William Ashley Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) So the Canadian military gave the chinooks it bought not to long ago to the afghans. It paid over $300 million for them a few years ago. (bought them from the US for the US mission) $300 million is 1.6% last years defence budget. Note Canada's defence budget is the highest it has ever been (nearly 1/10th of all revenue that is 10 cents out of every tax dollar goes to military spending (and related security operations) and that means that 0.16 cents of every tax dollar just went to the afghan military. Note Canada plans on borrowing 250 billion dollars this year to pay its bills, and 300 million of that is apparently to give the afghan military helicopters while scraping 6 helicopters that canada just paid 0.16 cents per tax dollar for a couple years ago. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100721/national/afghan_cda_mackay What type of defence budget is this - donate 6 helicopters buy 15 more.. why not just keep the 6 and buy 9? seems a little more fiscally minded.. when you are running a 250 billion dollar deficit. oh and is 5 billion dollars for 15 helicopters really "sane?" 5 BILLION!!! for 15 helicoptesrs that is 3 helicopters for 1 billion dollars... ARE YOU NUTS? THEY ARE CHINOOKS.. 3 CHINOOKS FOR 1 BILLION DOLLARS?????????? I am hard pressed to believe that 3 of these have a 1 billion dollar value - a nimitz air craft carrier could be bought for the price of the program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook 3 of these IS NOT WORTH 1 billion dollars. How does your 35 million dollar unit cost turn into 5 billion dollars for 15? or 3 for 1 billion? that is 10x the retail price.. what the heck is going on with this? Edited July 21, 2010 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
dre Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 Regardless of the price I dont want to give Afghanistan even a pinch of fuckin coon shit if my tax dollars have to pay for it. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Moonbox Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 What type of defence budget is this - donate 6 helicopters buy 15 more.. why not just keep the 6 and buy 9? seems a little more fiscally minded.. when you are running a 250 billion dollar deficit. Because the ones we have are second hand old pieces of falling apart garbage and won't last us much longer? They were bought for a bargain price as a stop gap measure because we had no heavy-lift capacity. When we bought them we already knew we were buying new ones. THEY ARE CHINOOKS.. 3 CHINOOKS FOR 1 BILLION DOLLARS?????????? Hold on there fella. Your article said we were getting 15 of them for $2 billion. Check your math I am hard pressed to believe that 3 of these have a 1 billion dollar value - a nimitz air craft carrier could be bought for the price of the program. 3 of these IS NOT WORTH 1 billion dollars. How does your 35 million dollar unit cost turn into 5 billion dollars for 15? or 3 for 1 billion? that is 10x the retail price.. what the heck is going on with this? Yeah you got something screwed up. First, 15 Chinooks for $2B. Second, a Nimitz cost around $9-10B. Good try though. You'll catch on eventually... Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Bonam Posted July 22, 2010 Report Posted July 22, 2010 I am hard pressed to believe that 3 of these have a 1 billion dollar value - a nimitz air craft carrier could be bought for the price of the program. Negative. Nimitz class aircraft carriers are not for sale. Quote
Topaz Posted July 22, 2010 Report Posted July 22, 2010 What better way to put a country DEEPLY in debt than to go on a shopping spree for the DND!! Haven't we learned anything from the US debt? Quote
Smallc Posted July 22, 2010 Report Posted July 22, 2010 Oh please. You can't even compare the levels of spending between Canada and the US. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 22, 2010 Report Posted July 22, 2010 Oh please. You can't even compare the levels of spending between Canada and the US. I agree...wild ass and irrelevant comparisons to the USA ($500 billion/yr) are common in these fretful DND spending threads....from CF-188 replacements to used broke dick submarines. Bonam said it best....ain't no Nimitz or Ford class carriers for sale, and it was a major political event based on high KIAs in Afghanistan just to get the used Chinooks. Speaking of Afghanistan, Canada also abandoned those Iltis jeeps in place....cheaper than bringing them back. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
capricorn Posted July 22, 2010 Report Posted July 22, 2010 Speaking of Afghanistan, Canada also abandoned those Iltis jeeps in place....cheaper than bringing them back. Aaaaackkk!!! I'm pulling my hair out here b_c....You mean we spent all that money on Iltis for nothing? :lol: Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
William Ashley Posted July 22, 2010 Author Report Posted July 22, 2010 (edited) Where does it say that in the story? The part about them not leaving the theatre - who else can use them if no one is there? You do realize the british, dutch and Canadians have all tendered their withdrawals. The US is turning over command in what is stated as 4 years with 3 year withdrawl after (so said). Logistically canada already had to start its withdrawal and they have relinquished their command and are lt's during withdrawal. If it ain't the afghan's who is it the taliban that are buying them? I don't think the poles are going to drop that are they, and the US isn't in the habit of buying their equipment back. Do you think the germans or french have a need for old chinooks in their "non combat non engagement threatres" Polish airforce was reduced. In 1990 it consisted of MiG-21s, MiG-23s, MiG-29s, Su-20s and Su-22s. The rest of Lim-6bis were withdrawn in the early 1990s, followed soon by Su-20. MiG-23s were withdrawn by 1999 due to their small number. Throughout the 1990s, Poland has not purchased any new combat planes, and only managed to acquire further MiG-29s from Czech Republic (1995) and Germany (2004). MiG-21s were finally withdrawn in 2003. In 2004, the only combat aircraft were the MiG-29 and Su-22. The fleet of Su-22's needs modernization to retain a combat value, but its future is unclear. In 2003, the F-16C Block 52 was chosen as a new multi-role fighter, the first deliveries took place in November 2006 and will continue until 2008 under Operation Peace Sky. It is expected that the Polish Air Force will form three squadrons of F-16's which will be fully operational by 2012.By choosing the F-16, Poland will be able to derive advantages from the JSF programme, which come from its internationality and long-term economic cooperation of many countries. Acquiring the F-16C/D fighter will make it easier for Poland to transition into the new generation Joint Strike Fighter aircraft (F-35 Lightning II), which will be the a technologically advanced multirole fighter. The acquisition of the F-16 was not without heated competition from European aerospace firms. At one point the Polish Fighter Competition included the Dassault Mirage 2000 and the Saab JAS 39 Gripen. The Polish Block 52+ F-16s are equipped with the latest Pratt and Whitney F-100-229 afterburning turbofan engine, and the avionics suite will be equipped with the APG-68(V)9 terrain mapping radar system and ALQ-211(V)4 electronic warfare suite. All Polish F-16s will be fully equipped to carry the latest in US precision ordinance, ranging from the JDAM/JSOW to the latest in export air-to-air weaponry (including the AIM-120C-5 and AIM-9X). Edited July 22, 2010 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Smallc Posted July 22, 2010 Report Posted July 22, 2010 The part about them not leaving the theatre - who else can use them if no one is there? Did you read beyond that? Quote
William Ashley Posted July 22, 2010 Author Report Posted July 22, 2010 Did you read beyond that? Yes. Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted July 22, 2010 Author Report Posted July 22, 2010 And what did it say? Turkey or bust. What do you think it said? Quote I was here.
Smallc Posted July 22, 2010 Report Posted July 22, 2010 Turkey or bust. What do you think it said? Well I read it, and it seemed to say something about them possibly being sold. Quote
Army Guy Posted July 22, 2010 Report Posted July 22, 2010 Turkey or bust. What do you think it said? Maybe you should read it again, this time alittle slower, all your questions are answered, and stop pulling out facts out yer ass.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
William Ashley Posted July 23, 2010 Author Report Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) Hold on there fella. Your article said we were getting 15 of them for $2 billion. Check your math I was including the additional 2.7 billion to keep them operable. You don't understand this stuff clearly 2 + 2.7 billion is 4.7 Billion - not counting gas and maintenence easily another .3 billion =5 billion for their 10 year lifespan. Did you not read the 2.7 billion after the 2 billion in the article - that is about 1 billion for 3 helicopters or the defence budget for the g20 weekend. FOR 3 HELICOPTERS. The only way you are going to get cost recovery on this is abducting the ultra rich in strike operations. Yeah you got something screwed up. First, 15 Chinooks for $2B. Second, a Nimitz cost around $9-10B.Good try though. You'll catch on eventually... Nimitz cost 4 to 5 billion with their superinflated defence contracting prices tagged ontop. If you are being charged 9 or 10 billion for a nimitz baseline price you are being ripped off. Edited July 23, 2010 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Smallc Posted July 23, 2010 Report Posted July 23, 2010 Does your figure for the Nimitz include maintenance and operation? Quote
William Ashley Posted July 23, 2010 Author Report Posted July 23, 2010 Well I read it, and it seemed to say something about them possibly being sold. To? Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted July 23, 2010 Author Report Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) Does your figure for the Nimitz include maintenance and operation? No, that is too difficult to determine since Canada has no planes to land on them, naval personnel etc.. I wouldn't advocate for a nimitz anyway, there are better designs for less. The main issue is that the CF is 12th in term sof spending and 70 something in size.. and they are notorious for old non functional equipment.. that is a problem.. being the 12th largest spender (in the world) you'd expect them to be better positioned in the scheme of size and force capacity. We should ask ourselves.. just because people are flying them 50 years after they were introduced - is this really the most effective use of funds - are there alternatives with better technology - or could we produce better technology.. for the same or less (1 billion is a lot of money for 3 helicopters... think how much the space shuttle cost. Canada could have a space program for the cost of these helicopters. The Space Shuttle Endeavour, the orbiter built to replace the Space Shuttle Challenger, cost approximately $1.7 billion Sure there are assosciated costs but look at what year it was built - space ship one cost 25 million to build.. that is 400 space ship ones. What about popping people up to space maybe generate some income from the fleet, then buying a nimitz? Edited July 23, 2010 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Smallc Posted July 23, 2010 Report Posted July 23, 2010 No, that is too difficult to determine since Canada has no planes to land on them, naval personnel etc.. So in other words, you were just trying to....what were you trying to do exactly? The main issue is that the CF is 12th in term sof spending and 70 something in size.. and they are notorious for old non functional equipment.. Compared to who? Every military has these same problems, even the largest spenders. We just have a few more that need to work their way out of the system. Quote
William Ashley Posted July 23, 2010 Author Report Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) Back to Boeing. Boeing operates in Afghanistan? As the F-n-G models are being produced and fielded, many of the D models are being chopped up and scrapped. The next time you partake from a soda can, you may be drinking from what used to be a Chinook helicopter. DID YOU KNOW: A B AND C models introduced starting in 1962 could be converted to later D, and F models, introduced 20 years later. AND EVEN THE G model. So 50 years later the ORIGINAL models could be converted and reintroduced as G models. Edited July 23, 2010 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Smallc Posted July 23, 2010 Report Posted July 23, 2010 I don't think so....on the other hand, I read the article. Quote
PIK Posted July 23, 2010 Report Posted July 23, 2010 But it was alright for chretien to cancell the hele program at a cost of 1/2 billion. A 1/2 billion spent on nothing and how many airmen have died on the old ones since then. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.