Got Chinooks?

[bush_cheney2004]

.....The result is likely to be much heavier, more expensive and will take longer to build, test and bring into service than standard CH-47F's, and will be much more difficult and expensive to maintain, particularly given their unique pedigree. Canada also apparently declined US offers of leased CH-47D's as an interim measure, which would have permitted the air force to provide tactical helicopter support Canadian troops in Afghanistan from 2007 rather than relying on the overworked US Army.

Thanks AG...as one of the ultimate customers for these A/C, sounds like a mixed blessing. I suspect this means that the CH-47D's will be in service for a while longer than planned. Shades of the Sea King!

[Kitch]

Finally we get some new choppers, this is great news for sure. The quicker the better. Our PM, the RH Stephan Harper really looks after Canadians, this really shows that he cares. Thank God for our PM who is always doing the right thing.

Ya, this is a move that benefits the majority of Canadians. It allows our military to kill some more people in Afghanistan. I feel so safe.

(Clearly I really have no idea what these helicopters are really for)

Edited October 31, 2008 by Kitch

[Kitch]

There is nothing wrong with having some new weaponry and civilian rescue and survailance craft. There is something morally wrong in building up military supplies and generating strife (artifical wars) in order to justify further defence spending to enrich a bunch of guys with American buisness contracts. Killing for profit is a no no - and it seems that - for instance the war in Iraq is just rich guys killing poor guys for adventure and profit - this is barbaric behaviour - and for the most part is responsible for the economic crisis in America - not some silly sub-prime mortgage thing. When you balance the budget though warfare only a tiny amount of people benefit, while the average suffer.. I hope that Canada does slowly develope a strong military - and the we set an example in the world - that weapons are to keep peace..if you are to be having them at all.

I'm on board, but...

You can't simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.

[Mr.Canada]

Ya, this is a move that benefits the majority of Canadians. It allows our military to kill some more people in Afghanistan. I feel so safe.

(Clearly I really have no idea what these helicopters are really for)

These are transport choppers. These terrorist started this war not us, don't forget that. If they hadn't killed 3,000 innocent people none of this would have happened. Blame the terrorists not our side which is treasonous if you ask me.

EDIT - The Liberals single handedly almost entirely destroyed our once proud military until it became a joke.

Edited October 31, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[GostHacked]

I would rather see our armed forces with the V-22. A few squadrons of these along with sufficient carriers to transport them would make a great deal of sense to me. Such a force could represent an out of country contribution to peace keeping by Canadian Forces. A single aircraft carrier to operate a squadron of F-18's would be even more helpful. What I am saying is that I would think it beneficial to the best interests of Canadians to have a least one single group that is capable of deploying and being supplied by our own means.

From what I understand of our Canadian military, is that we simply do not have the manpower to arm and man a single aircraft carrier. Even of a small or medium size. The largest carriers in the US's fleet can have more than 10,000 crew on board. So I doubt we would have the manpower for an entire navy battle group. It is simply a matter of numbers here.

I like the V-22s, they are a pretty neat craft. But it has had its failures, but after about 15-20 years of tweaking and redesigning, they may have worked out all the kinks in them.

[Alta4ever]

These are transport choppers. These terrorist started this war not us, don't forget that. If they hadn't killed 3,000 innocent people none of this would have happened. Blame the terrorists not our side which is treasonous if you ask me.

EDIT - The Liberals single handedly almost entirely destroyed our once proud military until it became a joke.

Almost destroyed? He (Jean C) completely destoryed it, and then through into a fight it was unprepaired for.

[jdobbin]

Almost destroyed? He (Jean C) completely destoryed it, and then through into a fight it was unprepaired for.

It was the Tories who sold Canada's heavy lift helicopters.

[blueblood]

The long delay from decision to buy to contract signature is due to a combination of vacillation and an overly ambitious operational concept for the aircraft on the part of key procurement staff in the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Forces. Instead of accepting accelerated delivery of the advanced CH-47F now in production for the US Army as was done with the C-17, Canada is pushing for a unique version of the Chinook with the ability to satisfy a ballooning list of requirements, including SOF support and SAR in the Arctic. The result is a one-off 'Canadian' hybrid of the CH-47F and the MH-47G in production for US Army Special Operations aviation, with the latter providing increased range, an enhanced defensive aids suite and additional sensors. The result is likely to be much heavier, more expensive and will take longer to build, test and bring into service than standard CH-47F's, and will be much more difficult and expensive to maintain, particularly given their unique pedigree. Canada also apparently declined US offers of leased CH-47D's as an interim measure, which would have permitted the air force to provide tactical helicopter support Canadian troops in Afghanistan from 2007 rather than relying on the overworked US Army.

janes.

I'm not a helo expert, but this is a purchase unrelated to the chaps program, it was listed for 395 mil and it is just for these 6 A/C although it was mentioned somewhere that these helos will be withdrawan one by one as the new 47F's arrive and they will be upgraded to f plus specs. I'm not sure if it mentions what cockpit they are.

CSAR

6 choppers that's it, cripes do you guys get a fighter escort when you utilize them? Talk about putting all the eggs in one basket. Oh well 6 is better than none.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... The largest carriers in the US's fleet can have more than 10,000 crew on board. So I doubt we would have the manpower for an entire navy battle group. It is simply a matter of numbers here.

Not that many....figure about 5,000 with embarked air squadrons and marines. Carriers come in many sizes for different missions. Define the mission / goal first, then seek out the best approach.

I like the V-22s, they are a pretty neat craft. But it has had its failures, but after about 15-20 years of tweaking and redesigning, they may have worked out all the kinks in them.

This program has suffered mightily, and cost many lives just in development. IIRC, they can't autorotate to safety.

[eyeball]

These terrorist started this war not us, don't forget that. If they hadn't killed 3,000 innocent people none of this would have happened. Blame the terrorists not our side which is treasonous if you ask me.

That's just an opinion. Billions of human beings including a lot of patriotic American's are of the opinion 9/11 was a retaliation and not an opening shot or declaration of war.

Don't forget the US is complicit in the deaths of thousands and thousands of people due to its political, military and economic interferance in the ME, the Gulf and surrounding region. This by the way is a fact, not an opinion.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Remember the movie "Field of Dreams", if you build it they will come.

First things first. You need a nation with a political will to actually do something. That means standing up to those who do not agree with you. Canada does not have this first basic requirement. Make no mistake in this regard people because the military is the long arm of failed diplomacy which sadly is a fact of life in international terms. The use of our military by political design has been relegated to peace keeping instead of offensive operations. That puts our requirements in a very different light. So we have unique needs for our armed forces.

This nation has failed to understand its own needs as determined by our political leadership. Should the country ever decide to actually defend itself the required investment in infrastructure would blow the minds of most individuals. The cost is staggering almost beyond comprehension. Try a trillion dollars for an aircraft carrier with all the toys on bard and ready to sail. I don't think we even have a dock large enough to berth one of those monsters, let alone a dry dock for construction and maintenance. You need at least a frigate screen to support the carrier. That is leaving aside the traditional submarine screen that the US Navy has used since the second world war. Lets say about another two trillion for the support system just to handle a single carrier group. Now multiple that time at least four. One for each coast plus one deployment force. You are talking real money here folks and that is just for the navy and to cover the cost of getting Canadian troops to places they are required in their peacekeeping roles.

Now start costing out coastal defenses, ever thought of how much coast line we have? The answer to that is 202,080 kms, did you know that? There are no fixed set of numbers to compute these things but most nations with navies have on average of three frigates per thousand km of shoreline to cover. Granted that much of our shore is ice, there is still lots on the east and west coasts to fully protect. So I guess maybe we are getting off pretty light, but we are still short a few hundred ships at least.

We haven't even counted on an army or an air force to protect the country, you begin to grasp the nature of the problem here. If we decide that the Americans will not invade us, and we decide that we will not even attempt to defend that border then we can start to think about our own defense. Anybody that wants to get here will have to come from the sea, which is why coastal defense makes sense. That does not mean we will need no army to actually defend our land, nor does it mean that we will need no air defense. It does mean that we can actually focus on the true mission of defense, because we know the nature of the threat.

[eyeball]

It does mean that we can actually focus on the true mission of defense, because we know the nature of the threat.

And what might that threat be?

Now start costing out coastal defenses, ever thought of how much coast line we have? The answer to that is 202,080 kms, did you know that?

Not to the last decimal point, in any case I'm quite certain you also know exactly how deliberately misleading this figure will be to anyone who doesn't live on one of our coasts. This illustrates just exactly how and why fear and military spending get blown so far out of proportion.

[Argus]

It was the Tories who sold Canada's heavy lift helicopters.

They planned to buy newer ones, but the Liberals put a stop to that.

[Argus]

That's just an opinion. Billions of human beings including a lot of patriotic American's are of the opinion 9/11 was a retaliation and not an opening shot or declaration of war.

They're idiots.

Don't forget the US is complicit in the deaths of thousands and thousands of people due to its political, military and economic interferance in the ME, the Gulf and surrounding region. This by the way is a fact, not an opinion.

What exactly is "interference" and what nation doesn't practice it? Did the U.S. "interfere" more than the French, English, Russians and Chinese? Have not powerful nations always, all through history, sought to influence others, by hook or by crook, in ways which were to their best interests? At what point in time did this become justification for murderous attacks on those nations' citizens by third parties? When did anyone get the idea that even if a given nation finds such foreign behavior perfectly acceptable, certain elements of its own citizenry could be justified in disagreeing and launching murderous attacks - not on their own government, but on the other government, - based on that disagreement?

[Kitch]

These are transport choppers. These terrorist started this war not us, don't forget that. If they hadn't killed 3,000 innocent people none of this would have happened. Blame the terrorists not our side which is treasonous if you ask me.

EDIT - The Liberals single handedly almost entirely destroyed our once proud military until it became a joke.

If you think the "war" was started on September 11th 2001, you have a lot of research to do my friend. I'm not claiming to know who 'started'... "it", but it definitely didn't happen that day. Do you really think that people blow up buildings for no reason? And do you really think that people clever enough to pull something like that off would do something like that for no good reason?

But this thread is about helicopters and what I've said seems to be something that a lot of people would rather not discuss because they might not be justified in their advocation of killing people.

[wulf42]

If you think the "war" was started on September 11th 2001, you have a lot of research to do my friend. I'm not claiming to know who 'started'... "it", but it definitely didn't happen that day. Do you really think that people blow up buildings for no reason? And do you really think that people clever enough to pull something like that off would do something like that for no good reason?

But this thread is about helicopters and what I've said seems to be something that a lot of people would rather not discuss because they might not be justified in their advocation of killing people.

There is nothing to Justify..the Terrorist declared war on Sept 11th/2001 now we are going to Slaughter them..... no justification warranted!

Edited November 1, 2008 by wulf42

[Argus]

Thanks AG...as one of the ultimate customers for these A/C, sounds like a mixed blessing. I suspect this means that the CH-47D's will be in service for a while longer than planned. Shades of the Sea King!

I think the military probably figured this war is the only justification they're going to have to get new helicopters, and so they wanted the best they could get because once the war is done they'll be unlikely to convince the government of the day - in 2012, to lay out hundreds of millions for new helicopters. That would be why they turned down a lease deal, as well. And yes, these helicopters will likely have to last a very long time as Canadian governments seem disinclined to pay for proper equipment until the old equipment has rusted out completely.

[Argus]

I'm on board, but...

You can't simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.

Of course you can. Had the western powers strongly prepared for war in the thirties, and flexed their muscles at appropriate times, we might never have had World War Two. Hitler saw all his neighbors as weaklings ripe for the plucking, and he was right.

[Kitch]

They're idiots.

What exactly is "interference" and what nation doesn't practice it? Did the U.S. "interfere" more than the French, English, Russians and Chinese? Have not powerful nations always, all through history, sought to influence others, by hook or by crook, in ways which were to their best interests? At what point in time did this become justification for murderous attacks on those nations' citizens by third parties? When did anyone get the idea that even if a given nation finds such foreign behavior perfectly acceptable, certain elements of its own citizenry could be justified in disagreeing and launching murderous attacks - not on their own government, but on the other government, - based on that disagreement?

They... WE... are not idiots.

Interference doesn't necessarily mean non-violent interference. Read up on what the U.S. did in Nicaragua or Guatemala or El Salvador. People in the middle east don't like the way the U.S. supports Israel. Israel is killing Palestinians. Therefore, THEY see this as America helping kill Arabs/muslims. Whether we agree or not with that point of view is irrelevant. That's how they see it. Just as some people may think that 911 was a declaration of war... that's how THEY see it. Perhaps it would be a better approach to resolve problems to TRY to sort this out. Maybe that's not possible but you can't claim that it won't work if it's never been attempted.

I, no doubt, will be called naive because I think that there are ways to resolve problems other than through violence. After all, this is what I've been told my whole life when it comes to dealing with problems with another person, or people. It seems that the same way of life doesn't apply to politics or relationships between countries.

[wulf42]

Of course you can. Had the western powers strongly prepared for war in the thirties, and flexed their muscles at appropriate times, we might never have had World War Two. Hitler saw all his neighbors as weaklings ripe for the plucking, and he was right.

Which is why this country needs to arm to the teeth and Harper is the man to do it!.........Liberals never again!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/world/am...s/02canada.html

Edited November 1, 2008 by wulf42

[Kitch]

Of course you can. Had the western powers strongly prepared for war in the thirties, and flexed their muscles at appropriate times, we might never have had World War Two. Hitler saw all his neighbors as weaklings ripe for the plucking, and he was right.

I wasn't aware that I was privileged enough to converse with somebody who knew Hitler so intimately so as to know what he would have done given different circumstances.

What would have happened if the "west" flexed some muscle? It would have turned into a body building competition. So an eternal arms race is a good thing? Or just until the richest 'nation' wins this race... and then they get to do what they want around the world. Oh shit... I think I just had deja vu!

[Argus]

I wasn't aware that I was privileged enough to converse with somebody who knew Hitler so intimately so as to know what he would have done given different circumstances.

What would have happened if the "west" flexed some muscle? It would have turned into a body building competition. So an eternal arms race is a good thing? Or just until the richest 'nation' wins this race... and then they get to do what they want around the world. Oh shit... I think I just had deja vu!

You're privileged enough to converse with someone who reads history. And the histories are replete with knowledgeable individuals of that era who are unanimous in their oft-repeated statements that there were numerous opportunities to have stood up to Hitler and faced him off before things got to the point they did. Body building competitions are better than war, as we learned in the fifties and sixties. Hitler invaded other countries because they were weaker. He never would have invaded Russia had his generals not told him how weak and disorganized and poorly led and equipped the Red Army was at that time.

[bush_cheney2004]

I wasn't aware that I was privileged enough to converse with somebody who knew Hitler so intimately so as to know what he would have done given different circumstances.

You don't have to be so privileged....Hitler recorded his intentions for posterity in word and deed.

What would have happened if the "west" flexed some muscle? It would have turned into a body building competition. So an eternal arms race is a good thing? Or just until the richest 'nation' wins this race... and then they get to do what they want around the world. Oh shit... I think I just had deja vu!

It already was an arms race...and Europe lost. The "peace" from WWI set the stage for all that followed.

[eyeball]

What exactly is "interference" and what nation doesn't practice it? Did the U.S. "interfere" more than the French, English, Russians and Chinese? Have not powerful nations always, all through history, sought to influence others, by hook or by crook, in ways which were to their best interests?

I meant abuse not interference. Yes, the powerful have all through history abused the weak. Are you saying that when Americans pursue their self-interest that its justifiable no matter what?

At what point in time did this become justification for murderous attacks on those nations' citizens by third parties. When did anyone get the idea that even if a given nation finds such foreign behavior perfectly acceptable, certain elements of its own citizenry could be justified in disagreeing and launching murderous attacks - not on their own government, but on the other government, - based on that disagreement?

I suppose they must have felt justified after the ruthless dictators of certain given nations in the region became too powerful due to American interference to attack conventionally. I guess attacking the source of their dictators power made more sense. It suggests a high level of desperation born out of utter hopelessness and helplessness. At what point did it become justifiable for a freedom loving democracy to prop up a dictatorship?

You don't seem to be disagreeing with the general premise that 9/11 was brought on by American interference but your attempt to justify American interference in these regions seems just as desperate as flying passenger planes into buildings does. If the death toll and economic cost since 9/11 is anything to go by it suggests the attempt to sustain this justification is just another human act of desperation born of utter hopelessness and helplessness.

They're idiots.

There's certainly no shortage of these anywhere you go.

[eyeball]

The "peace" from WWI set the stage for all that followed.

Ever hear of infinite regression?