Derek 2.0

A warning.........by letting in the pool reporters? It is motivated by "fake news" and bias, not politics, no different then any other administration before it......no different than any other Western Government. In this case, CNN and NYT etc have been going after unsubstantiated reports of ties between people in the Administration and Russia........last week, the New York Times ran a story, with no evidence, claiming the Trump campaign held daily conversations with the Russians.......the FBI itself said such stories are B.S CNN, New York Times etc, if they're going to report stuff worthy of the National Enquirer, why should they be given special access?

He didn't "ban" anyone.......all pool reporters were present, which share the information among all media outlets. You cite two of the World's most respected news sources.....who cares? The Trump administration doesn't "owe" international media squat........if this was politically motivated, why didn't he "ban" MSNBC? CBS? ABC?

It was the second story on Cavuto this afternoon.

Good timing for this piece to come out: And Now only if there was a fighter, buoyed by advanced technology, that could effectively intercept advanced cruise missiles.......

Huh? I would feel far safer in New York city then parts of the Middle East........that to me would indicate an effective response.

Is it though? It would seem they have thus far prevented another 9/11 style and scope terror attack.

Such as? Are you taking a micro or macro point of view? That makes no sense........The US not responding to 9/11 would have lead to even greater destabilization globally.......but to prove your point, can you cite an example from history in which a nation was attacked, of the same scope as 9/11, and didn't react?

He booted BBC, Daily Mail and Al Jazeera......not sure about any Canadian orgs

Typical "leftist"......looking for someone else to do their "dirty work"

Right, like how Obama's White House booted FOX several times......

No, as I already told you, the threat is bombers armed with cruise missiles, escorted by modern Russian fighters.......this isn't theoretical, they were actually doing this during their campaign over Syria.

A Phantom would come closer then a Tucano to being able to meet our NATO and NORAD requirements.

Extremely long range supersonic cruise missile, launched from a bomber able to sprint faster then any fighter in NATO.....a threat the Soviets didn't even pose.

I'm sorry, by who and against who?

That's subjective........we could mount a strike independently at least once.

Not at all, and its been expanded in size and scope contrasted with its decline after the wall came down.........and not because there isn't a "threat".

By a first world force, against a force with a integrated air defense network? My opinion is supported by fact........

The Russians, afforded the benefit offered by long range, air launched, supersonic cruise missiles can "bomb" North America from the periphery........The fact that the Russians can attack North America with nuclear armed supersonic cruise missiles does constitute a threat, is the basis of NORAD, and is why NORAD has returned to Cheyenne mountain recently.

And your Tucano force would be properly vaporized by a force armed with Cold War era Soviet and Chinese SAMs and triple A.

Does the Taliban operate an integrated air defense grid? Getting there.........Apaches and Sea Cobras were slaughtered in parts of Iraq well they still had MANPADS.

That's just it, it doesn't though, its a false economy........if we were a Banana Republic concerned with a domestic insurgency, no NATO and NORAD, perhaps.......but we're not.

There is nothing cheap about unmanned technology, nor is it presently (or in the near future) going to be able to match manned aircraft in terms of capability......this is no more evident then the realization that despite decades of use (of unmanned technology), the first widespread platform to be adopted by the USN will an ISR platform and a tanker....support platforms for manned aircraft. I know what it means, and I'm telling you, no regimental commander (it would be a Brigade level asset but I digress) would want a turboprop CAS platform that would be hard pressed to operate in an environment with lowly MANPADS and heavy machine guns, and get to pay for such a force throughout its lifespan on the chance we'll always fight in a permissive environment .....the hundreds of millions wasted on such a force would be far better spent on additional artillery and smart munitions.

Quite the opposite, but then a force tailored for counter-insurgency won't be able to meet our other requirements.........As I said, an F-35 and Tucano can both do COIN (The F-35 will do it far, far better), but a Tucano can't do NORAD and NATO..........ergo, a dollar spent on Tucano is a dollar that is wasted on our operational requirements for NORAD and NATO. The Forces already lived through the ( forced political) purchase of the Freedom Fighter and its severe limitations all the way back in the late 1960s and 1970s.....and you want an even less capable platform in the Tucano?

No, won't do, because its ineffective and a waste of resources.

I'm not the slightest bit worried over a cost of a "single squadron" of Tucanos, as it will never happen........The RCAF is well versed in the drawbacks of "budget aircraft". Well its not similar to USMC aviation.......their cornerstone for the provision of organic support is a platform that is more than capable of waxing terrorists......or a nation armed with the latest in Chinese and Russian air defenses. Two F-35s can carry a similar payload to your squadron of Tucanos, farther and faster.....and can track launch points of a mortar round....tucano not so much. If your Tucano can't provide effective support against an enemy, you're defeating the intent of making it organic.....and would be far better off adding another battery of M777s or an MLRS for organic content. Sure, but your helicopter force escorted by Tucanos is next to useless pitted against a force with 70s era Soviet air defense systems.