Derek 2.0

And if you change it back to average, Tory high average, NDP high average etc?

2-3 weeks ago, on this site, I think most (in this thread) were preparing for a Mulcair Government, with the Tories finishing a distant third.......I think (I could be wrong, it could have been someone else) you even mocked me in suggesting the Tories could recover from third place in the polls...

Seat-by-seat riding projections and internal party polling.......

The same 1988 election in which the Tories went into it with a number of faux scandals, leading up to the campaign, with some polls showing that Ed Broadbent’s NDP were going to form Government, then with several weeks left, John Turner’s Liberals (with an expected surge in British Columbia) were going to win, but ultimately Mulroney returned with a smaller majority, with the promise of cheaper consumer goods afforded by NAFTA? Funny enough, despite the Red surge in British Columbia, the Liberals only seat in the Province was John Turner’s seat in Vancouver……….history to repeat?

Right now, the majority of seats here in BC are polling the NDP and Tories neck and neck, with the Liberals a distant third (outside of several metro Vancouver ridings), if the NDP in BC start loosing numbers to the Liberals (or even Greens), the Tories win in most cases (absent a complete NDP collapse).

I know, my father flew off it. Spain has an amphibious ship that stays in port, and Harriers that will require the Spanish Government (when they can afford it) to scour the boneyard in Arizona to keep flyable.....using your standards, Thailand also has a "capable" navy since it too has a "carrier" and a handful of harriers....that its been to sea over the last decade for no more than several collective months and it harriers are considered no longer flyable, maters not. Yes indeed. Not the slightest, our subs are in operational service.....the new Spanish built subs aren't safe to operate, fore when they copied the design off the French, the Spanish builders miss placed a decimal point and built the subs too heavy, so heavy in fact, that if they submerged the subs, they wouldn't be able to resurface.......ooooops Canada, alongside the British and Chilean navy, have the most capable surface ASW platforms in the World, coupled with over 3/4s of a century of operational and practical experience.......Spain hasn't had a "capable" naval force since the 1500s.......Likewise, the Canadian navy, is the only navy capable of being fully integrated into a United States Navy Task Group.......we have plenty to brag about when compared to the vast majority of navies in the world.

You realize, a submarine operates under water right? 1 MIG eh? Argentina once had a capable navy too, with a real life aircraft carrier and a big gunned heavy cruiser armed with exocets, that is until the RN chased them back to port with a handful of WW II era torpedos........

Yeah, just rebuild the entire vessel, simple as that......until then, the used Kilo subs of the Algerian navy, in a shooting war, could keep your "capable" Spanish navy in port.

Ahh no, they don't, the F100 class are equipped with the recycled commercial sonars from their 70s era, domestically produced, Descubierta corvettes.....the same sonars since retired by other "capable" navies in the region like Morocco and Egypt........and is why the RAN's Hobart class don't share the parent design's (and are now vastly over budget) sonar. But hey, thanks for coming out.

Ahh, no, their Oliver Hazard Perry frigates don't.........leaving the rest of their paper fleet vulnerable to a 40 year old Soviet Foxtrot submarine.

Next to nothing, the military for the vast majority of European NATO members (Germany is one of the worse offenders) is seen as little more than an extension of their civil service, combined with a youth employment program.......hence one of the reasons why very few European forces contributed to any real combat missions in the decade that was Afghanistan......simply put, lack of political will and lack of ability, translates into lack of capability.

By all means, expand upon your vast knowledge of the Spanish military, and the role it undertakes within NATO.

So what? Pakistan has an air force 5-6 times larger than that, that doesn't equate to capability............You deem capability by a spread sheet, when its far more complex than that.......using the Spanish Armada for an example, though imposing on paper, its devoid of context. The Spanish had an aircraft carrier for example, but were forced to retire it due to lack of funds a few years ago, and with it, so to annual operating budgets for their tiny Harrier fleet. Furthermore, half the Spanish surface fleet is comprised of obsolete frigates, their submarine program has been plagued with problems since its inception and their Navy has a whole, has been little more than a coastal/Mediterranean force for decades, relegated to lesser tasks by NATO. Spain, was able to afford semi modern equipment (until recently) because until a ~ decade+ ago they still had national service.......now that they don't, they can't afford the military they have, and what they haven't sold off, is parked.

Of course we’d retain current contracts, as Lockheed cancelling them now would certainly delay the program months, if not years, seeking a replacement manufacturer. Likewise, in the case of Canadian subsidiaries like Pratt & Whitney Canada, producing portions of the F135 engine in Quebec, they would have to alter their production lines, which I doubt would make fiscal sense for a given company. As to the far larger production bids, simple, contractual fairness, or better put, skin in the game…….If an Italian or Australian company is in competition with a Canadian company for a given contract, it’s obvious that the nation that is purchasing the aircraft will get first crack. Said report, with actual context, has been done to death in this thread months ago……..As stated, said series of test flights was to calibrate the F-35’s avionics, namely flight safety systems, in real world conditions against a maneuverable known quantity in the F-16. As also mentioned, the F-16s were in “air show” configuration, meaning no weapons or fuel tanks under the wing (a condition that wouldn’t effect an F-35’s flight performance with a similar loadout carried internally). My mention of the F-16, was solely to meet Trudeau’s stated desire of an “open and fair competition” of aircraft that are not the F-35, and are cheaper than the F-35. Since his intent precludes the F-35, F-15, Eurofighter, Gripen NG and Rafale, that leaves the Super Hornet and F-16 Falcon. Then it becomes risk mitigation, the Super-duper F-16 development has already been funded (By Lockheed and UAE) and its in service (currently bombing ISIS) and the Super-duper Hornet is not, as Boeing has not funded the full development and is/was waiting for a launch partner (none forthcoming). The F-22, despite the blog entry, will never be brought back in production, for the simple fact that its avionics/computer processing speed (~20-30 MHz) is of a bygone era, and is just as likely to be reproduced as a 386 computer.

As stated countless times, the partnership level has no barring on final purchase price, as its a reflection of a partners commitment in the development phase, and in turn, the allowance to bid on a greater percentage of F-35 work. Direct sales, as already evident, to partner nations are being treated as Foreign Military Sales, in that purchases by partners are included in a DoD block buy, affording economy of scales to all end users........Canada, like the other partners, has already paid our development dues in full. The US Government isn't allowing the technology transfer/sale of the F-35 to certain nations, not only Arab states, but others like India and Brazil, which all have had various size fighter procurement programs. In such programs, US makers (Boeing & Lockheed) have been offering cheaper upgraded legacy types (Super Hornet & F-16 Falcon) against the several "newer" European aircraft (Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen NG)......of note, in the vast majority of cases, the cheaper American types have have lost out.

Current contracts, he doesn't speak to additional future production (see larger) contracts over the lifespan of the program...............with that said, it wouldn't beggar belief if Canadian industry was aloud to still bid on the Lockheed F-35 program, if we purchased "cheaper" Lockheed block 60 F-16s, a combination of the two, or in concert with a Lockheed systems/weapons integration for the navies new frigates and destroyers. As noted, pure speculation on my part.

I'm actually surprised that they bought the Eurofighter, they walked away from low-mileage surplus RAF aircraft deal earlier this year, than went the Boeing route. Of course, you're stating the Super Hornet price as of 2012 (fy 2013 starts October 1st 2012), when the Super Hornet was still in full production, producing aircraft for both the USN and RAAF........as indicated in the 2016 fy budget request (cited several pages back), there is no funds requested for any Super Hornet/Growler for DoD next year......that means, as I stated, once the current orders are complete, the production line is closed. Boeing won't be offering wholesale DoD prices with no forth coming orders........You speak to F-35 sales, LRIP 9 & 10 (~150+ aircraft) negotiations are underway right now, to be concluded later this year, said runs will include international orders. Here are the costs: For a total of: $8 billion Euros is ~$9 billion USD for 28 aircraft.....I would assume, for such a blistering amount, said figure will include contractor provided training, maintenance and support, aligned with our purchase of 65 F-35s for ~$15 billion........As stated countless times, the Eurofighter is not a cheap aircraft. If the Eurofighter deal does go through, replacing their ~30 odd legacy Hornets, I doubt they would purchase further aircraft devoid a major expansion of their air force........I would still question if this is a horsetrading trick aimed at Boeing/DoD to get a better deal on Super Hornets.

That might be so, but going forward, the United States will become increasingly reliant on partnerships with groups like NATO to meet its own defence needs.........Fore, right now, today, the State of your armed forces is reminiscent of that of the British forces circa 1950.....rapid decline. And the state of the US military reminds me of Mike Tyson, living on past glory, and though it appears imposing from afar, is actually bankrupt.

The entire Carrier Strike Force Atlantic and ~80% of the East coast amphib fleet, alongside, defunded, doesn't represent a deterrent to would be foes, with the realization that a fighting force needs to be an active force, and in the advent of a national emergency, would require a period of work-ups directly squared to the period of inactivity. MSC has been cut in half in recent years, and the "reserve fleet" is only slightly more viable an asset than vessels on a beach in Bangladesh....... Likewise, does it address the associated gaps in USN shipbuilding, your aging tactical aircraft, nor the near block obsolescence of the vast majority of the analog-avionics based rotary wing fleet.......we've replaced our Sea Kings, yet you still fly your Commander in Chief around in one: This all being said, it goes back to the mutually beneficial relationships that our two nations have in countless respects, including a tightly bound working partnership on defence (note with a "c" not an "s") interests of both our nations.

The graphics are easily sourced by right click-open image in new tab, likewise, in both posts I speak directly to what each image represents in text.

I beg to differ, images of integrated (the topic of this thread) Canadian-US forces serve two purposes, first are harder to refute in the context of the OP, that suggests this is a new concept for the Canadian Forces. Second, it demonstrates to our American poster, again pictures are harder to refute then mere words, the nature of our collective relationship, a relationship that saw Canadians fill a role in the US military left vacant by its own downsizing.

Sure, the lack of surface ASW assets and its own replenishment capability (nearly cut in half the in the last several years) in the USN doesn't mater when its tied up in Norfolk: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Fleet-003-US-VA-Norfolk-20121220-N-ZN152-189.jpg A sight not seen since the USN had 15 active carriers in the 80s......as they say about those that live in glass houses......

I beg to differ, the Royal Canadian Navy, the only navy to do so, has been able to fully integrate within USN task forces for decades, and has done so in several military operations. From the First Gulf War, taking command of a portion of the Persian Gulf, providing interdiction, escorting and logistic support to coalition vessels: http://www.icebergpublishing.com/content/uploads/2014/03/AN-Protecteur-Wisconsin1.png To the GWOT, integrating with USN carrier strike groups and conducting interdiction yet again in the Gulf: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/US_Navy_040625-N-9769P-082_The_Canadian_destroyer_HMCS_Algonquin_(DDG_283)_is_shown_underway_in_close_formation_with_the_Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier_USS_John_C._Stennis_(CVN_74)_and_the_guided_missile_frigate_USS_Ford_(FFG_54.jpg To Operation Iraqi Freedom ("which we didn't take part in"), escorting the Bataan expeditionary strike group in the Gulf, in the lead up to and during the commencement of hostilities with Iraq: http://storage.torontosun.com/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1331094932042_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x One could argue that the increased tempo of the RCN during Operation Apollo/GWOT has led to its current sad state, likewise the forced reboot of the replacement programs that the current Government was forced into……inversely, said tempo and lacklustre replacement program is not only an issue facing the RCN, with the USN currently at the lowest readiness levels its seen since the Carter Administration, shipbuilding flops as made evident by the LCS program, Zumwalt DDG program, LPD-17 class, Flight III Burkes not replacing now retired Spruance destroyers and OHP frigates at a fast enough rate, the decrepit state of the Ticonderoga cruisers (no replacement in site) and a submarine replacement program resulting in a net-decrease in fast attack numbers. Right now, a first in over 30 years, there is not a single USN carrier in the Persian gulf, a once stalwart ceded currently to the French MN, a result of the once proud USS Enterprise being worked to death years earlier than expected, and delays in its replacement, the USS Ford. Suffice to say, a decade plus of continual operations has led to a period of renewal for both our navies, despite this though, our two navies will continue to have a positive relationship into the future.

In my opinion, both Harper and Mulcair both won this debate, and Trudeau's performance will hurt him. Mulcair- I think Mulcair had his best performance to date, and landed two potential knock-out blows on Trudeau. First on the passage of C-51, in which he stapled Trudeau for his "cowardly stance" supporting the bill, then on the question as to how Trudeau would deal with Putin, in which said "How would you deal with Putin when you're afraid of Harper?" Second, and perhaps below the belt, was forcing Trudeau to defend PET.......That will hurt Trudeau in the West and parts of Quebec. Overall, though I disagree on policy, I think Mulcair did well Harper- Got several good shots in (They clearly installed his emotion chip), first on fearing ISIS not CSIS. Second, on Trudeau over revoking citizenship and war criminals and terrorists......Trudeau's responding hissy fit received a chorus of boos and heckling from the crowd. Also, much to my surprise, Harper waxed the floor with Trudeau over the environment.....Harper did well, and looks like the elder Statesman that he is. Trudeau- Sounded rude, vague and out of his element, after his past performances, I was really shocked.....his defence of his Dad, well heartfelt, came across as cheap and I think will hurt him in Quebec and Western Canada. If Mulcair's performance can't halt his slide in the polls, nothing else will......by far, his best debate yet. He looked and sounded like a leader (just not one I'd vote for). I think Harper's "emotion" and attack/defence against Trudeau will help him. Trudeau sounded and acted like a child, this debate, I feel, will hurt him.

During the First World War, Canada (like the other Commonwealth nations) fought in Europe under the unified command of the British Expeditionary Force, led by British Field Marshall Douglas Haig. During the Second War, Canadians fought under numerous unified command structures, from the RCAF’s contribution to the Battle of Britain and the bombing of Nazi controlled Europe well under command of the Royal Air Force. Inversely, the Royal Canadian Navy, under Canadian Rear Admiral Leonard Murray, led a unified command structure in the Northern Atlantic combining the RCN and Royal Navy (and a lesser extent the USN and USCG) in the fight against Nazi U-Boats. Likewise, the Canadian army, in Italy, Northern France and then Holland was under the unified British command, under the leadership of Field Marshall Sir Bernard Montgomery. (Devil’s Brigade aside) During the Korean War, the Canadian army was under the unified command of the British Commonwealth Division. The RCN contribution came under the command of the British Far Eastern Fleet, which then came under the unified command of the USN’s Task Force 96.8. Through the Cold War, at various stage, the Canadian Armed Forces contributing to NATO have been under the unified command of British, American and joint NATO commands. Our Contribution to UN Peacekeeping through the decades has always been under unified commands (at times led by Canadians). And of course, NORAD, which has been a unified American-Canadian command since its inception. Likewise Stabilization missions in East Timor and Haiti. During the GWOT, Canadian Forces have been under the command (and have commanded) joint US-NATO forces. Likewise Operation in Libya and now Iraq/Syria. This draft agreement is simply a proposed continuance of past, joint, partnerships, and simply allows ease of integration between US-Canadian Forces going forward…….no need for tin-foil hats.