Derek 2.0

But: Why don't you sleep on it...maybe have a good cry, then we'll straighten this out

Per the bank's own website: BUT RONA!!!!! The Bank itself, likewise the media, have cited the date it opened its doors....after the dinner with Trudeau.........Maybe Trudeau greased the wheels of Government and got things moving for these humble would be bankers..and got some money donated and a statue built of his Dad as a reward?

Same, and of course you and I hardly ever see eye to eye........I find great humor in the Trudeau cheerleaders rushing to defend this.........I wonder if anyone built a statue for Harper's pa after he approved a bank for them?

Did Rona force Trudeau to have dinner with said bankers? For his Government to approve said bank? For said banker to donate money to the Trudeau foundation and build a statue of Justin's father?

Why? You think the USN "carried" them among their anti-sub groups for????

With that logic, our entire military is "redundant" So you want to protect our Allies resources.......but don't want them using their resources to protect ours....makes sense. The Bear's on patrol weren't armed (sans their cannons in the tail and blisters)......likewise, upon finding a target, would contact the Soviet naval bomber force (on the Kola Peninsula), who would then launch a strike, well receiving course plots from the Bear (or its relief) and finally targeting information from the Bear........so yes, if all the dots connected, you'd have missiles from the regiments of Badgers, Blinders and Backfires heading your way in hours or the next day even.......and thats forgetting any subs in the area.

What did I say that was a lie? -A Chinese Banker had a private dinner with Trudeau, which wasn't mentioned in his very public itinerary----This is Fact -Said banker, prior to the dinner, was waiting on Federal approval for a new bank funded with Chinese money in Canada. Trudeau is the head of the Federal Government---this is Fact ----After said Dinner, said Bank was approved by the Federal Government, of which Trudeau heads-------this is Fact ---After said approval, said banker donated the money to build a statue of the Prime Minister's father-----this is fact

So he says.......where there is smoke, there tends to be fire. I wonder how many Canadians making less then 50k a year have a statue built of their father after they grant approval of a private bank.

You understand the Prime Minister, he's a politician you see, had dinner with a rich Chinese business man that was awaiting Federal approval on setting up a private bank in Canada.....after said Dinner, his Bank is approved, and he then donates to construct a $50000 statue of our Prime Minister's father............scuzballs is right.

A donation to a foundation......after said Billionaire had a private Dinner with the Prime Minister.

From what is public to date, the Trudeau Foundation and the BC Liberals.

A Bear isn't faster then several sidewinders, likewise, a Bear that flees is a Bear that is no longer tailing said task group or convoy......Mission Accomplished (The USN carried Skyhawks in their anti-submarine Essex air groups for this very reason......I'm not making it up)

Yes.......I know, its not much of a reach to assume if we have operated a carrier(s) for the last 50+ years we could have replaced the current tankers I'm not sure of your sources......The Australians have put off such a proposal until the early 2020s, after their legacy Hornets have been replaced and the program to replace their Super Hornets begin......of course the Aussies aren't under the notion that the Canberra class are strike carriers. That is but a cop-out.....I've never suggested a force that is parity with the Americans (or even the British, Indians, French or Chinese), but organic maritime (fixed-wing) aviation is very plausible for Canada, and is but a manner of political will...........Which clearly this Government does not have one iota of, based on the punt of the replacements for our Hornet fleet

Then why would you suggest more escorts instead of a carrier......a Skyhawk and latter a Sea Harrier is more than capable of splashing a Soviet Bear.....and is why American and British anti-submarine task forces carried them.....

When we had our last carrier our support ships were brand new our about to enter service.

No.....they won't..........none the less, you're confusing the issue, during the the Cold War, we didn't need carriers on the West Coast........if we had of went to war with the Soviets, North America wouldn't have resupplied Europe through the Pacific and Indian oceans............inversely, if one were to assume the next major threat being the Chinese (but looks like the Russians are giving it a go), we could base one on the West Coast and not the Atlantic.....

In the Cold War North Atlantic, being unable to splash a trailing Bear (long range patrol aircraft) would have been the kiss of death.......they found the targets for Soviet bombers and subs......any surface group or convoy without even rudimentary air cover would result in the Bear following said group......outside of triple A and SAM range....and relaying target information to the Red subs and regiments of bombers. Argentina couldn't protect its force because, though very brave, they were a second rate navy up against the varsity.

Correct, even the next size up (Hermes and her sisters) were too small for regular operations.....Ark Royal (R09) was the smallest operator of F-4s, even the modified Essex carriers would have been a stretch, which led to the development of the Hornet in the 70s (to replace Crusaders on what was thought to be continued use of the old Essex flattops) That's subjective.......a major fleet unit that is the center of large task force intent on going to war with another such fleet or a small country.....sure.......an anti submarine group centered around a light carrier? A tanker, destroyer and a couple of frigates is all we (or the Americans and British) would typically operate with. The Royal Navy doesn't intended to operate both carriers at once........even so, they have enough combatants to provide an escort for both their carrier and their amphib groups......to operate the second carrier would require pulling escorts from their various other taskings or operating it in concert with the other carrier (and its escorts) and/or allies.........but again, the new British carriers will operate in a similar fashion to the Americans, French, Indians and eventually the Chinese.......... An anti-sub carrier, through the 40s to the 80s was in the same category as a cruiser.....could operate by itself, as a flag for other smaller escorts in its own group or as an escort itself to a much larger force.

Sure, and that is a fault with their navy and its tactics, not the aircraft or the carrier itself.......even then, their naval aviators took more than a pound of flesh from the British Armada.........The PET government took away very useful tools from a very capable Canadian navy, which in turn, made it far less capable through the remainder of the Cold War. Our current Prime Minister is proposing making our air force less capable then when compared with our NATO allies....and this politically motivated choice will have a lasting impact on our air force going forward.....much like his father's moves did to our navy decades ago.

Why would you want the Gripen then? It was designed to fit a Swedish need to attack wave after wave of Soviet armor...

Well four ships....the Indians operated Sea Hawks and Sea Harriers, and the other three Skyhawks and Super Etendards with the Argies.....

No........Australia, Brazil, India and Argentina all operated light fleets into the 80s, 90s and the early 2000s.

It handled the Trackers and Sea Kings just fine.........as noted, its sisters handled Skyhawks without a problem. An A-4 could "handle" a Bear far better then the twin 3" on the steamers.......... First, the Trackers weren't old then, and served for several more decades........second, and most important of all, the Bonnie was able to generate continual flight ops, 24/7, at a rate greater than larger American Essex anti-submarine groups. A ski jump wouldn't have been a deal breaker, but even then, using the entire deck for a rolling (short) take off is perfectly effective for a Sea Harrier with an anti-air or light anti-ship load.....ask the USMC, they do the like with far heavier strike loads from their current and past LHDs and LHAs...... The Bonaventure didn't serve for those continual 35 years, regardless HMAS Melbourne did serve into the 80s, likewise the Brazilian and Indian sisters of the Bonnie serving into the late 90s and early 2000s.......despite none of these carriers receiving the same extensive upgrade that the Bonnie received in her last refit......Bonaventure could have made it into the mid to late 80s no problem. And even that would have been better than our task groups operating with only a handful of helicopters........but as noted, historically we operated the Tracker for several more decades, as such, continuing with this air group into the 1980s would have been better then not. The Sea Kings operated by Bonaventure (and the Steamers) were state of the art then.....and no, it wouldn't have been more "useful"......in no universe, certainly not during the Cold War, was a surface only task force "more useful" then a task force centered around a carrier with an anti-submarine air group.......a sole Tracker could cover more ocean in several hours then what our old destroyer escorts could do in several days, even when said escort had its own helicopter.........in the decades to follow Bonaventure going, the British, Italians and Spanish all commissioned their own "anti submarine centric" carriers for this very reason. It was a bad choice by Trudeau then, just as the purchase of Super Hornets is a bad move by his idiot son now.

It was never intended to operate as a fleet carrier, both sister classes were termed "light fleets".......none the less, the Bonaventure was operated as an anti-submarine carrier. As to fixed wing aircraft, if as intended in the early 60s (and again in the later 60s), the RCN wouldn't have had an issue operating A-4s like her sisters did in Australian, Brazilian and Argentinian service......better yet, the AV-8A and then the Sea Harrier (if you buy into conspiracy theories, the Bonaventure did operate Sea Harriers in Indian service for decades). As to need, yes there was........fulfilling our NATO anti-submarine obligations in the North Atlantic, where a light carrier with an anti-submarine air group was very much needed, not only in combating Soviet subs, but also picking off Bear patrol aircraft which very much so operated in conjunction with Soviet subs and bombers.......in such a light (of self imposed slashed defense budgets in the middle of Cold War), the Bonnie's operating cost was a far better use of money in terms of capability then any combination of 2-3 of the obsolete steamers.....further more, once the Trudeau government signed us up for NATO Northern Flank, the Bonaventure would have been worth its weight in gold with the reinforcement of Norway....be it as an anti submarine escort or a Commando carrier. There was no justification for Trudeau snr to retire it then, just as there is no justification for Trudeau jnr to sole source Super Hornets to fill a gap that isn't there......when he should just piss or get off the pot on deciding a Hornet replacement.....instead, he's in a political corner of his own making.

Yes indeed......PET actually procured too many (far more then we could operate absent converting Voodoo or Starfighter squadrons), ineffective, CF-5 Freedom Fighters, despite Air Command selecting one of the F-4E, A-6 or A-7 to fulfill our theater strike commitment to NATO.......that they were produced in the Montreal area was but a happy accident. Not only did he scrap our last carrier, that just finished a refit and had close to two decades left in it, but slashed our new destroyers (280 program) to four and canceled the planned guided missile frigates, intended to replace our obsolete destroyer escorts in the early 70s........only after political pressure, including the threat of scuppering trade deals, did the Trudeau government dither into agreeing to procure 6 of what would become the Halifax frigates.......still leaving the majority of the fleet at technological level that would have been hard pressed to survive in the later stages of WW II.