Derek 2.0

I agree, one of Rempel/Raitt/Leitch/Ambrose/ should be the next leader, of them, I'd personally favor Raitt or Rempel. I think Kenney would make a good leader, as would a return of Mackay, but both would be painted with the Harper brush. I like (on a personal/professional level) Erin O'Toole, but feel he is too good/nice of a man for herding the cats in the party, likewise, for leading the political knife fight in what the next election will be. I favor Rob Nicholson minding the tiller for the next couple of years, and don't want to see a rushed leadership contest, instead favor not starting it until the halfway point of the Trudeau mandate.

Rempel will be 36 in several months, the same age Joe Clark was when he won the PC leadership (beating Brian Mulroney,who was only a few months his senior), likewise, if the next election is Fall of 2019, Rempel will be a few months shy of 40.....Joe Clark was sworn in as PM the day before his 40th birthday....... Though Rempel does have a few issues to resolve among certain areas of the base, she shouldn't be discounted.

That is very true, but the Chinese don't have said technology, with them being reliant on namely purchased/copied Russian technology (and doctrine) from the 70s and 80s, which at the time, said Soviet technology wasn't a vast improvement over what the Allies used in the later stages of WW II and into the 1950 (perhaps early 60s). The American Charles A. Lockwood devised a work around for said "disadvantages" in the 1940s........ A sub with a towed array has the advantage, in the majority of cases, over a surface warship with a towed array......even than, to effectively (and with a degree of safety) hunt a submarine, one would need a minimum of three or more surface warships (in addition to helicopters and MPAs) with tails to triangulate a sub. Even then though, the submarine, by its very nature, will likely detect the surface vessels long before they detect it, as such, it can choose to leave or attack the surface force then leave at its choosing. But the point is moot, as the Chinese only have a fraction of the ASW assets that the Soviets had, and then, the Soviets weren't particularly good at ASW. As such, the Chinese would find it challenging to contend with the sub force of Vietnam, let alone the Japanese or Americans. Pirated Russian sonars in the hands of the Chinese aren't always reliable, let alone that good when they do work. American (submarine based) sonars, and the sailors that operate them, are very reliable and work better than advertised.

As mentioned above, Obama need not advice on the usage of the USN's submarine force.

No, I mean the entire South China Sea, Chinese "fighter jets" pose little threat to the USN's sub force, inversely, said runways and aircraft carrier(s) are very much vulnerable to said sub force. The US has no need to start a war with the Chinese, as the Chinese are quick to back down when confronted with the slightest show of force. Unlike Putin's Russia, the Chinese have little leverage to bring to a political poker game. You make that sound like a bad thing...........the use of the USN's Pacific submarine force proved vital in defeating that last Asian power intent on Empire building, a Empire defended by the use of tiny islands. That's exactly it, the game was played by the Americans, and then, the Chinese backed down. How long will the current Chinese Government and military leaders survive with a continual loss of face? The Chinese today don't have the capabilities of the Allies during the Second World War in countering a modern submarine threat. And no, a surface fleet today can survive when pitted against land based aircraft and ASM.... When was the last time the Chinese have won a war?

"More and bigger warships" doesn't translate into a navy capable of power projection, in contested waters, against a navy with a semi-capable submarine force. The Chinese now, and into the near future, would be unable to operate safely within the South China Sea with impunity, let alone setting their sights further abroad. Right now, and into the future, the varsity in the South China Sea is COMSUBPAC, which if ever required, would turn the Chinese navy into crab food in short order.

The helmet would be addressed by neck support within the seat, much like ACES II, which also had to address visibility for smaller pilots. The "bulky helmet" is a new reality found within all modern fighters, including our current Hornet fleet which now includes the "bulky" JHMCS.

That is no different than previous modifications to the current ACES II seat used in all USAF aircraft. At the time, the previous weight requirements precluded ~2% of males and ~18% of females in American service, and a greater number of Asian operators. None the less its a moot point for Canada, as our current seats limits already have a bottom limit of ~140 lbs/64 Kgs and I wouldn't expect that to change.

As I said (several weeks ago?), I've no qualms with a review to plot a projection of where we want to go (the last proper one was conducted by the Mulroney Government, only to be thrown on its ear by the Wall coming down) and feel it prudent. With that said, I doubt said review will alter our place in NORAD.

It sounds on paper to be in quite the state.........the mention of Asbestos is no surprise though, as any Canadian home built prior to the 1990s will likely contain asbestos, in anything from drywall tape/mud, sealings on duct work, floor tiles, popcorn ceilings and pipe insulation. It should be repaired, but I'd be very surprised if fully abated of Asbestos that it will cost the estimated total....

That is now a question better asked of the (new) Government.......it appears to be yet to be determined, but with a focus on continuing with NORAD, sans the F-35, which will be used by the USAF for its NORAD role....... I'll await the determination of the Government's placing of the puzzle pieces.

If by busted, you mean having the ability to do grade school math I'm guilty as charged.

Grade school math......... x/1000, x/500, x/100.......which will produce a larger and lesser result? Sure, and the point still stands, as the current contracts, producing parts for the F-35 in Canada won't go anywhere, yet the far larger future contracts will go elsewhere, as mentioned in the linked G&M article.

The F-35 will be the mainstay of the American contribution to NORAD for the next half century.........I think the speaks to your "concerns", likewise the Trudeau Governments focus on Canadian air defense........ With the Russians now returning to fighter operations in the Arctic, and building new bases within the Arctic circle, "domestic defense" will be should be a focal point in the selection process........could be quite embarrassing to a Canadian Government that is unable to properly intercept supersonic Blackjack bombers escorted by stealth MIGs and Sukhoi fighters in our own airspace.....

Until the current contracts end..........as noted in the previous article.

Exactly, and would be required to integrate with the NORAD command structure, which going forward, will be dominated by USAF F-35s. Currently and going forward, the alternatives will be limited other American aircraft, namely the F-16 and F-15.

I would be even further surprised if the Trudeau Government formally abandoned the F-35 consortium anytime soon, as such a move would devastate the Canadian Aerospace industry sans a firm alternative, which no current maker of an alternative able to replace the F-35's footprint.....The Trudeau Government will be selecting more losers than winners.

Exactly, Boeing and Lockheed will cease production of their legacy types within the next several years. As made evident several pages back, there is no funding in next years DoD budget for additional Super Hornets/Growlers, as such, precluding a firm contract order soon, the line will close once their current DoD orders are complete in ~mid 2017.

Inversely, precluding a North American maker from bidding on a Government contract will be grounds for numerous NAFTA challenges.......likewise, European aircraft with American content (i.e. Gripen) could be refused an end user technology transfer from the United States Government, coupled to a requirement of other European aircraft being able to integrate into NORAD....

How does one have an "open-source contract bid" by precluding aircraft by name prior? Personally, I would be highly surprised if any aircraft is selected prior to the next election.......at such a time, the only aircraft that will be in production will be the F-35.....

Again that is a false dichotomy, as you’re comparing American hourly operating costs. Currently the USAF (and various ANG units) operate over 1000 F-16s, likewise the USN/USMC operate over 500 legacy Hornets (like ours), versus the ~100+ various F-35s currently in service in the USAF/USN/USMC. As such, said average is determined by dividing operating costs spread across various fleet sizes, hence the F-35 does currently have a sustainably higher hourly cost. For Canada, by sheer numbers, our Hornets using the same calculation currently have a higher average operating cost than USMC Hornets of the same vintage, inversely, 65 Canadian F-35s would have a higher average operating cost than our current ~77 Hornets based on fleet size alone. With that said, any aircraft with a single engine will have a lower maintenance cost than an aircraft with two engines, that is simple and obvious mathematics. As to the Liberal brandished “first strike” moniker, that too is a inane determination……as our current vintage Hornets, likewise current in service Super Hornets, Eurofighters and Rafales have all been used historically for “first strike” (and second and third strike etc) missions. Clearly the decision to “first strike” an enemy is a political determination. As such, one is left to assume the Trudeau Liberals real intent as being an aircraft less capable, and in turn, with the preclusion of stealth etc afforded by the F-35, less survivable going forward.

Are you suggesting the "CONSERVATIVES" tricked the Liberals into hiring the former head of the oil lobby, that has had past dealings with Bruce Carson, an employee of TransCanada, that gave insight to his coworkers on how best to lobby a Liberal Government.......... This had Harper written all over it!!

I wouldn't be so sure......and people are paying attention, thats why the MSM has been talking about it for two days now, and why both the CPC and NDP will be talking about for the remaining days.....as Andrew Coyne put it, the Liberals can say good-bye to any prospective Majority now......

Who benefits? If the Liberals are engaged in illegal activity and are caught, I would think all Canadians would benefit. They might not form the Government, but the NDP could very well hold the balance of power......frankly, if the Liberals were to be proven to be engaged in illegal influence peddling with "Big Oil", I fail to see the upside of the NDP jumping into bed with them....

At the very least, those who Mr Gagnier was in contact with at TransCanada, could be required via a production order from the courts to provide any and all emails....... For your own reading, the RCMP info/pdf to obtain a production order on Bruce Carson.......of note, points 58 on contain communications between Mr Carson and Mr Gagnier, pertaining to lobbying the then Quebec Liberal Government (That Mr Gagnier was then employed by) over "energy strategy" Now if the RCMP had enough info on Carson to launch the cited investigation (that resulted in charges), I fail to see why they shouldn't dig around in this mater......