Wild Bill Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 What happened to the "dropping"? What happened to the avionics on that crowbar? When did it become Titanium? What happened to the complex targetting system needed on that "crowbar" to hit a tank or building? What happened to a "bunch" of them taking out a battlefield? Go back and read what YOU wrote and get back to me... You're moving the goalposts, GWiz. I cited some examples. You totally blew them off as poor science fiction fantasy. Now you make it out to be my fault for not writing you a book to explain my examples in the first place? I give up! When you said you were the farthest thing from a techie, I now believe it! The last time I ran up against this sort of attitude was from an English prof who thought that even though he might not have ever done something himself or had any direct experience he was still qualified to comment because after all, he had taught about it from a book! God save us from academics! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 You're moving the goalposts, GWiz. I cited some examples. You totally blew them off as poor science fiction fantasy. Nope, the only one moving goal posts is YOU... Science is science, fiction is fiction, fiction CAN become science, but science can never become fiction, it can only become a mistake or lie... Unproven speculation is neither science nor fiction but can simply be opinion... Now you make it out to be my fault for not writing you a book to explain my examples in the first place? Yup, your fault, that's because you were constantly moving those goal posts every post you made... I give up! Bye, see ya around... When you said you were the farthest thing from a techie, I now believe it! The last time I ran up against this sort of attitude was from an English prof who thought that even though he might not have ever done something himself or had any direct experience he was still qualified to comment because after all, he had taught about it from a book! God save us from academics! Hmmm, where'as YOUR "expertise" on what YOU posted came from Wikipedia... Ooookaaaay... Ok, I was wrong, I'm much, much further from being a "professor" than I am from being a "techie", you got me... Happy now? I don't get paid for the things I teach, I do that for free... You're welcome... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 I just want to point that crowbar would reach a terminal velocity and probably would not be falling fast enough to "obliterate any tank it hit". We would have to know the numbers on the crowbar but I do not think you are right. He is.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 He is.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment No he isn't... If so-called “Rods from God”—an informal nickname of untraceable origin—ever do materialize, it won’t be for at least 15 years. Launching heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the rods’ speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the “absentee ratio”—the fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at any given time might be far from the desired target—would be prohibitive. A better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact. ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they’re stationed on Earth, would take less time to reach their targets. “The space-basing people seem to understand the downside of space weapons,” Pike says—among them, high costs and the difficulty of maintaining weapon platforms in orbit. “But I’ll still bet you there’s a lot of classified work on this going on right now.” http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) No he isn't... If so-called “Rods from God”—an informal nickname of untraceable origin—ever do materialize, it won’t be for at least 15 years. Launching heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the rods’ speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the “absentee ratio”—the fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at any given time might be far from the desired target—would be prohibitive. A better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact. ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they’re stationed on Earth, would take less time to reach their targets. “The space-basing people seem to understand the downside of space weapons,” Pike says—among them, high costs and the difficulty of maintaining weapon platforms in orbit. “But I’ll still bet you there’s a lot of classified work on this going on right now.” http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god Rail gun them from a floating rail gun into space. The whole space elevator thing is in the works too. 2008 http://www.cracked.com/article_16477_5-famous-sci-fi-weapons-that-theyre-actually-building.html Edited January 30, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Rail gun them from a floating rail gun into space. The whole space elevator thing is in the works too. 2008 http://www.cracked.com/article_16477_5-famous-sci-fi-weapons-that-theyre-actually-building.html Beam me up Scottie... I'm done.. Wrong TIME and place... Gotta move... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) Beam me up Scottie... I'm done.. Wrong TIME and place... Gotta move... Here is a little on the idea of a rail gun to launch stuff to space. Mine is different though in that it places the railgun on a moving airship - rather than say a stationary point or ocean going ship. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/02/railguns-for-space-launch.html Yes these things really do launch things at around "mach 20.5" for an estiamted $500/kg. Payload shots could go from toronto to halifax in 2 and half minutes. Pretty much as fast as a peace keeper missle. The US is starting to railguns on their new battleships - perhaps not the same as that one, but like it in some ways. Compare that $500 1 kg mach 20 object to a 1 to 6 million dollar patriot missle? Then you have the next gen x2 (xxx) things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project you don't need stealth if you can't be intercepted. You could build 10 SUPER railguns for the price of the 65 aircrafts The prospect of stealth rail guns seems far more forward looking than "signature reduced aircraft" http://www.dailytech.com/US+Hypersonic+Glider+Sets+a+World+Record+of+Mach+20+Then+Crashes/article18240.htm Edited January 31, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) Here is a little on the idea of a rail gun to launch stuff to space. Mine is different though in that it places the railgun on a moving airship - rather than say a stationary point or ocean going ship. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/02/railguns-for-space-launch.html Yes these things really do launch things at around "mach 20.5" for an estiamted $500/kg. Payload shots could go from toronto to halifax in 2 and half minutes. Pretty much as fast as a peace keeper missle. The US is starting to railguns on their new battleships - perhaps not the same as that one, but like it in some ways. Compare that $500 1 kg mach 20 object to a 1 to 6 million dollar patriot missle? Then you have the next gen x2 (xxx) things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project you don't need stealth if you can't be intercepted. You could build 10 SUPER railguns for the price of the 65 aircrafts The prospect of stealth rail guns seems far more forward looking than "signature reduced aircraft" http://www.dailytech.com/US+Hypersonic+Glider+Sets+a+World+Record+of+Mach+20+Then+Crashes/article18240.htm Railguns are a weapon system. They need to be mounted on something to be effective. If that something is a warship, it already costs far more than a plane. If that something is a plane, it will be more expensive than any fighter yet built. By the way, the main prototype of the "Falcon" program, the Blackswift, was canceled. Also, the use of railguns for orbital launch from Earth is unrealistic, because the craft would have to travel through the entirety of Earth's atmosphere. Even the most aerodynamic shapes possible would experience extreme drag and heating at the speeds involved. Consider the space shuttle or other re-entry vehicles, when entering the Earth's atmosphere at orbital speeds, they experience extreme heating and require special materials just to survive intact, and they slow down rapidly. Drag against the atmosphere is how the shuttle loses almost all of its speed and is able to land. Any projectile launched from the Earth's surface with enough velocity to STILL be going at orbital speed when it exited the atmosphere would be destroyed due to heating, and furthermore, even if it did survive, such a system would use far more energy than a rocket launch system, since a rocket travels through the dense regions of the Earth's atmosphere at a much lower speed, thus not losing nearly as much energy to drag. On the other hand, rail guns are ideally suited for the launch of vehicles from the surfaces of planets and moons with little or no atmosphere. For example, a lunar base could use a railgun launcher to good effect. Edited January 31, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Kinda strange how the topic of this thread got switched from the Discovery channel to a SciFi channel... Many things are "possible"... So what? F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet" On September 28, 2010, Boeing Cannounced it had been awarded a new multi-year procurement contract valued at $5.297 billion from the U.S. Navy for 124 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft. Under the terms of the agreement, Boeing is to deliver 66 Super Hornets and 58 Growlers to the Navy from 2012 through 2015. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18ef.htm That's a combined purchase of 124 NEW STATE OF THE ART fighter planes for $5.297 BILLION dollars... If anyone here thinks the US Navy is purchasing them to only use for a "couple of years" they're smoking something illegal... Is going that route better for Canada than an unproven airframe that's 3x the cost for less (1/2) planes? In my opinion yes... Purchasing a "state of the art" NEW derivative of the planes Canada now flies, vs any other aircraft, including the F-35 has many advantages for Canada... Too many to list actually... But the most important ones are COST in resessionary times, greatly reduced costs in support and infostructure facilities throughout the country which would primarily already be in place, and delivery schedules of planes that are available "right now" or as needed to replace our current fighters... And a "more for less" scenario, say 100 vs 65 new planes wouldn't be such a bad idea either... Are they as "sexy" or "stealthy" as the F-35, of course not, but you don't need a Masaratti to go to the corner store for groceries either... What does Canada NEED not WANT should be the question of the day... What I'm saying is explore ALL options THEN decide and not just tell parliament "look what we've done (AND SPENT)"... Harpers got it WRONG again, it's just not how our parliament works... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 You're comparing a piece of titanium in the shape of a crowbar, falling 100 miles through the atmosphere POINT FIRST to the space shuttle. Isn't that like equating a tin needle to a granite brick? You don't need a nuke big enough to fry an entire state! A mini-nuke will do nicely. We've had tactical nukes small enough to be used in artillery stationed along the border between the Koreas for decades now. So I'm to believe your rebuttal NOT because you make good points with physics or even evidence OF WHAT ALREADY HAS BEEN INVENTED but rather because "you're smart and your son is not only smarter but rich"! Well, rules of debate demand that you answer my question, not ignore it with a Peewee Herman style "I know you are but what am I?" response. However, I'll answer. I see an old guy who has read up on science and technology for a LONG time, considering I was reading before I went to school. I would NEVER claim to know it ALL but I do know better than to try to deny something that has been invented and tested just because my son hadn't explained it to me yet! X-45 Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) Overview The DARPA/Air Force/Boeing X-45A technology demonstration aircraft completed its first flight on 22 May 2002. Multi-aircraft testing will begin in 2003 when a second X-45A becomes operational, leading to joint UCAV and manned exercises in FY 2006. http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/x-45_ucav.html It's now 2011, the program went BLACK in '05-'06 so I couldn't find anything newer, but you might want to take a look anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 ....That's a combined purchase of 124 NEW STATE OF THE ART fighter planes for $5.297 BILLION dollars... If anyone here thinks the US Navy is purchasing them to only use for a "couple of years" they're smoking something illegal... The US Navy already has deployed squadrons of F/A-18 E/F aircraft. Like Australia, the Americans will continue to hedge their F-35 bet (naval variant) with continued F/A-18 procurements. Canada has not taken this approach, preferring to extend older CF-188 airframe hours and capabilities until the F-35 delivers in numbers. Good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 The US Navy already has deployed squadrons of F/A-18 E/F aircraft. Like Australia, the Americans will continue to hedge their F-35 bet (naval variant) with continued F/A-18 procurements. Canada has not taken this approach, preferring to extend older CF-188 airframe hours and capabilities until the F-35 delivers in numbers. Good luck with that. I maintain that this nation needs to take the time to determine what it is that we need to do in terms of national defense. What are the threats? How do we propose to deal with them? The citizens of this nation cannot make these decisions, only the government of the day can. What the citizens can do is demand that national defense becomes part of an overall mandate for the next government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 I maintain that this nation needs to take the time to determine what it is that we need to do in terms of national defense. What are the threats? This description is smaller in scope as presently defined by NATO/NORAD obligations and missions. Canada will need to change that before narrowing down the choices to just "threats". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 This description is smaller in scope as presently defined by NATO/NORAD obligations and missions. Canada will need to change that before narrowing down the choices to just "threats". So we should let NATO/NORAD determine our political future? Canada must grow a spine and a pair of balls. The brain alone is no match for what we face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 So we should let NATO/NORAD determine our political future? Canada must grow a spine and a pair of balls. The brain alone is no match for what we face. Not sure how it would determine any political future, unless you are saying that defense procurements are so dependent on regional conflicts in Canada, whether it be rotary winged aircraft, frigates, airlift, etc. The absence of an offensive (strike aircraft) capability may or may not limit Canada's commitments in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 The US Navy already has deployed squadrons of F/A-18 E/F aircraft. Like Australia, the Americans will continue to hedge their F-35 bet (naval variant) with continued F/A-18 procurements. Canada has not taken this approach, preferring to extend older CF-188 airframe hours and capabilities until the F-35 delivers in numbers. Good luck with that. We are in total agreement... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 We are in total agreement... Doesn't matter whether we agree or not...Canada does not have the budget for such procurement flexibility. Watching what the Americans or Australians are doing is not a substitute for what Canada may do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 This description is smaller in scope as presently defined by NATO/NORAD obligations and missions. Canada will need to change that before narrowing down the choices to just "threats". Nope, wrongo, missed the mark completely... NATO/NORAD agreements have little to no bearing on a member nations' military or military spending or procurements... Both NATO and NORAD are essentially cold war mutual defence agreements which would allow instant access by any member nation (read USA) military access to that country in times of need/war with a primary DEFENCE focus... Prior to the 9/11 attacks NORAD was even in some danger of being disbanded... Good thing it wasn't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Doesn't matter whether we agree or not...Canada does not have the budget for such procurement flexibility. Watching what the Americans or Australians are doing is not a substitute for what Canada may do. Good... Lets cancel the F-35s and let the next Government decide what or what not to buy based on NEED and NOT on what Harper and/or the United States WANTS Canada to buy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Good... Lets cancel the F-35s and let the next Government decide what or what not to buy based on NEED and NOT on what Harper and/or the United States WANTS Canada to buy... It doesn't matter either way....this will always be a purely political event. Now I know why paying $500 million just to cancel a helo contract is no big deal in Canada. It's just part of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Nope, wrongo, missed the mark completely... NATO/NORAD agreements have little to no bearing on a member nations' military or military spending or procurements... No...it is clear you have not served in a NATO role. Member nations are expected to have a minimum of basic interoperabilty and specific capabilities based on role and mission that can be mustered as needed. For instance, the Czechs are very good with NBCR warfare and decontamination measures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Good... Lets cancel the F-35s and let the next Government decide what or what not to buy based on NEED and NOT on what Harper and/or the United States WANTS Canada to buy... I'm surprised that you keep dumping this all on Harper, when it was the Liberals that first enrolled Canada in the F-35 program, ponying up a HUGE bunch of cash to get us in, in order to secure a place in the delivery line and to get many of the manufacturing contracts for various pieces for Canadian firms. Harper just inherited the damn thing! Don't you find the present Liberal opposition a bit hypocritical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm surprised that you keep dumping this all on Harper, when it was the Liberals that first enrolled Canada in the F-35 program, ponying up a HUGE bunch of cash to get us in, in order to secure a place in the delivery line and to get many of the manufacturing contracts for various pieces for Canadian firms. Harper just inherited the damn thing! Don't you find the present Liberal opposition a bit hypocritical? Not in the least Bill... No one said yea or nay to the contract... They said nay to the process that resulted in the contract... And so do I as a Canadian... After all, it is MY and YOUR money they're spending... I want full desclosure on ALL the options, bids from more than one supplier, then a complete analysis of the relative costs and benefits to Canada, then, if the F-35 wins out, so be it... Then at least I KNOW it's the best deal... One final thing I'd do then is determine IF it meets all our needs and is there a cheaper way of meeting those needs... Right now I look at it as a $16 BILLION sellout Canada can't afford right now with record deficit spending by the Harper Gov.... btw - have a look http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=621061 and the following post as well, which was to you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) Not in the least Bill... No one said yea or nay to the contract... They said nay to the process that resulted in the contract... And so do I as a Canadian... After all, it is MY and YOUR money they're spending... I want full desclosure on ALL the options, bids from more than one supplier, then a complete analysis of the relative costs and benefits to Canada, then, if the F-35 wins out, so be it... Then at least I KNOW it's the best deal... One final thing I'd do then is determine IF it meets all our needs and is there a cheaper way of meeting those needs... Right now I look at it as a $16 BILLION sellout Canada can't afford right now with record deficit spending by the Harper Gov.... btw - have a look http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=621061 and the following post as well, which was to you... Leaving aside for the moment that you are effectively asking Harper to throw all the money the Liberals spent to get us into the program down the nearest rathole, how can we get competitive bids when there is no other fighter being made or even in development of the specs of the F-35? For that matter, we can be confident the Liberals would already have done their due diligence and investigated if there was another aircraft that would have better suited our needs. The fact that cancellation charges would cost likely a billion or so dollars in themselves would've ensured that the Liberals made a thoughtful, well-considered decision to enrol us in the program! Why, if that were not true then the Liberals would have learned nothing from their cancellation of the EH-101 and the decades-long fiasco of finding replacements for our killer SeaKing helicopters! I've been assured by a few present day Liberals that those were a different crew way back then and besides, any Liberals still left in the party today long ago learned their lesson. For that reason they tell me I should have no qualms about voting Liberal next election. Any comparisons between their idea to cancel the F-35 and Dief's cancellation of the Arrow are false and just mean-spirited, they tell me! As for your link, I decide already to follow your advice and not pay any attention to that "buck rogers" stuff. Edited February 1, 2011 by Wild Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 ....The fact that cancellation charges would cost likely a billion or so dollars in themselves would've ensured that the Liberals made a thoughtful, well-considered decision to enrol us in the program! Why, if that were not true then the Liberals would have learned nothing from their cancellation of the EH-101.... $500,000,000 + $250,000,000 = $750,000,000 Gee, pretty soon this will start adding up to real money! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.