F-35 purchase undecided, Fantino says

[Topaz]

The National Post is saying the blame game for the F-35 are starting and I think most Canadians just wished the government would just get on with an open tender and see what's out there and at what price. We just may be able to get what is needed at a lower price but we'll never know until the minister starts the process. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/19/john-ivison-f-35-bid-process-was-hijacked-by-dnd-former-official-says/

[mentalfloss]

The National Post is saying the blame game for the F-35 are starting and I think most Canadians just wished the government would just get on with an open tender and see what's out there and at what price.

The opposition has been asking for a price for a few years now.

[Smallc]

They can't give a definitive price yet. What they have said, quite clearly, is that they will not exceed $9B. How many jets that will buy and when is still not completely clear, though the price that Israel is paying coupled with the reality that the price should fall as the production line ramps up after 2017 (when our jets will start to arrive) suggests that we may in fact be able to buy more than 65 jets for our money. IMO, they should be spending enough to get 100 jets and stand up an additional combat squadron.

[Wild Bill]

The National Post is saying the blame game for the F-35 are starting and I think most Canadians just wished the government would just get on with an open tender and see what's out there and at what price. We just may be able to get what is needed at a lower price but we'll never know until the minister starts the process. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/19/john-ivison-f-35-bid-process-was-hijacked-by-dnd-former-official-says/

Topaz, these things are NOT big secrets! We've known all along what's out there and at what price. There simply is no other aircraft in the entire world that can do what the F-35 can do.

Our only other choices are for aircraft that are old designs with MUCH less capability!

We can argue about whether or not we should go with old fashioned, less capable planes. After all, our pilots are used to that!

[Moonbox]

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………

Let's bring high school english comprehension into the discussion for your benefit then too okay? I asked you to address ONE single point in my last post, which was the specific applications of the terminology kinetic energy weapon. I was never arguing with you about what kinetic or potential energy is. I don't know why you even brought it up. I was arguing what the term kinetic energy weapon is widely interpreted to mean and I gave you the definition, which I did not make up myself.

This isn't a science argument. It never was. For the record, I do know the difference between kinetic and potential energy, and also how they're related. Why you think that affects my point above, and why you keep bringing it up, however, is baffling.

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.

Wow. Try logic Derek. Follow this through with me. I said that the Sheffield was one in a million in that it was a dud missile that never exploded but still managed to destroy an entire ship through a flukey combination of bad ship design, a point of impact that specifically exploited this flaw and all sorts of crew errors. Your response was to tell me it wasn't a fluke because kamikaze planes loaded with explosives also damaged USN ships in WW2 by ramming into their decks and exploding, thereby causing significant damage. Something's tripping you up here...

[Guest Derek L]

Let's bring high school english comprehension into the discussion for your benefit then too okay? I asked you to address ONE single point in my last post, which was the specific applications of the terminology kinetic energy weapon. I was never arguing with you about what kinetic or potential energy is. I don't know why you even brought it up. I was arguing what the term kinetic energy weapon is widely interpreted to mean and I gave you the definition, which I did not make up myself.

This isn't a science argument. It never was. For the record, I do know the difference between kinetic and potential energy, and also how they're related. Why you think that affects my point above, and why you keep bringing it up, however, is baffling.

It clearly is a “science argument” tied into English…………Kinetic energy (And yes, that includes projectiles, which are covered under Kinematics) is all encompassing, all forms of energy, that is in motion.

Potential energy, is all energy, defined by it’s position.

To bring this back to our discussion, perhaps in English that you understand:

The JSF won’t solely rely on weapons that share characteristics which are governed under the second law of some guy that got bonked in the head with an apple. Does that make you feel better?

Wow. Try logic Derek. Follow this through with me. I said that the Sheffield was one in a million in that it was a dud missile that never exploded but still managed to destroy an entire ship through a flukey combination of bad ship design, a point of impact that specifically exploited this flaw and all sorts of crew errors. Your response was to tell me it wasn't a fluke because kamikaze planes loaded with explosives also damaged USN ships in WW2 by ramming into their decks and exploding, thereby causing significant damage. Something's tripping you up here...

Logic? Clearly it’s beyond your grasp…………..your position was the impact of said weapons was inconsequential and that they relied on their explosives as opposed to the actual impact to inflict the most harm on their target…………I’ve demonstrated examples of similar weapons (Kamikaze & Exocet) that have both been used in attacking targets, in some cases with minimal harm inflicted and in some cases with catastrophic damage resulting…………Where they differ on effectiveness? The point of impact and the level of penetration on their intended target.

[Guest Derek L]

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.

I'm "fresh".......Just helped my son last semester

[bush_cheney2004]

...We just may be able to get what is needed at a lower price but we'll never know until the minister starts the process.

OK...try the rest, then buy the best. Don't be so cheap about such things, as they will have to last as long as Sea Kings!!

[Moonbox]

It clearly is a “science argument” tied into English…………Kinetic energy (And yes, that includes projectiles, which are covered under Kinematics) is all encompassing, all forms of energy, that is in motion.

Again, I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing your use of the term kinetic energy weapon, which has a very specific meaning. One last time, the term is used to refer to a specific type of projectile weapon. You don't just say kinetic energy weapon for the sake of using extra words. You say it when you're trying to differentiate it from other types of weapons, much like you would between melee weapons. A spear, for example, is a stabbing weapon. A sword is a stabbing/slashing weapon and an axe is a chopping weapon. All use kinetic energy, but nobody would write that the Assyrians were so feared in ancient times because of their superior kinetic energy weapons.

In today's terms, kinetic energy weapon refers to piercing weapons, impact weapons like like rubber bullets and bean-bag rounds, and particularly experimental weapons like railgun, gauss and mass-driver weaponry.

your position was the impact of said weapons was inconsequential and that they relied on their explosives as opposed to the actual impact to inflict the most harm on their target…………

More or less. The impact is merely necessary to deliver the payload to where it will be effective.

I’ve demonstrated examples of similar weapons (Kamikaze & Exocet) that have both been used in attacking targets, in some cases with minimal harm inflicted and in some cases with catastrophic damage resulting. Where they differ on effectiveness? The point of impact and the level of penetration on their intended target.

Of course the point of detonation matters! A hit is going to cause more damage than a miss. An explosion in a munitions or fuel storage is likely to cause more damage than in the mess hall. That still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the damage is caused by the explosion. The Japanese weren't flying empty planes into American carriers, nor did Iraqi's fire solid lead missiles at American ships. These weapons cost a lot and they don't fly fast enough to do significant damage to ships (barring a fluke like the Sheffield) without explosive ordnance. That's why they're not termed kinetic energy weapons. It's not because they don't impact with kinetic energy, it's because the force of impact is merely for conveyence of the payload.

In contrast, a true kinetic energy weapon, like an APFSDS from a tank, is extremely dense (tungsten or depleted uranium), fires at almost 6000ft/s, and hits its target (usually another tank) so hard that it tears through its armor, causes all sorts of burning fragmentation, kills everyone inside and then knocks out most of the interior systems. There is no explosion, just pure momentum.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Moonbox

[Smallc]

You guys have totally killed an otherwise interesting thread.

[Guest Derek L]

Again, I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing your use of the term kinetic energy weapon, which has a very specific meaning. One last time, the term is used to refer to a specific type of projectile weapon. You don't just say kinetic energy weapon for the sake of using extra words. You say it when you're trying to differentiate it from other types of weapons, much like you would between melee weapons. A spear, for example, is a stabbing weapon. A sword is a stabbing/slashing weapon and an axe is a chopping weapon. All use kinetic energy, but nobody would write that the Assyrians were so feared in ancient times because of their superior kinetic energy weapons.

In today's terms, kinetic energy weapon refers to piercing weapons, impact weapons like like rubber bullets and bean-bag rounds, and particularly experimental weapons like railgun, gauss and mass-driver weaponry.

Clearly you still don’t understand the difference between kinetic and potential energy…………I guess Wikipedia has let you down.

Can you say it when you’re trying to differentiate between weapons systems that are incumbent on Kinetic and Potential energy?

Would an electromagnetic weapon rely upon ballistic trajectory? Does a bullet or bomb dropped/shot from an aircraft require ballistic trajectory?

There lays your difference.

Of course the point of detonation matters! A hit is going to cause more damage than a miss. An explosion in a munitions or fuel storage is likely to cause more damage than in the mess hall. That still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the damage is caused by the explosion. The Japanese weren't flying empty planes into American carriers, nor did Iraqi's fire solid lead missiles at American ships. These weapons cost a lot and they don't fly fast enough to do significant damage to ships (barring a fluke like the Sheffield) without explosive ordnance. That's why they're not termed kinetic energy weapons. It's not because they don't impact with kinetic energy, it's because the force of impact is merely for conveyence of the payload.

In contrast, a true kinetic energy weapon, like an APFSDS from a tank, is extremely dense (tungsten or depleted uranium), fires at almost 6000ft/s, and hits its target (usually another tank) so hard that it tears through its armor, causes all sorts of burning fragmentation, kills everyone inside and then knocks out most of the interior systems. There is no explosion, just pure momentum.

Since you agree that the point of denotation maters, as clearly supported in my examples, would you agree that an Exocet or Zero fighter that skids along a flight deck will cause less damage then a Exocet or Zero fighter that impacts, then enters the ship through the hull/flight deck? Remember, you stated these are not examples of “impact weapons”.

[Moonbox]

Apologies Smallc. You're right. Don't worry though. Someone will start a new F-35 thread in a few days anyways. There's always one lurking near the top of the page.

[Guest Derek L]

Apologies Smallc. You're right. Don't worry though. Someone will start a new F-35 thread in a few days anyways. There's always one lurking near the top of the page.

I’ll echo your apology to smallc………Do you know what type of energy an echo relies on to be delivered?

[Guest Peeves]

I know, there's another thread. I read it. It's gotten so off point another is in orde as suggested in the other.

The news now is more akin to fraud and malfeasance. Surely there can be NO! grounds to purchase the white elephant today!

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/19/john-ivison-f-35-bid-process-was-hijacked-by-dnd-former-official-says/

Auditor-General, Michael Ferguson,

"He thinks the government should write a new statement of requirement and put the whole project out to an open competition.

“You could run a competition today and have it done within two years,” he said. “You’d have to be blind and deaf not to know how much this project has gone off the rails.”

He said that in his experience, maintenance costs on sophisticated military equipment run at two to three times acquisition costs. He believes the eventual cost to taxpayers for the F-35s is likely to be $25- to $30-billion — double the current government estimate.

The 33-year public servant has no skin in this game, no clients, no political allegiances. “The only reason I’m doing this is to set the record straight and tell Canadians they’ve been misled,” he said. “The [F-35 purchase] process was completely hijacked and bastardized.”"

It's a disgraceful record of deceit and heads should roll sez I.

However, in the case of the F-35, Mr. Williams said, the military “wired the specs” — that is, chose the plane it wanted and made sure none of the other contending planes met the requirements. “What you do is simply include a couple of mandatory criteria that only one product can deliver. Then you can sole source without saying you sole sourced,” he said. Both the civilians running the procurement process after Mr. Williams left DND and successive Conservative ministers have gone along with the military.

The government has stuck to its line that the contract has been tendered; that Canadian companies are profiting from industrial benefits; that our allies have the F-35, so we need it too; and that it’s the best aircraft available.

Mr. Williams said every one of those arguments is flawed. For example, more industrial and regional benefits (IRBs) would accrue to Canadian companies from an open competition. “All bidders would have to provide IRBs equal to, or greater than, the value of the contract,” he said.

[Moonbox]

Clearly you still don’t understand the difference between kinetic and potential energy…………I guess Wikipedia has let you down.

Good one. So clever.

Can you say it when you’re trying to differentiate between weapons systems that are incumbent on Kinetic and Potential energy?

Kinetic energy is energy in motion. Potential energy is basically stored up energy awaiting release/reconfiguration. A pulled-back elastic has potential energy. Me holding a rock in the air has potential energy. A compressed tank of gas has potential energy. Releasing the potential energy converts it. The elastic launches, the rock is drops, the gas explodes. Kinetic energy. I get it. It just has no relevance to my point and it was childish of you to harp on it, because we were never arguing about how weapons work. We were arguing about what terminology you use for them.

Remember, you stated these are not examples of “impact weapons”.

I said they're not termed impact weapons. You don't call them that. The fact that where they impact makes a difference doesn't mean you call them impact weapons. Cobra venom isn't an impact weapon either. Sure, it's spit through the air, and it matters where it impacts, but that's just a delivery method, just like a missile. The fact that it might have to penetrate deeper in the target doesn't change the terminology you use.

Again, I'm not talking about the science behind it, I'm talking about the terminology used.

[Moonbox]

There you go Smallc

[cybercoma]

It clearly is a “science argument” tied into English…………Kinetic energy (And yes, that includes projectiles, which are covered under Kinematics) is all encompassing, all forms of energy, that is in motion.

Potential energy, is all energy, defined by it’s position.

To bring this back to our discussion, perhaps in English that you understand:

The JSF won’t solely rely on weapons that share characteristics which are governed under the second law of some guy that got bonked in the head with an apple. Does that make you feel better?

Logic? Clearly it’s beyond your grasp…………..your position was the impact of said weapons was inconsequential and that they relied on their explosives as opposed to the actual impact to inflict the most harm on their target…………I’ve demonstrated examples of similar weapons (Kamikaze & Exocet) that have both been used in attacking targets, in some cases with minimal harm inflicted and in some cases with catastrophic damage resulting…………Where they differ on effectiveness? The point of impact and the level of penetration on their intended target.

Seriously? Is it that flippin' hard to use the generally understood concepts? Exploding vs Non-exploding weapons. Move along and stop playing cute by re-defining jargon that's already understood.

[Guest Derek L]

Good one. So clever.

Kinetic energy is energy in motion. Potential energy is basically stored up energy awaiting release/reconfiguration. A pulled-back elastic has potential energy. Me holding a rock in the air has potential energy. A compressed tank of gas has potential energy. Releasing the potential energy converts it. The elastic launches, the rock is drops, the gas explodes. Kinetic energy. I get it. It just has no relevance to my point and it was childish of you to harp on it, because we were never arguing about how weapons work. We were arguing about what terminology you use for them.

Now that you’ve acknowledged the difference between the two we can move on and forget your examples of potential energy, since pulling that elastic back or hefting that rock require, you guessed it, Kinetic energy.

Now what is the difference between both kinetic & potential mechanical energy and kinetic & potential electromagnetic radiation?

You’re getting close.

I said they're not termed impact weapons. You don't call them that. The fact that where they impact makes a difference doesn't mean you call them impact weapons. Cobra venom isn't an impact weapon either. Sure, it's spit through the air, and it matters where it impacts, but that's just a delivery method, just like a missile. The fact that it might have to penetrate deeper in the target doesn't change the terminology you use.

Again, I'm not talking about the science behind it, I'm talking about the terminology used.

You don’t call them “impact weapons”? If you hit me with your rock or explode a fertilizer bomb in my basement what is going to kill me? Why certainly it’s the rock (energy in motion) and debris and/or blast overpressure (energy in motion) no? Is something not impacting me, be it said rock, my house or the blast itself?

[Guest Derek L]

Seriously? Is it that flippin' hard to use the generally understood concepts? Exploding vs Non-exploding weapons. Move along and stop playing cute by re-defining jargon that's already understood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYPxqZa5CAI

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.

But hey, thanks for making my point (And to smallc acknowledging his lack of interest in the science) about “already understood jargon” when discussing finite details surrounding the Joint Strike Fighter program………A great many aspects are clearly not understood “jargon”.

Perhaps one could understand why those that actually do understand said “jargon” are critical of those that don’t and continually debate the technical aspects (and merits) of the program.

[Guest Derek L]

I know, there's another thread. I read it. It's gotten so off point another is in orde as suggested in the other.

The news now is more akin to fraud and malfeasance. Surely there can be NO! grounds to purchase the white elephant today!

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/19/john-ivison-f-35-bid-process-was-hijacked-by-dnd-former-official-says/

Auditor-General, Michael Ferguson,

"He thinks the government should write a new statement of requirement and put the whole project out to an open competition.

“You could run a competition today and have it done within two years,” he said. “You’d have to be blind and deaf not to know how much this project has gone off the rails.”

He said that in his experience, maintenance costs on sophisticated military equipment run at two to three times acquisition costs. He believes the eventual cost to taxpayers for the F-35s is likely to be $25- to $30-billion — double the current government estimate.

The 33-year public servant has no skin in this game, no clients, no political allegiances. “The only reason I’m doing this is to set the record straight and tell Canadians they’ve been misled,” he said. “The [F-35 purchase] process was completely hijacked and bastardized.”"

It's a disgraceful record of deceit and heads should roll sez I.

And what did Mr Williams say about the JSF when he was in Government?

Let's have a look:

Joint Strike Fighter Signing Ceremony February 07, 2002 2:00 PM EST

Participation in this internationally oriented technologically .advanced program will assist us in our efforts to enhance interoperability with the U.S and allies and provide us with a unique window into the leading edge technologies being developed for this world class weapon system.

In addition, Canadian industry will have an opportunity to provide its expertise to this important program. Through its ability to make a value-added contribution and its highly competitive position, Canadian industry will assist the U.S. prime contractors in their efforts to deliver a technologically advanced but affordable aircraft to the U.S. Department of Defense and allies.

Bang up job in getting a “source” Mr Ivison

Edited March 21, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

Bang up job in getting a “source” Mr Ivison

clarification request... are you questioning the veracity of the source, one Alan Williams, (retired) Assistant Deputy Minister for Materiel, Canadian Department of National Defense? If so, why so, given, as I understand, Canada's role in the JSF partnership, never meant that Canada made a definite commitment to purchase the F-35?

[Wild Bill]

clarification request... are you questioning the veracity of the source, one Alan Williams, (retired) Assistant Deputy Minister for Materiel, Canadian Department of National Defense? If so, why so, given, as I understand, Canada's role in the JSF partnership, never meant that Canada made a definite commitment to purchase the F-35?

Seems pretty clear to me, Waldo. We have Mr. Williams quoted as saying that everything about the F-35 deal is wrong, bad and being covered up by the Tories.

Then we have a quote from Mr. Williams when he was in the government that made the deal saying it's the greatest thing for Canada since sliced bread!

That is obvious blatant political partisanship. What more could you possibly need?

Question his veracity indeed! If these statements are indeed both his then he is clearly just a party hack!

Edited March 21, 2012 by Wild Bill

[waldo]

Question his veracity indeed! If these statements are indeed both his then he is clearly just a party hack!

you seem to have an understanding gap relative to timing and agreement particulars. The 2002 Williams quotes reflect upon the signing of the JSF partnership agreement, itself a culmination of work that led from the initial 1997 involvement... the 2002 JSF agreement itself being a full 8 years prior to the 2010 planned procurement announcement. As I said:

...as I understand, Canada's role in the JSF partnership, never meant that Canada made a definite commitment to purchase the F-35?

... Williams' has also stated that one of the intentions in joining the JSF partnership was to gain expertise towards evaluating the F-35 as a "possible" CF-18 replacement. Of course, the latest NP Ivison article suggests how that "possible" replacement became the defacto replacement with DND manipulation.

[Guest Derek L]

clarification request... are you questioning the veracity of the source, one Alan Williams, (retired) Assistant Deputy Minister for Materiel, Canadian Department of National Defense? If so, why so, given, as I understand, Canada's role in the JSF partnership, never meant that Canada made a definite commitment to purchase the F-35?

Clearly, if you go further down the transcript:

Q: One of the benefits of being early signatories basically was supposed to be that you can basically assure yourself of a slot in the production line, if you so choose. Where in the long-range plan would you see Canada buying in? And we're probably talking about the CTOL [Conventional Take Off And Landing] version here.

Williams: As you know, we currently operate the F-18s. We are currently embarking on a significant upgrade program that we feel will keep them serviceable through the year 2017, 2018. We will take our time between now and then to assess our capabilities and our needs and make a decision by that time.

Though his answer is clearly noncommittal to purchasing a particular version of the JSF, he is highlighting an assessment of our needs and capabilities at present……..My bone of contention is twofold:

Ten years ago, all current fighter aircraft options today, were either in the final development stages or full production and one could forecast the potential options available in the 2015-2020 timeframe.

Second point who is better equipped to make an assessment of our required needs and capabilities, politicians or the military (The very Military, Williams accuses of “twisting needs to suit itself”) ? To clarify, I’m not suggesting policy, but the technical capabilities required to carry out said policy.

Would we not want a military that is trying to “suit itself”? He suggests the military “wired the specs”……..Duh….If one key requirement is Stealth Technology, and only a single production aircraft* meets said requirement, does this imply an underhanded approach by DND?

* In fairness, in 2002, there were two 5th generation stealth fighters in production/development, the F-22 and the JSF……..The US Congress wouldn’t allow F-22 technology to be exported (even though there was interest by the Japanese, Israelis and Australians) and production of the F-22 has now (or about to) be ceased by the Obama administration.

[madmax]

Derek L..

I read the link..

You are misleading the readers