Derek 2.0

In terms of hourly fuel usage......sure (and is why I said nearly equal)......in terms of cost effectiveness? Not a chance. For example, bombing a bridge in country with a 70s era Soviet air defense grid......2 F-35s would be able to accomplish such a mission with ease, versus dozens upon dozens (if not hundreds) of Tucanos being required, with crippling losses of both men an material. Hence, no, there isn't any cost savings, as Tucano can't do what a single F-35 can......not even close......looking at hourly fuel usage is a false economy.

Of course they do, why? Defend against "roving USN fleets"........in the Arctic..... When they're not defending against "roving USN fleets in the Arctic", the Russians, like the West, can make use of the mutlirole nature of their aircraft and escort their strategic bomber force, as they did in Syria......

Exactly, as the Russians demonstrated with operations over Syria.......sending their bomber force on long range missions from central Russia into Syria was more a message for the West than Middle Eastern terrorists.

Or the Russians escort their bombers when they attack us....like they demonstrated a willingness to do with operations over Syria......as to range, like the West, as long as needed with drop tanks and aerial refueling...........our fighters operate in the Arctic, the Russians have fighters based in their Arctic.....advantage Russia.

How many small diameter bombs can one buy, dropped from an F-35, with the price of a dozen Tucanos? The point, despite the Tucano costing a fraction of that of an F-35 to purchase, the annual sustainment costs of both aircraft will still be nearly equal.......airbases will still cost the same, pilots and technicians wages will be parity etc etc etc........both aircraft can drop bombs on poor terrorists, but only one of the types can drop bombs on a nation state with a semi-modern integrated air defense network, perform counter air against modern Chinese and Russian aircraft and chase down supersonic bombers armed with nukes on the approaches to North America. It has nothing to do with that.........turboprop CAS aircraft are a solution looking for a problem in the majority of modern air forces. Its not about can or can't do, but why do?

Exactly, or NORAD..........but the last combat counter air missions the RCAF actually took part in was the UN sanctioned air policing over Libya.

I have no idea, the Libyan air force pretty much ceased to exist after several days of UN sanctioned counter-air patrols and deep interdiction by the Allies. But the enforcement of the Libyan no-fly-zone was the last anti-air combat mission performed by the RCAF.

The last air to air combat sorties RCAF fighters took part in were the Libyan conflict......before that, operations over the FRY and before that the first Gulf War...

And provide a capability that any nation with modern smart weapons can perform with a real fighter..........modern smart weapons made the B-52 and B-1 two of the most capable ground attack aircraft ever. Super Tucanos would be worthless against a foe with semi modern air defenses, meanwhile would suck resources from a force like the RCAF daily, resources better applied to a modern force of fighters.

Sure is, namely when the Trudeau government has stressed the importance of keeping our NATO and NORAD commitments, Hornets in Eastern Europe. Likewise NORAD, the "threat" of air-to-air combat with Russian fighters, newly rebased in their Arctic, is another potential challenge.

And I fully agree, and have been warning against mixed fleets for years............as they suggested, it it were necessary, we could purchase legacy Hornets from forces retiring theirs....case in point, Kuwait is soon to be retiring their F/A-18C Hornets (Hornets nearly ten years newer than ours) and there is no reason we couldn't purchase the entire fleet and perform any required upgrades for a fraction of the cost of "interim" Super Hornets.

What of it? Well said....... Sure, but the previous GoC agreed to the increase.......if the current GoC decides we do not need to follow suite, the Americans and Europeans that do increase their commitment to NATO, will decide the implications for Canadians. Simple as that really.

Perhaps you missed the statement by the Trump administration, a statement supported by the head of NATO? Trump won't force NATO members to increase their spending, if they don't, the United States will simply curtail its support for collective defense..........Europe (absent the UK) and Canada, without full US backing and support, will then be following the dictation of not the Trump administration, but of Putin's...the same Putin that already supplies ~1/3 of Europe's oil and natural gas. Simply put, absent the United States, Putin can dictate to Europe his any desires and whims, through not only the threat of force, but his ability to cripple their economies nearly overnight.........if Putin wants the Baltic States, the EU isn't going to stop him.

Yes there was........but its sure gone now!!! Interesting revision of history.......Harper reduced funding to the DND both when we ended our mission in Afghanistan (Why pay for a war we are no longer fighting?) and like every department, during the fiscal crisis............ Regardless, Harper is no longer the head of the government, nor will this demand by the Trump administration be his problem..... No, the only cuts to members pay and benefits has been on the part of the Trudeau Liberals and their clawing back of tax free status for those serving in combat zones. Ahh but it was you that went down this road, I simply made a factual observation as to this Governments ability, when it so desires, to spend billions into deficit........an observation very much topical on a subject that will require a further increase in annual spending. If this government raises taxes to pay for billions more for defense, the only thing that will give will be its own electoral chances in 2019.......This government truly is in a pickle, and like most of the World, was caught off guard with the Trump win. A challenge for sure, but then, if this government were smart, it would attempt to narrow the gap through deficit spending on both infrastructure and the purchasing of big ticket items, in essence one off purchases versus sunk costs associated with a massive increase in the number of personal...........buy the actual items the military needs, spread it out over the next several years and hope normalcy returns (and/or commodity prices) in the next few years.

Which timeline? 2018 is the timeline for everyone to have their arse in gear with a plan, but they have a decade to achieve ~2%.........Trudeau went from a ~surplus to 30 billion in the hole in months......spending another ~20-30 billion could be done, thats not a problem, the issue is will we be spending it effectively?

And as a direct contrast, a perfect example of economies of scale and shared risk on investment........

The actual "steel bashing" of a modern warship accounts for ~20% of the total cost.......and Canadian companies, and Canadian subsidiaries of American/European companies, are already heavily involved in joint partnerships, that have/will have far more of a benefit to our economy then a singular Canadian effort.......case in point, the Avro Arrow, versus today's F-35.

The number is factual, and the norm across all Western forces.........and $120k/person is peanuts, when one accounts for benefits (remember their families) and pensions.....and of course training.......

No more or no less then we already do (likewise European corporations), all that will change is the amount of actual money........and of course, that is assuming most of said increase goes into procurement, as opposed to an increase in personal......personal of course account for ~60-70% of spending by the DND. No, quite the opposite.........Canadian corporations should only receive contracts for items that actually offer a measure of capability, at a reasonable price, to the military.......what you suggest results in the Ross Rifle, CF-5 Freedom Fighter and the LSVW (and other such disasters) Infrastructure, without a doubt in my mind, would be a major portion of it. We do if we wish to remain apart of collective defense treaties.

Why? Canada agreed to spend ~2% of its GDP on defense, when Trump was still on the Apprentice........as acknowledged by the head of NATO: furthermore: A gradual increase that will take longer then a two-term Trump administration And no different then when the European Common market members, namely West Germany, threatened trade deals with the then Trudeau government in the 1970s.......even after the PET Government went on a "spending spree" to replace a portion of our then dated WWII and Korean war era equipment, we were still considered a laughing stock and had near zero influence within NATO. This of course was reflected by NATO's "commitment" to Canada in the 70s and 80s......a then undefended Canada was a major concern with the Reagan administration, resulting in the Trudeau government having little say in how the Americans thought best to defend the approaches to North America (i.e. USAF interceptors assigned to NORAD armed with nuclear weapons, that would have been used over Canadian soil against the Soviets, or USN subs operating within Canadian waters) This "relationship" didn't change until Mulroney, that though he talked a good game, did little, and was "saved" once the wall came down. Going forward, I don't know either how Trudeau will do it and how he can afford not to do......frankly, as I remember arguing with Argus and several other members, "doubling" our defense spending nearly overnight with result in a termendous amount of wasted money, graft, and pork barrel spending......the GoC and DND, with a doubling of funds, will be akin to trailer folk winning the Lottery........It won't be pretty for taxpayers. Yep and you bet. What sovereignty? Aside from a very brief period in the 1950s through the early 60s, Canada has been a welfare recipient of the British and then American defense umbrellas......countless Canadian governments have "rolled over", in the case of the last Trudeau, to the West Germans.......It will be far cheaper for Canada to "roll over" another ~20 billion to defense then suffer any economic backlash......or having to defend ourselves outside of the NATO/US defense umbrellas. Or cuts to other programs.........if the UK and Estonia can manage ~2% of GDP on defense, Canada (a G7 economy) doesn't have an excuse......Paying the piper isn't the concern, spending the money effectively and obtaining an increase in measured capability as return on investment will be the interesting part.

I fully admit I don't know all the details with the recent deal, I do agree with "a deal" in principle, but wouldn't be the least bit surprised if "this deal" were a "bad deal".

Or more likely, takes the unfounded opinions of the peanut gallery as gospel.......the same peanut gallery that once said, decades ago, programs like the F-15, AH-64, Trident missile/Ohio class SSBN, AEGIS and M1A1 would be failures.

It is the point, you suggested Trump "didn't like the F-35".......yet he just purchased more, and didn't purchase additional Super Hornets. Who cares? Trump just purchased more F-35s then there are Super Hornets in international service........likewise, within the last several years, there has now been 200 F-35s built, far more then Super Hornets within this decade.

Your article is both dated and wrong.......Trump himself is calling the LRIP 10 F-35 contract a great achievement.........how many Super Hornets has the Trump administration ordered since taking office?

The Trump administration just purchased 55 additional F-35s..........