the issue with prices in Canada has NOTHING to do with your concepts……it has EVERYTHING to do with the sales taxes imposed on everything we buy. Now from those taxes all the public programs in Canada are funded right?, well when combined with the income taxes etc…..BUT we all recieve Health Care that we don;t “pay for” out of pocket, Canadians don;t get dinged with 100’s of thousands in medical bills, we also live in a climate that nessessitates the NEED to have things like Public snow removal for every town and city nation wide as well as for the highways……all that needs to be payed for out of taxes…..

for it;s size Canada has a small population, massively less than the USA……we DO allow for immigration and investment, so, if Asian people and their money choose to come here…so be it…..

Again, the USA will NEVER reach energy independance…..their demand is simply to great, and to assume that it is feasible for them to attain that goal is a gamble I wouldn;t take…

and Canada is a pretty far reach away from complete de industrialization….

I don;t know what “PERFECT” country you reside in……but your slanted view of the world is bizzare…

and AGAIN, what does it have to do with Canada buying F35’s???????

perhaps the tread could get back on track and out of fantasy land economics

Bombardier planes are entirely based on imported components. 25% currency plunge impact is not taking into account and neither is uncertainity about CSeries. Tax evasion is top of that.

http://www.news1130.com/2014/12/10/quebec-finance-minister-asks-tax-department-to-examine-bombardier/
They say the Montreal-based aircraft and railway car manufacturer used a complex structure to transfer funds to subsidiaries in Luxembourg in order to legally reduce its Canadian tax bill.

snow removal and free health care lead to higher taxes ?. I would say plunging currency will lead to even higher taxes as imported medicine will cost more. you are assuming that gigantic corporate and government sector in US does not provide health care.

US is moving very fast away from expensive Canadian energy.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-12-04/canada-u-dot-s-dot-lng-rivalry-draws-focus-after-petronas-delay
While U.S. terminals are already being built, none of the proponents in Canada have decided to proceed

sorry there fella, problem with getting info from the internet is it’s only as good as what’s put in…….

CANADA is NOT in anyway, shape or form a “single commodity” Nation. Firstly Canada has more than just the Alberta Oil Sands….there is also substantial drilling of oil in Alberta and the Yukon and North West Territories…also we have substantial oil fields on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland. We also produce ( mine) huge amounts of the worlds diamonds ( mostly industrial but fine diamonds as well). We have Gold mining, Nickle, Uranium and coal mining across Canada. We have HUGE amounts of trees and produce massive amounts of the hard and soft woods that are sold into the USA. We also have substantial water supplies. All told our Natural resources far out weigh the amounts that the USA could ever hope to produce. That said, we also have manufacturing ability and sell alot to the USA. Canada has for generations been a huge international producer of food and crops, especially wheat and corn. By the way, we also manufacture Ethanol ( from corn ) and produce so much electricity from the vast hydro electric projects , combined with the Nuclear facilities and less efficient coal burning sites, that electricity is actually GIVEN away free of charge to New York State and several other States close to the boarder as well…We have great and expansive industrial manufacturing as well, just to name a few…Bombardier ( now international, and into planes, snowmobiles, trains, recreational vehicles etc sold world wide as well as “few” semi well known aircraft, like the LEAR, Challenger and Global jets, commercial planes like the CRJ and the Q400 Nex Gen) as well as de Havilland Canada, manufacturer of the Dash 7 and Dash 8 and Twin Otter Aircraft.

Canada is neither economically dependant on any one source nor lacking in export / import opportunties, world wide, and maintain one of the highest standards of living, education and professional training in the world.

Far from a single commodity country.

SO..even without the US buying oil from the Oil Sands, Canada is just fine, we can off set the expense by simply down sizing or shutting it down oil sands production, as Canada has enough other options to keep it going. And in all honesty the chances of the USA EVER becoming self sufficient in oil needs is almost nil….they will ALWAYS be buying from other sources. It needs to be mentioned that Canada is NOT totally reliant on the Oil Sands, simply because it has NOT been being worked that long!. Canada survived just fine before it was started and will be ok even without it.

Bombardier is $2 stock and that due to trains and Chinese. practically worthless company. infact Hong Kong and Southern Chinese traders have sent housing market through the roof that engineers/scientist are not get paid well enough. that’s why you see companies foldup and cannot expand. RIM/black berry compared to Apple. its single commodity country.

Where do you get these bizarre ideas from? Canada’s percent of GDP from oil/gas/minerals was about 8.2% in 2014. None of nations listed are reliant on a single commodity.

If they are not reliant than why there currency drop 25%? and that despite cuts in Canada military procurements. JSF procurement means essentially cutting the rest of the budget.

You are talking completely out of your ass. Look at videos of the Su-35S and T-50 during MAKS 2013. Plenty of afterburner usage there. F-22’s and T-50’s frontal cross section are almost the same. And what does the F-22’s range have to do with its drag? There are other factors such as lower bypass ratio engines, which lowers SFC, and lower fuel fraction.

Su-35 is made of titanium and T-50 is composite. so they are not same.

And really, the Typhoon is subpar and a failure? What are you talking about? It has sold over 400 units.

400 units over 35 year programme. with same thrust and radar as mid 90s.

Thin from the side, wide from the top and bottom. The T-50 is substantially larger than the Fulcrum, and most good estimates put it at roughly 18 metric tons. If anything, the J-31 is Fulcrum-sized.

substantiall larger than fulcrum. you have proof?. good estimates. who estimate weight.

That is totaly incorrect. India is still Russia most important market, not just on arms deals, but civilian trade deals as well. Like those NC powerplant etc etc.

Those are only two plants build over 20 years. Practically zero importance monetary wise now. and certainly technical skills are required to build else where.

I don’t see what reaction are expected regarding Pakistan, where they are NOT even selling S-X00 air defense systems along with adv radars or selling air logisitical, offensive and defensive technologies. India don’t care anymore, as it will hurt Russia more.

It is dimplomatic job to issue statements but nothing more nothing less.

how exactly it is going to hurt Russia more than India. Infact building relationships with Arabs Russia can better control India. nearly complete dependence on Oil and remittance flow. this thing defy logic.

F-22 is much draggier? At what speeds? What conditions? And how do you know this? And how does the Typhoon’s sales have anything to do with its performance? Or is that just more unsubstantiated bullcrap you’re pulling out of your rear end?

a lot of afterburner use by F-22 for shows. big tails. big frontal. I highly doubt it has that much range advantage over F-15.
Typhoon slow sales and lack of interest in its upgrades clearly is failure that it sub par product despite political backing of 4 EU countries. think Airbus and Middleast airlines. and without that the raising the price of industrial supply chain for all its products including A400M/Typhoon.

And T-50 won’t be much heavier than a MiG-29M? What, based on a side picture? Do you even read your posts?

Its size is closer to MIG-29 than Flanker. No tall tails or canards. thin profile. much higher use of composites by weight.