Derek 2.0

Minimal if at all……the RCAF does have an exchange program, but I couldn’t give you an exact answer.

Off the cuff? The Canberra class, based on the Spanish Juan Carlos LHD, were designed from the start with STOVL operations in mind……..As built (well building) the Canberra’s will be able to operate the F-35B in austere conditions (not sustained operations like a conventional carrier, currently lacking dedicated maintenance and weapons magazine facilities), but due to it’s inherent size and modular build, alterations to include these lacking areas wouldn’t be extensive, nor expensive with a F-35B. Note the ski jump on HMAS Canberra's bows:

The wife got a Tesla sedan last summer………great car, lots of leg room and fast…Once we’ve factored in the slight increase in our hydro bill, the monthly fuel savings based on what it replaced (Cadillac ESV) halve the bi-monthly car payments…… Great higher end luxury car…….I hope the inventor becomes a zillionaire!!

I’m glad you brought up Australia, which is now planning to transition out of it’s (recently purchased) Super Hornets earlier in favour of a follow on purchase of F-35Bs, which will reconstitute the RAN’s FAA…..

One could suggest that…..but the evidence doesn’t confirm that…….One can look at the military of any of the partner nations and see unrelated programs and/or current capabilities reduced for budgetary reasons post Global economic crisis. For example, the Dutch taking a clever to their army, or in the United Kingdom, the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force retiring the entire Harrier Fleet and their two remaining aircraft carriers (Ark Royal and later this year Illustrious) and accepting a capability gap until the QE class and F-35B enters service later this decade.

And I already addressed said event: From the link: Last year was hardly the "other day", none the less, the AMT is doing it's job.

Source? And was it part of the AMT portion?

That is a reflection of the economic climate and the effects on defence budgets worldwide…..believe it or not, the F-35 didn’t cause the Global recession……with that said, if it’s performance and cost were a negative factor, one would surmise said nations “backing away” would pick another aircraft so as to meet their stated requirements……funny that none of the partners have replaced their planned procurement of the F-35s with a “cheaper” alternative.

Yet the HMDS and night flying have both been cleared.......Then engine issue was found in ground tests, on an engine with the equivalent of 9 years service (~75% of engine life) and the deficiency (manufacturing methods) has been identified and resolved……..Of course engine testing for any program only makes sense and is why the F-35 is yet have had a Class A event: http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140520-048.pdf

Seems counter to actual events……strange that not a single military has left the program, coupled with new nations joining and the F-35 not losing a single competition that it has taken part in…..Is it possible that the few remaining critics, most without any technical training or experience, are wrong?

What have I "got wrong"? I've explained what you have "got wrong", and you offer no counter explanation over some major holes in your story......Namely why would the Department of National Defence contract out CIWS PAC flights, for a ship with no CIWS, when they had two squadrons that sole purpose was to provide EW/utility support to the fleet?

So you’re going with CCPA’s misguided opinion over that of not only our own air force, but all the other combined militaries within the program? Surely these other organizations understand the technical aspects more then the CCPA.

So if you “lived it”, why doesn’t your story align with factual events in the real life timeline as pointed out? Either the Navy and Air Force (and all those that served in said facets) have got it wrong, or you have.

Some further news on the topic: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/10/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSKBN0EK24320140610 Should be a interesting week ahead.

There's no need. Huron didn't have a CIWS during your stated timeline, added to the Forces having no requirement for chartered aircraft when they had two dedicated squadrons (one on each coast) fulfilling such requirements………Perhaps you need a rethink of that tale?

Again, Huron didn't have a CIWS in the early 90s. Once it got one, post TRUMP, said tests were conducted on the East Coast by 434 squadron.......not on the West Coast by CHC with a chartered Twin Huey......DND didn't start to contract out such work until after Huron was retired....

Already did........You’re the one that stated you know how the CIWS worked, conducted a mythical flight to calibrate a system aboard a ship that didn’t yet have one, well employed by a civilian company, even though the Forces had a dedicated squadron in Comox to do exactly that I’m sorry, but there are far more then pin pricks in your story.

Really? When did they start doing it there?

No, quite the opposite……..hence why I can easily ascertain that your "story" is full of glaring holes.

Then why the troubles: If the air search radar was working fine, I fail to see the issue. With who?

Over water? Who provided the HUET for the "brass"? So your story has now shifted from providing PAC support to the Huron’s (then nonexistent) CIWS, well the ships air search radar was not fully functioning, over the Juan de Fuca Strait, well working for CHC (a company heavily involved in the forestry industry in BC), flying a deuce full of “naval brass”, all the while, if the Huron had of had a CIWS, the Air Force had numerous seized and rotary winged assets in the region.

Uh-huh.......

Haven't done what for years?

What type were you in? And the "brass" would have been aboard, if at sea, his flagship, the then HMCS Huron.

Well actually I do......CHC/Canadian works heavily in the logging industry in British Columbia......Not providing support to non existent naval requirements......