Derek 2.0

That is the expected response, from any military, since the bombing of the USS Cole.......

Worked great for Mulroney to contend with a mess left by a Trudeau.

I suppose there really is an Nigerian Prince we can send money to............with regards to the actual summit, my question, how many tons of carbon were used holding them and why they couldn't have conducted said talks via videoconferencing?

And according to some scientists, to come close to some of the targets, we'd have to introduce "negative emissions"........I'll await the suggestion of a Delorean to revisit the invention of the internal combustion engine, so as to achieve said targets

In my mind, you just won the internet.......in the weeks after 9/11, President Bush held the highest approval rating in US polling history, besting Truman at the close of the second world war.........this begs the question, what is Trudeau doing wrong

If that were true, why didn't Boeing just propose a warmed over F-15 Eagle, F/A-18 Super Hornet and the AV-8B Harrier (as opposed to their X-32) as a contender for the JSF program?

And I answered you numerous times (in this thread), with the realization that organizations like the USMC don't operate in stasis..........when the majority of the report concerned logistics and squadron/air wing manning, such fixes are addressed naturally by an operational deployment......... Furthermore, going out on a limb, one could also criticize the USN's F-35C deployment aboard the USS Nimitz late last year because the navy didn't have a full air wing aboard, nor was the F-35C operational...........likewise the USAF's test and evaluation unit at Edwards AFB not being operational because it isn't bombing the IS.....

Again you're referring to a report that stated, prior to the USMC declaration of an initial operating capability, the F-35 didn't perform at an operational capacity.........that is akin to stating a teenager didn't finish school months prior to graduation

In your opinion, shared by a handful of bloggers, defunct anti-military writers and companies attempting to sell their own wares........ Those were their carriers, two sunk, another very nearly and with one (the oldest) fit for service, later backed up by a British Carrier (HMS Victorious) until early 1943 when the newer ones (Essex and Independence classes entered service)........at that time, the USN was outnumbered (even after the Battle of Midway) in terms of carriers by the Japanese, despite this, as actual history (not "stories") shows, the USN didn't hold out their carrier force during the Guadalcanal campaign. As to Battleships, that too is a bunk statement.........at the time, there was only one (modern) battleship (USS North Carolina) available for the initial invasion, joined weeks later by her sister (USS Washington) and in the following months by the newer South Dakota class.......if you're unaware, see December 7th 1941......what wasn't sunk or seriously damaged, was the only line of defense of the West Coast (including Canada) following the Japanese invasion of the Aleutian Islands (Alaska)......The USN wasn't "afraid" of committing their battleships, they didn't have any to commit at the onset of the campaign to bombard Guadalcanal, in addition to being outnumbered by the Japanese in terms of Battleships....... But the USN and RAN did commit what they had, heavy cruisers and destroyers, and lost a number of them during the invasion of Guadalcanal.......see Ironbottom sound, and with them, thousands of American and Australian sailors. Maybe in some cases, but yours is utterly false.......there are thousands of dead sailors to attest to that, honored by the naming of current and past USN vessels after them....for instance, with the sinking of the American cruiser USS Juneau off Guadalcanal, the five Sullivan brothers were killed (since have had two USN vessels named after them) aboard her and became the basis for the film Saving Private Ryan.......... The point though, if you're going to discuss a factual topic and form and support your opinion on the F-35 (or Gripen etc) from poorly researched sources (not everyone could be expected to know all of this after all) your argument suffers, as such, perhaps you should consider getting new sources.........if you don't care, you're perfectly in your right, but don't expect to continue conversing with others either more knowledgeable or those that make an effort (and even ask questions), instead being tuned out.

And, like the Americans, have seen the result, firsthand, of not being prepared at the onset of a conflict brought to their own shores and not of their choosing........

Sure, and before them, the RN and RAF.......when the British Armada sailed to recapture the Falklands in 1982, the RAF's Harrier force not only had to learn (in route) to fly off carriers, but also added the sidewinder missile to their arsenal and had to learn how to "dog fight" on the trip South, with the aide of land based RAF Phantoms and French Mirages (same aircraft sold to Argentina).......... And since that time, the British MoD saw fit to incorporate the RN FAA and RAF harrier force (until its retirement) and their replacement, the F-35......some do learn from history

Indeed, even though we joined the War in 1939, our first major land action of our army (Dieppe raid) was several weeks after the US invasion of Guadalcanal..............a clear indication of the unpreparedness and obsolete equipment afforded to our military by the then Liberal Government*, and should be a lesson heeded going forwards. (*current Liberal MP/retired General Andrew Leslie's grandfather, Andrew McNaughton, was the then Liberal Government's Minister of National Defence, it can be hoped that Leslie will have some influence over this Government's direction to avoid the disasters dropped on the lap of his grandfather)

You're assuming the design is f*cked up.........Without a doubt incorporating STOVL into the requirement by the Clinton Administration added to the complexity of the program (and was one of the reasons Boeing's X-32 lost to the X-35) but there is no evidence to suggest that developing separate fifth generation fighters for all three services would have been cheaper in developmental costs and through life operating costs.........you're simply repeating the theme put forth by the military aviation lobby that would be more than happy to develop and produce numerous different types. Well a common urban legend, again you're not basing your slanted story on fact. See none other than the ships histories of USS Enterprise (nearly lost off Guadalcanal), USS Saratoga (supported the invasion force), USS Hornet (sunk during the campaign), USS Wasp (sunk during the campaign) and the jeep carrier USS Long Island (delivered the first Marine aircraft to Guadalcanal several days after the invasion).......hence such "stories" are factually incorrect, after all, the USMC is but a cog in the Department of the Navy and thousands of USN sailors died supporting the Marines at not only Guadalcanal, but Tarawa, Guam, Saipan, Peleliu, Iwo Jima and Okinawa etc. That's not to say the USMC doesn't value their "own fighters", with an emphasis on supporting Marines on the ground, but at the end of the day, without the USN, the Marines are just another landlocked army...... A false sense of relief (for you).........

To add, since much was brought up over this year's earlier USMC shipboard trials, the Marines just checked another box: An expeditionary airfield of course being sections of roadways combined with prefab steel mats (in addition to support/service provided in tents/trucks) the Marines use to bring their aircraft with them after a landing........previous to the F-35, the only such fixed winged fighter they had capable of doing this was the Harrier, with their remaining aircraft (Hornets and Prowlers) having to remain on land or on a carrier at sea. This Squadron, VMFA-121, previously operated Hornets, as such, this in itself is an expansion in capability brought about by the F-35B.

But goes onto say the F-35 offers the most combat capability (over other programs) for money spent. How about acknowledge that not a single partner, including Canada, has yet to leave the program..........funny enough, several years ago, you and I debated the prospect of Japan actually purchasing the F-35..........

That of course is unfounded though, assuming the the F-35 entered full production as planned, the RSAF would still have replaced a portion of their F-5 and A-4 fleet with F-15s a decade ago, leaving the remaining F-5 fleet to be replaced. Now the public info relating to an initial RSAF F-35B purchase all suggested an order of 12-24 F-35s, or the same number of F-5s currently in service.......In no alternative universe is Singapore replacing F-16s, newer than those in service with the USAF, a decade+ early.

If they are going to run as Independents, they have to declare said intention by early ~March (in Texas, Iowa and Florida iirc) to have their names on the Presidential ballots in all 50 States.......both the Republicans and Democrats will be in the middle of their Primaries when said Independents have to pack it in.

Right, but with that, Trump isn't a sure thing either........at this point during the last go around (which Romney won), Herman Cain was just surpassed as the front runner by Newt Gingrich...... Early on, I "picked" one of Rubio or Bush.......it now looks like Bush has pancaked, with Rubio gaining ground.........I'll predict, after the first couple primaries, as the "also rans" drop out, most of their support will go towards Rubio. As the field shrinks, Rubio will get further attention and support from the establishment, conservatives and moderates (i.e. those that want to win) versus Trump, and it will come down to money.......

Another point of view (I think Limbaugh pointed it out in the Summer) is based on his approach to business, from his own (nearly 30 old) book......in a negotiation he would start from what most consider an insane position and then bargain down to what he actually wanted, versus making what he actually wanted known first, and bargaining down from that. In addition, much of his business "success" is attributed to grandiose hype surrounding all things "Trump"....people know who he is, good and bad. Likewise, because of said hype, Trump has little overhead associated with advertising, verses say what you or I would have to spend opening a new Hotel/resort/Casino. To put this in context of his current run for office, to date, he's spent little over $5 million dollars and hardly a cent on advertising......And why would he need to when everything he says is repeated over and over in the media.........

I'm not, but I'm also a realist........a Harper 2.0 in 2019 will have the same success as the original this year.

Or is it said officials offer context, in that (as cited) they did confirm the 2017 F-35 procurement cycle will be reviewed......like every other procurement program.

They're simply a reflection of through life upgrades to the platform, namely a reflection of the move towards GPS guided munitions (JDAM) verses 1970s era laser guided munitions (Paveway/ Pave track), and the move towards AESA radars over older (obsolete) mechanically scanned radars.......... Computer/Sensor/Data latency is the (new) key to aerial warfare.........the ~$1 billion spent by the RSAF upgrading their entire fleet (60+ aircraft) equates to the purchase price of ~10-14 new production aircraft....the same with our Hornet upgrades a decade ago, or the current USAF upgrade of their F-16 fleet. Simply put, it makes fiscal sense, and you could probably count on one hand the Western nations that since the 1970s forgo a SLEP for their fleets versus early retirement combined with a new purchase. I'll take it at face value, but it simply illustrates the delays with the program, but doesn't support your point that if the program wasn't delayed ~5 years, the RSAF would have opted to replace as oppose upgrade their F-16s, of which, some are upwards of a decade+ newer than the Americans fleet (which also, assuming the F-35 wasn't delayed, would have seen the American fleet replaced in that time frame either)

If Conservatives and Liberals were polled on who best to be the NDP's next leader, do you not think it would differ from what an ardent socialist might select? As I said, I'd have no qualms with a Mackay bid.......I'm just not sure how much he wants to make a run. I wouldn't discount either Ambrose or Raitt, though I tend to agree they don't currently have the name recognition or backing from within the party to make a viable push, I'll withhold judgement for a few years and allow them to sink or swim with more prominent roles in Opposition..........as I've said in previous threads, I'd still give consideration to Rempel, Leitch and O'Toole.......though I wouldn't discount Kenney, I feel his stock has diminished (not an Alexander collapse though) and its clear he's the closest to Harper 2.0.

Sure, but it returns to continuity of requirements.......the Australians, through both the Liberals and ALP, know that regardless of what happens with the fight against the IS, Australia still has a requirement for new ships, subs, fighters etc to meet the requirement of "Fortress Australia". Without a doubt China plays into the equation that is Australian defense policy, with that, Australia (unlike most Western nations) takes an approach that radiates from Australia outwards. After all, Darwin to Makassar is but a ~ 1/2 hour flight for a fighter........historic tensions with Indonesia aside, Australia is also at the forefront of stability and disaster response within the region. With that, Liberals/ALP don't disagree with a requirement for both new subs and fighters, the question going forwards is what better fills the requirement of long range strike. The second upgrade (phase II IMP) was but the second part of the 2001 decision. The drawn out timeline (for both Canada and Singapore) is but a reflection of the need to balance the upgrades versus operational needs. Last year's upgrade (center barrel upgrade) is a result of the previous Governments desire to purchase the F-35 once it entered full rate production, which did slide to ~2020, likewise a political calculus to punt the file. No, Singapore, because of staggered procurement approach, has no intention of replacing relatively young F-16s, when they have far older F-5s, anytime soon.........as confirmed several years ago by their defense minister: And why would they be in a hurry when their collective fleet is no older than what our Hornet fleet was when it was decided to upgrade it in 2001. I'm ignoring things? You "ignored" the second part of the quote that states the F-35 program offers the most combat capability compared to other current DoD programs........

Wasn't said poll taken across party lines? As such, it would explain the leftward tilt...........With that, I'd have no qualms with a Peter MacKay leadership bid, I'm just not sure that he's interested with a new baby and a toddler (his cited reasons for retiring). I'd be interested to see where Ambrose or Raitt stands in a year/18 months though.......