Derek 2.0

No, if you want to keep one aircraft in the air, short term, you need 3 additional aircraft.......if you want to keep an operational squadron of (~12) aircraft.....operational.....you need three times the number of aircraft again.

How many aircraft in our current inventory?

I did.....40 aircraft wouldn't have fulfilled our requirements when the Russian bomber force was grounded and prior to 9/11........it is you that isn't providing sources.

We don't have 21 aircraft tasked for expeditionary/NATO operations........we haven't had anywhere near said total since the 90s.

Source?

We wouldn't be able to do, what we agreed to do, in a treaty signed by both our nations.

40 years? 40 aircraft wouldn't be enough to support our current needs now.

Exactly, and said changes came about during the early 80s with the reorganization of distinct NORAD regions, both Canadian and American from the previous joint sectors. You subtract from the Canadian region now, you create a weak link, a link that would be unacceptable to the United States.....funny enough, you Americans take defense of the Homeland seriously

I find it more telling that said member can't support his claim......actually no, I don't, as if said member was actually purvey to our current operational levels relating to NORAD, he couldn't share them out of threat of Federal Prison time

How many Hornets are in our inventory? But Zimbabwe!!!!!! We have clearly defined treaty requirements with the United States, that per said treaty, would require their consent to reduce our commitment to NORAD.

I never said we did.

Source? I've never heard, even during the IMP, of availability dipping below 65-70% for the Hornets.........you're simply making things up and very poorly to justify your piss poor assertion of our NORAD requirements. No, we have Hornets assigned to conversion training, operations with NATO and in the Middle East and then depot level maintenance..........you can't BS your point of keeping our current NORAD requirements with 24 operational aircraft.......we couldn't have kept them in the 90s, before 9/11 and a resurgent Russia, with said total, let alone now......

Exactly, and we don't.........The RAF, Post Cold War, required 4-5 full time interceptor squadrons (Phantoms/Tornados) of 12-14 aircraft to provide 24/7 coverage over the British Isles.....an area smaller than British Columbia.

No, I just called BS on your unfounded assertion.........per our 1996 NORAD agreement, post Cold War and pre 9/11, when we also had a much larger force: Now post 9/11, and with a resurgent Russia, do you expect said numbers have decreased, stayed the same or increased?

Indeed, assuming a 40 aircraft purchase, off the hop 30-40% of said fleet is going to be in various maintenance cycles....so said figure becomes ~26 aircraft.......lets assume you want to train new pilots with a conversion squadron, since we've cut the operational fleet in half, assume we only need a conversion squadron of 6-8 aircraft......that drops said figure to ~20-18 aircraft......we won't have an attrition reserve, since we won't loose any .......so we still have ~20-18 aircraft, but fighters operate in pairs, so that gives us 10-9 2 aircraft elements......do you want your operational aircraft to practice intercepting aircraft, refueling, exercises and keeping their pilots generally competent in the operation of fast-air? Cut that number in half (more likely 2/3rds).......that results in ~8-10 aircraft being available to NORAD's Canada region 24/7.......The question then, which part of Canada will the USAF and various ANG units defend for us?

Source? I know that isn't the number, and that you won't find said number, since said number has been OPSEC since the 1960s.......and funny enough, even with the reduced Soviet Bomber threat in the 1960s and the end of the Cold War, said number hasn't changed since then through to the present day......what has changed is the number of aircraft available for NATO and expeditionary operations. The USN, in a low threat environment, needs a deployed squadron of 12 aircraft to maintain 2 aircraft in a 200-300nm circumference around a carrier (a tad smaller then Canada's NORAD region ), and said squadron is supported by 3-4 times the number of deployed aircraft in fleet replacement squadrons, training establishments and depot level maintenance...........to suggest Canada can maintain its current NORAD's requirements with just 24 operational aircraft is laughable........

Without a doubt, where our dollar sits today, compared to both the USD and Euro, we won't be purchasing anything, unless more money is added or numbers are aloud to drop......a drop in numbers (under 65) will impede our ability to meet our NORAD requirements of course.........as I've said before, no fighters will be bought in this mandate unless this Government adds billions of dollars they don't have........when such a selection doesn't need to be made until after the next election. Forget fighters, I've heard rumor (from what I consider a reliable source) that FWSAR, which was to be selected early next year, could also be reduced/altered, resulting in either less aircraft purchased or the same number of aircraft purchased, but support costs reduced by operating them from 3 as opposed to 4 bases.........

And Trump......the only one currently polling better than Clinton is Marco Rubio......

Ducking the question.........in addition to staying apart of the program, sending government officials to partner nations meetings and continuing to fund the program.......could it be the Trudeau Liberals had an about face once made privy to actual program information versus the trope made-up in the blogosphere? Hypothetically, if the Trudeau Liberals ended up selecting the F-35 for our Hornet replacement, would the Waldo oppose said selection or start singing a different tune?

Waldo, as cited, the DoD is purchasing additional F-35s, more than expected, not less.........doesn't jive with your narrative.......In addition, the direction of the Sec Def to the USN, reducing the planned purchase of the Little Crappy Ship in favor of longer range munitions........and additional F-35s. The anti-f-35 crowd is in good steed with Trump

You're in agreement that sans international orders, per my link, the line would have closed in 2016.....per the then French Defense Minister Mooted by said International orders.

Not quite, I do remember a time when we discussed the varying purchase prices, both inclusive of Lockheed aircraft prices and P&W prices for the engine, equating to a flyaway cost............said practice is no different for any other program. None the less, said price would be a flyaway cost, as cited numerous times in this thread, the flyaway for LRIP 7 was $112 million per F-35A, LRIP 8 was $108 million and LRIP 9 & 10 (LRIP 9 signed last month) to be even further lower.

More delays? The program is finally on schedule........I still await comment from you on why, despite upcoming funding pressures the Pentagon feels the F-35 program offers the most combat capability for money spent? I notice Trump is quoting the same sources used by the F-35 detractors here.........quite telling that he would cancel a multinational defense program, with 44 of 50 States contributing to, that has found bipartisan support since the Clinton Admin, based on a blog report that was quoted here numerous times Does that come before or after he bans Islam and builds the Great Trump Wall along the Southern border?

No, I provided a previous news item quoting the French Government that they would purchase no further Rafales absent additional orders, as the production line would no longer be viable.

I provided two links with the cost of the additional purchases, in addition, the USNI link provided the breakdown for the more costly USN/USMC aircraft......simple math Waldo.........I have zero inclination to go through a ~2000 page US Government budget document to provide you with further proof.