Derek 2.0

......or punted. I have no qualms with a review for political theater (that is the nature of Canadian Defense procurement), but I don't know that the data supplied to the previous Government will have changed that much in a manner of months............Why doesn't this Liberal Government release the third party findings from the previous Government's review of contractor supplied data? We have a MND that won't rule out an (eventual) F-35 purchase, a Government that remains within the F-35 program and has paid our next level of dues to take us through to production contract bidding, and a budget that pushes the purchase into the next mandate, when the F-35 is the only aircraft guaranteed to be in production.

Nice dodge........as I said, no Hornet replacements within this mandate.

And there was a requirement to replace our FWSAR platforms as far back as the early 90s.......The CC-130E were clapped out when Martin was taking an axe to the defense budget in the early 90s........The Tories were prepared to (sole source) purchase replacements twice, but were delayed by lawsuits fanned by the Opposition's attacks on sole source purchases well in (minority) Government. This Government has now received the final three bids on the program (both hilarious and telling that both Boeing and Lockheed have pulled out of the competition).........had the GoC "re-profiled" FWSAR also? If the Liberals can't manage a simple contract such as FWSAR, how are they going to avoid bungling the Hornet replacement? Moot point, the Liberals have the big boy pants on now. Here

I understand perfectly.........how much money would it cost the GoC to replace the Hornets and the Frigates......versus how much money did the GoC "re-profile".....simple question? As I said (before and just after the election), the Liberal Government never intended purchasing new fighters and frigates inside this mandate.....this was confirmed with their own spending plans during the election and confirmed with their first budget.

I will gladly reciprocate once you've provided the like information for the "alternatives" (Super Hornet, Gripen NG, Rafale, Eurofighter)...........for perspective sake of course, likewise a list of international competitions that included the F-35 and any number of cited "alternatives", which resulted in the F-35 losing to any of the aforementioned aircraft............ One would think, if the F-35 is such a failure as you suggest, the cited "alternatives" would be far worse........what with not a single one yet to beat the F-35 in a procurement competition

To date, more aircraft being flown by foreign nations (versus parent nations) then Super Hornets, Gripen NGs and Rafales.........Yowzer indeed

Or a miracle that didn't happen for the Liberals before them.......none the less, yet again, you lack factual context.......somehow the previous Government had no qualms purchasing other large multi-engine aircraft on time and on budget. What is telling, is that one of the contenders of the program (Lockheed) has withdrawn from the program, and is speculated to be a reaction to this new Government's mixed messages on procurement.............If industry giants are leaving a simplistic program like FWSAR, it doesn't bode well for vastly more complex and costly programs.

Was the money "re-profiled" enough to procure both big ticketed items?

Exactly, I said as much even before the election..........I think FWSAR will be a miracle inside this mandate.

That and our deficit........I didn't expect much when they were only going to run $10 billion dollar deficits and hadn't budgeted new money for fighters, ships etc.

I wouldn't be so sure....with the Liberal's punt into the next mandate, the F-35 is the only Western aircraft that will be guaranteed to be in production.

Ahh no, the USAF (not including Reserves, Air National Guard etc) has just under 13000 pilots, versus under 1000 qualified Predator/Reaper pilots and ~200 Global Hawk pilots.....even still, the UAV pilot figures are due to a typical ~30 hour mission flown by 2-4 UAVs will see numerous crew changes. You're right, speed doesn't mater for the role in which they are sought........which has nothing to do with NORAD. And the speed of said aircraft does mater, to say nothing of carrying a fire control radar.......a slow UAV can't intercept an aircraft that cruises over four times its maximum speed.......of course, said UAVs were never intended to fill said roles so the point is moot. They never suggested they could be used for our NORAD mission.

You're comparing apples to oranges though, as the RCAF's planned UAV program isn't intended to meet our NORAD requirements.

I don't know where you're getting ~$16 million per UAV, for a Reaper like UCAV........Predator/Reaper class UAVs, with payloads, sensor packages and support/control infrastructure cost as much as modern manned fighter.........which is why said Canadian UAV program (JUSTAS), which sought less than a dozen UCAVs for an estimated ~$3.5 billion. --------- None the less, no current or near term UCAVs can fully replace all the roles of manned fighters, nor are they intended too. In Canada's case, JUSTAS was intended to fill a gap left by the retirement, without replacement, of lighter manned reconnaissance aircraft (Kiowas and Trackers) and not the Hornet fleet.

Watched a really good doc last night, Steve McQueen: The Man & Le Mans . Readers digest, it covers what an overall disaster the making of the movie was ( I knew it was over budget, didn't know the extent), from near fatal car accidents, sex scandals that ended McQueen's marriage, Charles Manson and the ending of the careers of Hollywood giants. One aspect, that was really eerie, throughout the film, they played a recorded interview done with McQueen months before he died of cancer. Said interview included conversations over how the movie was a passion for McQueen, who lived and breathed motor sports, and how McQueen nearly raced in Le Mans but was disallowed by the films insurance company (which gutted McQueen, they wouldn't even let him drive the camera car)......even though just months prior, McQueen nearly won Sebring, losing on the last several laps to Mario Andretti......McQueen raced Sebring with a broken leg in a cast and a modified clutch so McQueen could operate it with a cast on. Really interesting doc and would fully recommend it if you're interested in "classic Hollywood", Steve McQueen or racing.

Plug this into your test: LINK TO GIF

Hey you stupid shit, read the entire thread, I didn't criticize BBC, or her views on Reagan.........

Not close.......too you. It is clearly subjective on what one would consider polite...........so a pass on the funeral question?

And the results? Would they differ from standing out front a popular restaurant or coffee shop and insulting every other person entering and exiting? Do you know what you can do with your test?

I don't know that anyone suggested sainthood.....

I don't know that there would be a time limit on when the subject could take place, more so the manner it was to be discussed in.......The first topic, in all honesty, I didn't find bad or that offensive, the slight drift occurred like they do in any given topic........perhaps it shouldn't have happened in a topic over someone's death, but I can understand.......akin to a mass shooting thread drifting into gun control or mental illness for example. After it was locked in response to it turning into a complete shitshow, in my opinion, it should have been left alone......with policies like "Just say No" etc being in their own topical thread. Shady should get a few days to cool off and the others involved in the back and forth a warning to avoid drift and trolling etc etc...... The second thread, by the OP's own admission and post, was an attempt to inflame those that thought highly of Nancy Reagan.......hence not an honest attempt to have a polite adult discussion, built upon any ill feelings members might have felt from the previous thread.......... A question for you........if invited to someones funeral, would you dump on the deceased in front of others, with full knowledge that you would insult those that might feel differently?

I don't know if Shady's outrage is feigned or not, but both attempts at the topic have turned into a shitshow.........the second one, I find more offensive then the one previous.....and from the start, there wasn't an attempt at an honest or polite discussion.

Simple, as confirmed by your own words, your OP never intended to broker an honest discussion on the subject, and clearly was meant to insult people you knew from the onset wouldn't share your views. Same concept as me saying "hey fuckface, why don't you lend me ten bucks so I can buy some eggs to chuck at your house"...........I wouldn't expect a productive conversation to ensue.

If its a no, why would I look back at a thread several years before I joined? To clarify, that was a "no" as in "no" don't insult dead people even if you didn't like them...........not a "no" as in "yes" you can if you find a post from a member of the other team doing the like from years previous to justify breaking forum rules encompassing polite discourse?

About as well as intended by the OP.........somehow, BC2004 is the cause of this forum's stagnation and decline in discourse