$300 000 000 worth of canadian helicopters donated to afghans

[Argus]

So the Canadian military gave the chinooks it bought not to long ago to the afghans

The Afghans are barely able to figure out how to keep the brakes working on their goats. They certainly aren't up to maintaining helicopters.

It paid over $300 million for them a few years ago.

They were used then, and they've been used hard since. They were an emergency stopgap measure. The CAF only has so many pilots and so many maintenance people, and so much money to spend on more. It is getting brand new helicopters so doesn't need the old ones any more.

(bought them from the US for the US mission)

A UN and NATO mission.

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?

It's $2 billion for 15. The higher price tag is when you include the maintenance and parts of the life of the helicopters. That's how governments do things but it's misleading. It would be like you signing a contract to pay $60,000 for a Toyota Echo because the price includes all maintenance and spare parts for the life of the vehicle.

[William Ashley]

You want to play dumb play dumb.

Fact is these helicopters at 135 million each + another 150 million each to keep the 135 million dollar helicopters running (why exactly does a 135 million dollar helicopter need spare parts, you think that the really really expensive parts in it, would last, you know as long as they stayed technologically relevant.

This ain't no $60,000 car - it is a $135000000 helicopter - that has a parts and service warranty for more than its cost. (for about 300 million per helicopter (not counting the gas and drivers or armarments ammunition)

THESE THINGS COST MORE THAN 1 BILLION 1 000 000 000 for 3 of them.

Play dumb if you'd like but I KNOW, this is grossly overbudgeted, superinflated, and simply a whole lot of money on something that unless massive global war breaks out will only be used to topple foreign governments - and provide emergency releif (that could have had the 300,000,000 instead build a warehouse with local releif supplies so helicopters wouldn't be provided.

I'm not against the helicopters but the price tag is as usually 6x the baseline cost of the unit - meaning canada is being scalped.

---------

The UK bought a bunch of these and couldn't even fly them except at day time - why didn't / doesn't canada just buy the helo's that are / were sitting in air condition hangars forever.

Edited July 24, 2010 by William Ashley

[Guest TrueMetis]

You want to play dumb play dumb.

Fact is these helicopters at 135 million each + another 150 million each to keep the 135 million dollar helicopters running (why exactly does a 135 million dollar helicopter need spare parts, you think that the really really expensive parts in it, would last, you know as long as they stayed technologically relevant.

This ain't no $60,000 car - it is a $135000000 helicopter - that has a parts and service warranty for more than its cost. (for about 300 million per helicopter (not counting the gas and drivers or armarments ammunition)

Uh no, these are helicopters they have an incredible amount of moving parts and the parts must be replaced for more frequently than on a car because many of the parts need to be replaced at the slightest sign of wear because of the immense stress put on them. With a car you can ignore wear for a certain amount of time with a helicopter if you do that don't expect the pilots or helicopter to come back next time it takes off.

[William Ashley]

Uh no, these are helicopters they have an incredible amount of moving parts and the parts must be replaced for more frequently than on a car because many of the parts need to be replaced at the slightest sign of wear because of the immense stress put on them. With a car you can ignore wear for a certain amount of time with a helicopter if you do that don't expect the pilots or helicopter to come back next time it takes off.

This does not make the markup of 200 million per unit any more reasonable.

We are talking about a 3 billion dollar give away.

Sorry no mater how much you try to make this reasonable - it ain't.

If it was all produced in Canada cost recovery and job creation may actually offset some of the hypocracy - but as is, it ain't canadian jobs, and it is totally gouged. Since the unit cost is only 35 million - NOT 135 million + 150 million. Sorry but 150 million for parts is WAY more than producing the parts domestically would cost... canada could make its own helicopters for less than the 5 billion dollar price tag.

These helicopters are a 60 year old design.

Edited July 25, 2010 by William Ashley

[Wilber]

Fact is these helicopters at 135 million each + another 150 million each to keep the 135 million dollar helicopters running (why exactly does a 135 million dollar helicopter need spare parts, you think that the really really expensive parts in it, would last, you know as long as they stayed technologically relevant.

As a helicopter maintenance instructor at BCIT once said, "helicopter maintenance consists of putting them back together faster than they shake themselves to pieces".

[Wilber]

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.

The 90 odd aircraft it carries will set you back another 4 or 5 billion so 9 or 10 billion for a carrier that actually works might not be far off the mark.

[William Ashley]

The 90 odd aircraft it carries will set you back another 4 or 5 billion so 9 or 10 billion for a carrier that actually works might not be far off the mark.

Wrong, apparently 65 cost 9 billion.

[Wilber]

Wrong, apparently 65 cost 9 billion.

Then 10 billion for the ship and aircraft would be a hell of a deal.

[Moonlight Graham]

This is INCREDIBLY stupid to be giving Afghans this kind of weaponry. Odds are decent that Canadian soldiers could be getting shot at & killed by these very helicopters and weapons in a decade or whatnot.

Did Canada learn anything from the 80's USSR invasion and the CIA funding the Mujaheddin?

[bush_cheney2004]

This is INCREDIBLY stupid to be giving Afghans this kind of weaponry. Odds are decent that Canadian soldiers could be getting shot at & killed by these very helicopters and weapons in a decade or whatnot.

Did Canada learn anything from the 80's USSR invasion and the CIA funding the Mujaheddin?

No....how many Mi-8 gunships do the Taliban have today?

Edited July 26, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest TrueMetis]

This does not make the markup of 200 million per unit any more reasonable.

Because you know so much about helicopter maintenance.

[William Ashley]

Then 10 billion for the ship and aircraft would be a hell of a deal.

If they could hold 6 additonal chinooks it would be.

That is an example of "cost savings"

put all the equipment and troops canada plans on leaving behind on the nimitz.. and it'd pay for itself.

and 5 to 1 they'd all fit (like every single CF soilder and transport and box, they could probably bring back a few women who don't want to wear burkas too (not counting cf women), .

Then they just need to move that 1 ship to deploy the CF any mission that happens. self contained force deployment. Put in in the indian ocean and the CF is set.

they'd really need to make sure it didn't sink though - but when was the last time a nimitz was sunk? like never.

convert the reactor to make medical isotopes and for the forces to deliver foreign mail and canada is all set.

hold on, what is this about unsinkable ships? hmm what happened to that multibillion dollar fighting icebreaker program.. hmm this could kill two birds with one stone.

(it becomes more reasonable when you see) "$1 500 000" per flight to bring the cf back.

http://www.canada.com/news/Afghanistan+withdrawal+lengthy+complicated+process/3217072/story.html

PS "begins retreat" before it was NO cf personnel left.

"Curiously, it is easier to destroy gear than sell or give it away to the Americans or to Afghan security forces or the Afghan government. This is because Ottawa has strict rules regarding the proper disposition of government property. Such decisions must be based on fair market values and proper bidding processes — two things that are hard to establish in a war zone where there are few legitimate buyers."

Yeah there goes a whole bunch of military supplies just "disapearing"

Hmm could this maybe be something that parliament addresses - you know rather than blow up war materials.. like maybe do something with them - other than have them "disappear"

If only they built a railroad to turkey instead of a road to nowhere. or realizing IRAN is between the two... maybe to pakistan instead... then just get explosive proof trains. and really fast weapons platforms to move along the rails and conduct sensor activities to scan for explosivees.

Or how about some of them land trains (you know the ones that have wheels instead of tracks), then just head down A76/75 to pakistan (n25/65/5 to karachi) then onto the nimitz and away we go - this provide the US would just give one in the packaged deal - I'm sure they would off one of their older ones... (hahah) .. pick up the cargo there. - that is some real equipment that can be reused.

I havn't priced this... but I'm guessing all gear and travel costs taken into account - Canada would save money doing it this way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_train

also the other percs of nimits - 400,000 gallons of fresh water from seawater a day (makes its own...)

can repair canadas broken down gear right on the thing - no need to ship them home.

who needs airbases when all your aircraft can fit on it!

Crew: approx. 3000-4000 (coincedence?)

Aircraft: approx. 80 (coincedence?)

ships are capable of operating for over 20 years without refueling...

"The air wings' strike fighters are primarily F/A-18F Super Hornets and F/A-18C Hornets," (coincedence?)

I think it could take about 26000 tons or so - full load displacement is about 100000 tons.

It would make it from karachi to vancouver in about two weeks - easily in less than a month..

in 11 days it could cover 11800km distance between karachi and vancouver

11703km

90 days without food - heck just put some lines and netting behind that thing, and see some cost savings the canadian way.

Even the enterprise might be doable if only they would 1. transfer it and 2. do it a couple years before it is scheudled to be decommissioned..

"Plans are to move the Enterprise to Newport News Shipyard for a nuclear shutdown process that will take about three and a half years. After the nuclear de-fueling, the Enterprise will be taken to Washington State, where, during 2016, it will be chopped into manageable pieces of scrap metal, loaded on train cars, and taken to Idaho to be burried as hazardous nuclear waste"

or how about get a loan for

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_F._Kennedy_(CV-67)

http://ussjfkri.org/USS_JFK_ship.htm

to work as a transport...??? (might need to actually take a look at the cost of fueling the thing taking it to pakistan and back

apparently it holds 3.2 million gallons of fuel.

" hangar deck comprises more than 75,000 square feet--almost two acres--and can house more than 80 planes or plane like crates..."

"From keel to mast, the ship is as tall as a 25 story building. There are 18 levels including the island, and more than 3,000 separate compartments or spaces"

"Storerooms on the ship are equal to a six‑story warehouse one block square and have a total capacity of 371,204 cubic feet."

Edited July 26, 2010 by William Ashley

[capricorn]

This is INCREDIBLY stupid to be giving Afghans this kind of weaponry.

This is a decision based purely on economics. Cost of leaving the kit behind? $0.00. Cost of bringing it back? Who knows. But I would bet it's in the millions of dollars. Given our huge deficit, IMO it's the right decision.

Odds are decent that Canadian soldiers could be getting shot at & killed by these very helicopters and weapons in a decade or whatnot.

I wouldn't worry about that Moonlight. I doubt there would be an appetite in the voting public for our military to return to that gawd forsaken land for a looong, looong time. The way things stand, any political party that would commit us to, or even suggest a commitment, another Afghanistan mission within the next quarter century would surely get demolished.

[Guest TrueMetis]

This is a decision based purely on economics. Cost of leaving the kit behind? $0.00. Cost of bringing it back? Who knows. But I would bet it's in the millions of dollars. Given our huge deficit, IMO it's the right decision.

I wouldn't worry about that Moonlight. I doubt there would be an appetite in the voting public for our military to return to that gawd forsaken land for a looong, looong time. The way things stand, any political party that would commit us to, or even suggest a commitment, another Afghanistan mission within the next quarter century would surely get demolished.

That and the ANA doesn't have the expertise to keep these things flying. Especially in the conditions of Afghanistan.

[Bonam]

This is a decision based purely on economics. Cost of leaving the kit behind? $0.00. Cost of bringing it back? Who knows. But I would bet it's in the millions of dollars. Given our huge deficit, IMO it's the right decision.

You are forgetting the cost of procuring replacement equipment should we need it... that is something that must be included in the economic analysis.

I wouldn't worry about that Moonlight. I doubt there would be an appetite in the voting public for our military to return to that gawd forsaken land for a looong, looong time. The way things stand, any political party that would commit us to, or even suggest a commitment, another Afghanistan mission within the next quarter century would surely get demolished.

That all depends on circumstances.

[capricorn]

You are forgetting the cost of procuring replacement equipment should we need it... that is something that must be included in the economic analysis.

True. I don't know dick about what's the best in equipment for our military. But I'm thinking with the wear and tear those babies suffered over there, perhaps it would be just as well to go with new and improved.

That all depends on circumstances.

That's why I added the qualifier "as things stand" Bonam. Who knows what shit's coming down the pike.

[Bonam]

True. I don't know dick about what's the best in equipment for our military. But I'm thinking with the wear and tear those babies suffered over there, perhaps it would be just as well to go with new and improved.

Sure if the money exists to procure new and improved replacements... which it may not.

That's why I added the qualifier "as things stand" Bonam. Who knows what shit's coming down the pike.

Yeah I suppose, missed that qualifier. Things don't "stand" as they are for very long though, the situation is constantly changing. For better or worse, I have a feeling the West's present conflict with radical Islam is only just beginning.

[capricorn]

That and the ANA doesn't have the expertise to keep these things flying.

I've been reading some first hand reports in the Legion Magazine. What I gather is a large turnover is to be expected in the ANA force. Even if the ANA had properly trained pilots, will they serve long enough to fly them?

[Guest TrueMetis]

I've been reading some first hand reports in the Legion Magazine. What I gather is a large turnover is to be expected in the ANA force. Even if the ANA had properly trained pilots, will they serve long enough to fly them?

I have no idea, I know ANA ability is limited I'm just not sure how limited. Even if it turns out they have people with the knowledge to maintain these helicopters (which I doubt) they certainly don't have the facilities or money required. So if they can get some pilots they might be able to get some flight time out of it, how much depends on the ingenuity of their mechanics.

[Smallc]

Sure if the money exists to procure new and improved replacements... which it may not.

They're already bought and paid for. They just haven't arrived yet (and won't until 2013).

[William Ashley]

I have no idea, I know ANA ability is limited I'm just not sure how limited. Even if it turns out they have people with the knowledge to maintain these helicopters (which I doubt) they certainly don't have the facilities or money required. So if they can get some pilots they might be able to get some flight time out of it, how much depends on the ingenuity of their mechanics.

OR maybe.. who knows US mechanics could service their old helicopters for the next 10 years while the US winds down its "conflict resolution" and war on, terror. (apprenticing the ANA and turks) - what a better way for the ANA to spend their GNP - than on war supplies FOREVER! hmm wonder who they are buying from??? Hmm where is iraq buying all its equipment for its war on stability?

I'm still in favour of getting a decomissioned nuclear aircraft carrier and bringing home the CF:helicopters, women, dirt, poppies and buddah rocks with that. Just store them in pakistan or india for the couple years before canada can borrow the enterprise. (the US wants 12 in service what better than to give the 12th to Canada!!!!) that is a way to show your ally you care! (the other thing is that these are NOT going to be decomissioned and they will all turn into floating islands off the coast of america)

What we really need is a list of "everything that is being left behind or destroyed or donated" to give an idea of how much of the 10 billion or more spent on the war is being handed over to other people.

Due to nimitz decomissioning costs of close to 1 billion each - maybe the US navy would consider providing it to the Canadian Forces.... .... ?? instead of dumping them?

Or perhaps that is what allys are worth only a grain of old salt.

They are all good when they are buying your equipment to fight your war, but suddently when you can either given them your trash or put it to dry dock, true colours are shown.

OK and befoe you think THIS IS STUPID -

JFK /John F. Kennedy class conventional carrier 196.3 m / year operational cost

6 chinook helicopter purchase value 300 million -- .... think about it!.

this accepting the US would take JFK out of retirement and furnish it to canada

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uss-jfk-goodnight-sweet-prince-03054/

priorities

1. Just determine the cost of running the thing to pakistan and back to pick up troops and equipment

2. Sort out a long range potential to have it serve in some role such as deployments (should a war happen in the future)

--- then also it would be a good idea to try to get rotated A.C.s that are decomissioned in the 2020's...

based on canada "stalled" northern sovereignty - refurbishing to be comissioned US carriers will save canada money on the northern ship building program (and be implementable around the same time the ships would actually NOW be avaialble for service) - and the a.c.'s I think can also ice break - cores could probably be converted for nuclear isotopes also. in addition to other things.

As crazy as it seems - having the things floating in NORAD / NATO - in operating condition I would think would be better for the groups than having them dry docked or chopped up.. US saves docomissioning costs - canada actually saves money on building ice breakers in the north and in the short term canada is able to save money on the afghanistan withdrawl...

now this is out of the world.. but anyone who can criticize any of the facts involved in how this is a face value - win win for everyone go right ahead.

Edited July 26, 2010 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

....I'm still in favour of getting a decomissioned nuclear aircraft carrier and bringing home the CF:helicopters, women, dirt, poppies and buddah rocks with that. Just store them in pakistan or india for the couple years before canada can borrow the enterprise.

Name one such nuclear carrier that exists as inactive or stricken.

[Bonam]

Name one such nuclear carrier that exists as inactive or stricken.

USS Enterprise (CVN-65) is to be decommissioned in 2015, replaced by the Gerald R. Ford. That being said, the US has other plans for it besides selling it to Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

USS Enterprise (CVN-65) is to be decommissioned in 2015, replaced by the Gerald R. Ford. That being said, the US has other plans for it besides selling it to Canada.

Correct....the US would not sell a nuclear carrier to Canada for several reasons. How many nuclear powered ships does Canada currently operate?

[Bonam]

Correct....the US would not sell a nuclear carrier to Canada for several reasons. How many nuclear powered ships does Canada currently operate?

I'd guess zero. That's not a reason for never starting though.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Bonam