Derek 2.0

The F-15 perhaps (outside the TA-50), but the Rafale (or Eurofighter) is of the same vintage as the Su-35.

No, they haven't.

Ahhh no, they replaced their previous F-111 fleet, which included former SAC aircraft, for long range strike, interdiction and electronic warfare.....that is not hedging their bets, but replacing a capability they could no longer afford to maintain after the Americans retired their F-111 fleet and the Lockheed shutdown the support network for the aircraft.........yet you're suggesting we put ourselves in the same position..

Exactly, and why a small sale of Su-30s to Indonesia, forced them to procure Growlers to escort their Super Hornet fleet in the advent of hostilities.

So you're saying they are a threat, but they aren't really, and the idea that they are procuring modern (for them) aircraft is laughable, even though they are, and deploying them to bases inside the Arctic circle.........

Then why mention them in response to Big Guy? Kinda cuts the legs out from under your attempted point.

The Russians are now basing jets in the Arctic (again), including Flanker variants that are on par with the Super Hornet, to be replaced by stealth aircraft that will eventually outclass all current 4th/4.5 generation aircraft.......if you intend to see a capability to deter Russians, aircraft that they will even surpass in the next decade is not the way to go about it. If we as a nation are not prepared to invest in a modern military, including fighter aircraft, but are prepared to pay the near total cost for obsolete (or what will be obsolete in the ~2030s) aircraft, we would be better following the path of New Zealand or Ireland and retiring the capability, and accepting the Americans will do as they please.

And here is a far more informed piece, also by a Canadian, on the folly of equating a group like Al Qaeda with that of ISIS, and how best to contend with ISIS:

I doubt we're getting anything under this mandate.

Tell them what? That both services opted to retire Rafales and Typhoons in favor of keeping 70s vintage aircraft in service? Or that in the case of the Eurofighter program, each of the four partners was/is contractually obligated to procure aircraft, and if they sell a portion of their own inventory, they are required to procure more?

And doesn't indicate the USN will operate the Super Hornet until the middle of the century, nor that it will be in frontline service as its finally retired. Does the three person staff include the minister?

Exactly, the Super Hornet, circa 2030s in USN service will be akin to Prowlers and KA-6s through the 90s........oddly enough, nobody sought the A-6E in the 90s

Well no, not really, the French opted to keep their Super Etendards in service over the F1 Rafales and the British are now going to keep the 70s vintage Tornado in service longer. That of course is dependent on a whole host of factors, none the less, as the RAAF and USN is retiring their Super Hornets, Canada will be looking towards a mid-life extension. So its now into the the 2040s......wow, you're making up stuff now.......regardless, the Super Hornet will not be the frontline, or second line fighter of the USN or RAAF into the 2040s, let alone into the 2050s or 2060s.. Yeah, all three members of its staff, waiting for direction from cabinet

That's very true.

What information?

And the French Government that retired the F1 versions and the MoD that will retire the tranche 1 Typhoons in 2018........ No, they are not. Who's funding them? The DoD isn't, nor will Boeing for us. No, we, nor the RCAF will decide that, that will be the purview of the Trudeau cabinet, the lobbyists and the lawyers.

They are under the previous mandate, good through March of next year, until the Government directs them to do otherwise. Of note, Canadian Hornets and special forces (alongside our allies) several days ago helped the Kurds retake a town held by ISIS.......

One round of security and background check? Thats great, except that one of the Paris attackers also went through the same "checks"......

Exactly.

What reviews? The RCAF has been quite clear in what they need out to (or past) the middle of this century. You are making up baseless claims. I'm not twisting anything. The French have retired, already, a portion their Rafale fleet. The British will retire in 2018 a large portion of their Typhoon fleet. The Super Hornet and Growler retirement for the USN will be determined by several factors, namely the progress of the 6th generation program currently underway, the real word results of the F-35B in replacing the USMC's EA-6 Prowlers and in the utility role, the integration of the V-22 aboard the carriers in the COD role and the USMC's ability to integrate the refueling variant of the V-22 into operational deployments....factors all that will determine the back end of the Super Hornet service life. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the USN, RAAF, RAF and French air force/ navy won't be operating the Super Hornet/Eurofighter/Rafale out past the middle of this century, as the RCAF is expected to do with its Hornet replacement.

Doesn't change the fact that the French have already started retiring the type. With the USN, the later 2030 timeline is with the Growler force and the remaining Super Hornets that will be/are used for support roles like aerial refueling. Your statement that we will be "just fine" is baseless and runs counter to the determination put forth by the RCAF in the later 90s-to present day.

Indeed, most of France's allies involved in the fight against ISIS have pledged to increase their efforts........except Canada of course.

Fair enough, but I would question how legitimate the refugee is if they are attempting to enter a country under a false pretense with a fake passport.

Maybe so, regardless, be they fakes, stolen/bought or their real passports and documents, that is all the more reason to not rush the process of bringing refugees into Canada without proper security screening.

I've no qualms with accepting refugees, my issue is putting the security of Canadians at risk by rushing the process, for no benefit to Canadians, so Trudeau can keep a stupid promise, a promise that I'm sure most Canadians (more so with recent events) don't care if he kept. Politically, breaking the promise, might hurt him ever so slightly with some of his base, and give the Opposition a brief point of attack.......but if he keeps his promise, and we were to see a Paris style attack in Canada (or the United States) there would be far longer lasting consequences.