Derek 2.0

The majority of those listed operating costs are sunk, in that they are costs we’re already paying and will pay with whatever aircraft we choose (costs associated with pilots, airfields etc) That’s misleading…….as the F-35A stands right now, no it couldn’t be refuelled by our current tankers, but the F-35B and F-35C versions could…..As such Canada (and several other members with the same requirements) can have their order of F-35A’s “plumbed” the same as the other aircraft…..Of course, in the 2020s are current tankers will require replacement, as such, we could also go with the current method employed by the USAF. That's not so with the RAAF, the Dutch or Italy. No it doesn't. Not armed or with fuel. Not with fuel or weapons under it's wings. It doesn't need to.... it will carry the AMRAAM for us.........but of course, it will carry the Meteor for the British. It can, but it will carry the AGM-65's replacement, the JAGM We don’t use the Brimstone….and no, anything ordnance currently in the inventory can be used on the F-35. 1. what you read is wrong 2. no they are not, as I already outlined. Huh? That's not so. Says who? That's what the Americans thought during Vietnam. Not to sound rude, but most of these points you bring up have already been addressed in this thread......I'd suggest going through this thread again, well also reading up on the role of our current Hornet force, then I'll gladly continue, but to be frank, I have no interest in redressing these issues in such a repetitive fashion……..By all means, research the topic further and I gladly continue.

Why wouldn’t we need “stealth” for NORAD missions? None the less, we need an aircraft that can do both NORAD and NATO, or in common parlance, interceptions and interdictions (and dog fighting, close air support, electronic warfare etc etc) The technology to replace the person in the aircraft (directly and indirectly) totally won’t be available for decades.

The F-35 has a longer range than the Gripen. Is your Gripen carrying fuel and weapons under it's wings? Yes, let's be real.....So, do you know our current Hornet's operational history? What have we used our current Hornets for on operational deployments? Our involvement in the program began under Chrétien.

Stealth is a three pronged approach……What’s often referred to in the media, when discussing “stealth” is radar return signatures, but stealth is also IR return and electronic emissions….All aspects the F-35 has the edge on when comparing it to legacy aircraft. As to the need for “stealth”? I’ll put it into simpler terms: Would you argue the military does not require camouflage because some technologies can defeat it?

Yes.......But not it’s operational cruising speed, which with internal ordnance and fuel, is greater then the legacy aircraft mentioned.

All of the operators of the F-35 will have the same baseline aircraft, with the same continual upgrades……..as to the number of aircraft, currently we have 48 Hornets in two operational squadrons, and with the F-35, we’ll have 48 aircraft in two operational squadrons. There is no reason the other aircraft couldn’t fully integrate into NORAD, but that will cost more…….simply put, no other aircraft can compete with the synergies offered by the RCAF operating the same aircraft as the USAF. No it's not. And what makes you say that? Based on the operational history of our current Hornet fleet, going forward, stealth will very much be needed in the decades ahead.

First Saab pulled the Gripen on it's own........As to comparing manufactures’ numbers, those associated with the Gripen (and Eurofighter, Rafale, Super Hornet etc) are not inclusive……..For instance, one of these aircraft with a listed max speed of x is an aircraft without stores under the wings… ..and of course traveling at said speed, requires in these aircraft the use of afterburners, which reduce range drastically. Also, these above aircraft, with fuel and weapons under their wings, also face a significant reduction in manoeuvrability……..The F-35 has the same ability to dogfight as both the Super Hornet and Falcon, well having the ability to target and fire weapons above, below and behind the aircraft.

Of all the touted alternatives, the F-35 has the longest range on internal fuel.

I agree that his days are indeed numbered and any support for him without condition is clearly a waste of political capital.

And before that the Ottoman Empire and before that the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Persians, the Romans etc….Frankly, I don’t know when the region ever was peaceful.

What about Russian bombs and rockets employed by Russian Frogfoots and Hinds of the Iraqi air force? Should the East, in your view, also “stop meddling”? Also, still waiting for you to demonstrate when the Arabian peninsula was peaceful? Saddam Hussein used to great effect Soviet Su-25s and Mil-24s against his own population and that of Iran.

I don’t know of the projected corporate earnings, but its estimated that the project will see a gross gain of 270 billion over 30 years to Canada’s GDP.

Short term and construction jobs are one in the same……With that said, I doubt your skilled trades people would scoff at several years of gainful employment. As to “Green jobs”, I fail to see how that’s a zero sum proposition. If the private sector can make Green technology profitable, even with the aide of government in terms of tax incentives and loan guarantees etc, and this results in new fields of employment for British Columbians, clearly that to is a net benefit.

Exactly……I don’t understand why some want to take away the prospect of tax revenue that will help the children of British Columbia and Alberta……..To say nothing of blue collar workers and their families that will build and maintain Northern Gateway…….With the expected lifespan of ~30 years, Northern Gateway will benefit directly and indirectly British Columbians for several generations.

I wonder if they are.......with a projected $86 million in direct annual tax revenue for BC and Alberta, I truly wonder if they are actually paying attention to the other side……For instance, the new acute care center at BC Children’s Hospital will be ~$530 million dollar bill, or could be paid for by tax revenues to the Province from Northern Gateway over 6-7 years…Another example, the BCTF has estimated the need for ~$250 million in additional funding to address class size and composition in BC schools, with the Province only able to offer $75 million…..Tax revenues from Northern Gateway might not solve all of BC’s education or healthcare woes, but would sure go a long way in helping…

That, or the price of LNG drops.

Oh of that there is no doubt, nor argument from myself…….What is apparent though, you don’t understand the meaning nor eventual application of this ruling...........

I “get” property and conveyance law……..more then you will with Google.......If you want an adult discussion on property rights in Canada, I will gladly oblige (in it‘s own thread), but I won’t entertain your regurgitated contributions…….For a starting point, if you’re interested, go here: http://www.amazon.ca/Understanding-Property-Guide-Canadas-Law/dp/0779813669

No you didn't:

Not quite, Canadian Governments (Federal, Provincial and Municipal) can and do legislate laws and regulations that allow them to expropriate property……..Canadians do not have a guarantee to property enshrined in the Charter.

How so in relation to Canadian property law?

Exactly.......On the subject of resource development, it allows First Nations a seat at the grown-ups table……which is beneficial to everyone and much preferred to roadblocks manned by “warriors” and beating drums.

It does.....for the better.....ANCSA beget TAPS.

Care to demonstrate the rights and laws encompassing property in Canada?

So your interpretation is that First Nations groups have the same rights to their property, like the rest of Canadians?