Derek 2.0

Or understand the program..........do you consider the Intel 80386 as a modern microprocessor?

Your point?

The Gripen was designed as a attack bomber........ The Gripen might be impressive with nothing under its wings........... The AIM-120D is superior to the meteor, none the less, the Meteor will be used on British (and Italian) F-35s.......carried internally, unlike the Gripen, hence not inducing a drag penalty, thus, not decreasing the aircraft's speed, range and maneuverability And of course being a generation newer than the Gripen, with modern data and sensor fusion, making the F-35 the Iphone 6 to the Gripen's (or other legacy types) analog flip phone.........

The Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen NG, Super Hornet etc are all as much of a "bomb truck" as our current Hornets and the F-35.........for example, outside the Gripen NG and F-35 (as of yet), all of said aircraft have been used as "bomb trucks" over Iraq and Syria in the fight against ISIS.

That would leave a decade+ gap from the retirement of our Hornets and the entry into service of a new joint European program........and of course, based on the current prices of the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen NG, there is no reason to expect a joint European program will be any cheaper than the F-35.

The United Kingdom has had said requirement since the 90s....incidentally, the bulk of the fleet will be utilized by the Royal Navy, in a role similar to our NORAD role, defending their fleet..........and of course, they looked at (early) both the Super Hornet and Rafale (and making a carrier version of both the Eurofighter and Gripen NG) and passed, and even when it looked like the version they were going to purchase (the F-35B STOVL) could be cancelled, they opted for the version the USN was going to use off their carriers (F-35C).......as the F-35B matured and its initial issues addressed (its the first F-35 version to enter service as of this Summer), they reverted back to the F-35B.......... Committing to their full order is now a clear signal that the F-35B will replace the Tornado fleet and not the Eurofighter.

From the horses mouth: In addition: With a joining of the French (nEUROn) and British (Taranis) led programs, with partners in the Swedish, German, Italian, Spanish and Swiss aerospace industries, there will be a Pan-European replacement for the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen, starting in the 2030s.

Yeah, when "we" (as in my wife) first got it, service wasn't really a consideration, and at the time (until the Vancouver center was set up in the lower East side of all places), they would have to send a tech up from Seattle. She looked at a Chevy Volt, but wasn't really thrilled with it ( I felt it a little cramped anyways), but never inquired if they did all the service in the lower mainland at the dealerships. I'm not surprised at how fast the Valley is growing up. I've never owned a Japanese brand, but have driven them as rentals, a Tundra in Hawaii, which I felt seemed like driving a beer can......and a Hilux in Australia, which I thought a little better (cramped for four people), but nothing to jump up and down over.

That's been my experience over the years with newer GM service centers when compared to Crappy Tire.......I'm actually going to need a new set of rubber for my truck (a dually) and we were going to buy both my son and daughter a new set for theirs........so a total of 17 off-road truck tires, and you can bet I'm going to be asking for a big discount from the local guys. Same here, I've got one for both my 1-ton and the wife's Camaro.

I thought GMAC died when they went bankrupt.........I haven't financed a car through a dealership (same one mentioned above) since the early 80s. I've never had an issue with the quality of work done at GM dealerships, nor felt they were fishing for additional work (as we've only really been bringing in newish cars/trucks)........I wouldn't say the same with a few experiences at Crappy Tire over the last 20 years though, those guy are pirates. I called this morning when they opened, they said the head honcho isn't in for the day, but he will personally call me back on Monday......at the end of the day, most of my family has been dealing with this dealership for decades (my Uncle/Cousins business has a fleet service/sales package through them) and I fully expect some answers.

We sold it months ago (to my sister and brother in-law, who have since traded it in over in Richmond). When we bought the Tesla you also buy an extensive maintenance package where they will send a mechanic to you (their "ranger" service package) for minor repairs (if there isn't a service center where you live) and major repairs they send it back to the factory (in St Louis IIRC) and they provide you with a loaner. With Tesla, its a real pain in the ass, even when we got a set of snow tires they had to send a technician out to calibrate/reset something......they've since opened a repair shop in East Vancouver though. Ultimately our only complaints were with service (which is getting better in large urban centers) and with our current situation (renting well building) we couldn't install the charging port in our garage, so had to charge it with an extension cord into the wall (which takes waaay longer), coupled with where we're building is prone to power outages (for days) and my wife's commute really seemed to be taking a toll on the battery. The later gripes aren't Tesla's fault, and if we had of stayed in Metro Vancouver, now that it has a service center, we'd likely have kept it...........real nice luxury car, comparable to a Benz/Lexus/Jag, but IMHO, only practical if you live in a city with a service center and have a short(ish) commute in terms of distance.......my wife replaced it with a Camaro (originally bought it for myself from above mentioned dealer) and though on paper going Cadillac ESV--> Tesla S--> Camaro SS is a downgrade in terms of luxury, she loves driving it.

Maybe, but how many people take ~15 year old vehicles to a dealership? In my experience, my wife and I are normally taking in our vehicles, that are less than 5 years old, for their scheduled services or the odd warranty issue, we expected to pay more for our daughters truck, but by comparison, not that much more....... I'd wonder if the service centers for these dealerships are actually loss leaders/write offs, in that the only expect to do mostly "free" warranty & lease work, coupled with inspections on trade ins? Sure doesn't seem like a healthy business model. None the less, it goes to show that brand and dealership loyalty isn't what it use to be, and I fully intended to call the dealership manager/owner for a "airing of the grievances".

My question, rooted in an experience over the last couple of days, is how do new car dealership's service centers stay in business? With new vehicles under warranty, my wife and I have always taken them in for service at the dealership that we bought them, with the logic being that they have qualified staff and will have the parts in stock (I've never had a complaint over either issue with GM dealerships), as such, we're willing to pay a little more for quality over what one would find at most Crappy Tires. Long story short, just over a year and half ago we moved (back) over to Greater Victoria, so we've been unable to take our vehicles into the dealership we'd frequent in metro Vancouver (Eagle Ridge in Coquitlam have great sales and service staff!!), instead dealing with a dealership service center over here (which we've found just as good in term of quality, but a little more expensive).......that is until the last several days. For the sake of argument, my wife was driving my daughter's truck (that we're babysitting) a couple of days ago and went through a deep pothole and the driver's side window regulator bought the farm, sliding down into the fully open position forever. Thankfully, it hasn't been raining, since we're unable to fit the truck in our garage (it has a 3" lift), as such, a quick call was made to said local dealership. We asked for a rough estimate and were told the repair would be ~$1100 parts and labor, and that they could fit us in late next week.......our major concern at that point was if they could take the truck and keep it inside and out of the weather, the response was they had no room to do that. With that, we called the other local GM dealership and were quoted ~$1500 all in, but they could repair it this weekend (hence a higher price), but though they couldn't keep it indoors, they could keep it on the lot with a tarp over it......since we couldn't do that ourselves I guess, well not having it stored on a lot in the middle of downtown Victoria, this appeared a bargain This lead us to calling the local garage (yesterday late afternoon), which said they couldn't repair right away because they were closing, but they could fit the truck indoors for the evening......to be fixed the next morning (today)....so we jumped on it without even asking the price........so got a call late this morning from said dealership, asking if I wanted to save a few hundred dollars by replacing the part with a Lordco part versus factory GM parts (which they would have to try and source), so went with the Lordco part.........so get a call again from said mechanic near the near the end of the day saying the truck was ready.......go in and it turns out it also needed a front wheel alignment (we noticed the difference for the good after driving it) and they washed, waxed, buffed the chrome and vacuumed the interior (to a state I've never seen since my daughter bought the truck!!!).......all for the price of $294 all in......if we had of waited for the GM part, it would have been about an additional ~$150........ So again, with full knowledge said local garage could be a diamond in the rough, my question, how do dealership service centers stay in business, charging 4-5 times for service?

Don't get me wrong, the NSC would be a huge compromise over survivability and next to zero ASW capability, but there you go.........but, as you pointed out, there is currently no money for combat capable or half-ass......so its a moot point.

The weapons, not at all.......using the NSC as an example, they currently deploy with the exact same 57mm and CIWS as is used on our current frigates, in addition, the design made provisions for harpoon quad launchers on the stern (the same as currently on our Frigates) and an 8 cell mk41 (what was on our destroyers) launcher on the fo'c'sle for quad-packed ESSM........and the required fire control systems etc. There is a far cheaper option, in a hull size far cheaper to operate (than our current frigates), that could recycle the weapons from our current frigates, on a design that has far greater range than our current frigates (no need for costly AORs!!), that could perform nearly every mission (likely all) that we've asked of our frigates since they have been in service.

Sure, but I doubt this Government, for sake of optics involved, would reduce the actual number of vessels eventually built, just the capability. That's very true, but risks/costs associated with system integration would/could be offset by who we select. Reusing the current weapons systems already in the fleet, in addition to radars etc would reduce the initial purchase....we already own 12 57mm Bofors, CIWS, harpoon launchers and mk 41 VLS cells, in addition to the fire control radars needed to target them etc..........fitting them into a hull and making them work would come down to who we selected as system integrator. As such, fitting said systems into the already paid for and developed NSC wouldn't be beyond the scope of reality.

Not so, if the Government decided we didn't need 12-15 modern frigates, instead, 12-15 modern cutters, economies of scale wouldn't be affected, just the complexity and expense of modern combat systems.......furthermore, if they just awarded another batch of the AOPS to replace the frigates, they would save even more, as much of the design work is already completed and paid for. As to your second point, most of said points are sourced overseas or are built by Canadian subsidiaries. If, for example, they decide to go with something along the lines of the USCG's National Security Cutter, they could simply reuse much of the weapons systems off our current frigates (57mm, CWIS etc) to further reduce costs.

In a perfect World, yes, I agree. With that, I don't know that Irving, Seaspan or Davie would do much better than the others given a crack. There is no doubt, as I've been saying in this thread for years, we will pay a premium for ships built in Canada, and that no Canadian Government (Liberal, Tory or NDP) would build ships overseas...........though most of their reasons would be the political optics involved, on strategic grounds, I feel building the vessels domestically is worth the extra cost. With that though, the debate becomes actual funding (which as of yet, the Liberals have no additional funds per their fiscal update), ship numbers and the end result capabilities of each vessel. With that, I'm of the opinion, that this Government will eventually build more ships, but said ships will drastically be reduced in capability as a cost cutting measure, as opposed to outright cancellation or a drastic reduction in numbers....... In other words, absent a huge infusion of money, the Liberal's will manage our navy's decline in capability, versus a Conservative Government that would have managed our decline in numbers (as is the current trend in most of our allies naval numbers).

Just to add to the earlier suggestion (by Bill Sweetman) that the USAF was seeking to purchase additional legacy aircraft: Furthermore:

Ok, but why does a judge need to be taken out of the process? How is it different though? Why is one afford a level of privacy with voice communications versus emails or webpostings on social media............are not much of these communications relaid through the same means as a phone call? Sure, but I don't see this as a push by societies cultural values changing, more so as a push by an organ of the State.........I think most of society would be opposed to this.......if this tiny poll is a like reflection of society, the vast majority would be opposed.

If you're not sure if an edict from upon the mountain top can be defined (and followed) wouldn't that leave us to the status quo.......case by case, through the courts applying for a warrant from a judge? The telephone is more than a century old, it would seem the arguments against warrantless wiretaps has been fought and won (for privacy).......if the State can't compel the phone companies to allow warrantless wiretaps, why is it different with ones internet provider?

Ok, but at what point do we draw the line between helping the police and protecting society's right to privacy? For example, if the police said warrantless searches of our homes would help them prevent crimes, nah or yah?

Exactly, hence I don't see a viable reason to take a judge out of the process. I fully agree.

No argument here, I've no doubt there are "bad parents", but I would assume that in many examples, its more of a lack of knowledge/ignorance on the parents part, in that many born of previous generations might not fully understand the harm that could come to children with the internet age. I'm not sure I understand what you mean.......do you favor warrantless searches on illegal websites? If so, who decides if it is illegal?

.......over to you Prime Minister Trudeau: Simple topic, that I think will be black or white for most, so what do you think? Also, how do you think Prime Minister Trudeau will respond versus how he should respond? --------------- I think a far simpler solution for parents concerned about online predators is to restrict their child's access to the internet.......doing so, I would assume would alleviate many of Bob Paulson's stated concerns, well avoiding another tilt with the Supreme Court of Canada..........as such, i'm opposed to Paulson's request. I think this Liberal Government, like the previous Conservative and Liberal Governments before that, will quietly go to bat for the RCMP and this will become a new norm that we will wake-up with as law someday.....Clearly I think Trudeau won't oppose it, other than to offer assurances, of some form of oversight.