$3.2 Billion On Choppers

  • News
  • Thread starter Dagenais
  • Start date
  • #1
271
3
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/07/23/seaking_replace040722.html [Broken]

Stephen Harper wanted to invest lots of money on the military. Most people disagreed with him

I'm a bit surprised that Graham decided to drop 3.2 billion.

Good move for Canada?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
467
1
I think we shouldn't mess with Canada any more after this move. This puts their military right up there with Panama's.

To Canada, $3.2 billion spent on the military is probably a huge chunk of change. Must be nice having Daddy Yankee protecting you.
 
  • #3
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
That just isn't nice.
 
  • #4
devil-fire
what are we going to use these things for? im told that they are to replace the sea kings but i dont recall why the sea kings are the most important part of the canadian armed forces.

3.2 billion is a lot of money to be spent and i wonder if it couldnt have been spent on something better.

maybe they want to support our allied armed forces with transportation but not offend the enemys of the allies by not shooting at them?
 
  • #5
kat
26
0
devil-fire said:
what are we going to use these things for? im told that they are to replace the sea kings but i dont recall why the sea kings are the most important part of the canadian armed forces.

3.2 billion is a lot of money to be spent and i wonder if it couldnt have been spent on something better.

maybe they want to support our allied armed forces with transportation but not offend the enemys of the allies by not shooting at them?
Lol, maybe they're planning to use them to protect their border. :surprise:
 
  • #6
467
1
B-o-r-i-n-g!
 
  • #7
271
3
devil-fire said:
what are we going to use these things for? im told that they are to replace the sea kings but i dont recall why the sea kings are the most important part of the canadian armed forces.

3.2 billion is a lot of money to be spent and i wonder if it couldnt have been spent on something better.

maybe they want to support our allied armed forces with transportation but not offend the enemys of the allies by not shooting at them?
"The [helicopter] will enhance our national security by strengthening the Canadian Forces' ability to respond to emerging threats in Canada's maritime areas of jurisdiction," he added. "It will also help to ensure Canada maintains a meaningful capacity to contribute militarily to collective efforts to safeguard international peace and security."


Also interesting:

In 1992, the Brian Mulroney government had decided to buy 50, EH-101 helicopters to replace the Sea Kings, but the $5.8 billion contract was ripped up by the Liberals when they came to power in 1993, calling the helicopters, "Cadillacs" the nation couldn't afford.

The Liberal government paid $500 million in penalties for backing out of that deal.

The 1960s-era Sea Kings require an enormous amount of maintenance to keep them flying. There have been four fatal crashes since they were brought into service.


 
  • #8
devil-fire
sounds like a general statment that could be used for almost any spending project. if the money was spent on personael i would support that because i can understand how canada could put People to use but i dont see how these are going to help.

bad move for canada.
 
  • #9
russ_watters
Mentor
20,116
6,622
Expensive helicoptor, but the Sea King is a donosaur and must be replaced.
 
  • #10
271
3
russ_watters said:
Expensive helicoptor, but the Sea King is a donosaur and must be replaced.
It should have been done awhile ago. Some have died in those things.

The new choppers won't come until 2006 though. The Seakings will still be around for awhile (2012). :uhh:
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,203
1,224
Is this one of those confusing/ambiguous uses of the word "billion"? As in a British "billion" ain't a Yankee "billion" --- and, no one knows what a Canadian "billion" is? $100M civilian eggbeaters? I don't think so.
 
  • #12
devil-fire
russ_watters said:
Expensive helicoptor, but the Sea King is a donosaur and must be replaced.
why not decommissioned?

anyone know common examples of when they were used?


as far as i know the only thing these are used for is representing a deep problem with canadian armed forces. i would like understand how these new pieces of equipment are addressing that problem
 
  • #13
russ_watters
Mentor
20,116
6,622
devil-fire said:
why not decommissioned?

anyone know common examples of when they were used?


as far as i know the only thing these are used for is representing a deep problem with canadian armed forces. i would like understand how these new pieces of equipment are addressing that problem
One main purpose - the Canadian Navy. Its a seaborne helicopter. It does anti-ship, anti-sub, search and rescue, transport, pretty much everything a helicopter does.

I suppose you could decommission them - and the rest of the Canadian military, but Canada has chosen to have a military. And because of their versatility, they'd actually be about the last thing you'd want to get rid of entirely.
Is this one of those confusing/ambiguous uses of the word "billion"? As in a British "billion" ain't a Yankee "billion" --- and, no one knows what a Canadian "billion" is? $100M civilian eggbeaters? I don't think so.
I can't believe I missed that. Yeah, its not quite as much money as I thought. Also, with high maintenance costs for the Sea King, I'm sure a lot of that will be made up.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
271
3
I can't believe I missed that. Yeah, its not quite as much money as I thought. Also
Wow...

that's pissing all over the Canadian dollar...
 
  • #15
member 5645
It's about time! It's a damn shame to see the canadian military so poorly funded. They are a great trained gruop of people, but are held down by aging equipment and government PC garbage (bilingual manuals for everything, even in units that are not bilingual)
 
  • #16
russ_watters
Mentor
20,116
6,622
Dagenais said:
Wow...

that's pissing all over the Canadian dollar...
That wasn't meant as an insult. To put a finer point on it, thats roughly 76% as much money as I thought it was.
 
  • #17
jimmy p
Gold Member
358
35
It isnt such a bad thing spending money on choppers actually. Helicopters nowadays are the new tanks. They are changing warfare like tanks did in WW1. In fact the British government is scrapping around 80 Challenger tanks and quite a few Jaguar fighter planes. The money will probably go on Helicopters because they are so worth it.
 
  • #18
271
3
It's about time! It's a damn shame to see the canadian military so poorly funded. They are a great trained gruop of people, but are held down by aging equipment and government PC garbage (bilingual manuals for everything, even in units that are not bilingual)
Canada is a bilingual country...

And one of the claims of Stephen Harper was to properly fund the military (which I agree with).

The money will probably go on Helicopters because they are so worth it.
Yes, extremely versatile. These helicopters are examples, they are civilian models but can be used for the military.
 
  • #19
member 5645
Dagenais said:
1>Canada is a bilingual country...
Irrelevant. Sending hundreds of copies of the same manual to a base to sit in the closet is a waste of funds. The manuals should obviously be available, but when you have so many units that are English speaking only, but you spend TWICE as much on overhead.....well, the inefficiency is obvious.

But then again, this doesn't adress the real point of the idiocy behind trying to force feed a minority language down the rest of a country to save 'heritage' because a liberal PM wants to impress is french voting base.
 

Related Threads on $3.2 Billion On Choppers

  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
71
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
36
Views
35K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
29K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Top