Derek 2.0

I'm not a huge fan of all things French, but if both could be had for less than 1.5 billion purchase, then Canadianized for that again, they would make in certain missions an ideal replacement for the 280s (in terms of a C&C asset), and if fitted with more extensive RAS gear, a stand-in AOR.......to say nothing of their actual intended purpose....... Politically, the "Canadianization" would take place in Canadian yards, likewise continual support (they would fit into the Vic-Ship graving dock, probably require a floating drydock out East), likewise, as mentioned discourage Putin, well weakening the Russian navy......they wouldn't be my first choice, but would be better than our current LHDs..........

Yes and no.........electrical and electronics...not some much, but heightened hangers and ice hardened hull.......if the price to both purchase and Canadianize them isn't too great, it could very well happen, to say nothing of granting the PM an eye poke to Putin...

That is fine, but your skepticism is largely unfounded, a rudimentary capability will be afforded by the arrival of the AOPS........an actual capability could happen sooner then you might expect (of course if you think never, there is quite the wiggle room present) Of course its all dependent upon (elected) Government direction, budgetary realities and what could fall into our laps........

That's not exactly true.......the CP-140s provide many of the same functions as both an AWACS and JSTAR, in addition to their traditional role.....likewise the Government will be purchasing shortly ~4 Battlefield ISR aircraft........With the RCN, it (along with the army) has conducted annual amphibious training with the Americans (for nearly a decade) and most recently the French: By happenstance, the RCN had tire kickers aboard RFA Larges Bay, likewise the Mistral class.......just because its not reported by the media (or in the public sphere) doesn't mean its not happening.........or being explored in the very least.

As I said, all programs in various stages of progress.........The RCAF has had a stated requirement for actual strategic airlift since the 1960s (Once the Starlifters entered service with the USAF), likewise a replacement for tactical airlift......programs completed under the current Government.

Froze the budget after combat operations ceased in the dirt box, resulting in a decreased operating tempo........None the less, DND returns money nearly every year to general revenue, but ironic you choose today to jeer the Tories for "gutting the military" .....

Spend more on what? The Hornet replacements? Shipbuilding? TAPV and the LAV III SLEP? FWSAR? etc........all programs that are in various stages of progression.......Hardly the gutting as you suggest, nor the faux GDP meme that fails to account for the actual "finished product" in terms of overall capability of the Canadian Forces....

My second link was released yesterday..........from the entire report, and what is most telling of the still classified findings: Aircraft such as the Super Hornet, Rafale and Eurofighter can only hope to remain relevant within the 2020-2030 timeframe, this of course is made evident by the planned out of service dates of such aircraft ( 2020s-2030s) by the majority of the current operators........Of the aircraft evaluated, only the F-35 will remain viable post ~2030.......Canada plans to operate the Hornet replacement until the 2050s, as such, the winner is?????

No competition? And I fail to see why you feel Public Works is leaning towards a singular Canadian competition....

Ahh but its not a single source procurement, Lockheed's X-35 very much so beat Boeing's X-32 in one of (if not the largest ever) competition of combat aircraft held on behalf of all the JSF partners, of which, Canada took part.

Why do Armies no longer wear bright color uniforms in the field? Super Hornet will stop production in just over two years, and will be retired in the late 2020s and early 2030s by its current users for a reason.....You'd suggest the RCAF operate the Super Hornet out into the 2050s? Would you also suggest the current RCAF could meet its operational requirements today with a F-86 Sabre? If not, why and why do you feel in the decades ahead, the Super Hornet could?

Why would you be "upset" once the Government of Canada purchases the F-35?

Name a current or near production aircraft that would be viable out to the 2050s.......

What have these number of nations opted for instead of the F-35?

GDP is a false measure......Estonia spends a larger percent than ourselves, do you think they have a more useful military? Likewise, Canada spent are larger percent during the 70s, yet the Canadian Forces were largely obsolete and combat ineffective....

As I've said before, if the RCAF is to remain in the fighter business (and not fan out a portion of our sovereignty to you guys), the F-35 will be purchased.......simply put, there is no viable alternative present.

No, you need not go on........you and your uninformed sources clearly have more factual data than not only Lockheed, but the entire JSF's membership's air forces.......strange that all of these armed forces don't heed your warnings encompassing the F-35......

Nearly all modern, Western Special Forces units (including IDF forces) trace a linage back to the British Special Air Service and Special Boat Service.....The SAS/SBS are the benchmark in which all others are judged and if one goes back into a modern force's (SEALS, JTF-2, GSG-9 etc) inception, members of the British SAS/SBS were present.......The initial IDF units were very much so modeled (and partially staffed by veterans) of the SAS/LRDG.......

As you've been asked before, by all means, highlight the inflated performance claims (which you can't factually) or how the American military is "backing away" (and to what)?

I sure do....

I don't really care what you buy, but by all means, prove my above comments false......Do you dispute the age of the Hornet/Super Hornet design? Do you dispute the timeline of Super Hornet retirements by the USN and RAAF? Or do you dispute the intrinsic costs of being the sole operator of a tiny, obsolete fleet of Super Hornets in the ~2030-2050 timeline? By all means, refute my comments.

Yes, you made yourself clear in the other topical thread, you're fine with what you call Vets suffering if it translates into political gain........

No they can't........as has been mentioned numerous times, what do you think happens to support costs of a Canadian Super Hornet fleet once the USN and RAAF have retired theirs in the early 2030s? To say nothing of operating an aircraft already in its third decade of production, with a root design several decades older, out into the 2050s.........Which would be akin to an Air Force today operating the F-86 Sabre.... None the less, the point is moot, the Super Hornet line closes in just over two more years, and we'd require ordering long lead items no later than next summer.

Are you referring to the Veterans Charter that was tabled by the Liberals and supported by both the Tories and NDP? If so, there are numerous threads on the subject............ With that, instances in tight local ridings in which a large swath of voters state they won't vote for your candidate is something to take notice.......failing to do so is your own peril.......

Actually, outside of my wife's Tesla, I've purchased North American made GM products since the 70s.........None the less, drawing upon your example, I don't expect the salesperson or my bank to know how to service my Duramax....... Of course, the RCAF isn't the sole source provider (that is Lockheed of course), and draws upon both the actual operational requirements of our own Air Force and those of our Allies in determining the end result........The F-35 will meet the operational needs of our Air Force in conducting the policies determined by the elected Government........"Your money" will either be spent on the F-35 or nothing at all.