Derek 2.0

The Government of Canada will represent Quebec at the WTO......Dassault is partly owned by Airbus, and both the American and French Governments, as said, have much more to loose in regional airline sales then a small fighter order to Canada.

Doesn't work that way, and is why land based air forces don't use buddy-stores......and of course, maritime users of the F-35 will also have use of buddy stores, both external and internal (stealth) systems.

There is currently two disputes, to be paid in two $500 million lump sums by the Province of Quebec.

Then you better go represent the GoC at the WTO......they tried that argument against Embraer in the 90s.

I've provided page, after page, of information in the several other F-35 threads, I'm not going to provide it, yet again, for you.

Well it's not, hence the Typhoon isn't better than the F-15 armed with them.

Sure it does.........Boeing and Airbus value their own airline sales far more than a small fighter order with the GoC.........The Government of the United States and France aren't in the airline business.

I'm not going to rehash the debate with you.........Saab clearly pulled it's own Gripen NG from the Canadian competition because it too well suited and too inexpensive for us.

The Typhoon isn't modified to carry the Delta, as such, the F-15 can shoot at and leave before the Typhoon is in range to use its own weapons........hence, the Typhoon, isn't "better" than the Eagle.

I think the bigger elephant in the room is the expected legal challenge by both Boeing and Airbus (Maker of the Typhoon and part owner of Dassault, maker of the Rafale) at the WTO over the Quebec (and likely Canadian) government's "subsidies" to Bombardier for their C-Series regional airliner. In one fell swoop, the Government of Canada (that will represent Quebec) could be in years long court battles with the makers of the Super Hornet, Typhoon, Eagle and Rafale........

On paper, but then a block 60-61 F-16 won't be much cheaper than a F-35 built in the same factory.........and of course, has the same "failing" as the F-35 (as noted by "experts").......one engine.....Having been operated in the Arctic for nearly 40 years and having a better Class A engine safety record than the F-15 doesn't mater of course.

Nope...........Typhoon can't beat AMRAAM-Delta.....

It proves nothing, as mock dogfights between the USAF F-22s and the Luftwaffe Typhoons are devoid of real world conditions and context.......and the Gripen and Gripen NG is the least suited for our needs, and is why Saab itself pulled its own proposal to Canada.

That's incorrect, the F-35 is no more or no less a "bomb truck" than a modern tactical fighter, their use is a political question. As to the aircraft itself, it is a direct replacement for the F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet, both aircraft used as bomb trucks in their own right, inversely, both aircraft make-up the majority contribution by Canada and the United States to NORAD.......going forward, the majority of the American contribution to NORAD will be with the F-35A Your "facts" of course are not true, as the F-35 is an improvement over the aircraft it will replace. Likewise, the aircraft can carry weapons internally (and externally like a conventional aircraft with a degradation in it's "stealthiness"), but for a typical loadout our current Hornets carry on a NORAD mission (missiles and external fuel), the F-35 can carry internally and not suffer a drag penalty, which results in a stark improvement on performance. Again, that is a political question.......when we started our program that led to the purchase of our current Hornets, nearly 40 years ago, our leaders would never have imagined what they would have been used for, versus their then intended usage. That's misguided logic.....if your intent is defending our airspace, selecting an aircraft that won't be able to do that effectively through its service life, then you're wasting both operating and procurement costs........as through life total operating costs won't differ to any major degree with whatever aircraft we select. Likewise, with procurement costs, outside the F-16 and Super Hornet (very slightly), the other proposed aircraft (Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen NG) currently cost more than the F-35, and with the F-16/Super Hornet, once the F-35 enters full rate production, it will cost less or the same as legacy aircraft. Economies of scale can't be argued with, as there will be far more F-35s produced then Eurofighters, Rafales, Gripen NGs and Super Hornets combined.

The same reason the majority of their NORAD contribution today is made up their F-16 fleet, operated by both the USAF and various ANG units, including both F-16s based in and forward deployed to Alaska since the 1970s. Your opinion means little when countered with the DoD, DARPA, the USAF and USN, Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman etc etc etc..... Your opinion means little when contrasted with the opinion of the RCAF.

First, the F-35A will be the primary NORAD aircraft in Alaska, second, there is already a replacement program to replace the F-22 and F-15 in the ~2030s. The USAF/NORAD isn't in stasis but constant flux, which makes your (and many others) baseless claims that "we will be fine" operating an aircraft designed in the 70s or 80s, out to the 2050s-60s so laughable.

Even Goodale confirmed, no papers, no magical unicorn ride to Canada.......further to that, as some are pointing out in this thread, the rise of fake documents and passports among the refugees will (hopefully) bog down the process.

No we won't, as current aircraft don't have the sufficient modern digital architecture and computing output, and its questionable if even the F-22 and E-3 will get the new data link.

Sure, why wouldn't it?

Not once the F-22 and F-35 dominates the US contribution to NORAD in the next decade, as then the USAF will be utilizing the multifunction advanced data link.........older European and American aircraft, using Link 16, had might as well be using Morse code, and though the 5 generation (stealth) aircraft could communicate with older aircraft through Link 16, it would negate any advantage the modern aircraft have with secure (modern) communications.

And how do you know that? The RCN explored leasing two of the Supply class, there is no reason (aside from political will) the USN wouldn't sell/lease them to us for a song........they practically give away frigates (and the old Kidd class), often only charging for one last refit in American yards.......there is no reason, if Prime Minister Trudeau was serious about rebuilding the RCN, we couldn't seek the purchase of 1-2 of the soon to be 7 laid-up cruisers.....the Americans would likely give them away, as it will cost the USN money to deactivate and store them, likewise, some within the congress are attempting to force the USN to keep them, when the USN would rather retire them early and purchase more flight III Burkes...... .....hell, they might even sell us cheap a flight I Burke, they offered a cheap lease to the RAN over a decade ago.... As I said, I'll give Trudeau until Spring of next year to get settled, and the start of the next US Government budget circus, for him to follow through on his pledge to invest in the RCN.........don't get me wrong, I'm not unreasonable, I won't expect the cruisers to enter service for 12-18 months after a deal is signed (crews would need a period to transition of course), but if he doesn't seek an interim option (one that would be cheap and easy), then he is not serious about fixing the navy........simple as that.

A couple years? If Trudeau was serious about rebuilding capabilities in the RCN, he would direct the MND to make a run at a couple of the soon to be retired (early) Ticonderoga cruisers the USN is likely to lay-up as a interim option.......some of which are of the same vintage as our current frigates. I'll give him until Spring 2016, the start of the US Government's next fiscal year, to put forth a proposal for an interim option........if he doesn't, now that he has the big-boy pants on, he's not serious about restoring the RCN.

I would assume that to be correct.

At what point can we start blaming Trudeau for not replacing her (or her sisters)?

Place holder.....she should have went with her sisters (over a decade ago) last year.