Aye, I hear you loud and clear on the no magic wand.
As for the small domestic needs, perhaps looking 5 to 50 years into our globally warmed future is in order. We are going to need more vessels for the north, and that will necessarily mean more supply type vessels for the CG, and pre-positioned SAR assets as well. If that passage is to open, and I am certain it will, so too will our need to deploy there. We will need endurance of the type an aircraft can not provide. This endurance will require support, whether refueled from AORs or CG vessels it will not matter, in order to make a difference and mean something. That means hulls, with small overworked crews in some of the toughest seas on the planet. We should build them now - they are coming. The ferries we have could use with a periodic replacement too, with their subsequent sale to some other region. Perhaps build new ones with a secondary cargo role for moving military hardware might also be considered.
What we really need is the long term vision so that this develops over 20-50 years. Will my kids see this? Not likely, but I sure as hell hope they still fight for it - and if there is some teat to be milked, get their fair share too - they will have my bills to pay. Politics and nationalism/regionalism will always play a part in this. Ontario's voters - mostly ignorant that everything they buy comes in a container - they only see the trucks on the 400 series highways - will always call for a low price offshore buy. Why not? Looks good on a balance sheet, and yes we can refit these to our standards later - unless you look at our history in that area also.
What we need to do is get the Canadian populace thinking of national procurement in terms of 50 year windows, not just the next federal election campaign, or when one of our pilots dies or ships breaks down...
I'm all for keeping a hull for 30 years. The first 3 are spent beating it into shape, the next 10 are spent working every penny out of it, two years are spent upgrading it, and the next 10 are paying for the refit, and after that it should be allowed to go gracefully. At it's mid life, it's replacement should have been having her keel laid. The reality is that we could do with that, if we were allowed to plan for thirty years without the politicians of the day grabbing at this 'set aside' pot of money all the time. Short term gain for our politicos is always going to cause long term harm for the military. What every report I've ever seen on the issue endorses is the smaller more frequent purchase plan. That still requires long term planning from the political part, but has been done around the world before too.
I am confident that upwards of three major yards can be sustained for domestic purposes if we work them as a national team, perhaps bite that regional bullet and declare one as our national naval yard, and another for the CG and ferries, and necessarily in partnership with international consortia. Unfortunately, the reason no one wants our work is that our labour costs are insane when coupled with our worker dedication and their product. We also need to get PWGSC to start working as part of the team and stop offering contracts to bidders that win on trash bids with no expertise. World leadership in sustainable shipbuilding can be attained if we take a national approach to it. Some things are better when controlled from the center. The cash we use to buy these vessels offshore is lost to our economy otherwise - another point to educate our populace about.
I agree - no magic wand. I just think we need to think ahead and keep our options open. We need to recognize that which can be fixed and work slowly to change those things that change slowly. Starting today.
