CAF -- CF-35a Lightning II

CF-35a Lightning II

Now that the Election is over, we know that Canada is going to be getting these new CF-35. There are 3 different Variants, Canada is getting the "A / CTOL" variant.

General characteristics

• Crew: 1
• Length:15.67m (51.4ft)
• Wingspan: 10.7m (35ft)
• Height: 14.2 ft (4.33 m)
• Wing area: 42.7m² (460ft²)
• Empty weight: 13,300kg (29,300lb)
• Loaded weight: 22,470kg (49,540lb)
• Max takeoff weight: 31,800kg (70,000lb)
• Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
• Dry thrust: 125 kN (28,000 lbf)
• Thrust with afterburner: 191 kN (43,000 lbf)
• Internal fuel capacity: 8,382kg (18,480lb)

Performance

• Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+ (1,930 km/h, 1,200 mph)
• Range: 2,220 km (1,200 nmi) on internal fuel
• Combat radius: over 1,090 km (590 nmi) on internal fuel
• Service ceiling: 18,288 m (60,000 ft)
• Rate of climb: classified (not publicly available)
• Wing loading: 446 kg/m² (91.4 lb/ft²)
• Thrust/weight:
• With full fuel: 0.87
• With 50% fuel: 1.07
• g-Limits: 9 g

Armament

• Guns: 1 × General Dynamics GAU-22/A Equalizer 25 mm (0.984 in) 4-barreled gatling cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds
• Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) and 2 internal bays with 2 pylons each for a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb (8,100 kg) and provisions to carry combinations of:

Missiles:

• AIM-120 AMRAAM
• AIM-132 ASRAAM
• AIM-9X Sidewinder
• IRIS-T
• JDRADM (after 2020)
• AGM-154 JSOW
• AGM-158 JASSM
• JSM

Bombs:

• Mark 84, Mark 83 and Mark 82 GP bombs
• Mk.20 Rockeye II cluster bomb
• Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser capable
• Paveway-series laser-guided bombs
• Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
• JDAM-series
• B61 nuclear bomb

Avionics

• Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/APG-81 AESA radar
• Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) missile warning system
• BAE Systems AN/ASQ-239 (Barracuda) electronic warfare system
• Harris Corporation Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) communication system

Differences between variants

	F-35A CTOL	F-35B STOVL	F-35C CV
Length	15.7 m (51.4 ft)	15.6 m (51.3 ft)	15.7 m (51.5 ft)
Wingspan	10.7 m (35 ft)	10.7 m(35 ft)	13.1 m (43 ft)
Wing Area	42.7 m² (460 ft²)	42.7 m² (460 ft²)	62.1 m² (668 ft²)
Empty weight	13,300 kg (29,300 lb)	14,500 kg (32,000 lb)	15,800 kg (34,800 lb)
Internal fuel	8,390 kg (18,500 lb)	6,030 kg (13,300 lb)	8,890 kg (19,600 lb)
Max takeoff weight	31,800 kg (70,000 lb)	27,000 kg (60,000 lb)	31,800 kg (70,000 lb)
Range	1,200nmi (2,220km)	1,670 km (900 nmi)	2,520 km (1,400 nmi)
Combat radius on internal fuel	1,090 km (590 nmi)	833 km (450 nmi)	1,185 km (640 nmi)
Thrust/weight full fuel 50% fuel	0.87 / 1.07	0.90 / 1.04	0.75 / 0.91

F-35A CTOL	Conventional TakeOff and Landing
F-35B STOVL	Short TakeOff and Vertical Landing
F-35C CV	Carrier-based Version

The CF Variant
The Canadian CF-35 will differ from the American F-35A through the addition of a drag chute and an F-35B/C style refueling probe. Norway may also use the drag chute option, as they also have icy runways.






JSF Program requirements and selection

The JSF program was designed to replace the United States military F-16, A-10, F/A-18 (excluding newer E/F "Super Hornet" variants) and AV-8B tactical fighter aircraft. To keep development, production, and operating costs down, a common design was planned in three variants that share 80 percent of their parts:

George Standridge of Lockheed Martin has said that the F-35 will be four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-ground combat, and three times more effective than legacy fighters in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses – while having better range and requiring less logistics support and having around the same procurement costs (if development costs are ignored) as legacy fighters. Further, the design goals call for the F-35 to be the premier strike aircraft through 2040 and be second only to the F-22 in air superiority.

While the actual JSF development contract was signed on 16 November 1996, the contract for System Development and Demonstration (SDD) was awarded on 26 October 2001 to Lockheed Martin, whose X-35 beat the Boeing X-32. Although both aircraft met or exceeded requirements, the X-35 design was considered to have less risk and more growth potential. The designation of the new fighter as "F-35" is out-of-sequence with standard DoD aircraft numbering, by which it should have been "F-24". It came as a surprise even to Lockheed, which had been referring to the aircraft in-house by this expected designation.

Design phase

Based on wind tunnel testing, Lockheed Martin slightly enlarged its X-35 design into the F-35. The forward fuselage is 130 mm (5 inches) longer to make room for avionics. Correspondingly, the horizontal stabilators were moved 51 mm (2 inches) rearward to retain balance and control. The top surface of the fuselage was raised by 25 mm (1 inch) along the center line. Also, it was decided to increase the size of the F-35B STOVL variant's weapons bay to be common with the other two variants. Manufacturing of parts for the first F-35 prototype airframe began in November 2003.

The F-35B STOVL variant was in danger of missing performance requirements in 2004 because it weighed too much; reportedly, by 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) or 8 percent. In response, Lockheed Martin added engine thrust and thinned airframe members; reduced the size of the common weapons bay and vertical stabilizers; re-routed some thrust from the roll-post outlets to the main nozzle; and redesigned the wing-mate joint, portions of the electrical system, and the portion of the aircraft immediately behind the cockpit. Many of the changes were applied to all three variants to maintain high levels of commonality. By September 2004, the weight reduction effort had reduced the aircraft's design weight by 1,200 kg (2,700 pounds).

On 7 July 2006, the US Air Force officially announced the name of the F-35: Lightning II, in honor of Lockheed's World War II-era twin-prop Lockheed P-38 Lightning and the Cold War-era jet, the English Electric Lightning. English Electric Company's aircraft division was a predecessor of F-35 partner BAE Systems. Lightning II was also an early company name for its fighter that was later named F-22 Raptor.

On 19 December 2008, Lockheed Martin rolled out the first weight-optimized F-35A (designated AF-1). It is the first F-35 to be produced at a full-rate production speed and is structurally identical to the production F-35As that will be delivered starting in 2010.

As of 5 January 2009, six F-35s were complete, including AF-1 and AG-1, and 17 were in production. "Thirteen of the 17 in production are pre-production test aircraft, and all of those will be finished in 2009," said John R. Kent, acting manager of F-35 Lightning II Communications at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company. "The other four are the first production-model planes, and the first of those will be delivered in 2010 to the U.S. Air Force, and will go to Eglin Air Force Base." On 6 April 2009, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates proposed speeding up production for the US to buy 2,443 F-35s.

In August 2010, Lockheed Martin announced delays in resolving a "wing-at-mate overlap" production problem, which would slow initial production.

Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 8, A Simple Question?

On March 25^th, Conservative party was defeated on an Non-Confidence vote, why? What was the vote about? Why plunge Country into another election? Could have this election been avoided?

So what was the Non-Confidence vote about? There was a Commons committee looking into the government for any contempt of Parliament (wrong doing and misleading Parliament).

1. Who inserted the “Not”?

   1. International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda was brought in for questioning, because there was a memo that the government was going to fund international relief organization, Kairos. Parliament agree to this funding, however afterwords someone inserted “not funding” Kairos. So the question is this, who inserted the not and why. During question period this question was brought up. And Minister Bev Oda said “she didn't know”. It took a commons committee to get to the truth. It turns out that one of her staffers inserted the “Not” and used a stamp with her signature. My question is why change the funding after Parliament was good with the funding. And why Minister Bev Oda not get the copy of the revised memo and share it with Parliament.

2. How much do the Jets cost?

   1. Conservative claim that the total for the CF-35a will cost 75million per jet and the program will cost in total 9billion.
   2. Now Norway sign a contract for the F-35 and they are paying over 200million per jet, Israel is going to be sending over 150million per jet. And if you go to Wikipedia has the price of 122million per jet. US government got a quote of 150million per jet. (there is a US law that any company selling military equipment can not sell the equipment cheater to foreign countries.).
   3. A watchdog group is claim that the total program is going to cost Canadians 29billion, really? WOW 9billion to 29billion.
   4. Conservative claim that they have a “Memo of understanding” and or a “contract”. I have heard both, regardless Conservative need to release these documents for all Canadian to see the truth. How much this jets do cost us, Yes US, the Tax payers.

There are other items coming into light, like the Auditor General Sheila Fraser drafts about the G8 Summits where leak out. Now the final report isn't going to be release, we have to wait for Parliament is back in session. But both drafts has this common thing in common: the Conservatives asked for 80million for border improvement, however 50million was spent in the riding of Parry Sound - Muskoka witch happen to be Minister of Industry, Tony Clement riding. So what did we pay for new sidewalks and city improvements. No where near any borders. Why did Conservative mislead Parliament about this? Why didn't they just come back to Parliament and say “We have 50million extra that we would like to thank they riding of Parry Sound – Muskoka for hosting the G8”?

I do have other questions that I know that I will not get

1. Conservatives claim that they can clear up the budget a year early, how? They brought out a budget 2-3 weeks before this statement, what change? Are they planing on cutting some services? Raise taxes on the middle class?
2. Why can't they produce document on their program sending (prions and CF-35)?
3. Why is someone that has been convected of fraud is working in the PMO, where top secrete documents are?
4. Why did he pointed new senators that are under investigation for fraud?

So is this Conservatives government corrupt?

Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 7, Why is minority government bad for Canada?

Is minority government bad for Canada? No, it is not bad for Canada. There has been 13 minority government in Canada. Dose the party with the most seats has the right to govern the country? No, they do not have a “Right” to govern the country, after all the majority did not vote for them. So the question is how can a minority government can govern the country?

The best example is the Lester Pearson government

1963 election

Party	Seats	Popular Vote %
Liberal – Lester Pearson	128	41.52%
PC – John Diefenbaker	95	32.72%
Social Credit – Robert Thompson	24	11.92%
New Democrat – Tommy Douglas	17	13.24%

1965 election

Party	Seats	Popular Vote %
Liberal – Lester Pearson	131	40.18%
PC – John Diefenbaker	97	32.41%
New Democrat – Tommy Douglas	21	17.91%
RC – Réal Caouette	9	4.66%
Social Credit – Robert Thompson	5	3.66%

• PC – Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
• RC – Ralliement créditiste, this party is Quebec base party

During these 2 term was the most productive Parliament. The Liberal and the backing of the NDP. National identity, Canada got a new flag.

1957 - 1965	runner up	runner up	1965 - present

Other and very important bills that where past that we have today

• Canada's health care system
• Canada Pension Plan

1972 election

Party	Seats	Popular Vote %
Liberal – Pierre Trudeau	109	38.42%
PC – Robert Stanfield	107	35.02%
New Democrat – David Lewis	31	17.83%
Social Credit – Réal Caouette	15	7.55%

The most notable from this government is the creation of Petro-Canada

Other notable minority government

Longest term:

• Liberal – William Lyon Mackenzie King, 1921–1925, 3 years (233 days)

Shortest term:

• PC – Arthur Meighen, 1926, 0 years (3 days)

Longest time as government:

• CPC: Stephen Harper – 1^st term 2006–2008, 2 years, (207 days)
• CPC: Stephen Harper – 2^nd term 2008–2011, 2 years, (142 days)
• In total 4 years (349 days)
  

Minority governments from the 1950's to today

There has been 9 minority and 10 majority government

from 1962 to 1968 and 2004 to 2011 are the longest stretch of minority governments

So is minority governments hurtful to Canada, No. Out off the last 61 years it's almost 50% time we had minority government. What isn't good for Canada is a government, try to push their agenda through, without regards of parliament. What made a good minority government is a government that works with the other parties. Currently the opposition parties are willing to work with each other, however the current government shows very little interest in working with the opposition parties.

Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 6, The Aboriginal Question

When I was installing satellite systems, I quite often go into some of the Aboriginal communities. At time it felt like I was going into a 3^rd world country. Why is that? All the Aboriginal responsibilities fall under the Federal responsibilities. So here are some of the main issues facing the Aboriginal peoples.

• Housing – many of house are in disrepair and some of these houses will have more then 1 family living in them.
  
• Clean and safe water.
• Rundown infrastructure.
• Education – there is a very high dropout rate
• Health - majority of them have to travail over an hour to see a doctor.
• Very high unemployment rate
• Very high suicide rate within their youth.
• Very high crime and substance abuse.
  

I am just scratching the surface. So what can we do about all these issues? Here are some of my ideas, and not everyone going to like them on both sides.

The first thing we need to do is to look at all land dispute, both sides are going to have to give and take on these issues. The Aboriginal people are going to have to decide what land are the most important to then and let out of some of them, and we are going to let some land go even if it is in Caledonia, Ontario (Just south of Hamilton, Ontario). Now that we have the land disputes settled we can move on to some more issues. So how should we solve all these issue? Let the Aboriginal people decide on their on direction by allow them to government themselves, take most of the responsibilities for themselves. They know what their communities needs and wants. Lets look at Ontario, in my area, there is few Aboriginal communities. Kettle Point (including Ipperwash), Muncey, Moraviantown, Walpole Island and Six Nations (they are all in southern Ontario). Now if we take all of these communities in southern, eastern and northern Ontario link them together and setup a system of government. Giving them the same rights and responsibilities as the provinces.

What will this do and how will this benefit the the Aboriginal people? And how will this be paid for?

Let look at the second questions first, how will all of this get paid. Now the Aboriginal people may not like this, but they will need to pay their share of taxes. They are currently being exempt from paying taxes. This method of getting moneys from the Federal Government isn't working. They don't have a voice in government, they don't have a say on how moneys are spent in their communities. With in their communities they can set a “Provincial Tax Rate”. This will create a win – win for everyone. Because the non-aboriginal people won't have to pay for all the programs for the Aboriginal people and the Aboriginal communities will have a new source of income to pay for their programs.

This is an example, let take Ontario, let call this new province UACoO (Unite Aboriginal Communities of Ontario), they will have their on legislature witch they can vote for members. They would also receive transfer payments from the federal government. Responsibilities, would be the same as the provinces, with includes Health care, education, welfare. So now what we have done here is to take these responsibilities from the federal government and put it into the hands of the Aboriginal peoples. They live in these communities and they know what issues need to be address. They can also look at there youth and develop programs to keep their youth in school and after school programs. With these programs, will help with the problems that they do have with their youth, (namely substance abuse and the high suicide rate). Giving their youth hope for the future and not despair.

The biggest issue and maybe hard is the unemployment, but they can create some opportunities to employment, for example:

1. Policing their communities
2. EMS
3. Fire Fighters
4. Community health centers
5. Infrastructure programs
6. Education

It a fact that if unemployment rate is low, the crime rate goes down as well. Of course this will not happen over night but again we are giving them something that is very important, hope for the future and not despair.

I believe that this could work and could be beneficently for everyone in Canada. Canada will have new strong, proud independent Aboriginal Communities. They will have their own voice in government determining their on direction on solving their own issues.

Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 5, The Senate

One thing I haven't hear about too much about, The Senate, with the only exception with Jack Layton during the debates. “I don’t know why we need so many prisons when the crooks seem happy in the Senate,”. He pointed out two issues with this one statement.

How dose our government works:

Parliament is divided into two “Houses”, lower and upper. The lower house is the House of Commons. The House Commons is where bill are introduce, debated on and if passed goes to the Upper House the Senate. The House of Commons we vote for our representative. Now in the Upper House, the Senate, we do not vote for these representatives, they are pointed by the Prime Minster. In the 2004 Election, the CPC promised to bring in an elected, equal, and effective (the "Triple-E Senate" ). However Prime Minster did not make this change in fact he continue to point senators (some are being under investigation by the RCMP with fraud charges). The NDP view is it should be abolished.

Now I believe it should not be abolished, however I do believe it need to be reformed, and this is what I think it should look like:

All regions of Canada should have equal representation, just like the “Triple-E Senate” (with the exception of Ontario, witch there will be 2 Northern and Southern Ontario and the Territories witch will be less. There is currently 105 seats in the senate, so we can increase it to 108. All regions will have 9 senators (exception of Ontario will have a total of 18 and the 3 Territories will have 9 (3 each). Why Ontario is has 18, the main reason is that Northern Ontarian has a different point of view to compare to the Southern Ontarian. Even economic is quite different. Where Southern Ontario is more manufacturing and high tech and Northern is more resource based.

Elections should be a fixed date, like every first Tuesday of October every 3 to 4 years. Candidates can be associated to a party in the lower house or region parties can be in the senate and not in the House of Commons. The Bloc Québécois can be in the Upper House and not in the Lower House.

Another tough is to add 9 more seats for the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. ( 3 seats from east, 3 seats from central and 3 seats from the west.).

Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 4, Why are there some many election?

Why are there some many election? It seem that there is an election every 2 years. Our style of government is based from the British Parliamentary. Currently there are 4 parties that has seats in the House of Commons and there are 308 seats and to form majority government, a party needs 155. The last 4 elections Canadians voted in minority government. So the party with the most seats did not get 155, so the last election the Conservatives 143, Liberal 77, NDP 37, Bloc Québécois 49. The opposition parties has 240 seats. Now it is possible that the Conservatives could have got support from 1 or more opposition(s) by have a loose agreement that the second party will vote on bills to support so that they can pass or form a coalition government, witch means that the second party would get some cabinet positions.

When a government is voted in, they do have 4 years to govern the country, unless they lose an non-confidence vote. Not all bills are confidence vote. If a government loses a non-confidence vote, the Prime Minster will go to Governor General, and at this time the Governor General can call a new elections or go to the opposition party(s) to see if they can form a new government.

This is one style of governing another one is like the USA. Lets compare the 2 different styles with the budget for this year.

Canadian – the opposition parties vote nae, the government falls with a non-confidence vote, Canadians go to another elections (** Please NOTE that, this is not the reason why we are in an election. I used the budget as example).

USA – they can not agree on their budget and it does not pass, the USA government shuts down. Yes it shuts down putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work. Because they can not pay them. And minority of their services will stop operating.

So the question is this: 1- do you want to elect a newer government? 2- a government that is shuts down until they can work thing out.

So do the Americans have less elections? No they have more then we do. A President is elected for 4 years. Here is a brake down of their elections. They do have fixed elections date, November 4^th

Example:

Year	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Type	Presidential	Off-year	Midterm	Off-year	Presidential
President	Yes	No			Yes
Senate	33 Seats Class II	No	34 Seats Class III	No	33 Seats Class I
House	All 435 Seats	No	All 435 Seats	No	All 435 Seats
Gubernatorial	11 states DE, IN, MO, MT, NH, NC, ND, UT, VT, WA, WV	2 states NJ, VA	36 states AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NE, NV, NH, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VT, WI, WY	3 states KY, LA, MS	11 states DE, IN, MO, MT, NH, NC, ND, UT, VT, WA, WV

So Some Americans vote every 2 years and others vote every 4 year. And Canadians will have election very 4 years unless if the government is brought down on an non-confidence vote. Here is a time line from 2000:

November 27^th, 2000, it was the end of the Liberal party mandate, the Liberal won majority government.

June 28^th 2004, it was the end of the Liberal party mandate, the Liberal won minority government.

January 23^rd, 2006, Stephen Harper tried to setup a coalition government but failed, but the Conservatives brought down the government with an non-confidence vote. The Conservatives won a minority government.

October 14^th, 2008, Stephen Harper called an election to get a majority government, The Conservatives won a minority government.

May 2^nd, 2011, Liberal brought down the government with non-confidence vote. The vote was about contempt of Parliament. This was the first time a contempt of Parliament charge has resulted in a motion of non-confidence not only for a Canadian Government, but for a national government anywhere in the Commonwealth of Nations.

Power and Politics on Vote 4 the Internet Campaign

Open Government vs. Closed Government

We need to have an open and transparent government, that will follow the code of ethics. Let look at The Conservative Party of Canada, they had minority government for the last 5 years.During the general election of 2006 Stephen Harper promise to clean up Ottawa by bring in a Code of Ethic making the government more transparent, did that happen?

Open and Transparent --FAILED--

Following a Code of Ethics --FAILED--

The way how Stephen Harper is running his election campaign (2011) is the same way he ran his government. It is micro managed, staged and very well scripted. His campaign rallies are not open to the public. If you are not a Conservative, you are denied entry. In London Ontario, Stephen Harper was in town on April 3^rd for a rally, and two Londoners where asked to leave the rally because they where friends with Michael Ignatieff on facebook, and had a picture of them with Michael Ignatieff for their profile picture. For the full story please read this (http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/04/17875211.html).

While campaigning in Halifax, reports asked him; “Why do you only take 4 questions?”, he did not give a reason why but asked if they had a question on a different topic. Stephen Harper takes 4 questions from national reporter, 2 in english and 2 in french and 1 from local reporter. These networks that sent reports to follow the Prime Minster and pay about $10,000 a week to travel with the leader, are frustrated at the lack of access. (http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1236141.html). He is give me impression that he is hiding something or that he is afraid of the reporters.

Canada is in need of replacing her ageing CF-18 Hornet, everyone agrees with this, however the question is this: Is the CF-35a Lightning II the best jet and is it the best price? Is the government being honest and open on the cost of these jet?

For the first question, has two answers Yes and No. It will do the job that we need it to do, however we don't need a stealth jet fighter. The second part is no, this jet was priced at 75m per jet and now it has gone way over budget

The second question, the government claims that the jet are going to be costing us 75m. But wait a sec why is watch dog group in the US is claiming that the Jet will cost 110m and more? How can Canada get the Jets at 75m and US has to pay 110m per Jet? Please note that their are 3 different types of jet, the one that Canada is get is F-35a (b/c) version are wroth more. Here are some links about the jets and reports on the jets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/03/29/cv-f35-costs.html

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110328/fact-check-stealth-fighters-110329/20110329?s_name=election2011&no_ads=

http://www.metronews.ca/calgary/canada/article/823878--u-s-expert-says-jet-costs-will-soar

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/05/pol-fighter-jet-cost.html?ref=rss

Is this the best jet for Canada? I would have to say no, we can not afford this cost. Why is the government stuck on this jet for? What's wrong with looking at other jets? Like F/A-18E/F Super Hornet? They cost 55m, witch makes it more affordable for us.

CAF Jets -- CF-18 Hornet

In the late 1970's Canada was in need of replace it's fleet of aging aircraft. The CF-100 Canuck, CF-101 Voodoos, CF-104 Starfighter and CF-5/CF-116 Freedom Fighter. The Candidates included the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle, Panavia Tornado, Dassault Mirage F1 (later replaced by the Mirage 2000), General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, the F/A-18 Hornet

CF/A – 188a Hornet
commonly known as CF-18 Hornet

• Manufacturer: McDonnell Douglas / Boeing
• First flight: 18 November 1978
• Introduced: 7 January 1983
• Number built: 138
• Unit cost: US$35 million (1977)
  

General characteristics

• Length: 56 ft 0 in (17.07 m)
• Wingspan: 40 ft 0 in with Sidewinders (12.31 m)
• Height: 15 ft 4 in (4.66 m)
• Wing area: 400 ft2 (37.16 m2)
• Loaded weight: 37150 lb (16850 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 51550 lb (23400 kg)
• Powerplant: 2 × General Electric F404-GE-400 turbofans, 16000 lbf (71.2 kN) each

Performance

• Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (1127 mph, 1814 km/h) at 36100 ft (11000 m)
• Combat radius: 330 mi (290 nmi, 537 km) on hi-lo-lo-hi mission
• Ferry range: 2070 mi (1800 nmi, 3330 km) (range without ordnance)
• Service ceiling: 50000 ft (15000 m)
• Rate of climb: 50000 ft/min (254 m/s)
• Thrust/weight: 0.89

Armament

• Nine Weapon/ Store Stations (5 pylons: 1 Under Fuselage and 4 Wing Stations) (2 LAU 116 located on sides of fuselage: deploys AIM 7 Sparrow and AMRAAM Missiles)(2 LAU 7 located on the wing tips: Deploys AIM 9 Sidewinder Missile), carrying up to 13700 lb (6215 kg) of missiles, rockets, bombs, fuel tanks, and pods
• 1 × 20 mm M61A1 Vulcan internal gatling gun with 578 rounds, with a firing rate of 4000 or 6000 shots per minute

Missiles

• Air-to-air: AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-120 AMR AAM, AIM-7 Sparrow
• Air-to-ground: AGM-65 Maverick, CRV7 rockets
  
• Bombs: Paveway, Mk 82, Mk 83, Mk 84, GBU-10, -12, -16 and -24 laser guided bombs.
  

Avionics

• Raytheon AN/APG-73 radar
• BAE Systems AN/APX-111 IFF
• Rockwell Collins AN/ARC-210 RT-1556/ARC VHF/UHF Radio
• General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems AN/AYK-14 XN-8 mission computer
• Smiths Aerospace AN/AYQ-9 Stores Management System

Variants

• CF-18A: Single-seat fighter and ground attack aircraft.
• CF-18B: Two-seat training version.

Deployment

Canadian Forces Air Command has 72 CF-18As and 31 CF-18Bs in inventory

3 Wing CFB Bagotville, Quebec

• No. 425 Alouette Tactical Fighter Squadron

4 Wing CFB Cold Lake, Alberta

• No. 409 Nighthawks Tactical Fighter Squadron
• No. 410 Cougars Tactical Fighter (Operational Training) Squadron
• AETE (Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment)
  

Notable Losses

• As of March 2011 not one Jet was not lost in combat
• 14 August 1996: Aircraft crashes on takeoff from Iqaluit, Northwest Territories. Pilot safely ejects.
• 26 May 2003: CF-18 crashes on the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range during the annual international training exercise MAPLE FLAG; pilot (Captain Kevin Naismith) killed.
• 19 June 2004: Aircraft from CFB Cold Lake lost when it was unable to stop while at Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. Aircraft was salvaged and is back in service. Pilot ejected but was injured.
• 16 August 2005: Aircraft crashes during a training exercise near CFB Bagotville. Pilot safely ejects.
• 23 July 2010: A CF-18 (#188738) crashed while practicing an airshow routine at the Lethbridge County Airport. The pilot, Captain Brian Bews safely ejected.
• Here is a link to the July 23 crash Video
  
• 17 November 2010: Captain Darren Blakie ejected from his CF-18 on approach to CFB Cold Lake. The aircraft crashed 13 kilometres from the base.

NORAD and NOTA

As a member of NORAD and NATO, the CF-18 Hornet is being used as interceptors for North America air space. In 1995 a Tu-95 Bear-H bomber came to close to Canadian air space, CF-18 Hornets where scrammed from CFB Cold Lake to intercepted the Bomber.

After the attacks of 9/11 The CF-18 Hornet where task to secure the USA air space. They where also used to secure 2010 Winter Olympics, 2010 Winter Paralympics games and G8 summit.

CF-18 Hornet in Combat

In 1991, Canada sent 26 CF-18 Hornet to the Persian Gulf, based in Doha, Qatar, for the Gulf War, to remove the Iraq forces from Kuwait. Canadian pilots flew more than 5700 hrs, including 2700 combat missions. They flew in combat escort missions and ground attack missions. They flew 56 bombing sorties dropping 500lb (230kg) conventional bombs (dumb bombs). This was the first time since the Korean war that the Canadian military had participated in combat operations

In 1999, Canada sent 18 CF-18 Hornet Aviano, Italy. For the NATO peacekeepers in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Canadian pilots flew 678 combat sorties. 120 as combat escort missions and 558 bombing strikes.

In 2011, Canada sent 6 CF-18 Hornet, to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) was adopted to enforce a Libyan no-fly zone, Canadian pilots are flying combat escort and bombing strikes, this mission is still going on.

The replacement of the CF-18 Hornet

Currently the Government is looking to replace the CF-18 Hornet by 2020, and so far the runner up is the CF-35a Lightning II

~~~~~~~~~ Part 2 CF-35a ~~~~~~~~~

Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 3, Look at the Parties and Leaders

The Conservative Party of Canada

Founded in 2003, Incorporated Progressive Conservative Party and Canadian Alliance Party (formally Reform Party of Canada).

Last election: 143 seats and 37.65% poplar vote

Current Leader: Stephen Harper

Party Platform:

After spending some time on their web-site, I could not find anything on their election platform, the only two items that I came across was fair mongering on a coalition government and the failed budget

I really want to see what the Conservative stand for and the direction that they want to take the country to.

Stephen Harper

Born: April 30, 1959 (age 51)

Toronto, Ontario

Riding: Calgary Southwest

Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper

The Liberal Party of Canada

Founded: July 1, 1867

Last election: 77 seats and 26.26% poplar vote

Current Leader: Michael Ignatieff

Party Platform:(taken from their web-site: http://www.liberal.ca/issues/)

The Economy - Liberals are fighting for a strong economy. A future Liberal government will take a balanced and credible fiscal approach to tackling the Conservatives’ record deficit and restoring

Canada’s fiscal health including:

• Cancelling Harper’s additional corporate tax breaks and restoring rates to 2010 levels. Canada already has the second lowest corporate tax rates in the G7 and 25% lower than the U.S. Canadian families deserve a break, not the largest corporations;

• Making better choices instead of spending billions on stealth fighter jets and US-style mega prisons;

• Deficit reduction by committing to a deficit to GDP target of 1% within the first two years of a Liberal government and further decline every year thereafter until the budget is balanced;

• Fiscal prudence by restoring a reserve as a buffer to achieve targets; and,

• Spending discipline by finding targeted, sustainable savings in partnership with the public service and proposing new programs in the Liberal platform only if they can be financed without adding to the deficit.

Families, Finances and the Future

Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada are fighting for your family. A future Liberal government will invest in addressing the economic pressures on Canadian families, like Learning, Health care and Pensions, through:

• A Family Care Plan to enhance care for our parents, our grandparents and our sick loved ones, and to help reduce the pressure on hundreds of thousands of struggling Canadian families;

• A Pension Reform Plan to establish a voluntary Supplementary Canada Pension Plan to help more Canadians use our trusted national pension plan to save for their retirement and to protect the pension savings of Canadians whose companies have gone bankrupt; and

• A Pan-Canadian Learning Strategy spanning early childhood development and care, aboriginal education, workforce literacy, language training for New Canadians, and access to higher education and training to build the best-educated, most skilled workforce in the world.

Clean Resources, Healthy Environment and the Economy of Tomorrow

Liberals are fighting to protect our natural environment as we transition to the cleaner economy of tomorrow, through:

• An Environment and Clean Energy Plan that takes real action on climate change, creates jobs by investing in renewable energy production, promotes energy efficiency, and helps companies to develop and manufacture new clean energy products and materials. We will also protect our future by preserving our oceans, lakes and coastal communities;
  
  

Bringing Canadians Together

Liberals are fighting to bring Canadians together. While divisive politics has made our country small, Liberals want to build bridges between communities and renew our democracy through:

The Rural Canada Matters strategy to boost rural communities with better access to b

roadband internet, doctors and nurses, emergency services, and postal services;

• A National Food Policy to promote healthy living, safe food, sustainable farm incomes, environmental farmland stewardship and international leadership; and

• An Open Government Initiative to create a new level of accountability for government spending and to spur innovation and economic growth.
  

Michael Ignatieff

Born: May 12, 1947 (age 63)
Toronto, Ontario

Riding: Etobicoke—Lakeshore

Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff

New Democratic Party Of Canada

Founded: 17 June 1961 Incorporated CCF and CLC

Last election: 37 seats and 18.18% poplar vote

Current Leader: Jack Layton

Party Platform:(taken from their web-site: http://www.ndp.ca/platform/)

Leadership you can trust

It’s time for a leader who will get things done for you and your family. Jack Layton’s New Democrats will work with others, stop the scandals and get results. Together, we can start fixing Ottawa – right now.

Making life more affordable

New Democrats will reduce the cost of everyday essentials like home heating. And we’ll ensure that every family takes home more of every paycheque.

Rewarding job creators

Under Stephen Harper, your tax dollars went to companies shipping Canadian jobs overseas. New Democrats will target investment to small businesses and companies actually creating jobs right here at home.

Improving front-line health services

New Democrats will take concrete steps to train more family doctors. We’ll improve homecare. And

we’ll make your prescription medicines a little more affordable.

Putting families first

New Democrats will strengthen pensions. We’ll make childcare and education more accessible. And we’ll improve EI to make it easier for families to care for ageing loved ones.

Jack Layton

Born: July 18, 1950 (age 60)
Montreal, Quebec

Riding: Toronto—Danforth

Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Layton




Other parties running in this election

Bloc Québécois
Green
Christian Heritage
Marxist–Leninist
Libertarian
Progressive Canadian
Communist
Canadian Action
Marijuana
Rhinoceros
First Peoples National
Western Block
Animal Alliance Environment Voters
People's Political Power
Pirate Party
United Party

Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 2. Why another Election

Why are we in another election? My opinion is, the Conservatives can not work with the opposition party(s). And with all the scandals. Before the Conservatives where elected into government, they campaign fixed election date, Code of Ethics and Transparency in the Government.

• Fixed election date. So that government can not call a snap elect, to gain more seats. To prevent elects less then 4 years. With the exception of if the government loses a confidence vote by the House of Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_election_dates_in_Canada)

• Now in September 2008, half way through the Conservatives mandate Stephen Harper called election. The Government did not lose a non confidence vote. In fact at this time the Liberal Part was still week, just after voting a new Leader.

• Ottawa-based advocacy group, filed a legal suit claiming that the election call was illegal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2008#Legality_of_the_election)

• Code of Ethics and Transparency in the Government. All this because of the previous Governments scandals. After the Sponsorship scandal - 2004 - misuse and misdirection of funds disbursed through the Liberal government's 1990s sponsorship program. Investigated by the Gomery Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomery_Commission).

  • Now the Conservatives are facing these scandals:

    • Julie Couillard scandal - Conservative Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier resigned after leaving sensitive NATO documents in the home of Julie Couillard, an ex-girlfriend with links to the Hells Angels biker gang.

    • In and Out scandal - 2007 - alleged circumvention of election finance rules by the Conservatives in the 2006 election campaign

    • Shoe Store Project - 2007 - Prime Minister's Office under Stephen Harper plans $2M, government-controlled media centre to replace current National Press Theatre (which is run by press gallery staff, instead of those from the PMO)

    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_political_scandals

• What is more alarming is the Conservatives was facing the charge of Contempt of Parliament http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_parliament#Canada

  • The April 10, 2008 case involved RCMP deputy commissioner Barbara George who was cited for contempt for deliberately misleading a parliamentary committee over an income trust scandal. She was ultimately found in contempt but was not punished further than the motion itself.

  • The March, 2011 contempt citation case involved Conservative MP Bev Oda. She eventually ended up "off the hook."

  • Failure to provide detail information on the total cost of the new prisons and the new jet fighers CF-35

• With all these scandals and the Government not being so transparent, the opposition party called an non confidence vote after committee found the Conservatives in Contempt of Parliament. This is the FIRST TIME that a Canadian Government was facing this charge, in fact it's also the FIRST TIME that an country within Commonwealth of fifty-four states http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_parliament#Canada

The 40^th parliament started off on the wrong foot. With Jim Flaherty economic update. With largest recession happening around the world, they did not include anything to help Canada. Meanwhile USA and other countries where dumping millions of $$ to bail out banks, auto-Industry and more. And not to mention a “Poison Pill” for the opposition parties. This was to cut money to the opposition parties.

The Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois where going to setup a coalition government. Before going to the Governor General, Stephen Harper talk to the Governor General Michaëlle Jean to prorogue Parliament. She granted him that, which killed all the bills that where being debated on, so all the time that they sat in Parliament was a wast of time.

That was the only time that the “coalition” was purposed. In March 2011 there was NO coalition, however the opposition parties can work together. That's something that I expect my government to do.

Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 1. Looking back at the 2008 Election

On March 25th 2011, the Canadian Government was defeated by an Non-Confidence vote.
Let look at the last elections.

Party	Seats Elected	Popular Vote	Changed Seats	Changed Popular
Conservatives	143	37.60%	+19	+1.38%
Liberal	77	26.20%	-18	-3.97%
NDP	37	18.20%	+8	+0.70%
Bloc Québécois	49	10.00%	-2	-0.50%
Green	0	6.80%	0	+2.30%
Others	2	1.20%

Results by Ridings

Click the map to enlarge it






Voter Turnout

Alberta ................. 52.9%
British Columbia . 61.0%
Manitoba ............. 56.8%
New Brunswick ... 62.8%
NLF ...................... 48.1%
NWT .................... 48.6%
Nova Scotia .......... 60.1%
Nunavut ............... 49.4%
Ontario ................. 59.1%
PEI ....................... 69.5%
Saskatchewan ...... 59.4%
Quebec .................. 61.1%
Yukon ................... 63.7%
Nationally ............. 64.7%

2008 Elections was the worst voter turn out in Canadian history.

The Governing Party before the election was Conservatives (minority government)
Prime Minister: Stephen Harper

Party Leaders

Name: Stephen Harper
Party: Conservatives
Leader since: 2004
Riding: Calgary Southwest
Elected: Yes
Web-Site




Name: Stéphane Dion
Party: Liberal
Leader since: 2006-2008
Riding: Saint-Laurent—Cartierville
Elected: Yes
Web-Site




Name: Jack Layton
Party: NDP
Leader since: 2003
Riding: Toronto—Danforth
Elected: Yes
Web-Site





Name: Gilles Duceppe
Party: Bloc Québécois
Leader since: 1997
Riding: Laurier—Sainte-Marie
Elected: Yes
Web-Site In French, for English Translate




Name: Elizabeth May
Party: Green
Leader since: 2006
Riding: Central Nova
Elected: No
Web-Site

The Campaign Issues

Arts

The Conservatives cut $45 million to the Arts Funding. This cause criticism from the opposition Leaders and Quebecers. At this time the Conservatives where leading in the polls for Quebec, then lost the support and went to the Bloc Québécois.

Stephen Harper had said that the money was being reallocated to other arts and cultural programs, like the 400^th anniversary of Quebec City and 2010 Vancouver-Whistler Winter Olympic Games.

The Conservative's refusal to have a parliamentary review of their cuts and for a moratorium on the measures until the House of Commons Heritage Committee had a chance to hold hearings on culture and arts funding has most opposition members calling foul.

Both Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton have promised to reverse the cut, with Dion also promising to increase funding to Canada Council for the Arts to $360 million, while Layton also promised to bring income averaging for artists to the national level and providing an annual tax exemption of $20,000 for income earned by copyright and residuals, stating that "one of the key things we must do, before we start giving $50-billion tax giveaways to banks and oil companies, is to protect and promote the arts" and "stable, sure and appropriate funding" for CBC/Radio-Canada while also protecting Telefilm Canada and the Canadian Television Fund.

Alleged Cadman bribe attempt

In early 2008 it was alleged that Independent MP Chuck Cadman of Surrey North, who was terminally ill with cancer at the time, had been offered a half-million life insurance policy in exchange for voting against the proposed Liberal budget in May 2005, which he turned down. Under section 119 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to bribe an MP. Accordingly, Opposition Liberal party Intergovernmental Affairs critic Dominic LeBlanc asked the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in February 2008 to investigate this allegation, that the Conservatives had offered Mr. Cadman a million-dollar life insurance policy in exchange for his support on the budget vote. In May 2008, the RCMP announced that there was not enough evidence to support charges. Cadman died in July. The following month, Harper stated in a court deposition that he personally authorized an offer made to Cadman in 2005. There is currently an ongoing legal battle between the Liberals and the Conservatives over the matter.

On September 24, while campaigning in Surrey North, Stephen Harper's campaign team barred reporters from talking with the local Conservative candidate, Dona Cadman, who is Chuck Cadman's widow. The campaign team called in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and ordered them to "Keep [the reporters] out" while Cadman was taken away by staff. Harper spokesman Kory Teneycke later stated that he had not seen the incident, but the local candidates did not need to be interviewed, that "Local candidates' priority is campaigning in their local ridings, and not talking to the national media", and that it should be enough that they hold daily news conferences with the party's most prominent members.

The incident has reminded people of Conservative tactics during the 2006 election, where attempts by the media to speak with local candidates were stopped by campaign personnel, especially the Harold Albrecht incident, where campaign officials forced Albrecht to stay in a restaurant kitchen when journalists attempted to interview him.

The Conservatives chose former FBI agent Bruce Koenig to analyze a tape of reporter Tom Zytaruk interviewing Harper on the Cadman bribe attempt. The tape was a key piece of evidence in the ongoing legal battle. On October 10, Keonig announced that the tape had not been altered in any way, contrary to the claims by Stephen Harper that it had been altered

Listeriosis outbreak

The Minister of Agriculture Gerry Ritz, who has already been criticized by Canada's food scientists for his handling of the 2008 listeriosis outbreak,[83] has also been criticized for making inappropriate comments, further angering the families of those affected. Ritz had joked about the outbreak while he was on a conference call with scientists and political staffers on August 30, saying the political fallout from the outbreak was "like a death by a thousand cuts, or should I say cold cuts". In addition, when he was informed of a listeriosis-related death in Prince Edward Island, he quipped "Please tell me it's [Liberal agriculture critic] Wayne Easter." Despite calls for Ritz's resignation from the other parties and the public, Stephen Harper has supported Ritz and rebuffed calls for his resignation.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada revealed to the media that the Conservative party plans to cut federal funding to meat inspection programs by $3 million, effectively ending their operation in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

Cities and infrastructure

Toronto Mayor David Miller has spoken out that the parties need to focus more on cities and their infrastructure, stating that 8 out of 10 Canadians live in cities, and that so far only the Green party has revealed a platform on the issue, with a national transit strategy and plans to give cities a permanent revenue source to help fix a growing infrastructure backlog. Miller stated he will not endorse a specific party, but urges people to choose a party that will "help cities thrive". He disagrees with Stephen Harper's opinion that "cities are not of national importance".

On September 18, Stéphane Dion pledged to spend more than $70 billion over the next 10 years to improve Canada's infrastructure if elected, and budget surpluses that exceed a $3-billion contingency fund to infrastructure projects, particularly those with a green focus, calling Canada's cities and towns "the engines of our economy". Stephen Harper immediately lashed out at the spending proposal, saying Dion was "promising money no government could afford" and that the Conservative's infrastructure plans "are modest and affordable within the four-year budget we've published".

On September 23, Montreal and Toronto mayors Gérald Tremblay and David Miller laid out their demands for urban municipalities, describing cities' current financial problems as a national issue, saying that cities have become the country's economic, social and cultural development engines and need appropriate support, and that they need better "fiscal tools" to continue their role as Canada's economic engines or the country will suffer. They listed Homelessness, traffic gridlock, crowded buses and overstretched police departments as just a few of the symptoms, that "These problems are too big and too important to be solved on the backs of property taxpayers" and that "in order to remain competitive, transport goods efficiently and attract new talent, our cities require quality infrastructure, affordable housing and first-rate recreational and cultural facilities". Jean Perrault, president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and mayor of Sherbrooke, Quebec, has stated that things like the Federal Gas Tax Fund were an important federal commitment, but that more is needed to tackle cities' overwhelming infrastructure needs.

On September 29, Layton announced plans to direct one cent per litre of the gas tax, approximately $400 million a year, into transit projects across the country, and direct $350 million from the sale of carbon permits to big polluters, saying that "the major polluters would be the ones paying to make transit greener, not you and your families", and that "fighting climate change requires investing in transit, and that's what our plan does"

Environment

Shortly after the election was called, Harper was criticized for using a four-vehicle motorcade that included a van and SUV to travel the 395 m (1,296 ft) across the street from the door of 24 Sussex Drive to the door of Rideau Hall to dissolve parliament. In return, the Conservatives criticized the Liberal party's decision to use a 29-year-old Boeing 737-200 for campaigning, saying that the older airplane's poor fuel efficiency demonstrates hypocrisy on environmental matters. Daniel Lauzon, a spokesperson for the Liberals, denied their airplane was substantially less efficient than the Conservatives' Airbus A319.

The Tories have been previously criticized for backing out of Canada's commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Their new plan requires industries to reduce the rate at which they generate greenhouse gases, with a goal of reducing overall emissions by 45 to 65 percent by 2050. The plan has been criticized by groups such as the Sierra Club, who called it "completely inadequate". Criticism has focused on the use of "intensity-based" targets, for which emission reductions are relative to overall production, so overall emissions could potentially increase if production also increases. This is in contrast to a "hard cap" on emissions, for which the overall amount cannot increase. The Conservatives' plan includes a hard cap to begin in 2020 or 2025, while environmental groups have advocated for an immediate hard cap.

The Liberals have developed a "Green Shift" plan, creating a carbon tax that will be coupled with reductions to income tax rates. The proposal was to tax greenhouse gas emissions, starting at $10 (Canadian) per ton of CO2 and reaching $40 (Canadian) per ton within four years. The plan would engage in revenue recycling by matching the tax with reductions in the income tax. Criticism of the Green Shift plan has focused on its economic effects, with the Conservatives predicting it would cause a "big recession". When pressed by reporters to provide evidence of this impact, Harper "wasn't able to cite a study that specifically modelled the impact of the Liberal Green Shift plan", instead citing an older economic model about the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

One trucking association claimed the Liberal carbon tax plan could put up to 10,000 jobs in jeopardy in Moncton alone. Environmental activist David Suzuki has come out in support of Dion's plan, saying "To oppose [the carbon tax plan], it's just nonsense. It's certainly the way we got to go" and giving an interview explaining why it is the most effective way to solve the environmental crisis.

The NDP's plan for the environment has focused on emissions trading, claiming their system will decrease greenhouse emissions by 80% by 2050. The plan includes a series of financial incentives to retrofit public transit systems and transition the economy to be "green-collar". The plan would also halt new tar sands development until emissions have been capped. Layton has also criticized the Liberal carbon tax plan, stating it taxes families instead of polluters.


Potential fall of government

On December 1, 2008, as the result of opposition dissatisfaction with the government's economic update (which failed to include stimulus measures to help the Canadian economy contend with the global crisis and included a 'poison pill' regarding the cessation of public party financing), the leaders of the Liberal Party, New Democratic Party, and Bloc Québécois announced they had reached an agreement to approach the governor general for the purpose of forming a coalition government. Combined, the three opposition parties constitute a majority of seats in the House of Commons. Parliament was due to vote on a no-confidence motion on December 8; if successful, the Liberals and NDP would have formally formed the coalition for 30 months, while the BQ pledged to support it for at least 18 months. Liberal leader Stéphane Dion would have become prime minister until the selection of his successor at the Liberal leadership convention in May 2009, and a coalition cabinet would have comprised 18 Liberal members (including a finance minister) and 6 NDP members. Governor General Michaëlle Jean had cut short a state visit to Europe "in light of the current political situation in Canada." On December 4, 2008, Jean granted Harper's request to prorogue Parliament until January 26, 2009, thereby staving off the prospect of an imminent change in government.