Derek 2.0

My thoughts exactly, in addition to providing more aide to the ones we won't be taking.

Right, I would question if this Government will even select the FWSAR winner inside this mandate.

Other than no money budgeted, a staff of three people and the previous Liberal Government taking a ~decade to decide on a Sea King replacement.

You've yet to illustrate, from within the Liberals own Fiscal plan, where the current Government will obtain the money to purchase new fighters.......you've suggested they will find the funding from within the current GoC budget, but have yet to suggest where the GoC will find ~7-9 billion dollars......... I might state that I'm going to buy a Gold House and a Rocket Car ( <--- words), but sans the means to fund said purchase, its just that.......words

Exactly, I care not if we take refugees and/or send aide overseas, my concern (as I'm sure is held by most) is that we're potentially allowing a Trojan horse among ourselves so Trudeau can keep a political promise, a promise I don't think many would care if he kept.

Is this not a discussion forum? If you feel my discussing the Hornet replacement for the RCAF, in a thread on said topic, is against forum rules, by all means, report it......Until the moderation teams says otherwise, members such as myself, Wilber and BC2004 will continue to discuss this topical subject.......the last thread, spanned several years and hundreds of pages, perhaps we'll surpass that in this one, since, in my opinion, the present Government won't be resolving this topic anytime soon.

Except for the leader of the attacks.....

Without a doubt.......what could go wrong?

I'm sure tens, if not hundreds, of thousands have already been "vetted" by NGOs and the UN.........the same guys that vetted one of the Paris attackers in Greece.

Nah, no need to be subliminal, I think my position is clear

A plan is subjective..........but a part of said plan, that is coming to light, involves CF members, at bases that will house the refugees, cancelling their Christmas vacations.

Not the least, and I don't know how the current Government could justify spending more money on the older Eurofighter Typhoon then the F-35.........The only way this Government purchases an aircraft that costs more than the F-35, is if it buys used or reduces the total number of aircraft to be purchased. Furthermore, if one is to assume it purchases a slightly cheaper legacy type like the Super Hornet or the F-16 (It won't purchase a single engine type though, since our collective dinks would fall off), which might currently cost 15-20% less than a production F-35, that only translates into ~1-1.5 billion in savings from an overall, through life cost in the 40-45 billion range over 35-40 years of service. Nowhere near the billions needed to invest in the navy as promised........ Hence, absent the realization that the Liberals have no money budgeted for new fighters through 2020, the entire "promise" is smoke and mirrors.

Or back to the 90s and the promise of no "Cadillac 'elicopters"......in the end, we'll end up paying more (through life costs) for a substandard aircraft due to a cheap electioneering promise, that should insult the intelligence of anyone with grey mater between their ears.........to conjure the meme of "first strike stealth capability" is truly dishonest, as all current alternatives have been used as "first strike" aircraft, but more importantly, the aircraft itself, nor those that fly them, elect to launch a first strike.......a political decision. Trudeau's abuse of the English language is no different than any other form of political opportunism.........and will only result in our men and women in the RCAF operating an aircraft designed in the 70s or 80s out to the 2060s, which would be akin to the RCAF, today, flying aircraft that it operated in the 1940s: My point still stands, if we're not willing to invest in a modern fighter force, for what appears solely political reasons, we should save the 10s of billions to be wasted and go the route of New Zealand, and retire the capability.

Right you are........furthermore, looking at our then NATO and NORAD requirements, low-level conventional strike in Germany, reinforcing the Norwegian flank and North American Air Defense, our then direct partners in all these areas operated the F-16.........which clearly would have allowed synergies in training, logistics and general interoperability. Something one would hope would be examined, yet again, with replacing our current Hornets.

Close, the Block 25 (the first F-16C/D) got the AN/APG-68/Sparrow combo in the Summer of '84, about a year and half after our Hornets entered service.....though we likely wouldn't have purchased more of the cheaper F-16s, their lower operational cost, combined with them (F-16C/D) being a slightly more mature design than our F/A-18A/B Hornets, thus not needing to be brought up a standard (Our Hornets being upgraded to ~C/Ds), we might have got to keep more of them through the 90s and 2000s.... And of course, had we been operating F-16C/Ds, the current flag bearer of the USAF and ANG, there would no doubt have been synergies resulting in operational and upgrading savings. Something can be said about operating the same aircraft as our largest (current?) ally

No doubt, at the end of the day though, we would have gone with the even cheaper F-16, but it lacked a radar capable of illuminating for the Sparrow missiles, which was a must for NORAD.

No, I ignore your world-saladish point.......as has been gone over countless times in the other F-35 thread with Waldo, the F-35C itself is not delayed, but the USN's ability, in years previous, to provide an aircraft carrier for it to conduct trials. As to out of service date, again my point stands, as confirmed by your very own links, the Super Hornet fleet will start to be retired by the USN in the 2030s.......there are already Super Hornets in the Arizona desert, so the 2030s doesn't beggar belief...........a retirement decades sooner than a Super Hornet in Canadian service would be retired.

Where do you think the Trudeau Government is going to find savings to fund a Hornet replacement.........this is your theory, so play it out.....If one is to assume the Hornet replacement will cost ~7-9 billion, from where in the current defense budget will said funds be found? For point of reference, 9 billion is approx the cost of operating our entire Hornet fleet for 7-8 years.

Again, from your link: Close to 2040 doesn't equate to your claim of 2050, nor the requirement of the RCAF operating the Super Hornet out to 2060.

Your point? From your link: Thanks for confirming my point.

And you base this on what? Cuts do not translate into new money, but savings........they would have to swing a huge axe to "fund" the Hornet replacement prior to 2020.........

Exactly, judging by the Marines experience with former USN legacy Hornets, we'd be better off keeping what we have....

Are you suggesting the Trudeau Government is going to cut something to fund a Hornet replacement?

No, it states they will serve through 2040, if they receive a center barrel replacement and attrition aircraft are bought. And the F-35C isn't delayed, it completed its initial carrier trials faster than any naval aircraft since the 50s, none the less, that maters little as the F-35C (and X-45B X-47B) will be replacing legacy Hornets. With that, the spoken to shortfall in carrier aircraft boils down to funding, which if said trend is not reversed, the navy won't have to worry about fewer aircraft, but fewer carriers to fly them from.

Reread your link: Meaning the USN intends to keep their current Super Hornet and Growler force relevant until they are retired in 2040......to be replaced by: Notice the USN (or RAAF) do not intend to operate their Super Hornet force out to the 2060s, as Canada would be required to do with a purchase of Super Hornets.......a purchase the current Liberal Government doesn't have budgeted through 2019/2020 fiscal year........as such, unless new money is added, we will not purchase new Super Hornets as the line will be closed.