Derek 2.0

Wrong, fourth generation, non-stealthy aircraft will be at a disadvantage to Russian stealth fighters and the eventual Russian (and Chinese) stealth strategic bombers......which the Russians are developing now.

No, it is........you raised the specter of Canada being unable to fend off the Russians........the reality, Canada wouldn't need to fend off the Russians absent the Americans, but that is not an excuse for Canada to not contribute.

Exactly, just recently, the Russians restarted their cold war doctrine of escorting their bombers over the pole with fighter aircraft...........and to confirm this wasn't just a stunt, they have been doing the exact same mission profiles with their bombing missions over Syria..........clearly a stealth aircraft will have an advantage over non-stealth Russian aircraft......and when the Russians eventually employ their own stealth aircraft, a non-stealth aircraft will clearly be at a disadvantage......

What if the Russians, or the Chinese attack us...or more likely, a Russian/Chinese client state attacks one of our allies with modern Russian/Chinese equipment? Does camouflage work.......that is after all what "stealth" is? If stealth doesn't work, why are the Russians and Chinese (and the Europeans) developing stealth aircraft?

Right now, today, the current Russian bomber force, namely the Tu-160, would pose a measure of difficulty (and mathematics) to intercept for American and Canadian forces based solely on its ability to sprint at great speeds..........going forward, the use of modern stealth aircraft like the F-35 (with a greater ability to share data with other aircraft in a secure environment, well reducing the ability of the Russian aircraft to detect it and its communications) will make intercepting the ultra fast Russian Blackjack fleet that much more easier........... Who's to say where the Russian (or Chinese) will be 20 plus years from now........

Yes, as our contribution to NORAD's North East and North West sectors......absent a dramatic increase in the Russian bomber force, our combined current levels with the Americans would make a difference against a Russian attack.

Aren't they one and the same?

They very much so were wars of national importance, none the less, what civilian economy is there to retool? Unlike 75 years ago, Western Nations have seen heavy industry go overseas, likewise their human capacities in valuable fields of studies diminish.......The West isn't going to fight a war against a China for example, well relying upon deliveries of Chinese steel, shipped in Chinese produced cargo ships, to be shaped into the weapons of war by Chinese factory workers, weapons designed by Chinese engineers.........there is no extra civilian capacity waiting in the wings to be retooled.......

That's doubtful, again also assuming a war remained conventional, unlike 75 years ago, both the methods and technology today don't lend themselves to rapid rearmament in the lead up or during a war like they did during the second world war.....this is evident by Western/NATO forces reliance in on hand war stocks and the discarding of reserve (mothball) fleets of old equipment, acknowledging that even the United States doesn't have the capacity to refurbish old equipment during a war. This was the experience for the Americans during Vietnam, that even with factories turning out munitions 24/7, still relied on nearly ~70% of the munitions dropped leftover from the Second World War.....or the British during the Falklands, that were unable to return to service portions of their own "reserve fleet" due to lack of domestic capacity.......or the Allies during Desert Storm, that nearly emptied all the munitions in Germany and Western Europe stockpiled to fight the Soviets, accumulated over decades, within two months.......or NATO/Canada's experience in Afghanistan, which saw years to obtain additional heavy lift helicopters, in our case waiting until after the war to receive new production....... No, in another sustained war, like the Second World War, the Western nations would be hard pressed to keep up with both losses and expenditures, let alone build new capacity.........likewise manpower, 75 years ago training a 17 year old just off the farm with the most advanced technology of the day could be accomplished within weeks and months, today it takes years in highly technology reliant trades within modern militaries....... It very much so would be come as you are.

"All the damage" wasn't caused by the impact, but the fires fed by jet fuel and pulverized aluminum that created a super hot, near explosive fire, that resulted in structural steel being weakened, then collapsing under its own weight........

The mostly aluminum wings hitting a steel (or limestone with the Pentagon) facade.......and the question is what? Ever play rock-paper-scissors? The same concept applies.......steel and limestone beat aluminium......

That is a political question.......between now and ~2060, we could very much so be sucked into a war, and could have very little choice in the mater......at which point, it would be come as you are.

I agree, the rubber hits the road on Super Tuesday for both Cruz and Rubio........The New York times mind you did the math and shows how Rubio could still "win" with losing all the super Tuesday States.......

And? You cited the same story.....of which, its noted that the IOC for both the USAF and USN are still on track.........not confirmation of your "point" that costs are rising, nor the program will be delayed an additional four years.......

What problems?

The current costs of the various aircraft have been cited numerous times, that is not my opinion, but fact........likewise, as cited countless times, the cost of the F-35 has declined with each new LRIP lot buy....again, not opinion, but fact.

Aluminum isn't strong, and the same type of lethal super hot fires have happened before, namely at sea.......ie a combination of jet fuel, aluminum and various other metals creating a near thermite like reaction that resulted in not only aluminium, but steel melting from a fire started by jet fuel........ Case in point, over 40 years ago, the USS Belknap collided with the carrier USS John F Kennedy. Very little initial damage to either ship, but the crash broke a jet fuel line on the carrier, which in turn coated the cruiser in jet fuel.....one spark, and the cruiser's mostly aluminum and steel superstructure melted down to deck level. Another example would be the British loss of HMS Ardent during the Falklands war....in this case the British frigate was hit by an Argentine bomb in the ship's helicopter hanger, which started a fire fed by jet fuel........the fire grew super hot and started melting the after end of the aluminum structure, which in turn melted steel support beams and the hull, so hot that the crew was unable to fight it and had to abandon ship. The point, jet fuel combined with aluminum and other crushed metals can create a chemical reaction, that in turn will create a fire hot enough to melt steel.

We'll know Tuesday, but might have been too late to make a dent in the Donald.

Perhaps good politics, but bad public policy.

Well no, their own platform was far from fair, ruling out the F-35 and naming the Super Hornet as an example........that is not how one holds a fair competition....... As to cost and industrial benefits, as asked countless times, how much involvement does Canadian industry currently have in the other aircraft? As to cost, the still not in full production F-35 is now cheaper than any Western produced aircraft absent the Super Hornet and F-16.......Cost alone, that would rule out anything from Europe.

Then you agree Trudeau made a mistake in ruling out the F-35 during the election?

I've liked Rubio for years, and he (along with Bush) were my personal favorites from the start, and Rice or Kasich (before he even entered the race) for the bottom half..........at this point, I prefer Cruz over Trump, and I don't even like Cruz......... I don't think he is either a Republican or a Democrat, but a malleable billionaire.

And the Prime Minister ruled out the F-35 during the election.........yet now, the Government refuses to state the F-35 won't be the Hornet replacement.

Or better yet, keep a positive relationship with an international aerospace giant that actually does business with Bombardier, and has partnered with Bombardier to enter a major US competition for the replacement of their JSTARS fleet.....

Can you explain why the previous Government never released the "winner" of their "competition", of which the F-35 was rumored to have won, going into an election........one would expect, if said findings suggested another aircraft, the current Government would have released said information to confirm their election promises and poke the Tories in the eye......... Furthermore, the "rumors" of an initial Canadian four aircraft buy in the later half of 2018 keep surfacing.....with Andrew Coyne repeating said "rumors" just a couple of weeks ago.........and here we are today, with the GoC still a member of the JSF program, still investing in the program, and the MND and Minister of Public works refusing to state the F-35 won't replace our Hornets.......