# News $3.2 Billion On Choppers 1. Jul 23, 2004 ### Dagenais 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: May 1, 2017 2. Jul 23, 2004 ### JohnDubYa 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. Jul 23, 2004

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
That just isn't nice.

4. Jul 24, 2004

### 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. Jul 24, 2004

### kat

Lol, maybe they're planning to use them to protect their border. :surprise:

6. Jul 24, 2004

### JohnDubYa

B-o-r-i-n-g!

7. Jul 24, 2004

### Dagenais

"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. Jul 24, 2004

### 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.

9. Jul 24, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

Expensive helicoptor, but the Sea King is a donosaur and must be replaced.

10. Jul 24, 2004

### Dagenais

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: Jul 24, 2004
11. Jul 24, 2004

### Bystander

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. Jul 25, 2004

### devil-fire

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. Jul 25, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

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.
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: Jul 25, 2004
14. Jul 26, 2004

### Dagenais

Wow...

that's pissing all over the Canadian dollar...

15. Jul 26, 2004

### phatmonky

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. Jul 26, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

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. Jul 26, 2004

### jimmy p

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. Jul 26, 2004

### Dagenais

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

Yes, extremely versatile. These helicopters are examples, they are civilian models but can be used for the military.

19. Jul 27, 2004

### phatmonky

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.