Moonbox

Air Canada, as far as I know, didn't have a contractor to do their work in Canada anymore. They'll need to find one eventually but for the time being they need their planes fixed, in the USA if necessary.

You strike me as very pragmatic and cynical about politics and politicians, which is a good thing. People like you don't usually swallow the dogma and make the whole experience religious...like a lot of posters here.

Clever trap, but I'm not biting. The difference between electromagnetic weapons, and either kinetic energy weapons or conventional explosive weapons would be more or less the same. Just because A & B differ in a similar way to C, doesn't mean A & B are the same. but you and Bill just told me all of these techies are inherently concise...but now there's ambiguities? BTW, did this thread get merged with the other one? If so, maybe we can switch to PMs or give uip on the debate altogether. Nobody needs to suffer through this but us

Interestingly, it said: kinetic energy weapons are those for which it is the energy of a moving projectile, such as a bullet or rocket, which damages the target which is pretty much what I've been saying. This guy, whoever he is and wherever you found this, wrote the paper on directed energy weapons, and he acknowledges that his inclusions of kinetic energy weapons in this sphere is out of the ordinary. What that should tell you is that indeed there IS in fact generally accepted terminology and jargon used in the field. Also of note is that his math dealt more or less strictly with trajectory and mass/velocity, aiming, and the effects of such on impact, not of payloads delivered. and as I responded to Bill, those folks don't redefine narrowly used terms to the point where they're so broad, and so general that they're meaningless, like you have done. There is a reason why people use terms like, Kinetic Energy Missile, Kinetic Energy Penetrator etc, and that's because the weapons themselves are very different from others. A HEAT round or shaped charge, for example, would never be called a kinetic energy penetrator in technical circles. Sure, they penetrate targets. The explosive charges are shaped to direct the resulting kinetic energy to pierce the armor of the target, but even experts don't call them KEP's. When experts are talking about KEP's they're talking about things like APFSDS or LRP's -- just solid projectiles.

Thread title is weird. I would think that pedophilia is something that would just come natural to you, and wouldn't require a lot of coaching on...

First off, it's impossible to eliminate all ambiguity with the spoken/written word. Context affects meaning and that can't be avoided completely. It's fair to say that a technical discussion amongst experts in a given field is likely to be much more terse and precise, but even there Derek flounders. His explained usage of the term kinetic energy weapon is so broad and all-encompassing that it's rendered meaningless in a technical discussion. He'd be just as well off saying weapon or more specifically conventional weapon. Instead, however, he choses kinetic energy weapon, which for his intended usage is extraneous and indicative of an attempt to show off what he believes is his expertise in the subject of military hardware. Unfortunately, he didn't realize that the term already has a specific meaning in military literature and discussion that's completely different from the way he was using it. Apparently he's not such an expert himself. My original comment was merely meant to highlight the irony of his condescension earlier in the thread towards other posters, but I found it amusing how I somehow managed to get an irrelevant 7-page education on basic physics and limited military history, and learned nothing new throughout.

I have to believe now that you're being intentionally obtuse here. I'm arguing terminology and your contextual misuse of it in a discussion like this. You're trying to turn it into a science debate where the science itself is not in question. I'm going to have to revert to analogy here, just to try, in any way I can, to get you to realize how pointless, unecessary and foolish your science rants are. Consider the term personal computer. The term has a fairly accepted meaning right? If we were going to use the framework of our argument and replace what we were talking about with the term personal Computer, the argument would look something like this: Derek: I'm sure glad I brought my personal computer with me. I didn't realize I'd be waiting in line this long. Now at least I can read the news while I wait... Me: Your personal computer? Don't you mean your Iphone? Derek: No. I mean my personal computer. Me: You usually call it your phone...or your Iphone...you don't call it your personal computer. Derek: Well it's a computer, I'm a person, and I'm using it, so it's a personal computer. Context, meaning and implication are all very important parts of the English language Derek. The term personal computer has a generally accepted meaning. So does the term kinetic energy weapon.

There you go Smallc

Good one. So clever. Kinetic energy is energy in motion. Potential energy is basically stored up energy awaiting release/reconfiguration. A pulled-back elastic has potential energy. Me holding a rock in the air has potential energy. A compressed tank of gas has potential energy. Releasing the potential energy converts it. The elastic launches, the rock is drops, the gas explodes. Kinetic energy. I get it. It just has no relevance to my point and it was childish of you to harp on it, because we were never arguing about how weapons work. We were arguing about what terminology you use for them. I said they're not termed impact weapons. You don't call them that. The fact that where they impact makes a difference doesn't mean you call them impact weapons. Cobra venom isn't an impact weapon either. Sure, it's spit through the air, and it matters where it impacts, but that's just a delivery method, just like a missile. The fact that it might have to penetrate deeper in the target doesn't change the terminology you use. Again, I'm not talking about the science behind it, I'm talking about the terminology used.

Apologies Smallc. You're right. Don't worry though. Someone will start a new F-35 thread in a few days anyways. There's always one lurking near the top of the page.

Again, I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing your use of the term kinetic energy weapon, which has a very specific meaning. One last time, the term is used to refer to a specific type of projectile weapon. You don't just say kinetic energy weapon for the sake of using extra words. You say it when you're trying to differentiate it from other types of weapons, much like you would between melee weapons. A spear, for example, is a stabbing weapon. A sword is a stabbing/slashing weapon and an axe is a chopping weapon. All use kinetic energy, but nobody would write that the Assyrians were so feared in ancient times because of their superior kinetic energy weapons. In today's terms, kinetic energy weapon refers to piercing weapons, impact weapons like like rubber bullets and bean-bag rounds, and particularly experimental weapons like railgun, gauss and mass-driver weaponry. More or less. The impact is merely necessary to deliver the payload to where it will be effective. Of course the point of detonation matters! A hit is going to cause more damage than a miss. An explosion in a munitions or fuel storage is likely to cause more damage than in the mess hall. That still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the damage is caused by the explosion. The Japanese weren't flying empty planes into American carriers, nor did Iraqi's fire solid lead missiles at American ships. These weapons cost a lot and they don't fly fast enough to do significant damage to ships (barring a fluke like the Sheffield) without explosive ordnance. That's why they're not termed kinetic energy weapons. It's not because they don't impact with kinetic energy, it's because the force of impact is merely for conveyence of the payload. In contrast, a true kinetic energy weapon, like an APFSDS from a tank, is extremely dense (tungsten or depleted uranium), fires at almost 6000ft/s, and hits its target (usually another tank) so hard that it tears through its armor, causes all sorts of burning fragmentation, kills everyone inside and then knocks out most of the interior systems. There is no explosion, just pure momentum.

Let's bring high school english comprehension into the discussion for your benefit then too okay? I asked you to address ONE single point in my last post, which was the specific applications of the terminology kinetic energy weapon. I was never arguing with you about what kinetic or potential energy is. I don't know why you even brought it up. I was arguing what the term kinetic energy weapon is widely interpreted to mean and I gave you the definition, which I did not make up myself. This isn't a science argument. It never was. For the record, I do know the difference between kinetic and potential energy, and also how they're related. Why you think that affects my point above, and why you keep bringing it up, however, is baffling. Wow. Try logic Derek. Follow this through with me. I said that the Sheffield was one in a million in that it was a dud missile that never exploded but still managed to destroy an entire ship through a flukey combination of bad ship design, a point of impact that specifically exploited this flaw and all sorts of crew errors. Your response was to tell me it wasn't a fluke because kamikaze planes loaded with explosives also damaged USN ships in WW2 by ramming into their decks and exploding, thereby causing significant damage. Something's tripping you up here...

Wow. Now we're going in a completely different direction. Derek man...How does a kamikaze attack differ in any way, shape or form from a missile, which we were just talking about? A kamikaze plane is essentially just a piloted missile, packed with explosives. Giving me more and more examples of explosive ordnance is not going to make your point any stronger. I'm getting the feeling you're ignoring my main point - possibly intentionally. Before you respond to anything else I've written, please respond to this: Calling something a kinetic energy weapon is a fairly specific technical term -- mainly a projectile without an explosive charge. That's it. A grenade is not a kinetic energy weapon. A depth charge is most certainly not. Anything that delivers explosive ordnance is NOT termed a kinetic energy weapon. Those are explosive/chemical weapons, and they're VERY different. That's the argument. That's what I've been repeating over and over. I didn't make up the definition myself. Here are some examples of kinetic energy weapons: -Bullets, arrows, rocks, finger-launched elastics, rail-guns, mass-drivers, javelins, armor piercing rounds, cannon balls, ninja stars, non-explosive bombs/missiles Can you see what I'm talking about? 100% of the design of the weapon is just to accelerate and hit its target. Mass + Velocity + Projectile shape/design = Results. All of the damage results in the impact. There is no 'payload'. That's what the term means. Period.

The disconnect is that you're inventing new definitions and uses for terminology like kinetic energy and impact weapons that have very specific meanings. and a formal review of the disaster showed that the loss was due to an extremely unlucky hit, which exploited a huge design flaw, which was amplified by command and crew mistakes. If not for the fact that people died, it would have been comical. How many times do you think a dud missile is going to lodge itself inside a ship, knock out an insufficient and poorly designed fire control system, then ignite the fuel inside the ship with its own burning exhaust? One in a million? It was bizarre. Of course where the warhead detonates is important. Fact of the matter is that the impact damage for both hits were merely incidental. The impact is really just a delivery mechanism for the warhead, which in almost all cases (except for Sheffield) is what causes the vast majority of damage. If impact was the main objective, the missile would be made entirely out of lead, or tungsten or something like that. What kinetic energy means was never in question, and yes, a shockwave is kinetic energy. The issue was never whether you understood what kinetic energy means, it was that you don't understand what the term kinetic energy weapon means in the context of a discussion like this. When you use that specific term, you're implying that the weapon doesn't have a chemical explosive component, aside from lauch. An armor-piercing round from a tank would be a kinetic energy weapon. It's a dense, solid round that flies really fast and the force of its penetration through armor plate causes all sorts of nasty effects inside its target. On the other hand, a heavy explosive round from the same tank would not be considered a kinetic energy weapon. The speed and density of the projectile doesn't matter nearly as much in this case. All that matters is that it reaches its target and it explodes. The fact that the explosion itself causes a kinetic shockwave does NOT make it a kinetic energy weapon. I hope that makes sense to you. Maybe look it up?

Some of them do. Most existing EM weapons, however, are distinctly different from any other weapon in that their primary goal isn't really violent destruction, but rather the disabling of communications and sensor equipment as well as the disruption of signals. But again, by your definition of what makes something a kinetic energy weapon, a thermonuclear bomb (also an EM weapon) would qualify. Again, your use of terminology is really weird. First off, the Exocet isn't designed to explode on impact. It's designed to penetrate the target and then detonate INSIDE, where the damage would be amplified. The impact damage is, relatively speaking, very minimal. The shockwave from the explosion, not the force of the object or projectile itself, which is what 'kinetic energy weapon' actually means.

Again, why did you call aircraft weapons like bombs and missiles kinetic energy weapons? The term has pretty specific meanings, which bombs and missiles almost completely fall outside of. From the way you're using the term, ALL weapons would be considered KE weapons. The whole point of the term itself is to refer to a specific type of weapon, which as I've mentioned generally involves accelerating a projectile to smack into a target, the damage being cause merely by the transfer of energy from the projectile to the target by impact, and not by any chemical reaction or explosion. I know. I brought those up already. Rock bombs. THAT's a kinetic energy weapon. What's your point, and how does the F-35 have any advantage over any other fighter in terms of dropping laser guided rocks? Poor ship design, mistakes by the crew and bad firefighting equipment helped, but yeah, the impact doomed the ship. Interestingly though, the Exocet is designed to actually blow up like any other missile. The fact that the hit was insanely lucky and that the missile's propellant caused an oil leak to catch fire is kind of irrelevant. The missile wasn't designed as an impact weapon. No, so it wouldn't really be considered a kinetic energy weapon. In effect, it's just a bomb, a chemical/explosive weapon like any other bomb. The fact that it explodes under water doesn't make it a kinetic energy weapon. The fact that it explodes under water just means that it doesn't have to explode as close to its target as a would a normal bomb.

but again...the vast majority of air to ground weapons are not KE weapons, so it's funny that you would have used that term earlier. The CBU-97 is pretty cool though. An explosion causes a lot of kinetic energy, sure. It's still not considered a kinetic energy weapon like a sabot round or a rock bomb though...which literally just tears through or crushes its target. The Sheffield was a lesson in not building ships out of pure aluminum. From what I read the impact damage would have been easily repairable if not for the fact that the whole ship pretty much just melted because of the materials used to build it. Well under that broad a definition you could call a thermonuclear bomb a kinetic energy weapon. I'm not sure what you're getting at, but if you're going to be that broad you can just drop the 'kinetic' part and simply use 'weapon' instead, because pretty much every weapon TECHNICALLY has a kinetic factor to it. As far as the terminology goes, calling it an actual kinetic energy weapon usually implies a solid projectile slamming into its target, either penetrating it or concussing/crushing it, but you already know that. I assume you're talking about depth charges, which, once again, are just explosive weapons.

double post

So the Avro Arrow somehow proves that the US taxpayers are not getting absolutely fleeced by what's looking to be the biggest boondoggle in procurement history? Thank you for your brilliant contributions BC. Couldn't have said it better myself.

but I do...and that has nothing to do with what you said. You were talking about the F-35's superiority for recon and enemy air defense suppression, and that it wasn't just a platform for conventional kinetic energy weapons like bombs and missiles, which is just silly, because probably 99+% of conventional aircraft weaponry is explosive and not kinetic. Your runway bombs and bunker busters, perhaps, could very vaguely be classified as kinetic energy penetrators, but only insomuch as they're required to penetrate tarmac, dirt and concrete to go underground and explode inside or below their targets, where the actual weapon would explode. So yeah...it really just seemed like you're misusing technical terms in a topic you're trying to sound like an expert at. None of us are. What we do know is that the plan was for the F-35 to be a cost-effective alternative to the F-22 that could also replace the aging F-16 and F-18 fleets. As usual, the attempt to do too many things at once (being multi-role, high-performance AND affordable all at the same time) seems to have failed, and the armed forces of the US and it's allies are left depending on a project that's going to cost them at best 50% more than they budgeted for, with no alternatives and no way to realistically back out.

What are Alberta's taxes like compared to Ontario though? Hint: Lower I'm perfectly fine with public spending, providing it doesn't make the tax burden too high. That's the problem that geniuses like Trudeau and McGuinty landed us in.

Bombs/missiles aren't kinetic energy weapons. Being a kinetic energy weapon implies damage is caused largely by mass and speed. A bullet, or armor-piercing round, is considered a KE weapon. A bomb or missile is just an explosive. Anyway, regardless of the F-35's capabilities, I think by now it's pretty clear that the program is one of the biggest debacles in US military procurement history.

While I think that Ontario has been getting shafted pretty bad for awhile now, and I despise the equalization program in the first place, nobody with a brain can honestly say they want Ontario to seperate.

I don't even know who Morano is. Regardless, here's the part of Theon's quote that Morano and other's misrepresented: Yes, one could say that I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation. Hansen's dismissal of Theon's criticism was also pretty misleading. "Oh...yeah...he was like some bureaucrat or something that I sort of knew of and like...just a pen-pusher...I mean...he doesn't know anything about climate scientist." If you look up Theon's list of credentials, that's not really the case. So, at worst, what you have here is a very senior NASA weather scientist, well above Hansen, who, after reviewing his work (particularly the stuff that made him famous in 1988, says it was bogus. Does that prove anything? Not particularly, but it is an example of a very well-positioned climate scientist who has problems with Hansen's research. Please tell me what you think of Freeman Dyson's position. I think he's in a position to understand the computer models no? What about Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner who left the American Physical Society over their position that man made global warming is 'irrefutable'?

The conclusion is still up in the air. I don't think anybody really knows. What's bogus are the people who've declared the debate is concluded.