# Cost to the Navy  to send  ships to hurricane



## FormerHorseGuard (21 Sep 2005)

Broadside over navy's costly Katrina gesture
    Three Canadian warships are sailing home this week after spending five days in the Hurricane Katrina disaster zone on a mission that some observers say had more to do with public relations than aid. 
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=05faad60-6583-41e9-8f94-28226b8e1415

that is the beginning of the story

talks how it cost some where around 20 million dollars to send the troops and ships for the short period they are there.
200 000 bucks a day  to run one of the ships x 3  600 000 bucks and the amount of actuall aid they  took with them,  even navy brass admits it not exactly  a great use of equipment and troops but they  did what  they could with what  they had
anyone here who reads the post it is an interesting story, i cannot link to the whole as it is members only and I am not member , i just read it in the livingroom not on line.


----------



## BOSNwife (21 Sep 2005)

Too bad I can't read the rest of the news article; you have to be a paying subscriber.
My husband is on one of the Navy ships & he said he is Not coming home yet. They are staying in a safe area incase they can help with Hurricane Rita.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (21 Sep 2005)

from what  i read divers and engineers are staying behind along with coast guard ship. 
i found it interesting when talking about the costs and the amount of equipment they had to bring only  not to be able to unload it from the ships ....no cranes etc....waste of time  but easy  way  to house troops the CF spokesman said.


----------



## KevinB (21 Sep 2005)

WHO CARES WHAT THE COST IS...

 THEY ARE OUR ALLIES



Friends are friends regardless.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Sep 2005)

Nice to see there is a cost-benefit analysis involved in helping your neighbours.... :


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Sep 2005)

i know the guys I have talked to about it were more then happy to go down and help, its too bad people see this more or less on us not helping our friends but the money aspect. I say shame on them.


----------



## Trinity (21 Sep 2005)

Financial cost... meh

Political cost - excellent rapport with the Americans during
crazy times, such as not going to war with them, lumber
disuptes, mad cow problem....

Pastoral side - impossible to measure.
we helped.. thats whats most important.


----------



## 2 Cdo (21 Sep 2005)

Apparently friendship and the act of helping out your neighbour should come with a price tag.   : The people who think this way are morons! :threat:


----------



## childs56 (21 Sep 2005)

It is shamefull that people look at the cost of such a token.   The fact that Canada now has over 200 Sailors on the ships whom can help out with more then distrubuting the aid they brought. They can produce fresh water, supply power to shore if need be and also man power to help rebuild structures.


----------



## Gunnerlove (21 Sep 2005)

Cost?

What about the training value of the deployment?
We pay for a great number of exercises every year in the quest for training and experience, here we can double dip. Training and international relations.


----------



## geo (21 Sep 2005)

when some bean counter gets around to it.... he'll come up with a huge cost that will include salaries and depreceation on the ships (that would be manned and sitting at dockside anyway)...so the actual $ value will be meaningless.

Also - as KevinB has pointed out - they are our allies - our support is Priceless

Also - as an opportunity for the CFs new "canada com." to get their sh#% together and shake out it's problems on a relatively simple operation, it's allowed people at the Puzzle Palace on the Rideau to spot problems before our "expeditionary force command" and "SOG command" hit the road in '06


----------



## axeman (22 Sep 2005)

John Gibson took over and after thanking Canada through Ambassador McKenna for sending extra oil during the disaster, Gibson then added, "You kind of embarrassed us..the Vancouver Search & Rescue team showed up in St. Bernard's Parish before uh..any of the American Search & Rescue teams. We appreciate the help but ya know you're not supposed to embarrass us".

It gets worse.

McKenna appeared to be slightly taken aback by Gibson's statement, chuckled and went on to assure his host and the American public that it was not Canada's intention to embarrass the U.S. but to "help our neighbours".

At that point Ambassador McKenna went on to provide a detailed list of aid being sent to the Gulf region including three Canadian warships laden with supplies but Gibson again interrupted McKenna mid-sentence with an outrageous suggestion.

Gibson asks, "You know uh..Ambassador McKenna um..uh..uh..you know..just lemme uh..have you..uh..lemme address one thing. Uh we know that there's lots of people in Canada on the left side of the political spectrum who don't like George Bush. Is there any..any part of this..big Canadian help designed to..maybe embarrass the President?"

Ambassador McKenna deserves credit for maintaining his cool at this point in the interview and immediately assured Mr. Gibson that nothing could be further from the truth adding, "This has got nothing to do with George Bush, nothing to do with our relationship which is excellent by the way. This has got to do with the fact that we have been neighbours and friends for hundreds of years. You have come to our aid when we've been in trouble and Canada wants to be with you when you're in trouble. It's as simple as that".


The entire article appears on the Halifax Live media website; the link is http://www.halifaxlive.com/artman/publish/embarrass_130905_123.shtml

The news clip itself is available at http://mms.tveyes.com/Playlist.asp?StationID=130&ClipDateTime=9%2F9%2F2005+8%3A48%3A35+PM&Term=Canada&inframe=False
and the transcript is available from the Fox News website (edited for word whiskers - 'um', 'ah', etc.) at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169120,00.html

Looks like I'm gonna have to write a shittygram to Fox News. I understand they're looking to get CRTC approval for broadcast in Canada; the way I feel right now I'd say "Fuck no!" Think I'll go write some letters...

ETA:

Here's the email I've sent to Fox News. They'll probably ignore it, but I feel better for having written it:

First, Mr. O'Reilly, as a journalist, needs to get his facts in order before he starts sounding off on the air. He didn't have them in order - his interpretation of Canadian aid as "Two helicopters, 32-person rescue team, medical supplies" is well off the mark, considering the aid that was sent and in some cases, turned back. Fortunately it was corrected on the air by Mr. Gibson, but he shouldn't have had to do so.

Mr. Gibson wasn't much of a prize, either. FEMA ought to be embarrassed, and if Mr. Gibson's concern is for the US's image over the speedy provision of assistance to the disaster area, then he bloody well ought to be embarrassed too. And if Canada's political spectrum happens to be generally more socialist than the US, so what? Is the US afraid that folks in Louisiana will somehow get communisim cooties or something from the supplies with the figurative maple leaf stamped on them? Personally, I happen to think Dubya needs all the public humiliation he can get, given the apparent foot-dragging and lack of acceptance of responsibility at the top of the command structure, but that's one man's opinion.

Fox News seems to have a track record of belittling Canada, and I'm getting tired of it. I don't know the status of your application to the CRTC for broadcast rights in Canada.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (22 Sep 2005)

that  is not the same news story  i was talking about in my  post but that  too is interesting

i guess for me after being in the fin side of the army  I like to see what  kind of bang we are getting for our dollars
budgets, pay, audit were all thing s i did
20 000 000 dollars is not a lot of money  I know

but the main thing il liked in the news story  that was in the national post,  " jr rank was quoted that  we sent a sports cars to haul gravel, got there fast but not much room in the trunk for gravel" meaning the frigates were not the right ship to send. true enough

they  said in the post that  we need the ship they  are looking at in 2011 , now not in 6 years.  
lots of the equipment we sent was not needed once the US got its act together. 
all things aside it was good training, good shake up crusie for the ships' companies
got the other side of the house to see what  the navy  was really  like at sea
the engineers and drivers got good training ding jobs that  really needed the skills. cannot ship wreck boats and stuff that  need to be removed in the numbers they  are helping to remove.
helped a neighbour all good stuff, showed the flag,
helped some regular people out 
all is good stuff....we just have to doit more often and have the right tools to use
i am proud of the work the Canadians did down there, do not get me wrong. Just like to see the results more positively spun 
i will search the net for that  story  it might be else where


----------



## Gramps (22 Sep 2005)

Quote from S_Baker"and possibly an aircraft with medical supplies and emergency workers to the affected areas would have been more than sufficient. "

Check out this link. http://www.auroranewspaper.com/pdf/2638news.pdf I was involved in the build up and deployment of the freight for this aircraft as were many of my coworkers. We recieved, built, and deployed roughly 55,000lbs of freight and passengers (many of them medical staff) in less than 36hours with very little notice or time to prepare for it. Cheers.


----------



## Monsoon (22 Sep 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> If this had been for starving kiddies in Fuddle-Fud Africa, this wouldn't be an issue. But because its the US we're helping all the bean-counters jump on it for some reason. It's a Canadian Game.  :
> 
> Makes me sick that someone is b**ching about the price to help out an ally.


No, the "bean-counter" was retired Colonel Howie Marsh - it's an army vs. navy game. And his numbers are way off - a seaday for frigate costs a lot, but not $200K.  If I recall correctly the budget planners use $50K as a generous estimate.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Sep 2005)

The way I see it whether the aid arrived by frigates/destroyer/icebreaker, plane, train or even dog sled, the only thing that should matter is help came for people who really needed it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Sep 2005)

This was a way to buy back some credibility with the US government and some good PR for Canadians in the US. They should have stayed put and followed Rita in.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Sep 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Well,
> 
> thank you Canada and CDN taxpayers for your generosity, however, IMHO, a train load of goods (probably would have taken less time than a couple of destroyers and an ice breaker) and possibly an aircraft with medical supplies and emergency workers to the affected areas would have been more than sufficient.



You're welcome.   Considering what Infrastructure wasn't wiped out was being used by the US relief workers, I am willing to bet that those that planned this operation figured ships were the best bet (for reasons I alluded to before, providing a C2 structure seems logical as one of them).

"Never look a gift horse in the mouth" - I still can't see why you are still being petty about what Canada has managed to drum up for help.   It seems that if Canada had sent nothing at all, you'd be laying the same criticisms on our door.   What exactly are you implying Canada need do?


----------



## Infanteer (22 Sep 2005)

Colin P said:
			
		

> This was a way to buy back some credibility with the US government and some good PR for Canadians in the US. They should have stayed put and followed Rita in.





			
				BOSNwife said:
			
		

> Too bad I can't read the rest of the news article; you have to be a paying subscriber.
> My husband is on one of the Navy ships & he said he is Not coming home yet. They are staying in a safe area incase they can help with Hurricane Rita.


----------



## Gramps (23 Sep 2005)

S_Baker, True there are no RORO ships in the Canadian Fleet but, if you look at the link I posted above in response to one of your posts then you will see that there was a CC150 airbus (A310) sent. This aircraft was the combi type and was laoded with ten 108"X88" pallets plus the belly was loaded to the gills too. There was so much freight that some had to be bumped because it all wouldnt fit and the aircraft would have been too heavy to even get off of the ground. The items that did not fit were shipped by road the following day, and believe me there was lots on those trucks too. Cheers


----------



## geo (23 Sep 2005)

was watching the news.... Former President Carter was steaming..... 45ft tractor trailer loads of Katrina aid from FEMA had been shipped to the east coast....

There is no reason for the US Gov't or anyone else for that matter to get embarassed about friends dropping in with aid material in their time of need.......... Having a "we can do this on our own" attitude will only have one effect....... distancing you from your friends.

Nuff said

Chimo!


----------



## Sask HCAO (23 Sep 2005)

"Political cost - excellent rapport with the Americans during
crazy times, such as not going to war with them."

Are you saying that we should have gone to war (in Iraq) with them? Come on. I, for one, am glad that we didn't kowtow to them on that one.


----------



## geo (23 Sep 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone is turning down any aid, nor are they embarrased to receive assistance, the problem is and was unity of Command.   So who in the heck is in charge?   POTUS, FEMA, Gov, Mayor, etc?      The problem IMHO was the local officials were not willing to give up command of their Feifdoms until it was to late....


I tend to agree with you on this one. But the people in NO were following the rule book as distributed by FEMA and the political hacks that have been given appointments where professionals should be in control.


----------



## geo (23 Sep 2005)

Sask HCAO said:
			
		

> "Political cost - excellent rapport with the Americans during crazy times, such as not going to war with them."
> 
> Are you saying that we should have gone to war (in Iraq) with them?
> Come on. I, for one, am glad that we didn't kowtow to them on that one.



Uhhh.... where did the subject of Iraq come from.

I think that if something happens to your neighbour, you come out and make every effort to aid and assist in his time of need.
I think that if someone comes out and brings his fight to your neighbour, you owe it to your friend and neighbour to stand up with him against that someone.....
If my neighbour decides to go and pick a fight with someone else somewhere, it is my perogative to go OR not to go....... 
where is this kowtow cr@$ you're talking about.


----------



## Sask HCAO (23 Sep 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> where is this kowtow cr@$ you're talking about.


I was replying to an earlier post by Trinity: 
"Political cost - excellent rapport with the Americans during
crazy times, such as not going to war with them, lumber
disuptes, mad cow problem...."

What I was getting at was that if we sent the ships down there we shouldn't be thinking either about the cost or its positive effect on our foreign relations with the US. I totally agree helping a neighbour is the right thing to do. I just don't think that we have anything to apologize or "make up for" by not agreeing with some of THEIR foreign policy decisions.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Sep 2005)

No kidding - read the title of the thread please....


----------



## Sask HCAO (23 Sep 2005)

OK.


----------



## Trinity (23 Sep 2005)

Sask HCAO said:
			
		

> "Political cost - excellent rapport with the Americans during
> crazy times, such as not going to war with them."
> 
> Are you saying that we should have gone to war (in Iraq) with them? Come on. I, for one, am glad that we didn't kowtow to them on that one.



WTF...

read the entire post... you'll see i mention MANY political areas 
the countries are disagreeing with...  and didn't state my 
opinion on any of it.. You assumed what you what you wanted,
ignored the rest.. and then posted.

I then state I'm glad to see we are giving aid, even after our political
differences which behoves us all.

Stay in your lane.


----------

