Derek 2.0

No, stupid things said by this PM.......reread the OP again perhaps.

Apples to oranges.........Harper is no longer the leader of the GoC.......and as I said, wasn't made a laughing stock around the world

What's wrong with the Saudis? Trudeau, like Harper, felt comfortable in allowing one of the largest sale of arms in Canadian history to protect the Royal family........alas, Harper isn't our Prime Minister, nor the topic of the thread

I'm sure a great many Cubans, those that have had family members murdered or imprisoned for political reasons, would tend to agree.

There is no comparison.......read the first line: Castro......served his people for half a century? Its not like they had any say in the matter

I have to laugh at some of Andrew Coyne's tweets: TSN's Mike Hogan: And the list goes on.......I know Trudeau is a narcissistic attention hog, but he's doing it wrong

Based on Trump's response to Castro's death, Cruz and Rubio should be fine.........Trudeau and the Canadian economy should be the ones worrying.

My thoughts exactly.........if it weren't, the DNC would be leading the charge.

I never said that it was. You're talking out of your ass.........starting with the "Charlie", in the early 60s, the Skyhawk was an all weather attack aircraft.......it didn't need an "air to air radar" with sidewinders, and unlike the Banshee, was the primary aggressor at Top Gun for several decades..... Putting aside its ability for nuclear strike, and a payload equal or better then most World War II bombers, its actual combat record in not only American service (but Israeli and Argentinian service) is hardly bested by any other aircraft of its era....including the Banshee... Stuck on one ship? huh? I suppose you were supportive of Trudeau removing our Hornets from Iraq because our Allies had much greater air assets.......am I right? A ton of money is your subjective opinion, as treating it as a zero-sum purchase, any additional cost would be peanuts compared to return on investment.........And I fail to see your determination on how the F-35A is better performing than a F-35B......clearly apples to oranges, if your requirement was to operate off an LHD or an austere airfield (or section of roadway or steel mating) in Eastern Europe, clearly the F-35B is but the only performer......... Any overseas mission our Hornets conducted over the last 30 years, an F-35B could have conducted better, increasing mission flexibility (be they operated off a ship or on land) in any given theater.........just as any mark of the F-35 is better than the Super Hornet.

You're reading too much into confusing tea leaves........the US budgetary process is far more complex then that, funding of which (and the purchase of long lead items) is done on a annual basis.... You might not consider it a fringe viewpoint, but it is, and the very points made are recycled every generation.............today's missile threats to carriers, on sheer volume alone, are nowhere near what they were in the 1980s against the Soviets........as to the USN not wanting them to go into "war zone"....bullshit.......made evident every time a carrier battlegroup enters the Persian Gulf...... I have no idea where you're getting your points on distances, but they are out to lunch........aerial tanking allows the very distance you describe, which is a furtherance of the flexibility of the carrier, and but one means of its defense.......if your enemy has the ability to strike at an aircraft carrier, a land based target is a gimme..... I can't be bothered listening to fringe orthodoxy, but I will say this, I'm certain there are thousands of Haitians, very grateful for the flattop that was off their shores....

Out of previous discussed threads, in which their various "options" for deep strike were discussed, of which F-35Bs/LHDs were included.....The RAN and RAAF have already priced out the needed modifications, all easily done during a refit, to allow for sustained F-35B operations aboard the Canberras Huh? We've purchased 28 Cyclones...... Again, that goes back to political will.....as to their limitations, today, sure, they're very limited......but 50 years ago they were still cutting edge attack aircraft, with various wars proving their worth versus the record of the Freedom Fighter and even the Starfighter............ Reverting back to my point, the purchase of the Freedom Fighter was a poor, politically based choice (under a Liberal government), just as this proposed purchase of the Super Hornets would be.......Liberal government putting their political fortunes before the needs of the Canadian Forces....... You have? You've been arguing the point for pages.......none the less a STOVL aircraft like the F-35B (and LHDs) would give us a huge increase in capability, for very little initial investment and continued operating costs, much of which could be accounted for within the already existing budget framework.......replace several of the planned surface combatants (well deleting the requirement for flag facilities on the remainder) and purchase several off the shelf LHDs.....likewise with fighters, purchase fewer conventional types, opting for 12-18 F-35Bs for expeditionary deployments with NATO, the UN and other overseas deployments............ It all boils down to political will......something this government is lacking, made evident by its planned secretive purchase of the Super Hornet.....something the head of the RCAF says we don't currently need.

Better yet (4.42): Proving your claim that they have decided against it incorrect. We have more helicopters then frigates......again, if it warranted it, why not? There was, both the RCN and RCAF in the early 60s looked at purchasing Skyhawks, and then again in the later 60s, in which the Liberals went with the CF-5. Again, we have more Sea Kings/Cyclones then frigates.....in addition squadrons of Griffons and Chinooks that could operate from an LHD like vessel.....just as current operators of LHDs and similar aircraft do.

Chapter Four: The Future Australian Defense Force If a requirement warranted it, sure, why not? Not a case of "want", but money.......they offered both us and the Australians larger carriers......More so in the case of the Americans, not to be nice guys, but equip Allies so they don't have to do all the heavy lifting. That's dependent upon the vessel, none the less, as already noted, we already have aircraft that could operate off a Canberra like LHD or other light carrier types......buying more and/or different types would be an improvement upon capabilities, but with what we already have bought and paid for, such a vessel would without a doubt be a great expansion of capabilities for the Forces, and in turn, an important tool in the quiver of the GoC .............Just like a modern fighter force

No, some people are......the USN isn't......the debate is one that is no different then what some fringes have been promoting since the first A-Bomb exploded.......Likewise, planned production of the Ford class was slowed, and carrier numbers threatened to be reduced, under sequestration.....that threat was put to rest once funding was allocated to refuel USS George Washington, which was to start this Fall, but has been put back because she was sent to Haiti (Without an escort strike group ) to provide humanitarian aide after the hurricane.

As cited over the years, in countless threads, it is but one of several options for the Australian requirement for "deep strike"......in the most recent White Paper, as cited, no decision will be made until the F-35A begin to enter service in the early 2020s. All of them have helicopters, be they Sea Kings or Cyclones........clearly you're ignorant to the balancing act that is transition well meeting operational need. I never said that they did......what's your point? I don't know how you base their "most useful job".......are you suggesting NATO didn't value their operational footprint through the Cold War? If that were the case, prior to Bonnie's last refit, I'd fail to understand why both the Americans and British offered larger carriers for next to nothing........it would seem to of our larger Allies thought them useful. Reread the chain of posts.......you made the point they were a waste of money, I stated that is the argument of politicians used to justify defense cuts and then provided examples of such. No they're not, as pointed out.......HMS Ocean cost as much as frigate to build and operate......newer designs like the Canberra or Mistral as much as modern destroyers, and in part thanks to automation, don't cost significantly more than a modern freighter to operate.

I beg to differ.........if that were the case, the Trudeau Liberals wouldn't have forced staff into a lifetime gag-order over the file.

And to follow up on the "Hornet capability gap": The Liberal response: What "capability gap"? The head of the RCAF says we're good to go out to at least 2025, more then enough time to run a competition and transition to a new type........Why is it we've only ever heard of this "capability gap" since the Liberals came to power? And why have they placed a lifetime gag order on all staff working on the program? Open and transparent indeed

No they haven't........I cited their most recent White Paper for you. Huh? The Cyclones have already started entering service, likewise I know that at least two of the frigates (Montreal and Calgary) have made the transition from Sea King to Cyclone.......the complete transition, as is the delivery of the final mission suite, is still years away, but that wouldn't be a deal breaker by any stretch. When has Canada last went to war, with any service, independently? The current Prime Minister has clearly stated Canada has no need of a "stealth aircraft"......the previous Liberal government declared the "tank" a "cold war dinosaur" and no longer needed........what about does Cadillac 'elicopters?

Yes and no........the ways and means are different, but the CIA has been bumping off enemies of the State since its inception.........why use an axe when a scalpel will do?

Says Boeing's sales department.........in reality, Boeing (with their nose out of joint since they lost to the X-35) have been able to leverage previous economy of scales pricing with the DoD, contrasted with LRIP prices of the F-35......now that the F-35 full rate production pricing is becoming apparent (as is the slowing production rate of the Superbug) the two aircraft prices are going in different directions...... the 15% FMS premium on Super Hornets (and not found on the F-35), alongside the rust coating, found within the fine print hasn't helped them on the export market either.........The Super Hornet is a big, expensive, lumbering beast (likely bested by the latest Russian and Chinese aircraft) trying to be young at heart......and Boeing's sales reflect that.

Not in all cases, again it depends on the threat level........for example, the British and even the Americans on post refit cruises, carrier deck qualifications, rebasing/relocation, training, disaster response etc and a whole host of other deployments will operate independently or with but one escort to act as a plane guard........... Regardless, our navy, since the 50s has operated under its own task force doctrine for higher risk deployments (1 AOR, 1 Destroyer and 2-3 frigates) and training......in other words, all that is missing is the high value fleet unit like a carrier or a large Amphib... You're quoting (very) dated sources..........Carriers operate with either or cruisers and destroyers.......outside of Allies (including Canada), the Americans haven't operated frigates (which they no longer have) in Carrier Battle Groups for a very long time.......And there is no such thing as a "LAMP warships".....LAMPS is but a tether operating system and all USN escorts that operate with a helicopter use it....

An off the shelf design, like the Canberras or the HMS Ocean cost about the same as a modern frigate or destroyer......HMS Ocean cost less than a type 23 frigate to build and operate. Which could come out of the Hornet replacements We have Helicopters to operate from it, both naval and tactical For an LHD we don't........The USN/USMC don't operate AEW helicopters from their LHDs, and they operate independently.....with that said, next generation AEW platforms will likely be unmanned and extremely long ranged...... We need those anyways, and are apart of the RCN's new surface combatant program. Not in all cases........that depends on the threat level....in a case with a serious sub threat, a Canadian LHD would be no more or less exposed then our current fleet.....the one difference, said LHD could double (or triple) a Canadian task force's ability to combat a sub threat. We need those, and are building those, anyways....... Sure it does, it limits our current navy greatly. The problem with that argument is that it can be (and has been) applied by politicians as justification for cutting capabilities.........and is being used by this Government and its handling of our current Hornet replacements.

Wrong, as cited several pages back, the head of the RCAF testified that with the recent upgrades, our current Hornets could operate out to ~2025, allowing us out to 2021 to select a new aircraft.......The question, when the Danes are able to run a competition in one year, why does it take the Trudeau Liberals 5 years???

Trudeau's open and transparent government.........

As cited, the recent Danish program found the F-35 both more capable and cheaper then the Super Hornet.