Derek 2.0

I'm sure it would it, but then, if the majority of the GOP doesn't want Trump, a Trump nominee would anger even more people............of historic note, the last GOP nominee to win the nomination, but lose in Texas during the primary, was President Ford in 1976 to Ronald Reagan........and Ford went on to loose a close race with the Peanut Farmer....... One thing to consider, going into Super Tuesday last night, the polls and pundits expected Trump to sweep all the States except Texas......which he clearly didn't do, and had close contests in several States he did win........hardly a win for the establishment/Rubio, and not the Huuuuge win expected of Trump, in my opinion, last night's winner (if there was one) was Cruz, that clearly did better than expected.

Right, and going forward, the race is leaving the South, the battleground where Cruz was suppose to be strong....

That's how it works in the Democratic race, not the GOP, which has its own rules with regards to "Super-delegates".

Ahhh no, not according to this Royal Norwegian Air Force pilot's account: in addition: So if this Norwegian pilot and his American partners find the F-35 a better "dog-fighter" than the F-16, and the F-16 being one of the most capable "dog-fighters" in the West presently, that would make the F-35.......an even better "dog-fighter"......... and in closing:

And doesn't mean its any less dated. I've provided countless citations, in countless threads on this topic, for years. You've done nothing of the sort, repeating your same out of context and made up argument does not equate to fact..........simple question(s), if the Super Hornet is the solution to the USN's requirements in the decades ahead, why does the USN have several ongoing programs to replace it? Why isn't the DoD funding the "Super-Duper" Hornet and replacing their near timed out fleet? Likewise, if the Super Hornet is "good enough" and can fulfill the same roles the F-35 will do out to the 2050-60s, at a greatly reduced cost as you've suggested, why hasn't a single (cash strapped) member nation of the JSF program opted for the "good enough" Super Hornet?

Again, in all those prior listed examples, those responding to aggression all felt a gun to their head........I'm sorry, but you can't change historic fact to suite your narrative..........

I'm not arguing at all, I understand the historic context quite fine. Again that's subjective and lacking context........unlike in the 1930s and 1940s, the West applied the lessons learned about allowing an aggressor to consolidate power unopposed prior to confronting them.

No, you (they) need attrition replacements because aircraft procured in the later 1990s and early 2000s are nearing (sometime this year) their useful life, and are either going to the desert or going through an extensive SLEP.............just late last year, the NAVAIR put in place fleet wide load carrying restrictions for the Super Hornet tanker force (cutting its carrying capacity by over 1/3rd) and is reducing the number of flight hours land based training establishments fly by nearly 40%............added to the retirement of an entire carrier wing next year, and the increased funding for the tanker replacement (which represents ~25% of the deployed Super Hornet force), is a clear indication that the entire force won't be physically able to fly through the 2030s and not the 2040s as you suggest........... Likewise, your citation of the Admiral is both dated and out of context, as its several years old and was raised during congressional funding season.......like I said before, your "facts" are often out of context and/or dated. The point, the Super Hornet isn't apart of the USN's planning outwards to the 2040s, and isn't justification for Canada to operate the type outwards to the 2060s.

Not their current fleet of aircraft they won't.

They sure as shit invaded Eastern Europe..........and Vietnam, the Falklands and the First Gulf Wars were actual wars

The Super Hornet is going through the CBR now........so it can continue to operate into the 2030s....... Not the current aircraft in service, nor do they have any intention to replace the current fleet with new (advanced) Super Hornets......so yes you are making things up, and poorly..........and are clearly unable to understand that aircraft fatigue and carrier operations make your suggestion fantasy.

You mean to say the RCAF require a modern fighter to operate through the middle of this century? I'm shocked I tells you

By all means, explain the difference, as to why the spread of communism was different than the spread of Nazism, or why the invasion of ones own sovereign territory in the 1980s differs from the same action in the 1940s, or the Japanese control of natural resources in the 1940s was of more importance then Saddam's control of the majority of the World's oil reserves in the 1990s.......

As cited numerous times, the Super-Duper Hornet isn't being funded........so yes, you are making things up when you suggest that to be the case.

What moves? Hire a retired British admiral, to play expert, that was involved in three British programs that spiraled out of fiscal control and delivered far less ships than required......and said programs weren't sorted until a change of Government and said admiral "retired"..........brilliant plan.

You have yet to demonstrate how that unfounded claim is valid............would the F-86 meet our requirements today?

Do you have anything of worth to offer? Do you not think the spread of Communism was seen as a grave national threat to the Americans during the cold war? Was the British reaction to the Falklands any different then other nations that have seen their own territory invaded? Was the threat to the global economy not real when Saddam was weeks away from controlling the majority of the World's known oil reserves?

It doesn't mater........ .......because carrier aircraft only have a finite number of hours in which the structural airworthiness of the aircraft will allow it to operate........The USN isn't going to replace their Super Hornet fleet with Super Hornets, hence your suggestion that they will operate decade longer than planned is laughable and not grounded in reality.

Says who? Even if that were the case, its not justification for an effective defensive strategy...........throughout the Cold War, the Soviets maintained vast reserves of equipment left over from the second world war in reserve......yet no Western NATO power suggested fielding WW II surplus to defend against dated Soviet equipment.

Yes, how you might define national survival will differ with how I define it, or the nations used as examples define it.

That's subjective to its own definition and intent when applied to the spoken to subject.

You're the one in the fantasy world, the Russians and Chinese (and Europeans) are developing their own 5th generation, stealth aircraft........

And your assumption is not based on reality, as the Super Hornet fleet will hit sometime later this year its fleetwide average 6000 hours mark, the end of its useful life absent a center barrel upgrade (like was done with the legacy Hornet fleet).......simply put, absent the entire Super Hornet fleet being replaced with Super Hornets, the 2030s will be the end of the fleet............. And what delays are you speaking of one the 6th generation replacement? Already, 30-40% of the USN's Super Hornet fleet is dedicated to aerial refueling missions, and its replacement is slated to enter service early next decade.............you're dreaming if you think the Super Hornets/Growlers will last beyond the 2030s......

Wrong, in the decades ahead, an obsolete aircraft will be more of a burden than a contribution to collective defense.

No, it doesn't.......the later will be worthless and outclassed by potential foes in the decades ahead.