to ask is not how much they will cost, but whether you have the need for them to meet policy goals. Not so much for the now, but to meet policy goals for the next forty to fifty years.

I think you forgot to covert the dollars into sterlings. USA's latest and greatest only costs 57% more than our QE class. Looking at past military procurement. the QE class is bound to have cost overrun (maybe 20% plus)... However, i wasn't suggesting we buy a Ford Class SC. I was merely commenting on the cost-effectiveness of the QE Class carrier, in comparison to the Ford. With the money spent on QE, We can Buy Nimitz(£3.8bill) and be more effective, spending less money.

In terms of government spending power £5.9bil is almost £8.4bil ($14bill).... If you take into account past military programs that exceeded their budget, almost doubling by the time of completion. With the money we are spending we can get a Nimitz class supercarrier, with change to fill it up with jets and get with unbelievable global reach (nuclear powered and all), we wouldn't have to worry about the Falklands or any other British territories getting attacked

I think you'll find QE will have a shorter first cut to fully operational time than the Ford class by about 3 to 4 years.

Ford class costs about 3 times as much as a QE and not having a Reactor allows the British ships to visit more ports and countries.

She'll be in the water next year but not operational. Sea trials are in 2017, air wing in 2018 and militarily operational by 2020, if all goes well. According to what I've just read the Prince of Wales will be commissioned in 2020 too, dependent on SDSR 2015.

this British carriers look like a waste I heard form a british freiend that they will be ready in 2020 American super carriers are built quicker and hold more ships these ships look like the size of an American LHD helicopter/f35 carrier/because landing craft

Those ships are awesome

nice to see a ship that can rival the Nimitz I mean the Nimitz is a grate carrier but the queen Elizabeth is wider and has grater technology

With the delays and costs incurred due to the 2010 SDSR and the reversal of the decisions taken in the review the cost for the ships has risen to £7.2 billion.

we are one of the founding signatories of NATO, originally designed to fight the Warsaw Pact countries, although now the Warsaw Pact no longer exists NATO should be shut down and the billions of pounds redirected to the treasury.

Where are you getting this info from? the UK QE class carriers will cost the UK taxpayer £5.9 billion for BOTH ships, the US G.R.Ford class carriers cost a tad under $14 billion each!

The Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier costs almost the same as America's new Ford-Class Supercarrier.....where is all the money going? The amount of money we are spending on 1 Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier, we could buy 2 Nuclear powered Nimitz-Class Supercarriers

Can you put the vídeos of the other presentations? Thanks.

Shut up you moron.