Derek 2.0

So you weren’t actually trying to have a serious adult conversation on the subject?

It already is. Why? Why not just allow Canadians that want to own firearms, that after demonstrating they are not a threat to society through several Governmental mechanisms, the ability to do so? In some school districts, that’s certainly an option, but is probably best left to parents to decide…….Of course for decades, not only cadets, but Cub Scouts did exactly that…….It certainly helps demystify and teach safety of firearms to youngsters. Why mandatory? Having optional clubs is certainly a viable option….after fishing, sport shooting and hunting is the most populist sport Canadians take apart in as adults....... Again I’m assuming you think to make this mandatory……none the less, teachers (like other Canadians) that desire a concealed carry permit, should certainly have that option. I’m glad you feel that way, a serious adult conversation will certainly further along the topic

So you’re suggesting that contamination doesn’t cause corrosion, which in turn can lead to a weakening of metals found within the engine? 40 years you say eh? Yet above when I said: your reply: 40 years you say???? It’s rather clear that your knowledge is simply parroted conversations of others (that you don‘t understand), wikipedia and probably video games........you don't have a clue as to what we're talking about.

We could if we followed Australia's lead and fanned it out to the Swedes.....Enough money can make anything possible

I know the problems associated with contamination, you’re the one that appears new to the concept….so answer the two simple questions or we're done:

Does fuel contamination cause corrosion? If so, can corrosion cause catastrophic engine failures that could lead to a Class A event?

Probably the same fate as their Pigs. But at a far greater cost then what we paid, and we both now have a similar number operational..........Ask the RAN what they thought of surplus USN tank landing ships

I don't contest those figures. What is included with the American figure you provided? Contrast with what is precluded with the Australian deal………the only attribute that I think could cause such a discrepancy, is that developmental costs are included in the American figures, and not for the RAAF.

Though they are the same vintage, they are actually in a worse material condition since the RAAF put less tails through the same extensive mid-life upgrade like us…….Of course, they had no expectation that their two most populous political parties would ascribe to Canada’s political procurement method…….. With that said, the Australians have a much worse track record with submarines and buying used (American) warships then Canada…….

Consider yourself lucky. Reread my explanation several posts back.

How old is your graphic? And what does the fine print on the both the 120 million figure and the one you ascribe to say? Is the American figure including aircraft development?

Why would we do that? Fuel contamination has been and will continue to be the leading cause of serious failures…..this can be squarely attributed to the improvements to engineering and manufacturing techniques found within modern aerospace.

For firearms that is true, but for most popular calibers (sans .22lr) we can buy cheaper ammo produced in Russia and China, new production and surplus, then what many Americans don't have access to thanks to your Clinton era import laws.

It will if said contamination magnifies the sulphur content in the fuel and this leads to rapid corrosion of the protective coatings on the engine parts.

Are you suggesting the quoted figure that the Government of Australia paid was a lie?

No, it's a real aircraft, and like it's cousin (AU-1) was handed over to the RAAF today.

Of course I’m right, I’m a professional and learned in the subject. No it doesn’t……. “Creep” as you term it (Thermomechanical fatigue) is indicative of either/or an inherent issue with metallurgy and poor manufacturing techniques -or- end of life fatigue……. With the first two, this would indicate a fleet wide problem, but as confirmed, this incident is congruent with a one off event…….As to the later, there has been no indication of the number of hours on the failed engine released for public consumption……..As such, it’s pure speculation. The cause could have been attributed to something as simple as fouling/FOD or fuel contamination (the most common cause of engine failures in military aircraft) that induced sulphidation.

There already are Authorizations to Carry within the Firearms Act, the problem is that the Provincial CFOs sparingly issue them to only those that some would term “elitist”…..In Canada, if you’re of money, but more importantly political patronage, one is allowed to own firearms to protect their lives. As to “open gun laws”, care to elaborate on what you mean?

Actually no……you’re prescribing the symptoms as the cause…….Turbine rub can be caused by misalignment, resonance, vibration etc, but the friction will cause heat......put the donkey before your cart.

What test pilots? The reasons why the F-35 will outperform the aircraft that it will replace,are simple and elementary aerodynamics.... Of course turbine rub isn’t caused by heat, nor was said problem found to be systemic to the fleet.

Agreed 100%........The current prohibited list should revert back to non-restricted and restricted, and with those classifications to only act as a guide for licensing. We currently have open carry of non-restricted firearms…….as to a Castle doctrine, I agree, the mechanisms to implement further clarification within our self defence laws are already there, they just need to be further refined and defined. Not sure of the crux of your point, but I agree that Canadians should certainly be legally allowed to defend themselves with a firearm when attacked........I don’t look at it as a tax issue though, fore I think those Canadians that pay little to no taxes should be afforded the same right.

Indeed, by the end of next decade the RAAF and RN FAA will be operating a mixed fleet of F-35As and F-35Bs The F-35 is far more manoeuvrable armed then the aircraft that it will replace…..faster too. The most powerful engine ever put into a single engine type…….The F-35 armed will have a greater sustained speed then the aircraft that it will replace.

Reread the article: As I said, the final tranche of ~28 aircraft of 100 will be the replacement for the Super Hornets in the mid-late 2020s, but as mentioned prior, they are likely to purchase the F-35B for their remaining requirement, which would allow the Super Hornet fleet to be retired earlier.

The Australians never intended to operate a single fleet …..and of course, they haven’t scaled back their orders.

No they're not......Cold feet would be indicated by them replacing legacy Hornets with Super Bugs, but of course they are not.