GWiz

I'd say you have a significant problem with "The truth" along with a severe deficit in comprehension and understanding of both the writen and spoken word... No need to thank me for the analysis... You're welcome...

Wrong... I didn't read it because I am well versed in the FACTS regarding George Walker Bush and when it comes to reading a fictional account of events that he wrote doesn't interest me... I have however read several reviews of the book and seen several interviews with Bush about "Decision Point" which brought me to that conclusion... BTW - No "sarcasm" intended it's a work of fiction because it's NOT factual...

Yeah, because YOU GUYS didn't want them there... My friend, do me a favour and don't go there... It's "out of bounds"... In the line of duty: Canada's casualties Last Updated December 20, 2010 Since 2002, 154 members of the Canadian Forces have been killed serving in the Afghanistan mission.

- On 15 February 2000, the Navy determined the aircraft to be "operationally effective and operationally suitable," and recommended the aircraft's full introduction into the fleet. The Navy announced the results of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet operational evaluation (OPEVAL). The OPEVAL report awarded the best possible grade to the Super Hornet, calling it "operationally effective and operationally suitable." In addition, the report recommended the aircraft's introduction into the fleet. Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jay Johnson, stated "The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is the cornerstone of the future of naval aviation. The superb performance demonstrated throughout its comprehensive operational evaluation was just what we expected and confirms why we can't wait to get it to the fleet!" Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Nine (VX-9) at China Lake, Calif., flew 1,233 hours in over 850 sorties and expended more than 400,000 pounds of ordnance in the Super Hornet during nearly six months of flights. The 23-member aircrew tested the aircraft in a complex variety of tactical missions representing the operational arena. - So yeah, I'd have absolutely no problem with my sons flying F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, and in fact my youngest son is a pilot, but will be TO OLD to fly the F-35 by the TIME we get them (if we ever do)... Certainly more so than him being a Guinea pig flying an unproven F-35A over the Canadian North on a training mission.. Here's the thing Bill, I think we both want what's BEST for Canada's air arm going forward, right? Also I'm not at all against the JSF which turned into the F-35, and IF it had come to fruition ON TIME, ON BUDGET (cost) , and meeting it's PROMISED SPECIFICATIONS and CAPABILITIES we wouldn't be having this conversation... In FACT I was a hard line proponent in Canada JOINING the JSF program and have been following it since it's inception... If you've been following my posts correctly you will see that the F-35 has met NONE of the established criteria to date... It's a minimum of 2-3 years behind schedule, the software (the hardest and most critical part of the plane) for it is only some 50-70% complete, it's projected cost has nearly doubled, it's slower and has less range than projected, and except for the F-35b and F-35c not really suitable for Canada's Northern Operations with the F-35b being a STVOL (too expensive and may be dropped) on top of which when OUTSIDE armament or fuel are added it loses virtually all "stealth" and exhibits a huge drop in speed and range... Simply put, nowhere near the plane Canada signed on to...

Tsk, tsk a LIE... Cought you with you pants down again did I... Read the WHOLE statement I made... - "The much newer and more modern F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a significantly different plane than our CF-188s that need replacing... They are after all the latest U.S. planes of the "4th generation" fighter planes, AND the U.S. NAVY will be flying them well into the future..." As I said, I was right and YOU were not man enough to ADMIT it you old troll... Still squirming?

Tsk, tsk, now you're trying to slot Canada in with Iceland, shame on you... 'Ye wouldna be try'in te bring out de Irish in me now wuold'ye? (You'd fail, no Irish, just German )

Ahhh, so in short, I was right... The F/A-18 E/F is the NEWEST "4th Generation" Fighter to be produced and rolled out... Thanks... - In June 2009 the House Armed Services Committee supported procurement of additional F/A–18E/F aircraft to mitigate the naval strike-fighter inventory shortfall and believed that procurement of additional F/A–18E/F aircraft through a multi-year procurement contract is more cost effective and prudent than procuring new aircraft through an annual contract or applying $25.6 million of additional fiscal resources per aircraft to extend the service life of the F/A–18A through D fleet. Therefore, the committee included a provision in title I of this Act that would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a multi-year procurement contract for the purchase of additional F/A–18E/F and EA–18G aircraft and also included a provision in title X of this Act that expressed a sense of Congress that the Department of the Navy should maintain no less than ten carrier air wings with no less than 44 strike-fighters each. Additionally, the committee directed the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February 2, 2010, that evaluates the operational effectiveness and costs of extending and modernizing the service-life of F/A–18A through D aircraft to 10,000 flight hours versus procuring, either through an annual or multi-year procurement contract, additional F/A–18E/F aircraft beyond the current program of record. - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18ef-unit.htm

1. But that works for me... Militaries can be such a drain on economies anyway...

BTW, you do realize the exclusive "club" BC and I refer to is the Presidency of the United States and not books, don't you? That'd be stupider than a monkey...

Sure, but what's your point?

Of course... Whether it'd be readable is a different matter...

Correct... Seems to me though that I remember American planes being "knocked down" and they had the latest and best "tech" of the TIME... How did that happen? "It would be naive in the extreme to think that no other country that we may come into conflict in the future would not have technology good enough to knock down our planes." Would that not still apply regardless of what plane Canada buys? Valid points, but it's my contention that no matter what, Canada will ALWAYS remain behind the U.S. when it comes to ANY future conflicts which we MAY or MAY NOT choose to become a part of... It is my contention also that "Stealth" in a MANNED airframe is NOT the ultimate airframe nor the ultimate advantage you seem to think... Speed, enemy detection, armament and range, to name but a few are easily equally important as "Stealth" in any forseeable conflict in support of the United States and/or NATO... Here I have to disagree... My FIRST concern is Canada's realistic and affordable NEEDS, not what perception others may have of Canada... It's ALWAYS a choice that Canada has the right to make whether or not it's in Canada's best interest and it should never be a choice based on what anyone other than Canadians want... Not hyperbole, fair comment... Naaa, you're not a cynic, but I am... What I'm cynical about is the F-35 ever seeing the light of day, at least not to current levels or standards, because of costs in the U.S. and/or being overtaken by better options for the U.S. Militaries... Where would that leave Canada? What does Canada do then?

Ok, so tell me what other comparable airframes to the F/A-18E/F and it's roll did the U.S. put into service post 1996? I'm willing to learn... That's the "what", care to have a try at the rest?

I disagree... Canada is in a unique position because of it's location and size among NATO countries... Your point about the U.S.'s abilities pertaining to it's procurements is totally valid and in part the basis for many of my concerns... Exactly my point... Is there any reason to believe that that would/will change regardless of what Canada buys? Wouldn't a policy whereby cheaper, yet fully capable, planes were purchased, with an amount of those savings set aside to upgrade and service said planes throughtout their service life be a better, more responsible and more prudent policy for Canada's Armed Forces to adopt, begining with THIS case? In the words of my favourite ALIEN - "Do or don't do, there is no try."

A VERY accurate assessment... Good post...

A bit off the mark Bill... The much newer and more modern F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a significantly different plane than our CF-188s that need replacing... They are after all the latest U.S. planes of the "4th generation" fighter planes, AND the U.S. NAVY will be flying them well into the future... Past laurels have little to do with decisions that need to be made and addressed today... Can YOU tell me WHY "stealth" is so important to YOU and how does that affect what, when, why, where, and how (which I've asked you before) that meets something Canada has to have? Please address it directly without any hyperbol, if you can, otherwise tell me you can't and don't bother...

Where did I say any different?

Not at all, but you're looking at the wrong POLL, the only POLL that counts in this case is the POLL we all were witness to... I'll take the findings of a POLL of hundreds of thousands perhaps Millions over a POLL of 10-20 people anyTIME...

True dat, none more exclusive or harder to get into...

Ooo yaaa...

Not to worry, Bush made very few decisions but he was a heck of a "front man" for those that did...

Exactly, who knew GW would be so good at writing fiction, eh...

Maybe this is where we disagree... I'm even more jaded than you... I compare and look at what the US Gov. and Military does in regards to it's purchasing of replacing it's fighter aircraft, especially it's Navy and Marine fighter planes... Primarily because the Navy's and slightly less so the Marines need/use aircraft that meet requirements much closer to Canada's needs... For starters the plane the U.S. Navy are getting, pertaining to the F-35, is the F-35c (Navy) varient, not the F-35a (Air Force) that Canada is committing to - - The Air Force's F-35A version of the craft is a conventional takeoff and landing airplane to replace the F- 16 Falcon and A-10 Thunderbolt II. It will partner with the F-22 Raptor. The Marine Corps, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force need and want a short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft, dubbed the F-35B. The Marines want new aircraft to replace their AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18 Hornets. The British want to replace Sea Harriers and GR.7 Tornado fighters. The Navy's F-35C version of the plane is a carrier-based strike fighter to complement the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. It will replace earlier versions of the F/A-18 as well as the A-6 Intruder, which already has left the inventory. - That's just the FIRST reason I'm adamently against the purchase Harper announced but certainly not the only one nor the most important one... Incidently, I'd be against this purchase just as adamentely if it were the Liberals in power... My concern regards what's BEST for Canada FIRST and has little or nothing to do with politics... The F-35c has a highly reinforced undercarriage and extended range (for starters) to land on carriers OR unimproved shorter northern runways... Of course at a HIGHER COST... One other major concern I have is the LOW quantity (only 65) of planes being contracted for... Perhaps you, Army Guy and others would like to address this/these point(s) first, hopefully with the same non-partisan approach before we continue?

Even more importantly, who is buying and reading them...