Derek 2.0

I think if Trump does win the nomination, a great many people will have egg on their face. Even Cruz polls better than Clinton..........What is most interesting, and can explain Trumps rise, is the record breaking turnout in all the GOP primaries.....I still think this coming Tuesday is key, in that if Rubio (or Cruz) can't win more delegates than Trump through whatever combination of 1st and 2nd place finishes, its all but over........then we can start the 2020 GOP nomination thread* *I stand to be corrected in predicting a Clinton win over Trump........

What you suggested amounts to exactly that, and though I'm no fan of this Government, even I wouldn't suggest they would do something so stupid.

Its not hard at all, when a company enters into a competition in good faith and looses, all after the GoC states during an election they had no intention of purchasing it.

What, you won't speak for him, but you'll suggest this government is partaking in a massive con job?

The contracts that are in place will remain, contracts that end through ~2017-2019, as the program exits the development and low rate production phase and enters full rate production. As to lawsuits, that would be dependent on the results of the competition, both from Lockheed's perspective and those of the other entrants into the competition.

No, what is nonsensical is the suggestion that this is grift on our allies by the GoC.

If that were true, why didn't Canada also get in on the Eurofighter consortium? Or seek contracts with the Rafale, Super Hornet or Gripen NG?

Without a doubt, namely with their power base centered around Greater Montreal and the impact leaving the program would have on the Canadian aerospace industry, including many Montreal/Quebec centric companies.....

Are you suggesting that the GoC is gaming both Lockheed and our international partners? Aside from lawsuits and NAFTA challenges, such a con job would result in even further consequences relating to trade and security relationships with our allies, and the contracts that were awarded, being cancelled anyways...........The Liberal Government isn't that stupid. At the end of the day, Trudeau and his inner team made several major mistakes resulting in unrealistic political promises during an election. Now as Government, with "new information" allowing reality to set in, they have walked back said promises and are attempting to triangulate a "Sunny way" forward with the F-35 and its footprint on Canadian industry.........That its the aircraft the RCAF requires is a happy accident.

Fair enough, but the vast majority of politicians (of any stripe) have little experience on any given subject......again this reverts back to advice relayed by experts that do. What comes into question is judgment and the ability to act (or not) on said advice........on this file in the run-up to the election, Trudeau either received bad advice or chose not to listen to good advice......now, it appears the MND has received good advice and is acting on it to his credit.... In fairness, Trudeau and his inner circle might not have been privy to all the information on this file in the run-up to the election though.......which would explain their reversal now that they are in Government.

Did you have a point? You suggested the MND would know a thing or two on this subject based on his experience...........experience he doesn't have, but it doesn't mater because he has staff that do.

With the proposed Hornet replacements, including the F-35? Next to nothing, but its mooted, because he holds a political position and receives advice from those within his department that do........the question is on the ability to act on said advice...to date, the results speak for themselves, in that Canada hasn't left the F-35 program, nor has the MND stated the F-35 won't be the replacement for our Hornets.

Lockheed Martin has a huge footprint in Canada, across the forces, it makes up something like 30-40% of all current Canadian Defense programs/contracts.........replace flip-flops with tin-foil to fathom that Lockheed, unlike the others, also has a huge footprint in the Canadian aerospace industry, including a strong working relationship with both Bombardier/L-3 MAS..........

If its an actual fair competition, really good, based on it yet losing a competition against 4th and 4.5 generation aircraft in any nation in which its been included......... Furthermore, unlike the other aircraft, the F-35 is the only aircraft presently with significant Canadian content, and its program has already contributed 100s of millions of dollars to the Canadian economy, across Canada.......something that can't be said of any of the other aircraft. --------- With regards to the Liberals second back peddle with the program, my question is how are they going to frame this as a fair competition to the Boeings, Dassaults and the Eurofighter consortium, when we're members of the F-35 program......it's telling that Saab can't be bothered to enter a Canadian competition, as such competitions cost industry a fortune to run in.......inversely, if the F-35 were to loose, the GoC will be embroiled in lawsuits and NAFTA challenges (over an unfair competition) for years, all of which Lockheed and the US Government will win.......based on the Liberal's own election platform, which precluded the F-35 by name......... Harper's comments on cratering our aerospace industry aside (which are confirmed by the Liberal government staying with the program), Tom Mulcair was very correct in noting, from a legal standpoint, that such statements precluding an aircraft by name reek of amateur hour on the part of the Trudeau Liberals.........

You're not answering the question..........none the less, as to your posted "concerns", even an ardent socialist like Bernie Sanders is consigned to the reality that is the F-35, welcoming the news that its to be deployed by the Vermont Air National Guard, in its role to contribute to NORAD.

If/when, the Russians and Chinese (or anyone else) deploys said systems, what happens to the threat matrix encompassing current fourth generation aircraft like the Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen NG etc? In other words, when current or near term stealth technology can be defeated, or even compromised, what does that mean for non-stealth aircraft.....in many cases, aircraft today that couldn't operate in the central Iraqi Air Defense grid 25 years ago.....

Exactly, there are already Super Hornets in the high desert.

No there won't, and there sure won't be an operator out to the 2050 and 2060s.

Oh I do, and the majority of your points are either false, lacking in context or reliant upon dated information.......even then, offers little as a justification as to why Canada should procure a design that traces its roots back to the 1970s, and operate said aircraft out to the ~2060s........and in this case, an aircraft that will be compromised by near term Russian aircraft and air defense systems.

What? Name one USN frontline Super Hornet squadron to be replaced by the F-35C..........can't do it? That's because the F-35C isn't replacing the Super Hornet.

I know exactly what it is, and what this is.........the Previous Liberal Government signed the initial agreement years ago....PET did likewise with Canadair in the later 60s with Northrop, over producing the CF-5 Freedom Fighter in greater Montreal ridings......today, Pratt & Whitney Canada (and countless other companies), produce parts for the F-35 program, including companies in Montreal ridings. How much involvement does Canadian industry currently have in the Super Hornet, Gripen NG, Eurofighter and Rafale programs?

In other words "Canadian pork barreling"?

Attrition reserves for their current fleet, a fleet that aged greatly with the operational tempo for the last 15 years. A gap never intended to be filled by the F-35, but the eventual Super Hornet replacement. So their present fleet can operate in a modern battlefield with an enhanced measure of safety. These are not my claims, but the former head of the USMC, which will operate an entire F-35 fleet........versus the USN, that will operate a mixed fleet of strike aircraft, in addition, requires dedicated electronic warfare aircraft to protect their surface fleet, in addition force wide ECM support to other branches of the US military, namely the USAF...........as noted countless times, the F-35 isn't (yet) the planned replacement for the Super Hornet and Growler aircraft fleets.

As already cited, the USN is now seeking Congressional approval to defund and retire an entire Carrier Air Wing.....hence your article is now dated.

I read the one you cited......and the point stands, the USN isn't funding upgrades to their Super Hornet fleet.