F-35 purchase undecided, Fantino says

[cybercoma]

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…….

May I suggest switching to decaf? You're swinging at windmills.

Edited March 17, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest Derek L]

May I suggest switching to decaf? You're swinging at windmills.

Am I?

[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…….

No we know there is no contract. Which makes it infuriating the Tories kept telling us all about the contract we can't get out of. Bunch of Lairs.

Again what you describe IS NOT what the PM is talking about in the video. Just watch it.

Edited March 17, 2012 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

No we know there is no contract. Which makes it infuriating the Tories kept telling us all about the contract we can't get out of. Bunch of Lairs.

Again what you describe IS NOT what the PM is talking about in the video. Just watch it.

I have no clue what you’re talking about……..Some form of Newspeak?

Nowhere in the video does the PM mention a binding contract………He does mention how developmental costs won’t effect us, which is correct…….As mentioned, we’re tier 3 partners……….Developmental costs fall squarely on the tier 1 partners (US & UK), as do the defining of requirements and the production of the most lucrative contracts in the program

There is no requirement for us to remain partners in the JSF program, but if we choose to leave the program, our current (and any future) contracts will go to the remaining partners.

[MACKER]

Canada should have acccess to recouperate funds based on program delays, the US gets to.

None the less Canada can still buy in, they have pushed it back so far, the only real option Canada has is to build there own jets, and see if the industry that is being downsized due to the f35 issue can be picked up by the ARROWII. If they are already geared to buliding parts for the f35 they should have no problem building parts for the CF-210 (ArrowII) - the open source second generation Interceptor Jet by Canadians for Canada.

Edited March 18, 2012 by MACKER

[bush_cheney2004]

..... If they are already geared to buliding parts for the f35 they should have no problem building parts for the CF-210 (ArrowII) - the open source second generation Interceptor Jet by Canadians for Canada.

Here is the new Arrow II, but like the original AVRO Arrow, things do not end well:

Edited March 18, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[punked]

I have no clue what you’re talking about……..Some form of Newspeak?

Nowhere in the video does the PM mention a binding contract………He does mention how developmental costs won’t effect us, which is correct…….As mentioned, we’re tier 3 partners……….Developmental costs fall squarely on the tier 1 partners (US & UK), as do the defining of requirements and the production of the most lucrative contracts in the program

There is no requirement for us to remain partners in the JSF program, but if we choose to leave the program, our current (and any future) contracts will go to the remaining partners.

Did you watch the Clip? He is clearly talking about the end price of the F-35 which will be effected by the development costs. You think that if the plan costs 100 times more to develop then estimated each plane is going still cost what was originally estimated? This has been the argument the whole time, people have been saying "If this costs to develop it will cost more to produce and the governments estimates are dead wrong on price" the government have been saying "NO YOU ARE A LIAR IT WILL COST WHATEVER WE SAY IT WILL COST!"

Now we are starting to see the government back peddle and the public is starting to see who the liars really are.

[Wild Bill]

Did you watch the Clip? He is clearly talking about the end price of the F-35 which will be effected by the development costs. You think that if the plan costs 100 times more to develop then estimated each plane is going still cost what was originally estimated? This has been the argument the whole time, people have been saying "If this costs to develop it will cost more to produce and the governments estimates are dead wrong on price" the government have been saying "NO YOU ARE A LIAR IT WILL COST WHATEVER WE SAY IT WILL COST!"

Now we are starting to see the government back peddle and the public is starting to see who the liars really are.

Speaking of backpedaling, punked, where does he say " a binding contract"?

You specifically said the PM mentioned a contract.

[Guest Derek L]

Did you watch the Clip? He is clearly talking about the end price of the F-35 which will be effected by the development costs. You think that if the plan costs 100 times more to develop then estimated each plane is going still cost what was originally estimated? This has been the argument the whole time, people have been saying "If this costs to develop it will cost more to produce and the governments estimates are dead wrong on price" the government have been saying "NO YOU ARE A LIAR IT WILL COST WHATEVER WE SAY IT WILL COST!"

Now we are starting to see the government back peddle and the public is starting to see who the liars really are.

Yes, that’s exactly it. The development costs won’t effect the price for the orders of the partner nations expect the tier 1 Nations, US and UK……As mentioned the current developmental delays, and numbers branded about by the media, are associated with the “B” and “C” versions which we are not purchasing.

The Israelis have ordered 20 “A” aircraft with a $ 2.75 billion dollar price tag……Canada plans to purchase 65 “A” aircraft with ~$ 9 billion budgeted………..Do the math.

Israel, U.S. Strike F-35 Technology Deal

With that deal in hand, officials for both the Israeli air force and Lockheed Martin expect the $2.7 billion contract for the procurement of 19 or 20 F-35As will be signed by early next year.

This article is from last year, with the expected “inking” of the deal in the next few months…..

Perhaps you should support your “opinion” with real world events as opposed to the NDP’s talking points….

Edited March 18, 2012 by Derek L

[punked]

Yes, that’s exactly it. The development costs won’t effect the price for the orders of the partner nations expect the tier 1 Nations, US and UK……As mentioned the current developmental delays, and numbers branded about by the media, are associated with the “B” and “C” versions which we are not purchasing.

The Israelis have ordered 20 “A” aircraft with a $ 2.75 billion dollar price tag……Canada plans to purchase 65 “A” aircraft with ~$ 9 billion budgeted………..Do the math.

Israel, U.S. Strike F-35 Technology Deal

This article is from last year, with the expected “inking” of the deal in the next few months…..

Perhaps you should support your “opinion” with real world events as opposed to the NDP’s talking points….

Fact is if less countries order the planes that price is going to rise. Guess what? Countries are cutting back their orders so it is going to cost more. JUST LIKE EVERYONE except Conservatives have said. I believe just yesterday Japan said it might cancel its orders because of costs, that causes the costs to rise.

[Guest Derek L]

Fact is if less countries order the planes that price is going to rise. Guess what? Countries are cutting back their orders so it is going to cost more. JUST LIKE EVERYONE except Conservatives have said. I believe just yesterday Japan said it might cancel its orders because of costs, that causes the costs to rise.

What countries have cancelled their orders? What countries have reduced their orders as opposed to push back delivery?

[bush_cheney2004]

Fact is if less countries order the planes that price is going to rise. Guess what? Countries are cutting back their orders so it is going to cost more. JUST LIKE EVERYONE except Conservatives have said. I believe just yesterday Japan said it might cancel its orders because of costs, that causes the costs to rise.

Not sure what you mean by this, as all development costs are not recouped in the production run, nor are they intended to be. The main reason that production order costs per aircraft will increase with fewer orders has more to do with the lost savings and efficiencies that stem from higher production volume.

The Americans, and to a lesser extent the British, have already paid the bulk of development costs for you.

[Guest Derek L]

Not sure what you mean by this, as all development costs are not recouped in the production run, nor are they intended to be. The main reason that production order costs per aircraft will increase with fewer orders has more to do with the lost savings and efficiencies that stem from higher production volume.

The Americans, and to a lesser extent the British, have already paid the bulk of development costs for you.

But most of those increases will effect the LRIP aircraft………Which can be had for the cool price of ~800 million per copy………But…….again, we’re not buying LRIPs.

What’s also telling, the media and Opposition up here, also refer to DoD numbers which very much include the costlier (and delayed) “B” and “C” versions into their equation.

[bush_cheney2004]

But most of those increases will effect the LRIP aircraft………Which can be had for the cool price of ~800 million per copy………But…….again, we’re not buying LRIPs.

True, but I don't think the general public understands what LRIP means or how these cost+ contracts are let.

What’s also telling, the media and Opposition up here, also refer to DoD numbers which very much include the costlier (and delayed) “B” and “C” versions into their equation.

Well, using their own misguided logic, it would be cheaper to buy F-35's as soon as possible!

Edited March 18, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

True, but I don't think the general public understands what LRIP means or how these cost+ contracts are let.

Well, using their own misguided logic, it would be cheaper to buy F-35's as soon as possible!

The long running joke up here, in certain circles, is that the NDP = No Defence Policy……….Perhaps a Mulcair will posture them closer to a Blair like Labour Party, but only time will tell.

Till then, I’m forced to wonder why the NDP want’s to hurt our working men and women in the aerospace industry, and obstruct our young men and women in uniform in receiving a product, built by working people in Canada, to do their jobs?

My daughter is going to RMC this fall and wants to be a pilot……..Why does the NDP wish to play politics with and jeopardize the lives of many other Canadians sons and daughters?

Edited March 18, 2012 by Derek L

[bush_cheney2004]

The long running joke up here, in certain circles, is that the NDP = No Defence Policy……….Perhaps a Mulcair will posture them closer to a Blair like Labour Party, but only time will tell.

I don't think it will help...one thing I have learned about Canadian military procurements is that less is more! I can reel off several examples that firmly establish a trend just in the past 20 years:

1) CF-18's late to be updated with targeting pods, radios, or IFF to be most effective with NATO partners

2) Lack of timely heavylift transport, even when rented.

3) Several rotary wing aircraft procurement fiascos.

4) Diesel electric submarine boondoggle

5) Iltis G-wagons pretending to be APCs.

The usual political solution is to build in Canada, but the F-35 presents a "problem" in that regard. Canada will buy "something" sooner or later, while the world just moves on.

[Guest Derek L]

I don't think it will help...one thing I have learned about Canadian military procurements is that less is more! I can reel off several examples that firmly establish a trend just in the past 20 years:

1) CF-18's late to be updated with targeting pods, radios, or IFF to be most effective with NATO partners

2) Lack of timely heavylift transport, even when rented.

3) Several rotary wing aircraft procurement fiascos.

4) Diesel electric submarine boondoggle

5) Iltis G-wagons pretending to be APCs.

The usual political solution is to build in Canada, but the F-35 presents a "problem" in that regard. Canada will buy "something" sooner or later, while the world just moves on.

Indeed…….You hath speak thee truth……..The trend still continues with the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy and the clutter associated with FWSAR.

I remember when the past Liberal Government was looking at the A400M for a Herc replacement………When EADS told Chrétien to pound sand regarding Pratt & Whitney Canada’s involvement, the Government then decided we didn’t require Strategic Airlift........

[Guest Derek L]

I don't think it will help...one thing I have learned about Canadian military procurements is that less is more! I can reel off several examples that firmly establish a trend just in the past 20 years:

1) CF-18's late to be updated with targeting pods, radios, or IFF to be most effective with NATO partners

2) Lack of timely heavylift transport, even when rented.

3) Several rotary wing aircraft procurement fiascos.

4) Diesel electric submarine boondoggle

5) Iltis G-wagons pretending to be APCs.

The usual political solution is to build in Canada, but the F-35 presents a "problem" in that regard. Canada will buy "something" sooner or later, while the world just moves on.

An update or better late than never.....

Though it further makes your (Our) point about political interference in procurement, it does help demonstrate the ability of the members of the Canadian Forces to continually, with one hand tied behind their back, put the square peg into the round hole.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Derek L

[bush_cheney2004]

Though it further makes your (Our) point about political interference in procurement, it does help demonstrate the ability of the members of the Canadian Forces to continually, with one hand tied behind their back, put the square peg into the round hole.

But wait...it gets better. Even after range certifying the Victoria class and crews on the Torpedo MK-48, Canada still had to blow $125 million for Mod 7 upgrade kits and support from Raytheon....for only 36 torpedoes. The whole world knew that Canada's submarines had no teeth!

[Moonbox]

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?

The disconnect is that you're inventing new definitions and uses for terminology like kinetic energy and impact weapons that have very specific meanings.

And as demonstrated with the HMS Sheffield, the impact damage was far from minimal, but fatal…….

and a formal review of the disaster showed that the loss was due to an extremely unlucky hit, which exploited a huge design flaw, which was amplified by command and crew mistakes. If not for the fact that people died, it would have been comical. How many times do you think a dud missile is going to lodge itself inside a ship, knock out an insufficient and poorly designed fire control system, then ignite the fuel inside the ship with its own burning exhaust? One in a million? It was bizarre.

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………

Of course where the warhead detonates is important. Fact of the matter is that the impact damage for both hits were merely incidental. The impact is really just a delivery mechanism for the warhead, which in almost all cases (except for Sheffield) is what causes the vast majority of damage. If impact was the main objective, the missile would be made entirely out of lead, or tungsten or something like that.

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.

What kinetic energy means was never in question, and yes, a shockwave is kinetic energy. The issue was never whether you understood what kinetic energy means, it was that you don't understand what the term kinetic energy weapon means in the context of a discussion like this. When you use that specific term, you're implying that the weapon doesn't have a chemical explosive component, aside from lauch. An armor-piercing round from a tank would be a kinetic energy weapon. It's a dense, solid round that flies really fast and the force of its penetration through armor plate causes all sorts of nasty effects inside its target. On the other hand, a heavy explosive round from the same tank would not be considered a kinetic energy weapon. The speed and density of the projectile doesn't matter nearly as much in this case. All that matters is that it reaches its target and it explodes. The fact that the explosion itself causes a kinetic shockwave does NOT make it a kinetic energy weapon. I hope that makes sense to you. Maybe look it up?

Edited March 19, 2012 by Moonbox

[Guest Derek L]

The disconnect is that you're inventing new definitions and uses for terminology like kinetic energy and impact weapons that have very specific meanings.

When you learn the difference between Kinetic and Potential energy, let me know.

and a formal review of the disaster showed that the loss was due to an extremely unlucky hit, which exploited a huge design flaw, which was amplified by command and crew mistakes. If not for the fact that people died, it would have been comical. How many times do you think a dud missile is going to lodge itself inside a ship, knock out an insufficient and poorly designed fire control system, then ignite the fuel inside the ship with its own burning exhaust? One in a million? It was bizarre.

{see} USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Intrepid (CV-11), USS Franklin (CV-13), USS Ticonderoga (CV-14), USS Sangamon (CVE-26) etc........These examples above are of US carriers damaged by Kamikaze attacks, in which the Kamikaze impacted then entered the ship, then exploded/caught fire below decks…………..Unlike the HMS Sheffield, these vessels weren’t lost (I can list Escorts lost of similar tonnage as Sheffield), but suffered varying degrees of damage, and in some cases, put the carrier out for the remainder of the war………………I can continue, if you require, with further examples to illustrate this fact……….Clearly not a “one in a million” incident.

Of course where the warhead detonates is important. Fact of the matter is that the impact damage for both hits were merely incidental. The impact is really just a delivery mechanism for the warhead, which in almost all cases (except for Sheffield) is what causes the vast majority of damage. If impact was the main objective, the missile would be made entirely out of lead, or tungsten or something like that.

See above.

What kinetic energy means was never in question, and yes, a shockwave is kinetic energy. The issue was never whether you understood what kinetic energy means, it was that you don't understand what the term kinetic energy weapon means in the context of a discussion like this. When you use that specific term, you're implying that the weapon doesn't have a chemical explosive component, aside from lauch. An armor-piercing round from a tank would be a kinetic energy weapon. It's a dense, solid round that flies really fast and the force of its penetration through armor plate causes all sorts of nasty effects inside its target. On the other hand, a heavy explosive round from the same tank would not be considered a kinetic energy weapon. The speed and density of the projectile doesn't matter nearly as much in this case. All that matters is that it reaches its target and it explodes. The fact that the explosion itself causes a kinetic shockwave does NOT make it a kinetic energy weapon. I hope that makes sense to you. Maybe look it up?

I fully understand the difference between kinetic and potential energy, do you? If you light a fire well camping, then sit around and feel warm, that’s a form of radiant (potential) energy transfer……If you get drunk and fall into the fire, then feel “warm”, that’s an example of kinetic energy transfer.

Does a bomb, rocket, bullet, baseball bat or rock transfer energy in the same manner as your microwave?

Edited March 19, 2012 by Derek L

[Moonbox]

When you learn the difference between Kinetic and Potential energy, let me know.

Wow. Now we're going in a completely different direction.

{see} USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Intrepid (CV-11), USS Franklin (CV-13), USS Ticonderoga (CV-14), USS Sangamon (CVE-26) etc........These examples above are of US carriers damaged by Kamikaze attacks, in which the Kamikaze impacted then entered the ship, then exploded/caught fire below decks………….

Derek man...How does a kamikaze attack differ in any way, shape or form from a missile, which we were just talking about? A kamikaze plane is essentially just a piloted missile, packed with explosives. Giving me more and more examples of explosive ordnance is not going to make your point any stronger.

I'm getting the feeling you're ignoring my main point - possibly intentionally. Before you respond to anything else I've written, please respond to this:

Calling something a kinetic energy weapon is a fairly specific technical term -- mainly a projectile without an explosive charge. That's it. A grenade is not a kinetic energy weapon. A depth charge is most certainly not. Anything that delivers explosive ordnance is NOT termed a kinetic energy weapon. Those are explosive/chemical weapons, and they're VERY different. That's the argument. That's what I've been repeating over and over. I didn't make up the definition myself.

Here are some examples of kinetic energy weapons:

-Bullets, arrows, rocks, finger-launched elastics, rail-guns, mass-drivers, javelins, armor piercing rounds, cannon balls, ninja stars, non-explosive bombs/missiles

Can you see what I'm talking about? 100% of the design of the weapon is just to accelerate and hit its target. Mass + Velocity + Projectile shape/design = Results. All of the damage results in the impact. There is no 'payload'. That's what the term means. Period.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Moonbox

[cybercoma]

"Finger-launched elastics"

[Guest Derek L]

Derek man...How does a kamikaze attack differ in any way, shape or form from a missile, which we were just talking about? A kamikaze plane is essentially just a piloted missile, packed with explosives. Giving me more and more examples of explosive ordnance is not going to make your point any stronger.

I'm getting the feeling you're ignoring my main point - possibly intentionally. Before you respond to anything else I've written, please respond to this:

The point about the Kamikaze attacks is exactly that, in that it’s a manned missile………And unlike other numerous kamikaze attacks on USN fleet carriers in which the planes didn‘t penetrate below decks, these examples did cause extensive damage………Dispelling your position on the Sheffield being “one and a million” occurrence.

Calling something a kinetic energy weapon is a fairly specific technical term -- mainly a projectile without an explosive charge. That's it. A grenade is not a kinetic energy weapon. A depth charge is most certainly not. Anything that delivers explosive ordnance is NOT termed a kinetic energy weapon. Those are explosive/chemical weapons, and they're VERY different. That's the argument. That's what I've been repeating over and over. I didn't make up the definition myself.

Here are some examples of kinetic energy weapons:

-Bullets, arrows, rocks, finger-launched elastics, rail-guns, mass-drivers, javelins, armor piercing rounds, cannon balls, ninja stars, non-explosive bombs/missiles

Can you see what I'm talking about? 100% of the design of the weapon is just to accelerate and hit its target. Mass + Velocity + Projectile shape/design = Results. All of the damage results in the impact. There is no 'payload'. That's what the term means. Period.

What is kinetic energy? What is potential energy?

And now you want to talk about chemical energy? Perhaps you should understand the differences between kinetic and potential prior……….if not, do you understand that prior to you throwing a rock, firing a gun, or launching Cybercoma’s elastic band, that a chemical reaction does take place?

Honestly, this is high school level Physics………

Edited March 20, 2012 by Derek L

[Wild Bill]

Honestly, this is high school level Physics………

Derek, fewer students take high school physics anymore!

They drop it in Grade 9 for some arts courses.

Along with as much math as they're allowed to drop.

The ramifications are obvious.