F-35 purchase undecided, Fantino says

[Moonbox]

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

....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)……..

Precisely the case....all over again. Turn this into a jobs program with offsets and suddenly it will become the greatest military procurement ever. That's part of the problem in Canuckistan, lack of support when things are not home grown and built by Canadians.

There is no Canadian contract for F-35 strike fighters...not a single one. I guess the good news about that is there can't be another $500 million cancellation fee!

[Guest Derek L]

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’ve already outlined my points, in that bombs, missiles, bullets, concrete bombs and rocks etc all deliver a kinetic impact on their intended targets……..Electromagnetic weapons do not.

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?

Low observable technology....And electromagnetic weapons……Wasn’t this covered in my prior post?

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.

Yes, I understand what the Exocet is designed to do, much like any other modern anti-ship missile……..The Exocet was clearly 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.

What damages the submarine during such a scenario?

[Guest Derek L]

Precisely the case....all over again. Turn this into a jobs program with offsets and suddenly it will become the greatest military procurement ever. That's part of the problem in Canuckistan, lack of support when things are not home grown and built by Canadians.

There is no Canadian contract for F-35 strike fighters...not a single one. I guess the good news about that is there can't be another $500 million cancellation fee!

Indeed, as I alluded to in a prior post though, the opposition clearly doesn’t understand the “pork” aspect……Already, the components for the engines are being produced in Quebec and the wing tips produced about a 20 minute drive from my place…….Funny enough, these are all NDP ridings…….Makes one ask what the NDP has against our aerospace industry?

Edited March 16, 2012 by Derek L

[punked]

Indeed, as I alluded to in a prior post though, the opposition clearly doesn’t understand the “pork” aspect……Already, the components for the engines are being produced in Quebec and the wing tips produced about a 20 minute drive from my place…….Funny enough, these are all NDP ridings…….Makes one ask what the NDP has against our aerospace industry?

Now we are all for wasteful government spending to stimulate the economy eh? Flip Flop much? Wait yes you are a conservative voter aren't you.

[Smallc]

Now we are all for wasteful government spending to stimulate the economy eh? Flip Flop much? Wait yes you are a conservative voter aren't you.

I'm a Conservative voter. I support stimulus. I also support the military. I don't see why you think just because someone supports the Conservatives, they're flip flopping by making this into a jobs issue. Not everyone is so ideologically rigid.

[Guest Derek L]

Now we are all for wasteful government spending to stimulate the economy eh? Flip Flop much? Wait yes you are a conservative voter aren't you.

Quite the opposite………I’m not bothered at all by outsourcing and in a sense, that’s exactly what LockMart did with many of the subsystems of the JSF…………If Canadians's employed by Pratt & Whitney Canada and Avcorp benefit, all the better.

I’m simply highlighting the idiocy and hypocrisy of the Opposition…….In that they claim they would some how get a “better deal” for Canadian Aerospace workers, which is not the case………….The JSF production will run into the 2030s, and every single aircraft, used by all the partner nations, will have a significant Canadian contribution…………And Canadians are already contributing to aircraft already being delivered, as opposed to the NDP/LPC stance that they will deliver some “mythical bacon”………..

If the NDP and Liberals don’t wish to replace our Hornets, they should just come out and say it…….I will tell you this though, Boeing won’t shutdown the production line for the Super Hornet in St Louis for the sake of Canadians, nor will the French and EuroFighter consortium nations shift their already heavily subsidized aerospace industries to Canada.

[punked]

No one ever said there was a contract.

You mean no one but Harper? I knew I remember him talking about a contract.

[Guest Derek L]

You mean no one but Harper? I knew I remember him talking about a contract.

The agreement signed by the previous Liberal Government granted us tier 3 involvement, which allowed us to participate indirectly with the development and allowed the Canadian aerospace industry to bid on production contracts……………Nowhere, yet, have we been committed to purchase the JSF, but if we don’t, those previous production contracts will go to other members of the program.

[punked]

The agreement signed by the previous Liberal Government granted us tier 3 involvement, which allowed us to participate indirectly with the development and allowed the Canadian aerospace industry to bid on production contracts……………Nowhere, yet, have we been committed to purchase the JSF, but if we don’t, those previous production contracts will go to other members of the program.

That is not what the PM is talking about in this video. That is quite clear when you watch the video.

[Guest Derek L]

That is not what the PM is talking about in this video. That is quite clear when you watch the video.

No, Development, production rates, testing results etc were included into the tier 3 agreement back in ‘02.……

[punked]

No, Development, production rates, testing results etc were included into the tier 3 agreement back in ‘02.……

He quite clearly says Contract Derek.

[Moonbox]

I’ve already outlined my points, in that bombs, missiles, bullets, concrete bombs and rocks etc all deliver a kinetic impact on their intended targets……..Electromagnetic weapons do not.

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.

Yes, I understand what the Exocet is designed to do, much like any other modern anti-ship missile……..The Exocet was clearly designed as an "impact weapon"

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.

What damages the submarine during such a scenario?

The shockwave from the explosion, not the force of the object or projectile itself, which is what 'kinetic energy weapon' actually means.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Moonbox

[dre]

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.

Seems to me like the government latched onto what seemed like the shiniest object in their field of view without doing the real due diligence required. Now they are starting to realize that.

Early Adoption is potentially a problem in any procurement, more problems, higher costs, the lack of real performance metrics and duty history. I agree with what the government seems to be in part suggesting here.

Like I said... what they need to do is start back at square 1 and do some proper analysis, and really consider all the options. And if we ARE going to buy the F-35 we should not purchase units from an early production run.

[Smallc]

Like I said... what they need to do is start back at square 1 and do some proper analysis, and really consider all the options. And if we ARE going to buy the F-35 we should not purchase units from an early production run.

We're not actually going to do that. As of now, only a few jets will arrive in Canada before 2019. They are already building the F-35.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Smallc

[dre]

We're not actually going to do that. As of now, only a few jets will arrive in Canada before 2019. They are already building the F-35.

Im sure youre right. The government is "pot commited" at this point to their shiny little object. But at least it sounds like someone explained to the government what early adoption is and why its dangerous.

[bush_cheney2004]

We're not actually going to do that. As of now, only a few jets will arrive in Canada before 2019. They are already building the F-35.

I know what you mean, but as of now, no jets will arrive in 2019, unless they are those of other nations with real orders, like Italy, Japan, Australia, and United States.

[cybercoma]

He quite clearly says Contract Derek.

Did you NOT read the exchange between Derek and waldo in that other thread? Come on, punked.

[cybercoma]

Seems to me like the government latched onto what seemed like the shiniest object in their field of view without doing the real due diligence required. Now they are starting to realize that.

Which is why there's supposed to be an open-tender process and parliamentary discussion about these things. You know, if they actually followed the rules, perhaps they wouldn't have these problems.

[Smallc]

I know what you mean, but as of now, no jets will arrive in 2019, unless they are those of other nations with real orders, like Italy, Japan, Australia, and United States.

I said as of current plans.

[Guest Derek L]

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.

Exactly, hence my reasoning in referencing them in relation to the JSF. “Zapping” an air search/fire control radar as opposed to launching a HARM with a Rockeye follow-up is less likely to harm those waiting in line for their baby food………Of course their babies might later become cross eyed with an elongated forehead twenty years later, but that’s besides the point.

And that thermonuclear blast, when placed in the atmosphere, could also be considered a no lethal weapon.

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.

I’m sorry, but I think it’s your terminology that is weird………First you claimed the Exocet is not an “impact weapon”, then demonstrated how the Exocet impacts it’s target, then explodes………Where’s the disconnect?

And as demonstrated with the HMS Sheffield, the impact damage was far from minimal, but fatal……..This can also be demonstrated by the Exocet hits on the HMS Glamorgan & the USS Stark……Both ships received hits form Exocets (In the case of Stark two, but only one denoted) that had the warhead detonate, but neither ship was lost……It’s almost like the point of impact mattered………

The shockwave from the explosion, not the force of the object or projectile itself, which is what 'kinetic energy weapon' actually means.

And what would the shockwave be considered? Do you know what Kinetic energy means? I’m not being sarcastic or trying to slight you, just an honest question that might help further this sidebar.

Edited March 17, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

He quite clearly says Contract Derek.

Are you suggesting there is a hidden contract?

Perhaps you’d better verse yourself on tier 1, 2 & 3 membership in the JSF program prior to continuing....

[Guest Derek L]

Did you NOT read the exchange between Derek and waldo in that other thread? Come on, punked.

Are you supporting Punked’s claim that there is some “hidden contract”? As demonstrated, yes, we’ve signed a contract, ten years ago, and paid money into the program, but this was not an exchange for actual aircraft, but for allowing us to have some input on the design, receive testing results and bid on associated contracts for the program……..

If this is Punked and/or the NDP’s new “silver bullet”against the JSF and the Harper Government, I’d suggest you carefully unload it………Hang Fires tend to injure the operator as opposed to the target…….

[MACKER]

Canada could pump out jets every year no problem, they are just horrible managers on this file. They want to rely on private industry that is monopolized, it is incredibly stupid, they need to force development - it is national defence not grocery shopping.

I must say though it is a really cool jet, but it is getting dated for the cost.

I would be in line of getting a mixed force something low cost like the Nextgen-arrow, some of the bombardier refits, and start procuring F35's when the major purchaseres orders are filled, like a couple wings for US operations.

I think relaunching the arrow would be good for national pride - run it as an open source Canadian fighter project...

OPEN SOURCE ARROW II. A challenge to produce the lowest costing most effecting fighter jet, using off the shelf products and open source developed technologies. Giving some rewards for the best designs or final contributions. With perhaps 6 months development time before selecting a model, then an aggressive federal program to develop the industry required to pump them out.

Forget about letting disconnected ministers roll dice on these things, let the public decide. Let them vote on their favourite design from a list of finalists.

Edited March 17, 2012 by MACKER

[bush_cheney2004]

OPEN SOURCE ARROW II. A challenge to produce the lowest costing most effecting fighter jet, using off the shelf products and open source developed technologies. Giving some rewards for the best designs or final contributions. With perhaps 6 months development time before selecting a model, then an aggressive federal program to develop the industry required to pump them out.

Already exists....F-16 Block 60.