We are getting a little off topic but truckers use the cheapest routes to get their goods to destination. Canada's population density doesn't allow for 4 lane highways all over the place. Healthcare expense is not a problem for defence procurement, it is all sorts of other stupid problem expenditures like multiculturalism, First Nations handouts, failed immigration polices, the CBC, and most of all politicians and incompetent bureaucrats at DND.
You are absolutely correct! Both Australia and Canada have similar economies and long coastlines. Naval needs are somewhat different. However in Canada, both voters and politicians, use the neighbour to the south as the fail safe which explains the sorry state of our navy to a large extent. Australia's geographic reality does not allow for this. To a lesser extent this applies to our other services as well including our coast guard.
Well we have seen it over the last couple of years in Australia.
I don't fully understand Australia's long-term defence plans but from what I see Australia is at least doing a lot more capital investment in its navy and airforce compared to Canada. In Canada we just talk about what is needed. The govt has done squat for the navy for years and their big talking point for our National Ship Building Program is they have selected two shipyards to do the work...big frigging deal especially now that we have likely lost HMCS Protecteur for good. My worst fear now is they will spend millions of dollars trying to repair a 45 year old ship rather than looking for a used replacement vessel to either buy or lease until something is actually built. (guess it will have to be a really long lease).
It is interesting that Denmark, a country with 1/6 the population of Canada and 1/5 the GDP of Canada, has a navy with 7 frigates compared to our 12 and two combat support ships (Absalon) along with several ocean patrol vessels and icebreakers. Some of these assets are used for protecting Greenland. They do a better job of protecting their Arctic assets even though they could likely download this expense and responsibility to the US like Canada does to a large extent. Canada could learn a lot from the Danes.
You could almost call it post colonial Anglo Saxon laziness.
The truth is that Canadians have higher priorities than their navy. For example, the province of British Columbia has a larger fleet of ferries than the Royal Canadian Navy has ships.
While I agree with your "priorities" comment (although they are mis-guided IMHO, we would be far better off with a larger Naval fleet than some F-35s), I have to disagree on the fleet size comparison....BC ferries is rocking 35 ferries...The Navy operates 15 warships, 2 support tankers, 12 minesweepers, 8 patrol-trainers and 4 submarines (I'm also not including the Oriole, I mean, come on!, its a sailboat). Even taking into account another destroyer down, a tanker caught fire and another sub down due to a bad generator....the fleet size is pretty comparable......if you can actually compare Naval ships to ferries
Without those ferries who will the good folk of BC get around? Norwegian ferry companies have more vessels than the Norwegian Navy, I don't see your point.
After the fast ferry fiasco on which the BC govt wasted 800 million building two ships locally they have gone back to outsourcing ships. Perhaps the federal government should take note and have at least a few ships outsourced to foreign yards to start off our naval replacement program.
Is the damage that bad? Or is it more related to your following statement in that post, that cost of repairs+age of vessel+remaining service life=not worth the cost of repairing her.
The latter part of my statement is why a lease is the way to go. I don't know the extent of the damage but navy sources stated it was a very serious event that occurred in the engine room so there would likely be expensive gear beyond salvage making any repair very expensive. It is also a steam propulsion system I believe.
The point I am making is that ONE province of Canada has almost as many ships as the entire country's RCN. Their ferries are well funded, their navy isn't. The RCN is facing a lengthly period of time with zero replenishment ships, I doubt whether their ferries would go so long without a ferry. Replacement replenishment ships should have entered the navy ten years ago, and they should have been bought a few years before that. Do the Canadian politicians have any shame over this matter? Obviously not. The Canadians are telling NATO, a organization they are proud being a member of, they are offering NATO frigates with zero support.