Derek 2.0

What RCAF squadron(s) deployed to Korea, with Sabres (or Vampires, Canucks etc) and engaged in combat operations? Clearly it is you with issues with reading.........

Read what? That Canadians, on exchange with the USAF, flew Sabres? Like what I said above As I said, the RCAF didn't deploy Sabres to Korea.........thanks for proving my point...

The RCAF didn't have a single combat aircraft deployed to Korea during the war.........

What tier level in the program are the United States, Australia and Canada? An assumption based on figures provided by the maker, the United States government and budgeted around the partner nations………your assumption was based on what again? Bloggers? You're suggesting inflation has no impact on defence programs? That's just ignorant.....And the RAAF, like RCAF, doesn't have one for one targeting or ECM pods, fore they're far too expensive...of course the F-35 will have more advanced systems integral to each aircraft.....What exactly do you think the Super Hornet, combat capable, actually costs per aircraft? I'll leave the floor to you and OGFT to parrot wikipedia to each other

Yes I am.........the RCAF didn't deploy Sabres to Korea.

Maybe on exchange, no RCAF fighters made it to Korea.........But last RCAF air-air fight would be WW II.

Never did that with live ammo, but plenty of .22lr casings have gone through the wash....

Though not exact, the American, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand “gun cultures” certainly share similarities…………none the less, these proposed laws are not bringing us closer to “American style laws and culture”……….saying so is a demonstration in either ignorance or political fear mongering.

What culture would you suggest would change? The Canadian gun culture has been a part of our National fabric long before Confederation…….. In addition, what aspects of the enlightened European culture do you pine for? Some of the best gun makers in the world hale from Europe.

You bring up the differing costs, but do not feel questions on why there are differing prices relevant? Are you suggesting that Australia has the same financial stake as the Americans? Australian "test planes" useless.............American "test planes" benchmark...........What level partner are both nations? What level is Canada? Would you think tier III prices the most relevant to Canada? So again you’re going on assumptions……and that’s fine………I’ll go with the MSRP until proven wrong…. What will a combat capable (with targeting pods and ECM etc?) Super Hornet cost, ~5 years from now when adjusted for inflation? What would a legacy Hornet cost today when adjusted for inflation?

In Canada (like the States) citizens can own grenades and grenade launchers etc…….whats regulated is the explosives, since they’re inherently unstable.

The myriad of import/export laws for arms between our two countries at times certainly appear layered in lawyerese and minutia……for instance, I recently purchased several American made ArmaLite rifles from a Canadian dealer, which after the transfer was complete, I could sell the next day to another license holder if I wished….But if I imported the exact same guns from an American dealer, I’d be required to sign a End User Agreement which would severely restrict my ability to resell them without the consent of the State Department.

Why arbitrary magazine restrictions, proposed by those that know little to nothing about guns, don’t work:

In the traditional sense that is certainly correct, but sales for the partners are still administered through DoD as a third party between purchaser and seller…….The normal negotiations through the State Department and DoD were finalized during the intial stages of the JSF program. Canada, does still go through the standard FMS program when buying directly from DoD though (i.e. C-17, Chinooks, M777, munitions etc)

Exactly, all the current partners will be purchasing their F-35s from DoD (not Lockheed directly) through a FMS…….So I fully expect the Pentagon and US taxpayer to underwrite costs like development and continual software upgrades (well not the total cost, but damn near well based on your projected fleet size), well maintaining the partners budgeted expectations…….Of course, partners purchasing the aircraft helps reduce production costs, which of course will be a net benefit for you guys.. Ultimately Canada and the rest of the partners should send thank-you cards on delivery.

Well no, it isn’t……Does the American purchase, like previous LRIP aircraft, also factor the cost of upgrading the software? Does it include integral spares? What about development? Is the engine included in the price, and on the inverse, does the Australian purchase have engines sold separately? As to a proper cost analyses, I agree, with such a wide variance in prices, of two vastly different deals, minus the contract details, doesn’t provide enough information……..that of course is what I’ve been saying. Canada, like many of the other partners have a set budget and set requirement for the number aircraft. Well Lockheed and DoD are still projecting that production aircraft costs will fit into these envelopes……Until different is stated by buyer and seller I will continue go with the presented figures, well I’ll also swim against the stream and contended in several years when in full production, a combat capable, flyaway F-35A will be cheaper to procure then a Super Hornet, Rafale and Eurofighter.

Yes but you need to see at least the highlights to determine if we're comparing apples to oranges..... Of course only time will tell who was/is correct.....

The purchase of the F-35 will certainly have a net-positive impact on the Canadian aerospace industry, both in terms of revenue for the companies involved, followed by taxes…….and of course, high paying, typically union, jobs across the country.

There are certainly those, within both Canada and the United States, that share those beliefs.

As I said to Waldo one can’t determine if a “deal” occurred unless all the terms were known……With that said, as indicated in the article, full production aircraft are expected to be in the ~80-90 million price range, which of course would align with our budgeted expectations. If we end up paying a final figure within our budgeted price envelope, what is the problem?

But that's the point.....human interaction.

Why is that? Canada or an Australia won’t pay the same as Americans or British that are paying for the majority of developmental funding.

As we do with Firearms within Canada.....and rightly so.

Well said……..Guns are after all a benign object…..They aren’t good or bad natured, they don’t suffer from social economic stress that cause crime, they aren’t subjected to chemical imbalances that cause mental illness nor are they inherently unsafe.

I'm well aware of those quotes..... Certainly, but if you expect discourse between those with differing opinions, mocking one party of said discussion will only further the divide. How would any of these proposed changes erode public safety? In actual fact, the proposed legislation will increase public safety.