F-35 purchase undecided, Fantino says

[bush_cheney2004]

...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.

Pretty much, except for a few other sneaky tricks involving torpedo fire control options for weapon's placement and fuzing decisions based on water depth and known target attributes (draft, countermeasures, watertight integrity, etc.). Today's heavyweight and lightweight torpedoes are a lot smarter than they were just 20 years ago because of tactical software. The surface platform anti-ship threat is principally from missiles and mine laying, not torpedoes.

USS Cole (DDG-67) took a direct hit at the waterline (12 meter hole) but did not sink because of material readiness condition and heroic damage control efforts by the crew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MV_Blue_Marlin_carrying_USS_Cole.jpg

Though not directly related to F-35 procurement by Canada, it is interesting to note that Canada's great adventure with the ex-Upholder/Victoria class diesel electrics extended to fire control and torpedo tube incompatibility with their existing investment in Raytheon's MK-48 Mod 4 or Mod 7 upgrade kit, as they were originally fitted for the UK's Spearfish.

I think part of the emphasis on F-35 procurement is to break the cycle of make do on the cheap a la Red Green and duct tape.

[Guest Derek L]

Pretty much, except for a few other sneaky tricks involving torpedo fire control options for weapon's placement and fuzing decisions based on water depth and known target attributes (draft, countermeasures, watertight integrity, etc.). Today's heavyweight and lightweight torpedoes are a lot smarter than they were just 20 years ago because of tactical software. The surface platform anti-ship threat is principally from missiles and mine laying, not torpedoes.

Definitely agree on the advancement today compared to the 80s………..As I do agree with potential threats to the surface fleet, but that’s more to do with the potential oppositions ability to threaten a modern blue water navy….An effective submarine force is certainly not in everyone’s budget, but for those that can afford such a force, one can’t argue the effectiveness in terms of sea denial.

USS Cole (DDG-67) took a direct hit at the waterline (12 meter hole) but did not sink because of material readiness condition and heroic damage control efforts by the crew.

Not to take anything away from the DC folks, but compartmentalization certainly helped……..Now if that same explosive force had of been applied under the Cole’s keel……

Though not directly related to F-35 procurement by Canada, it is interesting to note that Canada's great adventure with the ex-Upholder/Victoria class diesel electrics extended to fire control and torpedo tube incompatibility with their existing investment in Raytheon's MK-48 Mod 4 or Mod 7 upgrade kit, as they were originally fitted for the UK's Spearfish.

Definitely…..our cheapness associated with the recycling of the O-boats fire control system certainly played into many of the Victoria’s headaches.

Combined with a slight reduction in our surface force, this kind of option would certainly fit Canada best:

US floats nuclear subs option

I think we discussed this a few months ago as more of an “idea”, contrasted with an actual offer, in one of the other JSF threads……

Edited March 16, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

well... there you go - now we know why Fantino has been front-man... trying to get out ahead of the soon to be released scathing AG report:

Defence officials misled Parliament on F-35 deal: AG report

Canada’s new federal spending watchdog is set to deliver a scathing report on the F-35 fighter jet program early next month that will make distinctly unpleasant reading for the Conservative government.

The first draft of the report on replacing Canada’s fighter jets by new Auditor-General, Michael Ferguson, is said to charge the Department of National Defence with misleading Parliament

[eyeball]

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!

What about the opposite, engineers who take people for granted and build obsolescence into the shit they create?

Don't get me started on engineers who seem to think the environment can just keep on supplying everything they need including landfills for everything they make that breaks down, wears out and gets dumped.

[Guest Derek L]

well... there you go - now we know why Fantino has been front-man... trying to get out ahead of the soon to be released scathing AG report:

Defence officials misled Parliament on F-35 deal: AG report

I see you didn't quote the entire second paragraph:

The first draft of the report on replacing Canada’s fighter jets by new Auditor-General, Michael Ferguson, is said to charge the Department of National Defence with misleading Parliament, according to someone who has read it.

Didn't we discuss another story by Mr Ivison not too long ago that claimed we were replacing our Hornets with “drones”.......

Here's the thread:

Canada looking to buy 6 armed UAVs

Edited March 16, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

I see you didn't quote the entire second paragraph:

according to someone who has read it.

as opposed to, uhhh... someone who has never seen it? Apparently, Ivison must have a reason for not naming the source who was privy to a draft copy of the soon to be released final AG's report, hey? Cause, like, just who gets to read those drafts, anyway? Like I said/implied, MacKay is being buffered right now - Fantino is in 'manage mode'... getting out front of the report, setting the tone on the F-35 retreat!

contract? What contract?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMZ03SpJ3VQ

[Guest Derek L]

as opposed to, uhhh... someone who has never seen it? Apparently, Ivison must have a reason for not naming the source who was privy to a draft copy of the soon to be released final AG's report, hey? Cause, like, just who gets to read those drafts, anyway? Like I said/implied, MacKay is being buffered right now - Fantino is in 'manage mode'... getting out front of the report, setting the tone on the F-35 retreat!

contract? What contract?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMZ03SpJ3VQ

Who says it’s a “retreat”? As Mr Ivison noted, the AG also released “scathing reports” on the Victoria’s, Cyclone’s and Chinooks………All programs are still ongoing

[mentalfloss]

Yea, Fantino and McKay have been in damage control since the opposition started pressing about this issue. Now they're finally admitting that they'll reconsider the contract. It only took years of chiding from the NDP for them to finally listen.

Edited March 16, 2012 by mentalfloss

[Smallc]

That's not what anyone is saying. What they're saying is that there are circumstances where we would abandon the deal.

[Guest Derek L]

That's not what anyone is saying. What they're saying is that there are circumstances where we would abandon the deal.

And those conditions would be the outright cancellation of the program by the Obama administration………..Not going to happen.

[Smallc]

And those conditions would be the outright cancellation of the program by the Obama administration………..Not going to happen.

Well, I don't think that's the only circumstance. If the plane were to come in at a price that was far beyond affordable, I think it would be a problem also.

[Guest Derek L]

Yea, Fantino and McKay have been in damage control since the opposition started pressing about this issue. Now they're finally admitting that they'll reconsider the contract. It only took years of chiding from the NDP for them to finally listen.

Clearly the NDP is leading the charge, and without a doubt, their seats in Longueuil Quebec and North Delta BC, would benefit from Canada withdrawing from the JSF program.....

[Guest Derek L]

Well, I don't think that's the only circumstance. If the plane were to come in at a price that was far beyond affordable, I think it would be a problem also.

Name the other option(s).

[Moonbox]

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.

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.

………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.

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.

Case in point, the HMS Sheffield during the Falklands war……..The fatal damage wasnt inflicted by the Exocets 350 pound warhead (it didnt even detonate), but by the shock damage caused by the kinetic energy transferred from the missile to the ship

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.

These munitions arent 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.

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.

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.

I assume you're talking about depth charges, which, once again, are just explosive weapons.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Moonbox

[Smallc]

Name the other option(s).

At a price we can't afford, anything else becomes an options. Probably either the SH or the Rafale. I know they aren't ideal for our situation, but if there is a case where we cannot ten afford the bare minimum that we need (65), then we can't really buy the plane.

[Guest Derek L]

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.

Kinetic and chemical energy plays a part in all air delivered weapons systems…….From a rock to a ICBM……The difference between that, and electromagnetic is stark.

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.

Again, as modern weapons systems have been developed, the shift towards the reliance on said system’s inherent kinetic energy transfer has had numerous “advantages”…….Case in point, after the initial invasion of Iraq, many of the laser guided bombs dropped in Iraq didn’t have warheads in the conventional sense…….They were concrete filled, thus relying on the kinetic energy of the bombs impact to “kill” the target as opposed to a conventional warhead that would level a city block and surely kill children on their way to school and destroy a baby food/medicine factory and make the top story on CNN.

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.

The fire caused by the Exocet’s fuel could have been contained if not for the shock damage (kinetic energy) that knocked out most of the fire suppression equipment.

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. As far as 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.

Sure, but you could also call thermonuclear bomb an electromagnetic weapon.

I assume you're talking about depth charges again, which are just explosive weapons whose kinetic energy is amplified by the density of water.

Did a successful depth charge attack rely on said depth charge making contact directly with the submarine?

Edited March 16, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

At a price we can't afford, anything else becomes an options. Probably either the SH or the Rafale. I know they aren't ideal for our situation, but if there is a case where we cannot ten afford the bare minimum that we need (65), then we can't really buy the plane.

The Rafale is a non-starter……..French aircraft = French Weapons…………….As for the Uber Bug……..As mentioned prior, the RAAF paid 6.6 billion for 24.…..Do the math.

[Smallc]

The Rafale is a non-starter……..French aircraft = French Weapons…………….As for the Uber Bug……..As mentioned prior, the RAAF paid 6.6 billion for 24.…..Do the math.

Sure, and I get that. All I'm saying is that there's some reason that the government is suddenly less committal.

Of course, today, the government is talking about being able to buy more than 65. It all depends when we buy, they say.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

Sure, and I get that. All I'm saying is that there's some reason that the government is suddenly less committal.

The Government isn’t though……..Go look at the entire exchange……..Of course there are options if the program was cancelled………….If one was to speculate, the plan “B”, is the lobbying effort underway by both Boeing and Northrop to sample their wares in addition to a purchase of a more conventional type, to maintain our NORAD commitments, that they both would benefit from .

Edited March 16, 2012 by Derek L

[mentalfloss]

Canada can delay F-35 purchase to get cheaper prices, Julian Fantino says

OTTAWA — Canada may wait well into the next decade to take delivery of a new fleet of fighter jets, but the $9-billion budget for the high-tech airplanes is not negotiable, says junior defence minister Julian Fantino.

Opposition parties have been asking for more than a year whether a better idea might not be to abandon the current plan to purchase the jets and opt for a cheaper and already proven alternative. The Conservative government has maintained, despite near daily reports of new development problems it can purchase 65 of the jets with the $9-billion it has set aside.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1147477--canada-can-delay-f-35-purchase-to-get-cheaper-prices-julian-fantino-says

Edited March 16, 2012 by mentalfloss

[Smallc]

And?

[Wild Bill]

Sure, and I get that. All I'm saying is that there's some reason that the government is suddenly less committal.

Of course, today, the government is talking about being able to buy more than 65. It all depends when we buy, they say.

If there is no real alternative aircraft that suits our needs I would rather we got nothing than take a poor choice just to keep up appearances.

Maybe in ten years a viable alternative might come along.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Wild Bill

[Guest Derek L]

And?

This has already been discussed…….hardly an new revelation.

[DogOnPorch]

...opt for a cheaper and already proven alternative.

Kicked azz in 1915/1916 vs the Eindecker.

[Guest Derek L]

If there is no real alternative aircraft that suits our needs I would rather we got nothing than take a poor choice just to keep up appearances.

Maybe in ten years a viable alternative might come along.

It doesn’t mater Bill….the 6th generation, built by whomever, will have the same charges levelled against it, as the JSF has today……..History repeats itself………..As I mentioned, many of the same criticisms levelled today, were the same over 30 years ago against the Hornet……….and the same can be applied all the way back to the Arrow and subsequent selections there after (Voodoo, Lawn Dart, Freedom Fighter)……..