Thursday, August 03, 2006

Again we take the gold-plated option!

$100 million for a chopper!

Bugger that!

Not that there is anything wrong with them, but we don't get many for OUR money.

What we have now works- we just need new ones and more.

Like these:

Let's get real- they are used here for SAR and civil defence more than anything else.

or is it not PC to buy from the US of A?

10 comments:

KG said...

What's the Huey2 worth, Oswald? Surely less than 100m!

Oswald Bastable said...

they are a bit shy on mentioning prices, but I believe about 5 million

KG said...

Sounds like the way to go. As you said, it's not as though they're likely to be used in a "hot" zone anyway.
Just how good a chopper do we need to ferry supplies to flood victims in Kaitaia?

Murray said...

The F16's were how much again?

I know a few guys who were on the ground in East Timor who would have loved some air support.

And before anyone crys oboslete they were and are a lot more capable than the air units the milita have.

kg you care to just take a guess at how many "hot zones" kiwi's are in at the moment?

I'm afraid the reality is Miss I wont send kiwis to fight ammoral wars has but more kiwis in combat than any other PM since WWII.

That goverment was Labour too.

KG said...

Yeah, you have a point there Murray, but given our distance from any conflicts it'd surely make far more sense for us to provide the personnel and use coalition air assets.
Cheaper too.
It's an old argument and a lot of fun, having so many permutations and all.
I just don't believe we can afford the choppers though.

Murray said...

it would make more sense but... LABOUR.

Why the hell are we sending trucks to Afghanistan???????????/

ImperialGriffin said...

Why whold you what a bell huey? i can see the exitment, but a bell huey? id rather gat a second-hand chinook for 150 million. but good point.

ImperialGriffin said...

or cheaper, i soppose. 10?

Murray said...

Heuys don't require retraining of the massive reorg that the supply system undergos with any equipment change.

Any change in major and to a degree minor equipmewnt means a lot of money and time in reorganisation and retraining. It would be unusual for the unit cost not to be exceeded by the reorg cost. Even things like storage shelving may needd to be changed. It all adds up real quick.

Example the M16 needed replacing. the M16a2 would have been able to phase out the a1 without being noticed. Even the rifle racks were unchanged. Everyone was already trained including instructors.

But it's an American weapon so it's EEEEEEEVVVVIILLLLLLL!!!

Therefore we get suckered into a deal where we are required to buy an unknown Australian made POS which was given the thumbs down by the trial team who all recomended the M16a2.

The Aussie made Styer POS was so badly made that a lot of them were sent back. Many failed the first inspection by firing a rond on being cocked. Some had runaways when cocked.

I know this because I was amongst the NCO's testing my battalions issue.

It cost us more, it's not as good and it requires massive disruption.

But it's NOT American!

Same applies to the ANZAC Frigates. Massively expense delivered almost without systems which are considered "upgrades".

Meanwhile the US offered us half a dozen destroyers that were in top order and all we had to do was come and sail them away. Already run in, fully tricked out and no teething issue.

Nope we have to fund the Australian arms industry.

It's not even a Labour thing. It's a departmental FITH thing.

david said...

The Huey 2 is about USD$1.4 mio. The F16's were going to cost USD $100 mio. The money we will get (maybe) for the Skyhawks would have come close to covering that