Derek 2.0

But is it really though? I mean, if the Americans and Russians are able to strengthen their relations, why should the Americans (or Russians) care what Europe does? For Putin, an American withdrawal from Europe reduces a "threat" to the Russians........after all, what is Europe/NATO sans the Americans? Not a threat to Putin.......

Exactly, I see an improved Russian-US relationship as a good thing...... if I were an American, I'd see a combined working relationship with the Russians, both fighting radical Islam and containing the Red Chinese, as far more beneficial then a weak and feckless NATO.

Exactly, NATO as a collective entity was softly chided by both the Bush and Obama administrations.....the UK got the message loud and clear.....now the rest will deal with a far less understanding Trump....... If Putin is such a threat to Europe....logically, one would think the Europeans and Canada would get their crap together......

Why? The ones that need to keep an eye on North Korea are the South Koreans and Japanese......and Trump has already told both countries, like NATO with Putin, to pull up their collective socks or they are on their own. 50/50 the end of NATO or the rebuilding of NATO, with members pressured into actually paying for their own proportional defense. That's a good question.........members clearly pick and choose their level of defense spending......why should the Americans continue to subsidize most of Europe (and Canada)?

Why? Both Trump and Putin have no loved lost with the Chinese, likewise, both Trump and Putin have signaled a reproach on US-Russian relations.

Of course not, nor would any of the far more powerful members of NATO

Trump has nothing to do with it.......the current state of NATO has been decades in the making and countless governments, of its member states, are to blame.

Why not? The West/NATO didn't go to war with them over Eastern Europe in the 50s or 60s.

Exactly, in my opinion, he's far more concerned with the Chinese.

MAD is but simply an escalation........a conventional war ~30 years ago in Europe, at best, would have been a stalemate. With the level of NATO forces currently in Europe, despite a generation+ lead in terms of technology, a war with Russia over the Baltic states would be very bad for said States and NATO........several lightly armed mixed NATO brigades, at best, would be a speed bump for the several Russian mechanized armies already in theater......30 years ago NATO had far greater forces in Europe, in addition enough prepositioned equipment for several additional armored divisions (more with National Guard units being activated) to be flown over within 72 hours (see REFORGER), and most important of all, enough POL and munitions for 30+ days of hostilities. If NATO had the political gumption to attempt to stop a Russian invasion of the Baltic (and Eastern Europe), their only choice (with the current level of forces) would be tactical nukes, including strikes inside Russia against reserves and supplies supporting the invasion....... the first side to flinch with nukes then opens up Pandora's box.

The details are lacking, my question, are these figures directly related to the C-295 and its through life support, or do they include the entire costs of operating a FWSAR fleet? You know, like the figures applied to the F-35, which included everything from salaries, landscaping of runways to the cost of painting hangers? Sauce for the goose and all... I do know the Tories (and then the Liberals) were looking at forging FWSAR and privatizing the function (Like what is done in the UK and Australia)......ergo, the Liberals should be forthcoming with the entire program, to ensure taxpayers are getting best value for money, when contrasted with handing it to a private company......in the spirit of being open and transparent.......

I largely agree, the first step in doing that will be North American energy independence.........leave the Arab oil, and the entailing messes, to the Europeans and Chinese... Energy Independence of course is but one of Trump's goals.... Is he a Christian? Being a (former?) hardline Communist, I'd always assumed him to be an Atheist.......if he's such a threat (and no doubt he could be), one would think the European NATO members (and Canada) would be spending far more on their own defense.......instead, they have become too reliant upon the Americans.... Something Trump has signaled is no longer kosher........

No, not at all........The Americans and Russians were both instrumental in defeating Hitler....if they can find common ground over Islamic terrorism, why not work together? Would you prefer them to continue along the path of another Cold War over Eastern Europe?

Franco? Or, get aboard the Trump train........

And what's wrong with that? The Americans and Russians worked together to defeat the Nazis........would it be so bad if they collaborated to defeat radical Islam? Is the World better off with the Americans and Russians friends or foes?

Sounds very plausible.........but then many countries want the US as an ally. I think you need to reverse that.......but yes, I've no doubt the Russians want sanctions removed and their relationship to heal It's NOW being subverted?!?!?!?! I don't follow..........if the Trump Administration pulls out all the stops on resource development.......wouldn't the price of O&G continue to fall? I wouldn't think Putin, Trudeau and other Petro States would favor that...... In other words, they are Nationalists that put their countries interests first...........Make America/Russia Great Again!!!!!!!

Where? Trump went into Exxon's expertise on Alaska's North Slope, namely on their projects encompassing Point Thomson, and how said project is now mirrored by the Russians in their Arctic? So you think Putin helped Trump win the election, because Trump said nice things about Putin? Not much of a conspiracy theory.........

Source? And does it include sunk costs of running the reduced fleet?

So? I think that would be more to do with his heading one of the largest companies in the World.......ExxonMobil. Which, prior to the drop in oil and sanctions against the Russians, was heavily involved with Russian energy companies in providing them with the technology and expertise (gained in Alaska) in resource extraction in the Russian Arctic. Aside from no proof to indicate he did, sure, why not? But for this conspiracy to work, there needs to be a reason why? Why would Putin want someone that is going to heavily increase US defense spending, including their nuclear arsenal, to become President? Maybe Trump's statements on exiting the Middle East and no longer giving the American's allies a subsidy in the form of the US military umbrella? Maybe his stance on wanting to work with Russia in combating radical Islam? Or Trump's views on the Red Chinese......the Russians fear the Chinese as much if not more then the NATO led West........ So let's assume Putin did involve himself.......why?

All of our SAR squadrons have secondary roles.......how many aircraft are the C-295s replacing among our current squadrons? Your math seems a little fuzzy Making up more "facts"? The interior of the Buffalo is nearly 7', versus just over 6' for the C-295........the ability to stand fully erect does effect crew fatigue, in addition, the free movement of SARTECHs in the back wearing jump boots and helmets........of course the C-27J and C-130 are both over 8'.....makes a difference between what the aircraft can carry.....A Herc can carry a Griffon...a C-27J a Humvee size truck or a BV-206 tracked ATV, all items that the RCAF does carry, including on domestic operations....the C-295, not so much. Hence Trudeau's selection is both a reduction in numbers and capability.

The back of the "Jeep" the Liberals selected: Versus the back of the "Cadillac" the RCAF wanted to do their job: One has a reinforced steel floor, with ample room for loading and unloading all sorts of equipment (through airdrops if needed) and the other looks suitable for flying parcels between Toronto and Montreal

Then why did all the proposed aircraft makers consult with our SARTECHS? I would think being able to fully stand-up in the back of the aircraft being an advantage, likewise having an equal or better top speed and range as our existing aircraft. Further to money, why did the Liberal government only sign a 5 year support contract (with a 15 year option)? Clearly we will operate these aircraft longer then 5 years.....the answer is clear, the Trudeau government wants to dick around with the program costs.......doesn't seem too open and transparent to me.

Yes, the personal in the SAR squadrons.......until the C-130J entered (then left) the competition, the actual experts in the RCAF favored the more capable C-27J

So you're saying those that operate the aircraft.....aren't experts? You're full of it........Of the current military users, the majority use them as light transports or constabulary patrol aircraft.......Which users of the C295 use the aircraft as a SAR platform, a platform operating in such extremes as the North Atlantic and the Arctic? I can't think of any, perhaps you could support your statement.

So? Where did I say I favored the C-27J? I've been supportive of carrying on with newer model Herc since the Js entered service Compared to the C-295, sure, I'd take the more capable C-27J any day of the week though...... Except from the Federal Government: Seems pretty firm to me.....as I asked you already, who is going to fly, crew and maintain them........they are SAR aircraft, in a SAR squadron, being replaced by Trudeau's shitty pick. Not as well as a Hercules..........but you're right about lower cost......having its engines built just outside Trudeau's riding doesn't hurt either