Derek 2.0

Does Shady feel punished? Again, this is clearly your subjective opinion.......he did something that pissed you off and you used your moderation "powers" as retribution. I'm not over reacting to anything, my reaction is to your own post in this thread in which you ask for our opinions on the mater........ Nice deflection.........the problem with it though, I don't moderate on this forum.........furthermore, if someone did "spoil" a show it does not bother me one iota.........my sister in England would "spoil" Downton Abbey all the time for us, but learning both Matthew and Sybil died months early didn't ruin my life, nor put me into a cranky mess.....and I still enjoyed the shows with their deaths just the same. (If someone knows who Negan kills spoil it for me, but do it pm or you might get banned) And that is the rub, you abused your moderation "powers" and removed something so petty....... AFAIK, BC2004 is/has done exactly that........but I'm curious, why so standoffish after asking for people's opinions on the mater? I assumed you actually wanted input from other members......

Which refutes the Liberal's claim that we need an interim type, so badly in fact, that they have to sole source the contract. When a former (Liberal) ADM of Material calls this a horrific move on the part of the Trudeau government, and the head of the RCAF states under oath that we don't need to even select a new aircraft within the next five years, they clearly have no leg to stand on.........

I'd tend to agree, pills are so much cleaner then suck starting a 12 gauge

I know, its a different aircraft in nearly all but name. Canada was never considering an interim aircraft........an aircraft the head of the RCAF says we don't need. If its an "easy justification", why is Alan Williams calling it a horrific move on the part of the Government?

They first replaced the A-6 with the Super Hornet as an interim type after the A-12 was cancelled........In the case of both the A-6E and F-14D, and more so the proposed "Super Intruder" and "Super Tomcat" upgrades and new production aircraft, the Super Hornet is a significant downgrade.....even with the introduction of the Super Hornet into the fleet, groups like "Top Gun" (now in Nevada) and even the Blue Angels opted to retain the legacy Hornet citing its greater maneuverability over the piggish Super Hornet.

Says the Liberal government..........but not the head of the RCAF, that has stated to the Commons the end of service for our current Hornets is 2025.

What gap? Just over a month ago, before the Commons defense committee, the head of the RCAF stated the end of our Hornets useful life is 2025 and that there would be no issue replacing them if me made a selection within five years time.... .......as to your link, you're putting the cart before the horse....said link speaks to an already justified sole source contract......the Government has yet to justify a sole source contract to Boeing......even Alan Williams, your go to Liberal critic of the F-35, is calling this a "horrific start for this government", saying this is a bad deal for not only the forces (that will have to maintain two different fighter fleets at a greater cost), but a bad deal for Canadian taxpayers...... When the head honcho of the RCAF says we don't need an interim type, and the former Liberal head of military procurement calls this horrific, what is the justification for a sole sourced purchase by the Trudeau government?

The "Super Viper" is not a new aircraft, like the Super Hornet, merely an upgraded legacy type......with the F-16, for an interim purchase, we could purchase from the Americans F-16s parked in the desert and zero time the airframes, purchase new engines and upgrade the avionics to "Super Viper" for a fraction of the of the cost of purchasing new aircraft. The Australians don't amend Canadian laws.........that was your point bringing up the RAAF purchase no?

Huh? There are no fully operational Super Hornets performing NORAD missions either.......yet the bulk of NORAD missions presently are conducted by USAF and ANG F-16s..........and we rejected the F-16, 40 years ago, because at the time it didn't have a radar capable of guiding the sparrows....which we required for NORAD, and the Hornet was the cheapest aircraft at the time that did......40 years later, the F-16 is the mainstay of NORAD and cheaper than the Super Hornet. When did Aussie defense purchases start having to follow Canadian law and procurement guidelines?

There is plenty of room at the Fort Worth plant that builds F-35s and the cheaper F-16s now....to do this.........the Liberals, as mentioned in the article, have yet to square the legal and political circle, which is far more difficult to do with a sole source contract then just not buying the F-35.

......of people that overreact to a tv show.

No, I am, I gave you the link above.........the justification for awarding a sole source contract are as follows: Can't be that, as the other suppliers would be starting from the same mark from production as Boeing.....and furthermore, that precludes leasing used aircraft from another country. It's not that Why wouldn't it be in the public interest to solicit bids for an "interim" purchase, that would be worth billions....... We know thats not the case......as there are numerous producers of fighter aircraft. I do think that, or that this article has little merit and was perhaps leaked as a trial balloon..............they clearly crapped the bed, as I said numerous times last year, when they mentioned the F-35 by name during the election.......and here too, based on them mentioning the Super Hornet by name, here too they are opening themselves up for legal attack........... I do think they have piss poor lawyers or that lawyers put the kibosh on this sole source purchase for that very reason.......and this is why we have a "leak" from an "unnamed source" and not an official government release

I'm well aware......and in this case, they don't apply, namely when there are alternative aircraft, in some cases, even cheaper, that we could procure....... The Liberals would have to explain why the Super Hornet and not the F-16/F-15/Rafale/Eurofighter/Gripen and any possible lease/purchases of used aircraft from our allies........this would get tricky when the F-16 is cheaper than the Super Hornet, or several of our European allies have surplus aircraft that we could lease for interim types.

Our own laws and procurement guidelines.........the Government can't justify "simply an upgrade path" worth billions of dollars from our current fleet to a different aircraft, that was mentioned by name in the Liberal platform, on a whim .......well they could, but they will be sued by all the other aircraft makers in short order and loose. ...........especially when there is an even cheaper alternative in the F-16, an aircraft that has been the mainstay of NORAD since it entered service, and has been continually operated in the Arctic (unlike the Super Hornet) by three of our NATO allies (USA/Norway/Denmark) since the 1970s....

Baffel-gab? You need a citation to confirm the Aussies aren't bound by Government of Canada purchasing rules?

I'm not belittling anyone's choice of tv programs.......whatever floats ones boat......I'm pointing out and adding context to moderator action over a tv show spoiler.

Applies to oranges......two different aircraft, with two different engines, airframes and avionics.........this proposed sole sourced purchase doesn't only preclude new interim aircraft, but a lease/purchase of used aircraft from our allies to fill a sudden requirement for an interim aircraft....... The Aussies aren't bound by the same legal framework for sole sourced purchases as the Canadian government.

And an interim purchase or lease is a plausible legal out........but they can't explain the requirement to sole source the contract to Boeing......and not Lockheed....or Dassault.....or Airbus/Eurofighter...etc......which is why I don't give the story much creedance......to avoid a lawsuit by Lockheed, they open themselves up to lawsuits by Lockheed, Dassault, Saab and the Eurofighter group........the Liberals aren't that stupid.

It went the way of the $10 billion dollar deficits I don't see how the Liberals square the circle of an interim sole sourced Super Hornet purchase.........when there are currently other options present.....they will be in court with all the other aircraft makers for years.

The problem with that suggestion, is the legal morass encompassing a sole source bid for an aircraft directly mentioned in Liberal campaign literature........explain away why a sole source bid for Super Hornets is required when there are other aircraft options present, and in the case of Lockheed's F-16, cheaper then the Super Hornet and with decades of service providing the lions share of NORAD coverage and operational usage in the Arctic since the 70s by three of our NATO allies........something that can't be said for the Super Hornet.

Seconded...........may the lord of the thrones have mercy on our wretched souls.

That's one way......or might I suggest those that worry about their favorite tv show being ruined, that they're not watching in real time and instead lurking here, turn off the status updates and their social media.......or just shelter in place somewhere else on the internet.

My point exactly, its not so much Shady's actions, but the over reactions by the moderator..........me thinks absent Kimmy and Shady "hugging it out", Greg should set forth lighting bolts from atop Mount Olympus.

Or the Passion of the Christ........ With tonight's incident, I expect the threads encompassing tv shows and movies to be locked........wouldn't want to spoil something for someone.

Context........its a fantasy tv show. People getting bent out of shape, and I've only seen several people do as much, is only part of the issue......which when played out, results in a moderator taking action against a member because of a fantasy tv show.