F-35 purchase undecided, Fantino says

[Guest Derek L]

missed it as I have the guy on ignore and have to force myself to open his posts... which I rarely do anymore. In any case, short of one bullet item, that list is a sales job to the public - it hardly rises to the level of substantiating the plane selection, let alone the expenditure.

Fair enough.

Though I agree that some points can be interpreted as selling points or Reader’s Digest version like layman’s terms, the vast majority of the public, those in Government and many members of the military wouldn’t understand the “finer points” of the JSF…………….

For instance, discussing the F-35’s Multifunction Advanced Data Link versus the current standard (Link-16) or the inherent capabilities gained by it’s AESA radar not only in aerial combat and conventional interdictions, but it’s ability to also be used as ISR/ISTAR and SEAD platform, not relying only on conventional kinetic energy weapons (bombs, missiles) but also electromagnetic weapons (Phasers on stun) probably is beyond the realm (or interest) of many.

[mentalfloss]

Fantino gets tactical.

Fantino executes tactical retreat on F-35 jets - The Globe and Mail

Edited March 15, 2012 by mentalfloss

[Bonam]

It really doesn't matter 6th generation sltealth aerospace combat platforms are no brainers to build. It is just who gets the money.

Ask any given aerospaceengineer worth their salt to build a combat jet and they should be able to pull it off over aweekend if you supply some coffee and donuts.

[waldo]

c'mon, where is 'Airshow' in all this? Is it not telling that the Associate Minister of National Defence is flying solo on this sortie... where is MacKay? Gone fishing?

[mentalfloss]

We should take the saved money from these planes and pump it into more episodes of Royal Canadian Air Farce.

Edited March 15, 2012 by mentalfloss

[Wild Bill]

And the snowmobile took a little time too.

But look what we have now. They can build a plane,

You are defeatist... anyone can go it alone and sacreblu if you disagree as it is words of a zombie.

It really doesn't matter 6th generation sltealth aerospace combat platforms are no brainers to build. It is just who gets the money.

Ask any given aerospaceengineer worth their salt to build a combat jet and they should be able to pull it off over aweekend if you supply some coffee and donuts.

Have you any technical education or experience at all? Have you build any electronics, turned something on a lathe or even made an ashtray out of PlayDoh?

You sound like the typical Arts or poli-sci major, who takes technology for granted as some magic that can do anything if you throw some money at it.

Or maybe you have a business background? Many engineers have kept a classic cartoon pinned over their desks. It shows a manager conducting a meeting, with a flipchart on an easel stand. There's a flow chart on the stand, with one box labelled "Engineering miracle occurs HERE!"

Nothing is impossible for the man who has no clue how to do it himself!

[Topaz]

Provide proof of your ENTIRE claim please.

[/b]

Again, what the Tories say in the House and make Canadians believe something that is only half truths. The only way someone watching QP is to listen to the other side of the House for the whole truth or facts. The Tories know that they can say anything in the House even if half truth or whole lies and nothing can be done to them. I've watched QP and the Opposition had told the Tories over and over again, this the wrong jet because of cost and tech. that does work and it wasn't right for Canada's north. This is the one time that Harper may have to confess this is the wrong plane and he made a mistake. There's nothing wrong in admitting that you are wrong when you are. Harper's problem is, he never thinks he's wrong!

[fellowtraveller]

its time to invest in the ground forces..

The air forces of the world have a anme for ground forces, it is the same all over the world: targets.

[Guest Derek L]

Have you any technical education or experience at all? Have you build any electronics, turned something on a lathe or even made an ashtray out of PlayDoh?

You sound like the typical Arts or poli-sci major, who takes technology for granted as some magic that can do anything if you throw some money at it.

Or maybe you have a business background? Many engineers have kept a classic cartoon pinned over their desks. It shows a manager conducting a meeting, with a flipchart on an easel stand. There's a flow chart on the stand, with one box labelled "Engineering miracle occurs HERE!"

Nothing is impossible for the man who has no clue how to do it himself!

Ooooo Bill, clearly a shot across the bows for those with an Engineering and Management degree

[Moonbox]

not relying only on conventional kinetic energy weapons (bombs, missiles)

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.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Moonbox

[Guest Derek L]

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.

At any rate, 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.

You obviously don’t understand the principle behind an explosively formed penetrator.........see Durandal

[Moonbox]

You obviously dont understand the principle behind an explosively formed penetrator.........see Durandal

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.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Moonbox

[Jerry J. Fortin]

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.

Ever hear of the phrase too big to fail? There are simply not enough bullets to bury this dog even if it could hunt. Every two bit nation AND their dog is in on this gig. There is money flying out the door by the billions, and its going everywhere. This baby was not designed as an aircraft any less than it was designed to make money for its builders. The program runs deep in every state and even in the number of investing nations that it makes it hard to believe its true. But it is true.

Good luck to you investing types of folks, for a very real reason. That reason is that the American government has made a business out of war. If any leader of that nation fails to belly up to the counter and buy some ammo, I will be a monkeys uncle. One way or another, meaning just that by the way, somewhere on the planet some lunatic is buying guns by the boxcar to conduct a war somewhere. The Americans, and very nearly everyone else by the way, make and export weapons daily. We are killing each other over nonsense instead of building schools and hospitals. Instead of actually giving a damn about their own citizens, they would rather tax us to buy guns to sell or use themselves. I think it was Ike that coined the phrase.."military industrial complex." Catchy phrase that it was, it went nowhere fast. In my view he touched the essence of the real problem, and nobody cared to listen, and that is the real tragedy.

History should be teaching us that we must learn from our mistakes. Instead it has taught us all that written history is written by the victorious and not a word from the vanquished.

[bush_cheney2004]

....History should be teaching us that we must learn from our mistakes. Instead it has taught us all that written history is written by the victorious and not a word from the vanquished.

Who says it is a "mistake"? The Americans will still have their F-35's to go with their F-22's, UCAVs, cruise missiles, and bombers, regardless of the cost. Just because Canada can't figure it out (again) doesn't mean it's a mistake. See AVRO Arrow!

[Topaz]

Word has it that the F35's would cost 200 Mil each and now the DND is looking at France as other countries are also. http://www.bourque.org/

[Smallc]

That price certainly would explain a change in position if there really has been one.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Smallc

[Moonbox]

Who says it is a "mistake"? The Americans will still have their F-35's to go with their F-22's, UCAVs, cruise missiles, and bombers, regardless of the cost. Just because Canada can't figure it out (again) doesn't mean it's a mistake. See AVRO Arrow!

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.

Ever hear of the phrase too big to fail? There are simply not enough bullets to bury this dog even if it could hunt. Every two bit nation AND their dog is in on this gig.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

double post

Edited March 15, 2012 by Moonbox

[bush_cheney2004]

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?

No...the AVRO Arrow represents the beginning of Canadian taxpayers getting "fleeced". There is no need to whine about what happens with another nation's military procurements when you can't even figure out your own.

Still bitching about those C-17's too?

Thank you for your brilliant contributions BC.

You are most certainly welcome, F-35 Tier Three partner.

[huh]

That price certainly would explain a change in position if there really has been one.

Nah it couldn't be that, they conservatives knew that it was the wrong plane even before the liberals signed on to the project. It isn't possible that they wanted it to work and now it might not be possible at whatever new cost, no, it's all some big conspiracy.

[Guest Derek L]

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.

Not the slightest......Kinetic energy plays a very important part with other, modern munitions, that can and are very much so used against enemy air defences, such as modern cluster bombs like the CBU-97.………And like an example of a bullet that you give, that ultimately will kill a person/animal not from the actual penetration of said bullet but from the hydrostatic shock, the same is true with modern munitions that ultimately rely on shock damage to their intended target.

Case in point, the HMS Sheffield during the Falklands war……..The fatal damage wasn’t inflicted by the Exocet’s 350 pound warhead (it didn’t even detonate), but by the shock damage caused by the kinetic energy transferred from the missile to the ship, that ultimately damaged fire mains, electrical wires and the ship’s electronics………The same principle applies to modern torpedoes or depth charges……….These munitions aren’t dependent upon hitting their target, but by the kinetic energy created by the explosion creating an under water change in pressure that creates a shock wave that ultimately destroys the submarine.

Perhaps you're not an expert, but I spent over 13 years of my life preparing to demonstrate the ability of NATO weapons to transfer kinetic energy to a Soviet submarine.

[Wild Bill]

Not the slightest......Kinetic energy plays a very important part with other, modern munitions, that can and are very much so used against enemy air defences, such as modern cluster bombs like the CBU-97.………And like an example of a bullet that you give, that ultimately will kill a person/animal not from the actual penetration of said bullet but from the hydrostatic shock, the same is true with modern munitions that ultimately rely on shock damage to their intended target.

Case in point, the HMS Sheffield during the Falklands war……..The fatal damage wasn’t inflicted by the Exocet’s 350 pound warhead (it didn’t even detonate), but by the shock damage caused by the kinetic energy transferred from the missile to the ship, that ultimately damaged fire mains, electrical wires and the ship’s electronics………The same principle applies to modern torpedoes or depth charges……….These munitions aren’t dependent upon hitting their target, but by the kinetic energy created by the explosion creating an under water change in pressure that creates a shock wave that ultimately destroys the submarine.

Perhaps you're not an expert, but I spent over 13 years of my life preparing to demonstrate the ability of NATO weapons to transfer kinetic energy to a Soviet submarine.

Derek, at the risk of some thread drift perhaps you could answer a question for me. WWII and older warship technology, being of course much cruder, seemed to me to be more resistant to damage and more easily field repaired or "jury rigged". Witness the USS Hornet during the Battle of Midway.

From my experience with today's technology, it would seem that today if a ship takes a significant strike it's toast! I can't see the same sort of field repairs being possible.

Is this true? If a missile or bomb strikes a modern warship, assuming it still floats is it dead in the water and needs a tow to a repair dock?

[Guest Derek L]

Word has it that the F35's would cost 200 Mil each and now the DND is looking at France as other countries are also. http://www.bourque.org/

Then the word is incorrect…………If we did (but we aren’t) decide to go with another aircraft, the Rafale and especially the Eurofighter won’t be in the cards.

Also your link cites the likely selection by the Brazilian’s and Indian’s of the Rafale……..These competitions didn’t include the JSF from the onset, and the Rafale’s selection over the Super Hornet is twofold……One Boeing wasn’t agreeable with the amount of technology transfer both nations were seeking and two, Boeing didn’t wish to set-up local production, again unlike the French......

One could also speculate on a third possibility against the Super Hornet, and that is that ultimately the Indian’s and Brazilians will require replacements for their respective navies, and in both cases, the Super Hornet is not feasible to operate from both nations size restricted carriers……..Of note, the Brazilian carrier was obtained at rock bottom prices by the French, and well in French service, conducted the initial sea trials of the Rafale.

[Guest Derek L]

Derek, at the risk of some thread drift perhaps you could answer a question for me. WWII and older warship technology, being of course much cruder, seemed to me to be more resistant to damage and more easily field repaired or "jury rigged". Witness the USS Hornet during the Battle of Midway.

From my experience with today's technology, it would seem that today if a ship takes a significant strike it's toast! I can't see the same sort of field repairs being possible.

Is this true? If a missile or bomb strikes a modern warship, assuming it still floats is it dead in the water and needs a tow to a repair dock?

Like the old saying, how long is a piece of string? And it’s the Hornet’s sister Yorktown lost at Midway

It ultimately depends on the amount of energy transferred………Most modern torpedoes would ultimately sink a modern frigate/destroyer rather quick without even hitting the vessel……..They explode under the keel and said shock wave will ultimately “break the back” of the vessels and they’ll sink rather quick……..

As for a modern Super Carrier, big deck Amphib or even the retired Iowa’s, the USN has been conducting SINKEXs of large vessels, and for obvious security reasons, hasn’t made the information public…..

With that said, one could speculate that it would require several torpedoes to sink one of the larger vessels, but the associated shock damage from a single torpedo, would reek havoc on the steam propulsion piping, electronics, electric wiring, and aircraft fuel piping………in sense, a mission kill.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Derek L

[MACKER]

Have you any technical education or experience at all? Have you build any electronics, turned something on a lathe or even made an ashtray out of PlayDoh?

You sound like the typical Arts or poli-sci major, who takes technology for granted as some magic that can do anything if you throw some money at it.

Or maybe you have a business background? Many engineers have kept a classic cartoon pinned over their desks. It shows a manager conducting a meeting, with a flipchart on an easel stand. There's a flow chart on the stand, with one box labelled "Engineering miracle occurs HERE!"

Nothing is impossible for the man who has no clue how to do it himself!

Dude the british already did it you just need to swap the engine and insure the structure can take high mach roughly 3 or so. What is so "imposible" about that?

Fact is Bombardier built British Military Jets, so saying they have no experience in military equipment is a false statement do you not read my links?

Bombardier Jets flew during the recent Libya mission in a critical mission capacity.

They just need a better engine and they are well suited for EWACS and AESA roles and can also with a stronger engine be complimented with hardpoints.

Just sort out a good L/D ratio and good enough jobs in canada, Canadian jet the Aero 2 a story of success. What more could you ask for?

They built the arrow 50 years ago, is it for some reason not capable to build something better half a century later, get real.

My gosh rich people would love to be on a military jet that offers supersonic flight for commericial transport. It is a seller. the miitary is gonna need the flight hours anyway.

Might as well make them into a posh air service for executives and the other rich.

cover the fuel costs or something.

onventional turbo and ramjet engines are able to remain reasonably efficient up to Mach 5.5

Edited March 16, 2012 by MACKER