Derek 2.0

Explain the then French Defense Minister's reference to 2016......

Which Senate Bill? (i.e. which fiscal year) You're not suggesting these days old articles are wrong? Directly related to the larger block buys, resulting in larger block production........just imagine how much it will drop once its in full rate production!!! Why would they? They also don't include fuel consumption, pilot's salary, cutting the grass at the air fields, dependent's dental costs etc etc etc......... Presently, 78% of the aircraft's testing is complete.......

It wouldn't, as the then Defense Minister stated, post 2016, further production would be reliant upon international orders

I will, bet on it, once LRIP 10 is signed in the coming weeks and the contract details of both LRIP 9 and 10 are made public Sure: Above is the total price for the additional F-35s, and the breakdown of the differing versions...... The Cost of the F-35B and F-35C: $1.33 Billion minus $780 + $255 = $295 million remaining $295 million / 3 F-35As (For the USAF) = $98.3 million Nothing more than the what is required for the end user to "flyaway" the aircraft from Lockheed's Fort Worth plant/joint reserve base Fort Worth.

The term flyaway should be self explanatory......the cost of the sole aircraft once it rolls out of the plant in Fort Worth....no support costs, no training aides, no munitions (in the case of legacy aircraft, no ECM/EW/targeting pods etc).

From the quoted passage: Absent an order, the line was to close in 2016.......Dassault got additional orders, as such, the French Government can continue to procure additional aircraft.

Will the Government be handing out money for Victims of Spanking? I got my ass paddled when I was young, if the GoC gives me a couple million all will be forgotten though.......I don't blame my parents of course, as it was a longstanding cultural practice common among Post-War immigrants to tune their children, but the then Trudeau Government could clearly have done more to protect the children......

I found this interesting: It reminds of a similar report from the BBC a few months ago: If its safe enough to return to Syria to sell their belongings prior to moving to Europe, and that said refugees are able to tolerate said camps enough to delay their "rescue" to Canada to have going away parties, is there an actual rush to bring them here? It would seem, sending additional aide to said camps to improve the conditions, over there, should be considered an option.......

I doubt it.......Trump's language and foul mouth(and outlandish proposals) are what's giving him coverage by the Press.........

You have a source from where said money is currently located yet? Trudeau has said lots of things.........how many refugees are in Canada again? And how's the prospects of our budget being under their promised $10 billion deficit again? And what of the revenue neutral "middle class" tax cuts?

Without a doubt.

Absent money added (which they don't have), I've said numerous times, this Government won't be buying anything inside this mandate.......that doesn't mean they will abandon NORAD, nor have they signaled that.......the NDP haven't even suggested that, hence, you're talking out of your ass.

Of course they would, the Americans have made that very clear in the past (see BOMARC).

Not at all, we're going by political reality.

Sure, per the NORAD agreement......we leave NORAD, the Americans will fill the void as they see fit.

I think reality is a forgone concept with him.....

Exactly.......it would be hard for a Government to explain to the Canadian populace why American aircraft are policing our airspace.

Are you suggesting the Trudeau Liberals would tear up the NORAD treaty? It's clearly not "optional": As written, the NORAD treaty doesn't make provisions for the withdraw of said Forces assigned to it........hence the Trudeau Liberals would be leaving NORAD, unless the Americans agree to add their Forces to the Canadian region of NORAD........The Trudeau Liberals (not even the NDP) have/had signaled anything remotely close to what you suggest.......hence your suggestion is baseless.

Right, NORAD has already survived a Trudeau, Carter, Clinton and Chretien.........Canada abandoning it would result in a major shift in both our countries relations.

Not if we intend to uphold our NORAD treaty with the Americans.

So it seems........longstanding International treaties be damned

No, as deployed personal (to the Middle East) are not in need of operational training to maintain currency in Canada......since they're using said skills operationally.......

Exactly, said member is asserting our aircraft deployed in Iraq/Syria are operating 24/7 (which they're not), as opposed to the longstanding NORAD mission that is 24/7/365.

No it doesn't......48 operational aircraft meet our requirements (40/24 doesn't), the remaining aircraft, combined with international training for the F-35 in the States, represent training, maintenance.......even then, as confirmed numerous times over the years in the F-35 thread, 65 aircraft provides little to no attrition reserve, as such (and confirmed and cited) additional aircraft would need to be purchased to replace operational losses.

No, I said 36 aircraft per the 1996 NORAD agreement, were required to be tasked to NORAD operations..........one would still need additional aircraft for conversion training, attrition and maintenance.