Have you read any of the articles on here, and elsewhere, that discussed how trade between those two countries have broken down and Antonov is looking to redesign whole aircraft to rid themselves of Russian dependency?

Needing ballast when lightly loaded is not unheard of in other models. Though, usually they just load more fuel than is needed for the flight. But steel plates will do.

You don’t always *want* the largest aircraft possible. You buy based on needs, and they don’t need C-130s, so they didn’t buy them.

Having worked for a billion dollar (in assets, not even annual revenue) company with enough access to know such things, yes, they do misplace millions of dollars. All the fucking time.

Was that intentionally poetic?

*shrugs* Then you’re whining for its own sake? I mean, you’re given all the tools you need by Google, and you refuse to use them.

Yes, that’s hella illegal under multiple laws. Actually, as a rule, any blanket refusal that bars larges swaths of the populace before you’ve even met them is illegal. Even in the south.

Some employers maybe disinclined to hire veterans for personal reasons, but they’re more than drowned out by the piles of cash the government will give you if your hire one. The feds will basically pay for the vet’s first few months (IIRC, it’s been a while, but $10K+ was on offer).

Right, “friends”...does your girlfriend who lives in Canada (and totally, actually exists) also support your claim?

I agree with this post, except...the F-35 really hasn’t run that wild compared to the F-22 and especially the B-2. It’s no more delayed than those programs were, and costs have blown up by half compared to the Raptor (which was originally envisioned to cost ~$50-60 million in current dollars, vs $210 million in…

Ass-backwards statement. Socialized healthcare actually costs less than what the US pays for its private system.

You’re talking out of your ass. If you ask a Marine what they’d prefer supporting them in the air, they’ll tell you they want a Marine. USMC doesn’t fly A-10, doesn’t want to fly A-10, so it falls into the category of “I’ll take it if it’s available” just like the F-16, B-1 and F-15.

You’re losing it. This particular sentence is exceptionally poorly researched:

Yes...but the formality of performance reviews, and the implicit assumption that once you’re given a raise you’re not going to slack off implies respect for you as a professional and a person.

The support is in the link. Did you only read the 1 word you liked? Flyaway cost is $65.3 (33.2 + 9.6 + 9.3 + 13.2 non-itemized components and services) and support is $15.4 million, which is 19% of the total cost.

You apparently didn’t read much either. The full-on cost is the same: $80.7 million. My oversight (which, yeah, my bad) is immaterial, the “other” category is apparently bigger by 9 million and the engines are 9 less. And no, “support” is not recurring costs. That’s what you need to buy upfront to use the aircraft.…

??? You people make no damn sense. Canada thinks a $115 F-35A is too expensive, so you think they should go for a $210 million (inflation adjusted all-in cost, not including R&D or cost to restart production) F-22?

Given that Trudeau also ran on improving US-Canadian relations, I highly doubt they drop the F-35 for a European combat jet (which has never happened, so would be a particularly strong statement). I see 3 outcomes:

Absolutely, which is why it’s mostly off Congress’s shit list (McCain still cranks on it), but Taylor has an axe to grind, so the only thing you’ll get from him is the occasionally pretty photo.

Umm...no. One-time costs for a Super Hornet is $80.7 million. $33.29 million for the airframe. $9.3 million for avionics, and 9.6 million for EACH of the F414 engines and $19 million in spares and other support costs.