Derek 2.0

You know that how? Unless our interests aren't always shared........The Americans didn't join in the Second World War until the end of 1941.. And any nation with a half credible submarine force. As they've been since the First World War........And since said time, submarines have become more than a one dimensional threat Explain, namely in regards to asymmetric warfare or other more pronounced missions our navy takes part involving the Freedom of the Seas..... Except they're not, and said deficiencies with such a force structure became pronounced as early as the 1970s......... What logic? You're simply working backwards to defend the eventual cut in capability and broken promises of this Government.

So they've ordered new vessels?

Do near domestic disputes get wall to wall coverage in the MSM? Does CNN do 24/7 reporting on gang warfare in some of the largest (and poorest) cities in the United States.....the locations of the majority of said violence?

Of course its a lie, just as the lie portrayed in the MSM link Squid posted (not suggesting Squid lied, but the author of the piece) that suggested AR-15s wouldn't be available today had not the AWB been allowed to lapse in 2004.......which is complete and utter BS, as AR-15s, semi-auto AK-47s, mini-14s etc were all perfectly legal under the AWB if they didn't have a bayonet lug, adjustable stock, flash hider or a grenade launcher attachment affixed to them.........repeat a lie often enough.....

By no evidence, you mean other than pay for the first round of the shipbuilding program, with vessels already in production, in addition, seek an interim capability the navy lost due to accidents? Inversely, there is no evidence the Liberal will keep said promise, aside from no new funds put aside in their four year fiscal plan, numerous papers inside a week being released, suggesting we can't afford their promises is writing enough on the walls for me (and a great many others that will be directly impacted).......

We sure did, and Mulroney ordered the Halifax class, approved TRUMP and had planned (cancelled by the Liberals) a third batch AAD frigates.........Harper started the shipbuilding strategy, oversaw the start of construction for our first major unit since the 90s and sought an interim AOR refueling capability.............the ball is now in Trudeau's court, a court weeks ago you swore up and down included a major investment for the navy, procuring all the vessels they required (15 combatants) to ensure we maintained a blue water force........now there is talk about "reviewing" said pledge......like I said would happen.

Yeah, sorry you believed a bunk story........google 1994 assault weapons ban compliant AR-15s.....solid fixed stock, like Vietnam era M16s, without a flash hider/bayonet lug.......they're collectors items now

Dianne Feinstein........and what was laughable, one could legally purchase a surplus M16 flash hider/bayo lug and install in minutes on a threaded barrel or just buy a complete pre-ban barrel assembly.....

Sure and it started under Trudeau.......and will worsen under another Trudeau.

Nice rant, but its fiction, as new AR-15s were sold legally through the AWB decade......as long as they didn't have a flash suppressor, bayonet lug or a telescopic stock.......

Think a 1960s era former Soviet missile boat.....

A navy can't operate across the globe if it can't defend itself.

A green water navy only able to operate in low threat environments and medium threat environments with a heightened level of risk...........hence, if we're not willing to pay for an actual navy, we should save the billions and build a Coast Guard.

You mean obsolete and unable to contend with the "new" threats surely to be deployed by the end of the 1980s?........hence, not a Blue Water navy.

Being able to deploy ships overseas does not make a blue water navy.......in a medium threat environment, they most certainly would, and without a dedicated AAD vessel, your AOR is unprotected from a third world navy with a missile boat......or a terrorist group like Hamas with an anti-ship missile staged out the back of a truck.........based on our current Frigates, a foe able to launch 3-4 anti-ship missiles at one of our vessels would be considered a high threat environment.

Without a doubt, as I said, a proof of concept, no different than when the USMC did a similar "stunt" over 40 years ago. The issues addressed in said report, for the most part, were logistical or maintenance related, bringing the entire squadron to full strength manning with the IOC would address many of said issues. Likewise, as they transition from the Harriers to F-35s aboard the LHDs, the unique (to the Harriers) support and logistical footprint will also transition to one intended to support the F-35, thus addressing the majority of the remainder. They are very integrated, but the F-35B (used by the Marines, British and Italians) is the most complex by its very nature being a "short take off vertical landing" (STOVL) aircraft......using a lift fan, in addition to a conventional engine: Making it, of the three versions, the most complex. In terms of complexity, the F-35B would then be followed by the F-35C (to be used by the USN), which will require strengthened landing gear/tailhook to take-off and land on aircraft carriers (additional avionics and a larger wing surface for landing at sea will also be required, but I'll spare you the babble)...... ....leaving the F-35A, the version to be procured by the majority, operated from conventional airfields the least complex, and in turn, the cheapest to procure and support. In terms of operating and maintaining an aircraft aboard a ship versus a land base, its night and day......shipboard operations will be restricted in space, movement of the ship (which effects the simplest of tasks), limited logistics and space to store spare parts, limited physical space to store the aircraft and a requirement to frequently bathe the aircraft in a mixture of freshwater and industrial strength WD40 (to prevent saltwater corrosion). For the Marines, when contrasted with the USN, these restrictions are even further heightened by the size of vessels each operate from, with the Marines operating off of LHDs, which are roughly half the size of USN aircraft carrier, with a hanger space even further reduced proportionally to account for additional requirements of said ships (carrying Marines and their equipment). Hence, most of the issues the Marines faced, operating the most complex version of the F-35, in the most restrictive of spaces, won't factor into the USAF's IOC next Summer.

Good to hear that you've finally caught up........

Right, but said report encompasses said trials, conducted several months prior to the IOC. You base said assumption on what? Operating the less complex version, from an airbase in the sunbelt, with pose far less a learning curve.

So not a blue water navy........despite a promise by the Trudeau Liberals.

Wouldn't mater, we don't have property rights anyways.

But I thought, in this very thread, you suggested the Liberals were committed to maintaining a "blue water navy"? Now you're suggesting they will sacrifice capability to save money? At what point can we call this a broken Trudeau promise? Right now, the RCN would be hard pressed to operate in a medium threat environment (post FELEX).......you're suggesting its going to get worse?

Good thing the US Supreme Court ruled otherwise then......

I misspoke.......as I said before, the initial trials aboard the Wasp (the subject of the cited report), months prior to the declared IOC, were a proof of concept. The current operational squadron (VFMA-121) will be deployed to Japan permanently once the second West Coast squadron (currently VMA-311, to become VFMA-311) completes it transition (later next year) from Harriers to F-35Bs......... Furthermore, USAF F-35As could be deployed overseas as early as next summer, once their first squadron declares its IOC....... Any takers on a pool as to how many operational F-35 squadrons will be in service prior to Canada selecting a replacement?

If American gun owners, writ large, start banding into militias, Islamic terrorism, gang violence and the odd nut job will be the least of the FBI's worries.....

Sure........but the FBI would be required to prove that, absent prior convictions........ Or they are upholding the USC......as written.