Derek 2.0

It was mentioned prior to the start of our involvement in Iraq, and is a reflection of the rules of engagement put in place by the coalition presently there, likewise used in both Libya and Afghanistan....for what its worth, I briefly looked for a media cite to no end, but I do remember an interview with Lawson on P&P covering exactly that around the timeframe of Trudeau's Hornet remarks and leading up to the vote in the House.

I think thats true anywhere you go, but there are an equal amount of "right wing" posters that respond in kind......look at topics encompassing religion, be it Christianity, Islam or Judaism......some views expressed by "both sides", in my opinion are both disgusting and intolerant.

like I was saying above: Of course they are: Boeing now should focus its (marketing) efforts on selling Canada their remaining "white tailed" C-17s, the V-22 for our FWSAR program and start looking towards the eventual replacement of our CP-140s and CC-150s with their P-8 and KC-46......

If the previous Liberal Governments that committed our soldiers to Afghanistan had followed through (and not cut in other areas) with various procurement programs started during the Mulroney Government, a good portion of those 158 (plus the countless members injured to various degrees) would have returned home alive. You'd have to define your conditions of winning, but with that said, nobody will know the end result for a generation+ after Western Forces leave....

Read the link: We did go over the "radar issues" several months ago in this thread, as it was then explained to you why it doesn't unsettle not only myself, but every military envisioning operating a stealth aircraft:

NAVAIR has stringent protocols for all aircraft (fixed and rotary) prior to allowing them anywhere near a ship (be it a carrier, LHD, destroyer or a barge) at sea......The United States Navy has no motivation in operating a sub-par aircraft and rejects substandard equipment from contractors all the time.

No, as mentioned, during the trials aboard the USS Nimitz, the F-35C produced less heat on take-off then both the Hornet and Super Hornet......you're confusing the trials of the F-35B aboard the older LHD (not aircraft carrier) the USS Wasp, which had heat plates installed for not only the F-35B, but the far hotter V-22. Of course its a moot point, as all LHD/As (from USS America on) were designed around the physical attributes of both the F-35B and V-22. There was no burnt holes through the flight decks. You mean like any other aircraft partaking in a strike package? No they didn't, you said that and its not true........

Exactly, current aircraft (ie Hornet, Falcon, Mirage, Mig-29 etc) will carry on a typical strike mission several AAM (like a sidewinder), two drop tanks, a targeting pod and several 2000 lbs smart bombs, all externally. With such stores carried externally both the drag and in turn fuel efficiency coefficient goes to the left, so much so performance figures are drastically reduced.......a typical cruising speed for such legacy aircraft is ~500 knots, the F-35 with the same load carried internally will be mach 1.1. I never heard that, but I'm not surprised, it is after all using a warmed over Mig-29 engines, on a much larger aircraft......

The F-35C "burnt a hole in the carrier deck"? Lack of acceleration and maneuverability? Care to explain that one? Says who? You've suggested prior that the F-35's "stealth was broken", when asked to explain, you suggested the Chinese will one day bypass natural physics and develop a radar that can defeat it, since (your words) the Chinese were able to "crack the F-35's stealth code" (Whatever that is)........My question, are you going back down this rabbit hole?

You speak of continuing problems, the same day the F-35C completed its initial carrier trials in 10 days......the Hornets and Super Hornets required months.......And what acknowledgment are you suggesting indicates the F-35C will require a "sitter"?

No aircraft in recent NAVAIR history has completed its initial CARQUALS in just over a week: 10 days to complete what took months for the Hornets, Tomcats, Corsairs (I & II), Phantoms, Skyhawks and Banshees.........I doubt, even during the war, the Hellcats, Avengers and Bearcats did much better.

Yes indeed.......The F-35C, with the latest testing, is now slightly ahead of schedule, with the overall program expected to meet its year end targets despite this Summer's delays....Also, though slightly superficial in the scheme of things, on take-off (thanks to the F135) there was a drastic reduction in ambient temperature from the jet blast, coupled with no net increase in measured noise when both measures are contrasted with legacy types.........This reminds me of the "experts" that predicted the F-35B would warp the deck plates on the LHDs because of increased heat, yet it never did.....Oh well

Actually two aircraft have conducted over 100 cats (take-offs) and traps (landing), including night ops...........so far, the F-35C's are proving to be very capable in trapping the three wire (Ideal carrier landing) and have only committed several bolters (Missing the arresting wire)........To add, the F-35C's shorter length (when compared to the Super Hornet) makes deck/hanger parking and moving easier...........up next, armed flight tests......

No, I can't fathom why you feel this changes the debate.........ISIS is using all sorts of captured equipment.

Actually the first box at the ~40ish mark is full of loose Soviet F1 grenades (minus the fuse/spoons), the box at the 1:08 mark are Eastern Bloc (50mm?) mortar rounds, and the ones at the 1:40 mark with the flat bottoms appear to be South African M963s (Didn't watch the entire video before), which are based off a World War II era US design, but the grenades in the video don't have an additional (Jungle) safety on the spoon (as clearly shown at 1:42) which is standard on American grenades since Vietnam............... None the less, as I said above, these could very well be donated munitions from former Warsaw Pact (now NATO) nations, and they could have been dropped by US aircraft, intended for the Kurds and picked up by ISIS..... but I fail to see why in your view this changes the debate.

Odd that the video in your link shows a man opening crates of Soviet grenades: I suppose they could be from the stores of former Soviet client states, now members of NATO, and that (as mentioned in your link) were lost during a supply drop.......If true, I fail to see how this changes the direction of the debate.

Much of what is known of it in the West is based on speculation or Chinese claims, but with that said, the Chinese are suppose to be using a domestic copy of a Russian engine that traces it origins back to the early 1970s (and was used in the Mig 29) and is equivalent roughly to the engines the Americans used in the F-4 Phantom in the 1960s..........The Chinese have yet to manage building their own military turbofans. To answer your question though, and without knowing what the Chinese are buying/pirating in terms of radars and avionics, the J-31 will likely share or improve on performance with that of current 4th generation aircraft (ie Hornets, F-16s, Mig 29s, Su-27s, Mirage 2000s etc) and will be a great improvement over the majority of the aircraft currently used by the Chinese air force.........better then the F-35, or F-22, or even the Russian T-50....not a chance.

Its already forced ISIS into a reactionary role, now forcing ISIS to travel and operate in smaller unit sizes and relinquishing the use of heavier weapons. That's not so, a conventional army made-up of effective locals is exactly what is needed.......look no further then the reduction of size of the British Army in Northern Ireland in the latter 80s and early 90s, replaced by a strengthened RUC. Again that is not so, an effective conventional force is required to provide both security and presence, special forces of course compliment such a force. Elements of CSOR/JTF-2 have been there for approaching several months now........such forces largest contribution though is providing training to the locals.

Donate them to the deceased owner's previous regiment, squadron or ship etc.

I don't doubt President Obama, like other Western leaders, will be reluctant for generations to commit to another large scale ground war and counter insurgency........with that said, I don't think that we (as in the West) should, but revert to the method employed to great success by the British: Gunboat diplomacy, combined with providing the locals with more technical support and training, so as to avoid the on the ground footprint...

The Hipster beard should be the first warning sign..........

Two German Army Groups at the onset of the battle of Stalingrad (Summer 1942), two Army Groups (plus Garrison forces) in Normandy post Dieppe (1942)........No British Commonwealth and American forces involved in war, no Dieppe raid, no German requirement to keep regular Army in France, resulting in doubling the Forces for Stalingrad just from the forces in Northern France alone...........

I know the numbers.........In Northern France alone, the Nazis had several Army Groups and several SS Divisions (to say nothing of second tier garrison forces), a number equal to the Forces committed to Stalingrad and Kursk.....likewise, the majority of both the Luftwaffe and Kregsmarine was engaged with the Western Allies. As an overall percentage perhaps, but in the early stages of 1941-42, well Russian industry was being rebuilt eastwards, the bulk of the Russian tanks and aircraft were British....... They nearly lost to only a portion of the German forces.......with no need to expend resources against the other allies, in other regions, the Nazis would have rolled over the Soviets, much like they did the French, if the Germans were able to focus their entire military against the Soviets in 1941...

Exactly, not to be crass, but my Father (a Korean War Vet) is nearly 84, the remaining World War II vets will be 87-88 years or older.......as these Vets pass on, the remainder (my generation) will be Peacetime Cold Warriors and the next generation from Afghanistan...in relative terms, far less personal, requiring far less the same level of service....

From 2011-2017, what percentage of Veteran Affairs workload has seen a reduction? It stands to reason, as the World War II and Korean vets pass, Veteran's Affairs should see a reduction in both staff levels and funding...