F-35 purchase undecided, Fantino says

[Guest Derek L]

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.

To add, the author of the paper/book, Philip E. Nielsen credentials and the paper's reason for being published by the National Defense University are as follows:

http://www.amazon.com/Effects-Directed-Energy-Weapons-Nielsen/dp/0979368723/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332442554&sr=1-1

Editor's Preface The manuscript comprising this book has an unusual history. It was completed in 1994 and submitted to the National Defense University for publication; however for a number of reasons, it was never actually published in hardcopy form. The staff of the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS) including a number of independent reviewers active in DE research felt that the material was a valuable addition to the body of literature in directed energy and should receive the benefits of open distribution in the context of historical reprint. Containing much more than simply descriptions of DE effects as implied by the title, it is a unique compilation of material ranging from the physics of conventional kinetic weapons to particle beams and provides a unique single source on the principles and effects of these weapons. should prove useful to practitioners in the field as well as executives seeking to understand the detailed attributes of directed energy. Joseph S. Accetta, Ph.D. Managing Editor, Directed Energy Professional Society March, 2009

And from the passage I quoted (and fixed the text from my cut and paste error for clarity):

In some classification schemes, the term directed energy weapon is reserved for modern, high technology devices such as lasers or particle beams, and kinetic energy weapons are kept in a class by themselves. Nevertheless, they properly fit the definition which we have adopted for directed energy weapon—their energy is aimed or directed at a target, and intercepts a small fraction of the target’s surface area.

So he brings up the ambiguity behind “classification schemes”……..Does that help further this discussion?

[Moonbox]

Ok then, we'll take a different track............How do, in scientific terms, “kinetic energy weapons” and “electromagnetic weapons” differ in terms of “delivery” onto their intended target?

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.

So he brings up the ambiguity behind “classification schemes”……..Does that help further this discussion?

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

Edited March 22, 2012 by Moonbox

[Guest Derek L]

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

I think it did get merged.......the countdown to the next F-35 thread is at hand

As for our “sidebar”, I wouldn’t consider it so much a debate than a discussion……..Granted, as about as interesting to others as classical mechanics

[waldo]

oh really! Are we starting to realize a pattern here... is it beginning to make sense on why Fantino has been trotted out to begin to position the 'retreat'? Sure it is!

Pentagon: Trillion-Dollar Jet on Brink of Budgetary Disaster

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the supposed backbone of the Pentagon’s future air arsenal, could need additional years of work and billions of dollars in unplanned fixes, the Air Force and the Government Accountability Office revealed on Tuesday. Congressional testimony by Air Force and Navy leaders, plus a new report by the GAO, heaped bad news on a program that was already almost a decade late, hundreds of billions of dollars over its original budget and vexed by mismanagement, safety woes and rigged test results.

In its report the GAO reserved its most dire language for the JSF’s software, which agency expert Michael Sullivan said is “as complicated as anything on earth.” The new jet needs nearly 10 million lines of on-board code, compared to 5 million for the older F-22 and just 1.5 million for the Navy’s F/A-18 Super Hornet. “Software providing essential JSF capability has grown in size and complexity, and is taking longer to complete than expected,” the GAO warned.

Software delays plus continuing mechanical and safety problems prompted JSF program chief Adm. David Venlet to back away from a firm schedule for the new fighter’s frontline introduction. When the F-35 was conceived in the late 1990s, it was expected to begin flying combat missions as early as 2010. Lately military officials have mentioned 2018 as a likely start date. In his Congressional testimony, Venlet declined to even mention a possible timeframe for the JSF’s service entry.

[Wild Bill]

oh really! Are we starting to realize a pattern here... is it beginning to make sense on why Fantino has been trotted out to begin to position the 'retreat'? Sure it is!

Pentagon: Trillion-Dollar Jet on Brink of Budgetary Disaster

Waldo, why should Fantino (Excuse me while I spit! I really detest the man!) or the rest of the Tory party need a retreat position?

If the F-35 is truly such a financial boondoggle then the Americans will cancel it themselves. Instantly, the Tories are off the hook.

Of course, that will still leave us with the problem of what DO we buy but that probably doesn't matter. I'm convinced that by the time our politicians pull their thumbs out of their butt we'll have long since built Star Trek's Enterprise, making the question moot. We're only talking a few centuries here, after all!

Edited March 23, 2012 by Wild Bill

[Guest Derek L]

And from the other side of the planet.

Australia can still expect to pay an average $US70 million ($A67 million) for each Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, even as production of the next generation F-35s ramps up.

The head of the JSF program for US aerospace company Lockheed Martin, Tom Burbage, said production was now running at four aircraft per month.

"We believe over the purchase time of your 75 airplanes, that cost will average out somewhere around $US70 million ($A67 million)," he told reporters in Canberra.

[madmax]

From that, one can conclude that there is a role for having an effective (In terms of war waging ability) military and that an under equipped agenises does not act as an effective deterrent when “keeping the peace”……….

Yes

To add, the RCMP did/do participate, in conjunction with DND, on international and domestic deployments…..

Yes, but not to use them as a replacement for the Military as you were alluding to with regards to peacekeeping. There is a time and a place for everything.

[madmax]

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

Its totally off topic yes.. But I am enjoying the discussion.. And I am surprised to see you jump in on something not dealing with finance and stocks.. good to see..

[madmax]

Waldo, why should Fantino (Excuse me while I spit! I really detest the man!) or the rest of the Tory party need a retreat position?

If the F-35 is truly such a financial boondoggle then the Americans will cancel it themselves. Instantly, the Tories are off the hook.

Bolded in case no one believes you..I know just how much you detest him.

And I agree.. I think the Americans are going to cut bait and then the whole project is mute.

The only thing the Tories did was mislead Canadians in the last election with their Talking points saying the Contract was already signed.

And no one will remember that except government procurement policy wonks.

[Wild Bill]

Bolded in case no one believes you..I know just how much you detest him.

Thanks Max but I don't think it will help. To some on this board I forever will be a total Tory supporter. They will never understand how I can be anything different.

In their world if you support a given party then you must think that the party and all its MPs can never do anything wrong. After all, that's how they view things for THEIR party!

Once again for the record I never was all that warm to Fantino but after how he handled the Caledonia situation I have absolutely no respect for the man's values.

Anyhow, again - those folks that think I'm a conservative will always think I'm a conservative for a very simple reason. They define a conservative as anyone who doesn't support THEM!

[Moonbox]

Thanks Max but I don't think it will help. To some on this board I forever will be a total Tory supporter. They will never understand how I can be anything different.

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.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Moonbox

[waldo]

The only thing the Tories did was mislead Canadians in the last election with their Talking points saying the Contract was already signed.

let us not forget their every albatross hyping comment since - see MLW 'broken record routine' played out by it's most fervent supporters here.

[Moonbox]

I think he's referring to the F-35 program specifically. I don't think madmax is a fervent Tory supporter himself...

[waldo]

particularly when considering an emphasis on domestic coastal 'protection' and Arctic sovereignty?

about that Harper Conservative posturing over Arctic Sovereignty... more "fiscal reality"... go big or go home???

Tories throw in the towel on trying to be an Arctic power

The Tories have talked a good game about Canada being an Arctic country. Prime Minister Stephen Harper never misses a chance to tag along with the military during Operation Nanook, an annual military exercise in the Far North. We get touchy when anyone calls into question our sovereignty over northern waters. We worry about Russian bombers and American submarines going where they aren’t wanted. As part of projecting Canada’s power, the Tories promised a major naval base in the Arctic way back in the long-ago era of 2007.

And then we didn’t hear much about it. Until now, that is. The government has announced their plans for the major northern naval base. Wait, did we say major base? Sorry, we meant a few trailers and a guy with a satellite phone. And not all the time, of course. Just in the summer. Do you have any idea how cold is gets up there in the winter?

Obviously, this will save the government money. That’s good, on the face of it. But there’s a problem here. When a facility is built to be used on an as-needed basis, the government clearly believes it won’t be needed very much. The original plan for the base would have given Canada a real foothold in Arctic waters, and would have forced the government into using the facility lest it be accused to waste. The new plan will give us enough to stage the odd demonstration in the region … which we already do. Rather than being a game-changer, this will make what we already do moderately easier.

Canada is either going to be an Arctic power or it isn’t. If the government can’t even commit the $100-million bucks it originally wanted to spend on developing a proper naval base in the Arctic region, the answer to that question is clear.

[waldo]

about that Harper Conservative posturing over Arctic Sovereignty... to forward base... or not???

Darpa Calling: U.S. Arctic plans could serve as a wake-up call for Canada

“Remote sensing may offer affordable advantages over traditional methods of monitoring the region – aircraft, satellites or manned ships and submarines – due to the great distances in the Arctic,” the agency said in a call for bids. The U.S. military wants “new technologies to monitor the Arctic both above and below the ice, providing year-round situational awareness without the need for forward-basing or human presence.”

“It seems that the U.S. is preparing for a more militarized Arctic without actually sending its troops and ships there, let alone its mothballed icebreakers,” wrote Mia Bennett on the website of Foreign Policy Association, a U.S. non-profit organization.

“Unmanned detection systems, robots, and distributed remote sensing are preferred over expensive manned platforms and bases. Whereas Canada is busy building its High Arctic Research Station and Nanisivik Naval Base (waldo: uhhh, no... apparently, Canada is not busy building Nanisivik) and Russia is investing in new types of equipment for civilians and soldiers to use up north, the U.S. is investing in more futuristic remote surveillance technologies.”

The little-noticed call for concepts, from DARPA, the Pentagon agency created after Russia’s Sputnik embarrassed Washington, should serve as a wake-up call to other Arctic nations.

on edit: reposition link commentary to properly reflect links reference to Nanisivik

Edited March 23, 2012 by waldo

[stopstaaron]

US, Russia, Denmark will claim Canadian territory is theirs because we are not using it

apparently they can do that...

[cybercoma]

If Harper loses the arctic, it will be one of the worst things that has happened in Canadian history and I hope the voters punish him like the did to the PCs in the early 90s.

[Smallc]

about that Harper Conservative posturing over Arctic Sovereignty... to forward base... or not???

Darpa Calling: U.S. Arctic plans could serve as a wake-up call for Canada

The arctic research station =/= the Nanasivik base. Those are two separate projects. The government decision on Nanasivik actually makes sense. It will only be used in the summer by ships anyway. There is still a very large commitment to the arctic. The AOPS is still going forward, as is a smaller base, the research facility, a reserve regiment in Yellowknife, new coast guard vessels announced and yet to be announced, multiple yearly military operations, mining, stronger environmental regulations, new satellite surveillance, etc

Edited March 23, 2012 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

Yes

Yes, but not to use them as a replacement for the Military as you were alluding to with regards to peacekeeping. There is a time and a place for everything.

Clearly there is a need for a conventional army then…….Would you agree that our forces involved in keeping the peace on a UN mission, should have greater “firepower” at their disposal, than the conflicts belligerents, to act as effective deterrent?

[Guest Derek L]

The arctic research station =/= the Nanasivik base. Those are two separate projects. The government decision on Nanasivik actually makes sense. It will only be used in the summer by ships anyway. There is still a very large commitment to the arctic. The AOPS is still going forward, as is a smaller base, the research facility, a reserve regiment in Yellowknife, new coast guard vessels announced and yet to be announced, multiple yearly military operations, mining, stronger environmental regulations, new satellite surveillance, etc

Remember a few months back when I suggested to you that the surface fleet would be reduced from 15 down to 12 to make up any budget shortfalls…….I’ll resubmit my “guesstimate” to now include the reduced surface fleet (to 12) and no AOPS……..Maybe a midlife extension for the Kingston’s………

The Navy never wanted to push slush in the first place and it appears, when DND was forced to submit their 5% & 10% reduction plan, the politically motivated programs were the first placed upon the sacrificial alter.………I’ll say it again for the zillionth time, if we want to get “serious” about Artic sovereignty, when competing with the United States and Soviet Union Russia, we need nuclear attack boats…….Anything else and we’re just deluding ourselves.

[Smallc]

Remember a few months back when I suggested to you that the surface fleet would be reduced from 15 down to 12 to make up any budget shortfalls…….I’ll resubmit my “guesstimate” to now include the reduced surface fleet (to 12) and no AOPS

I can pretty much promise you that you're wrong there. The government will not back up on the AOPS project. The ship is practically ready to be built.

[Guest Derek L]

I can pretty much promise you that you're wrong there. The government will not back up on the AOPS project. The ship is practically ready to be built.

I’ve posted this Government white paper prior, read the paper and tell me how much came to fruition:

Challenge and Commitment

[Smallc]

They already have an agreement with the shipyard in this case. AFAIK, it outlines a minimum number of vessels (21) that must be built there. They are already negotiating the construction agreement for the AOPS itself. This one isn't going anywhere. The F-35, I'm not so sure about anymore. It may in fact be going.

[Guest Derek L]

They already have an agreement with the shipyard in this case. AFAIK, it outlines a minimum number of vessels (21) that must be built there. They are already negotiating the construction agreement for the AOPS itself. This one isn't going anywhere. The F-35, I'm not so sure about anymore. It may in fact be going.

Read the 1987 white paper……..My favourite part, for obvious reasons, was the reference to replacing the Sea Things, which as mentioned, in 1987, were already at the end of their useful lives (25 years ago!!!)……….The Mulroney Government had signed a contract with the manufacturer of the EH-101 as well……….And when are those 10-12 SSNs showing up?

Some call it scepticism, some call it pragmatism……….

[waldo]

The arctic research station =/= the Nanasivik base.

clearly the linked article's reference was to Nanasivik (the original post has been edited accordingly).

the arctic research station has received significant critical comment/analysis from scientists/organizations currently relying upon PEARL... essentially, it is much too far south to provide as meaningful and appropriate monitoring/measure.

as for the rest of your presumptuous acceptance of Harper Conservative bellicose commitments, look no further than the F-35 retreat... and... U.S. diplomatic cables:

The cables, released by website WikiLeaks, indicate that the U.S. embassy in Washington saw much of the Conservative government’s aggressive public statements on the Arctic as a partisan strategy to win votes rather than substantive government policies. In private, the cables indicate, Mr. Harper was more “pragmatic.”

The massive potential for oil and gas discoveries in the Arctic has countries scrambling for offshore turf, but those claims are largely being settled by United Nations legal arbitration. Nonetheless, Mr. Harper’s government has often hinted at potential military encroachment by Russia and stressed the need for beefed-up military hardware to defend the Arctic.

One cable drafted by U.S. diplomats in Ottawa portrays Mr. Harper as dismissing the need for a military response to Russia over the Arctic. It includes an account from a Canadian official of a January, 2010, meeting between Mr. Harper and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in which the PM said NATO has no role in the Arctic.

“According to PM Harper, Canada has a good working relationship with Russia with respect to the Arctic, and a NATO presence could backfire by exacerbating tensions,” the cable states.

“He commented that there is no likelihood of Arctic states going to war, but that some non-Arctic members favoured a NATO role in the Arctic because it would afford them influence in an area where ‘they don’t belong.’ ”

That contradicts the Conservatives’ frequent calls for more military tools to defend the Arctic, sometimes accompanied by bellicose rhetoric.