Search results

Not to mention the financial crisis. The Iraq War and the 2008 GFC is when the decline started. Hasn't reversed since. You can actually see it in polling. Look at responses to "Is the country going in the right direction?" Positive responses before Iraq. Negative responses consistently after.

Statistics don't matter. Impact does. For better or worse, Trudeau didn't do serious irreversible damage on the global stage. Trump is basically upending the global order as we know it. Even domestically, whatever you disagree with from Trudeau can be undone in due course.

Exactly. They won't actually do anything real to stop him. David Cochrane on CBC last week: “America isn’t the way it is because he’s president. He’s president because America is the way it is.” There's really no coming back from this. Rest of the world slowly decouples away from the US...

CRUNK? I assume Iran might be out shortly.

Can we stop with the cope? The Supreme Allied Commander is always American. It's the end of NATO as we know it if the US is expelled. They'd be better off creating some other structure that works better for them.

They weren't the anchor members. Let's not pretend this is the same thing.

Can we diagnose this as the end of NATO continually functionally?

Can we add the US to the CRINK axis yet?

Not anti-Trump enough on this to actually stop him.

Just wanted to create a space to discuss what comes after NATO. For Europe, the US and Canada. We're at the point where POTUS is tariffing alliance members for refusing to simply hand over territory. At this point I think NATO is functionally a Zombie alliance. Can US guarantees to NATO...

If you are interested in energy and transition issues, energy analyst Nat Bullard (one of original Bloomberg Energy analysts) puts out an epic 200 slide deck every January. It's a data nerd's dream. https://www.nathanielbullard.com/presentations An example of a slide that helps contextualize...

This is a silly take. Honestly, there's was no way to know at the time that the Cyclone would become such a lemon. It was a risk because of development needed. But the S-92 has done well in commercial service. It wasn't an unreasonable risk. Compare that to say Fixed Wing SAR where...

The S-92 is commercially successful. It's just the Cyclone that has struggled. They probably would have gotten more military sales of the H-92 if the Cyclone was more successful. There's a lot of valuable capability in a medium lift helicopter with a ramp.

Really useful if Sikorsky wants to use the frames to do a whole lot of engineering work to make a medium-heavy helicopter they can sell to military clients in the future. They can finish all the developmental work they should have done before selling us this one.

Cyclones have reliability issues. Not sure it's good to have a SAR fleet with high unreliability.

Media reporting is going off published dates. Let's just say in this new world, things move a lot faster. And well SOF doesn't bother much with public timelines.

Aside from what Noah said, the rumint has been that this is part of a deal with Sikorsky to ditch the Cyclone which is also costing them money. So they cut us a deal on Romeos and Whiskeys. They get out of the loss making Cyclone. We get out of the unreliable Cyclone.

Blackhawks about to be announced for SOF. Article link removed by moderators IAW site policy not quoting a specific reporter due to past legal action. And hopefully soon after Seahawks as the Cyclone replacement. Nice win-win way for both sides to get out of the Cyclone. Interesting ideas...

Correct. This is functionally how NORAD operates today.

You can do a Sharepoint search to learn more. Crossbow is highly classified. So not much will be found. But you can read between the lines here: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2022/06/minister-of-national-defence-announces-canadas-norad-modernization-plan.html...