Derek 2.0

How was the B-2 program a waste? If you take off your accountant hat, in terms of capability, the B-2 Spirit gives the Americans the ability to penetrate any nation on this planets airspace and deliver both smart conventional weapons and nukes….The ability to surgically decapitate a nation state is nothing to scoff at.

Exactly, hence why those that critique the technical merits of the aircraft are talking out of their ass. F-15s, Falcons and Hornets didn't fly the same mission profile as the F-117 during the first Persian Excursion for a reason........ Do you know what the Americans spend on defense? The Leo II has never been used in it’s intended role, as such, it can’t be deemed as just as good as an Abrams……The Abrams has been in said intended role, and one has yet to be destroyed by another tank. How would they have done better for less or equal money? Are you suggesting the X-32 should have been selected?

I don't know.........after rereading the OP, I think the author might be pointing towards some form of conspiracy.......hence why I've asked for clarification.

I yet to hear of anyone with firsthand knowledge of the F-35 critique the program, outside of cost and development delays, and suggest the final result will be a failure. The F-117 was a subsonic aircraft, devoid of the same manoeuvrability, compared to other legacy types of similar vintage…….this alone would detract from it’s ability to out-manoeuvre, when even contrasted with Vietnam era aircraft, the Serb SAM after launch. You’re judging the end results as an accountant………On a battlefield the final price tag of a given piece of equipment is of little concern. As to the Leopard II (My younger brother is currently a crew commander of one), this tank began as a joint development with the Americans, which ultimately resulted in both the Abrams and Leo II……..Of course, to judge performance, one need only look at the combat record of both types……You can be certain, only an idiot would call the Abrams a failure. Certainly, but the developmental burden is namely placed on the tier 1 partners……..For Canada (or any of the other partners), or unit cost at purchase won’t reflect this price of development, fore we’ve already paid our agreed share of developmental funding, a total already superseded by economical benefits to Canadian industry.

How did it "go South"? What was your intent of starting this thread........Was it yet another “gun control thread” or a "conspiracy theory" topic?

I disagree.......he does have a point.......The development of modern military hardware, of the same capabilities as the F-35, are out of the scope of most middle tier powers on financial grounds alone……..

In the United States this is very true…..the problem, a great many of the laws on the books aren’t enforced.

What if everybody in the US and Canada renounced all forms of violent behaviour…..wouldn’t that be an even greater outcome?

We don't need to cross the border.....we can do it from the comfort of home: http://www.irunguns.ca/

Big difference between a member of the media, with no direct aviation experience, and the US intelligence apparatus……. And that’s my point……….The Russians and Chinese designs for the next several decades, will not pose a threat to the operational usage of the F-35 fleet…….. It was claimed to be detected by said radar……..As to the difference, IR guidance is many magnitudes And yes, the mistakes made by the USAF were certainly something………simply put, if the Americans used multiple routes, the Serbs wouldn’t have been able to accurately place their search radars and SAM batteries in such an ambush, as the Serbs would have been more reliant upon emitting at greater intervals, which in turn, would have led to their own destruction via a HARM missile…….The Serbs owed their success to luck and complacency on the part of the Americans…..But of course, let’s put this into perspective, operationally a single stealth aircraft has been shot down…….How many non-stealth aircraft, since Vietnam, have been shot down by the very same Soviet SAMs? Look at both Wheelers and Pierre Sprey (the F-35 most vocal critics) records on assessing defence programs…….in their view, everything from the F-15, to Apache and Abrams tank, C-17 and D-5 Trident have been failures……..the two of them are Muppets Ultimately who is correct will be proven right as time goes by…….I feel when the manufacturer and the main purchaser’s numbers align, there is no discombobulating basic math to skew. That is a truism since the dawn of man though…….someone will always make a better rock……the trick, to stay ahead of the curve. There are no real economic or logistical advantages to running multiple programs…..if there were, the JSF program would never have been born…….RAND claimed there was, but didn’t provide both their methodology and end result……….Would a Super Duper Hornet, Harrier III and Falcon Block 100 have been cheaper? Certainly, but you’re then relying upon a decades old root design that would/will be surpassed by both the Chinese and Russians.

Sure, but that’s not the same scope as a federally regulated industry……….. And more on the “pot” front and Trudeau: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marc-emery-the-prince-of-pot-may-be-a-liability-for-the-liberals-1.2701645 Are the Trudeau Liberals have a rethink on their pot policy going into 2015?

Is there? I don’t know…..but I understand there is quite a market for cigarettes……..using legal cigarettes as an example, would pot smokers favour a Trudeau tax on their weed, or would they just get their pot as they currently do? I’ve no issue, like I said, with decriminalizing pot, but I fail to see the benefit for pot smokers and why they would pay a sin tax……….Also, under Trudeau’s pot plan, how does he intend to regulate the production and distribution of it? Will he create a new bureaucracy to police legal pot?

How much do they expect to receive in tax revenue?

I never said I was opposed to the liberalization of pot laws……..But I don’t know how the same end for pot smokers couldn’t be achieved by decriminalization…..Are recreational pot users being hassled by the Man even now?

Are not the cartels and organized crime afforded their power and influence through monetary gain received through supplying a product to reach a demand by a segment of the citizenry? Also, to steer this back on topic, I’ve yet to see Trudeau’s plan outlined, but he has stated that he would tax pot……Are all pot users willing to pay a tax to the government, well purchasing a product from a corporation? Could not legalization of pot create another underground market of pot sans tax? If so, how would a Trudeau Government stamp out a underground, tax-free, pot market?

Why will it be legalized though? If pot smokers in BC were not able to get 300k signatures, who is really going to push this legislation Canada wide? Trudeau has said that he plans to, but of course, based on the NDP’s differing stance, I fail to see outside of a Liberal Majority (which is highly unlikely next year) that ever happening……

What does 2015 have to do with it? This effort, like the ones in Colorado and Washington State, were not initiatives of a Federal Government.

Not quite yet.......

Sure we can........USAF single engine safety record: http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140520-049.pdf USAF twin engine safety record: http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140520-050.pdf Would you suggest the military as a whole requires camouflage? Says who? Yet you want the Super Hornet, even though it was grounded twice for engine issues during development........

And the safety record of single engine types in the USAF since 1989

Yet: Just two of many designs that do multirole well.

I assume when the Super Hornet fleet was grounded twice due to engine issues, both engines were included.

I like it (I worked for Textron ).........perfect COIN aircraft, and they are looking at a single engine version, with swept wings, based off this concept, as a trainer......... Realistically though, most of the intended roles are/could be covered with a Predator…..In a sense, this is a solution looking for a problem.

Engine related? So, what is too much power for a engine?

Yes, as the Super Hornet also faced problems with icing on their engine inlets.......yet neither the Hornet or Super Hornet fleets were cancelled, and solutions to those problems found.