F-35 purchase undecided, Fantino says

[Tilter]

This whole thing is SO Canadian!

We long ago established that there is no other plane in the world with stealth technology and suited to our needs. Nobody has been ignoring the entire world of aviation technology for the past 15 years!

The idea of politicians setting the specs for our aircraft is downright scary! I wouldn't let most of our politicians set the specs for a new bathtub! They are for the most part poli-sci majors and lawyers. What do such know about technology? They couldn't program their VCR! Some of them need a secretary to access their emails!

No, their idea of important factors would be all political. The idea that the aircraft actually has to PERFORM A MISSION is irrelevant to those bozos!

I can see the way this is going. In the truest Canadian fashion, based upon our proven history of handling such issues, we are going to abandon the F-35. At that point, we are going to study things all over again for another 10 years. Then the politicians will fight with each other so that their opponents won't get to take credit. If there is a change of government whatever was chosen will be cancelled, no doubt to incredibly high cancellation fees. The next government will begin the selection process all over again, being careful to write the specs so that the previous government's choice will not be an option, even if it was the best choice.

20 years from now we will still be flying whatever is left of our fleet of CF-18s. Our international partners will refuse to let us fly in any peacekeeping mission because our aircraft will be dangerously obsolete. This won't bother our politicians at all because they never care if our military is effective anyway. It's enough to be there, show the flag and bask in the glory of the photo-op.

The CF-18s of course will be so old that they will be regularly falling out of the sky, like our SeaKings before them.

Eventually the government of the day will be so embarrassed that they will implement their final option.

They will appoint a Royal Commission to study if it is a federal or a provincial matter!

Why do we even bother?

WB----- Quote from the Globe article:

The whole process was twisted to suit the needs of the military, with the acknowledgment and support of ministers. It was totally unacceptable,” he said.

What a warped ( TWISTED) way of doing business---- as if the Military knpw what they need---- better get a sub-committee going (made up of lawyers, Farmers, School Teachers & Waitresses) to set straight what is needed by the military :blink:

[waldo]

What Canada needed in Afghanistan.

A wee bit 'o organic support.

please sir... could we possibly dedicate one thread, this thread, for discussion that doesn't devolve into toy measurements and releasing the dogs of war. Certainly you (and others) have managed that quite well in every other F-35 related thread - ya think?

[waldo]

What a warped ( TWISTED) way of doing business ---- as if the Military knew what they need

apparently military 'knowing' is/was predicated upon not releasing requirements and purposely manipulating those same unreleased requirements.

[DogOnPorch]

please sir... could we possibly dedicate one thread, this thread, for discussion that doesn't devolve into toy measurements and releasing the dogs of war. Certainly you (and others) have managed that quite well in every other F-35 related thread - ya think?

I'm of the opinion that Canada needs some tactical battlefield support that doesn't cost $100 million a unit. You can KMA.

[waldo]

I'm of the opinion that Canada needs some tactical battlefield support that doesn't cost $100 million a unit. You can KMA.

bully... as for your inability to raise your epithet above an acronym level... right back at ya, hey?

[DogOnPorch]

bully... as for your inability to raise your epithet above an acronym level... right back at ya, hey?

Well, I wouldn't want you running to the mods in tears, would I? Seriously...you have a problem with me? Take the hero's way and put me on ignore. You'll be richer for it, I'm sure.

[waldo]

Seriously...

it was a simple request; it appears you took exception. Every single thread, every one, gradually devolves to nothing more than... the usual suspects... trotting out both historical and modern-day member-measuring that gushes and fawns over 'war-toys for boys' (video included!!!). When the whole complete thread is derailed, the ignore feature becomes redundant. But thanks for the 'rich' advice, hey?

[DogOnPorch]

it was a simple request; it appears you took exception. Every single thread, every one, gradually devolves to nothing more than... the usual suspects... trotting out both historical and modern-day member-measuring that gushes and fawns over 'war-toys for boys' (video included!!!). When the whole complete thread is derailed, the ignore feature becomes redundant. But thanks for the 'rich' advice, hey?

You're free to explain in 1000 words why the OV-10 Bronco wouldn't be a good choice for Canada's limited tactical needs. But, I doubt you even know what one is.

[waldo]

You're free to explain in 1000 words why the OV-10 Bronco wouldn't be a good choice for Canada's limited tactical needs. But, I doubt you even know what one is.

limited tactical needs... in Afghanistan you say? Let me take a moment to rethink your position against the F-35........ noted.

[DogOnPorch]

limited tactical needs... in Afghanistan you say? Let me take a moment to rethink your position against the F-35........ noted.

Yup...against. Too expensive. I like the Shelby Mustang Cobra GT500. But, I think it might be a tad overblown for runs to the grocery store. But, we'll need SOMETHING new, soon.

Organic support is dedicated support. An aircrat like the OV-10 can do multiple roles from strikes to simple observation and artillery direction. In Afghanistan, it would have been ideal for supporting Canadian operations w/o always calling on others.

[Smallc]

If we didn't have to go with French weapons then, I think the range of the Rafale would be useful.

[Wild Bill]

huh! I now recognize your earlier misstep in attempting to leverage a reference to 'peace-keeping'. I'd suggest a short departure for you to review just what Canada's actual and traditional peace-keeping role has been... it most certainly does not include flight sorties into the Gulf, Kosovo or Syria. My complete emphasis has been on a national/continental theme... beef up the Coast Guard, build ice-breakers in aid of sovereignty posturing and scientific endeavour, and provide required support in aid of a legitimate, traditional, ground-based Canadian peace-keeping role - there ya go!

I can understand why you hold this view! I even agree somewhat, although I don't see how in modern times you can have effective ground-based Canadian peacekeepers without leading edge air suppport. Certainly, we are moving into times where if your aircraft aren't sufficiently stealthy they will just get blown out of the sky. At that point the technical term for your ground-based troops is "intercoursed"!

We agree on the icebreakers and Coast Guard but still Waldo, we again have to face the cold hard fact that perhaps we need to spend money on ALL these things! We are paying for decades of neglect and now we have to modernize and replace EVERYTHING all at once!

Imagine how much easier it would have been if the EH-101 helicopter deal had been allowed to stand. A few years later we could have budgeted for some icebreakers. Maybe 10 years after that some decent APCs to protect our troops instead of those death trap Iltis.

Looking at the F-35 today might not have seemed to damn expensive if previous politicians (mostly Liberal) had not gone on the cheap. I have some soldier friends who have told me they have been driving an army truck only to have a tire rim collapse, folded over because it had rusted through! There's no excuse for allowing things to deteriorate that far!

Edited March 21, 2012 by Wild Bill

[waldo]

I can understand why you hold this view! I even agree somewhat, although I don't see how in modern times you can have effective ground-based Canadian peacekeepers without leading edge air support.

no - traditional ground based peace-keeping begins when peace has been 'determined'... a determination that doesn't include ongoing, "in-campaign", leading edge air support.

We agree on the icebreakers and Coast Guard but still Waldo, we again have to face the cold hard fact that perhaps we need to spend money on ALL these things! We are paying for decades of neglect and now we have to modernize and replace EVERYTHING all at once!

and $2.6 billion was just spent on upgrades to the CF-18... just in time for, I guess... Libya (and the Parliament Hill flyover)! In going forward, I prefer to balance presumed past neglect against real policy/role evaluation measured against fiscal reality.

Edited March 23, 2012 by waldo

[bush_cheney2004]

no - traditional ground based peace-keeping begins when peace has been 'determined'... a determination that doesn't include ongoing, "in-campaign", leading edge air support.

So who gets to pay for the means to prosecute matters to the point of a "determined" peace?

[Wild Bill]

So who gets to pay for the means to prosecute matters to the point of a "determined" peace?

You well know the answer to that one, BC! The whole world fidgets in their seats, hoping and waiting for Uncle Sam to pick up the cheque...

[dre]

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.”

Wow thats definately a piece of clear wisdom. I swear Iv heard that somewhere before!!!

Maybe we need to start back at square one...

1. Define our requirements.

2. Count our money (establish a fully funded deficit neutral budget)

3. Establish a list of platforms that meet our newly defined requirements.

4. Perform a risk analysis of each option.

5. Perform a cost/benefit analysis of each option.

Lets slow things down... Get the government some training on the basic principles of procurement... then have a competition. Even if the government thinks the F35 is the best plane for the job they should STILL have a competition and put the contract out to tender, because thats how you get the best deal. Make the supplier understand their competitors are placing bids too.

Where can the Canadian Government look for an example?

OH wait! I know! The Canadian Government before it was utterly useless!

The McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet (official military designation CF-188) is a Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) (formerly Canadian Forces Air Command) fighter aircraft, based on the American McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet fighter. In 1980, the F/A-18 was selected as the winner of the New Fighter Aircraft competition, and a production order was awarded. The Canadian Forces began receiving the CF-18 in 1982. CF-18s have supported NORAD air sovereignty patrols and participated in combat during the Gulf War in 1991, the Kosovo War in the late 1990s, and as part of the Canadian contribution to the international Libyan no-fly zone in 2011.

Heres what you definately DONT do... You dont go to one company, tell them you have already made up your mind that you are ONLY interested in their product... Then ask for a price

Edited March 22, 2012 by dre

[huh]

Well whatever happens i hope they buy something, hopefully the government will by more jets if they go with a cheaper alternative, after all, much of the opposition to this aircraft is more to do with military spending of any kind than it is to do with the suitability of this particular aircraft.

[Guest Derek L]

I have to believe now that you're being intentionally obtuse here. I'm arguing terminology and your contextual misuse of it in a discussion like this. You're trying to turn it into a science debate where the science itself is not in question.

I'm going to have to revert to analogy here, just to try, in any way I can, to get you to realize how pointless, unecessary and foolish your science rants are.

Consider the term personal computer. The term has a fairly accepted meaning right? If we were going to use the framework of our argument and replace what we were talking about with the term personal Computer, the argument would look something like this:

Derek: I'm sure glad I brought my personal computer with me. I didn't realize I'd be waiting in line this long. Now at least I can read the news while I wait...

Me: Your personal computer? Don't you mean your Iphone?

Derek: No. I mean my personal computer.

Me: You usually call it your phone...or your Iphone...you don't call it your personal computer.

Derek: Well it's a computer, I'm a person, and I'm using it, so it's a personal computer.

Context, meaning and implication are all very important parts of the English language Derek. The term personal computer has a generally accepted meaning. So does the term kinetic energy weapon.

You're still going on about usage? Here's a research paper, titled:

EFFECTS OF DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS

Here's an excerpt from chapter two:

2: KINETIC ENERGY WEAPONS

The word kinetic comes from the Greek verb to move, and kinetic

energy weapons are those for which it is the energy of a moving

projectile, such as a bullet or rocket, which damages the target.

Kinetic energy weapons are the oldest form of directed energy

weapon, spear s and catapul t s tone s be ing ear ly exampl e s of

weapons in this category. In some classification schemes, the term

directed energy weapon is reserved for modern, high technology devices such as lasers or particle beams, and kinetic energy weapons

are kept in a class by themselves. Nevertheless, they properly fit

t h e d e f i n i t i o n w h i c h w e h a v e a d o p t e d f o r d i r e c t e d e n e rg y

weapon—their energy is aimed or directed at a target, and intercepts a small fraction of the target’s surface area. Including them

in this book is appropriate from the standpoint of completeness,

and serves as a useful point of departure for the more esoteric discussions in later chapters. The general approach taken in this

chapter is also the same as that we will use throughout. We’ll first

discuss some of the fundamental concepts needed to understand

kinetic energy weapons, then their propagation or travel towards

a target, and finally their interaction with a target and the mechanisms by which the target is damaged.

So there is some other guy on the web talking in “uncommon jargon”?

Now I’m just going to use some kinetic energy to throw this out there, perhaps, as suggested by Bill, there are some folks out there, that actually do “talk in scientific terms” amongst themselves, and understand the meanings.

Now you imply I conveyed a tone of condescension in my earlier post which was deliberate, if you read the prior post that I was responding to, in that the DND link was “lacking” in specific details surrounding the JSF program. My response, was to highlight what I think as the reasoning behind it………….Cleary some conversations can’t be held in 30 second sound bites, nor can some fields of knowledge be learned in a newspaper article.

If you felt slighted by my response to Waldo, I apologise.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

and is the recent Fantino front show a sign of that 'afford' aspect... finally... coming under consideration/review? There is a certain level of criticism playing out over available DND funds - you seemed to skirt my question in terms of a presumed internal tug&pull within DND over prioritizing F-35s against naval modernization... do you maintain both are 'affordable', particularly when considering an emphasis on domestic coastal 'protection' and Arctic sovereignty?

I didn’t skirt anything, as DND doesn’t see replacements for the air force and navy as a zero sum game……..If the Government of Canada has expectations to do “x” on the world stage, it is DND’s responsibility to inform them what is required to deliver those expectations, or “y”.

As for my opinion on affordability, with current funding and DND’s current fiscal obligations as is (coupled with news of 5% or 10% budget claw backs), I don’t feel that it is………New ships for the Navy and the JSF for the air force will come at something else’s expense within the defence budget…..My thoughts and predictions, said savings will come from trimming DND’s bureaucracy in the puzzle factory in Ottawa, base closures, cuts to the reserves of all elements and perhaps even the Army.

as for said "foreign intervention": until the recent Nov 2011 Syria Libya deployment, one can only look back to the 1991 Gulf War (with very limited engagement) and 1998 Kosovo. Quite clearly Syria was a purposeful political anomaly born out by MacKay's own purposeful words; i.e., "Canada punching above it's weight". Overall, is this the level of past engagement that would substantiate a continued emphasis towards the F-35... or... do you want more, uhhh... engagement?

FTFY

More engagement? Not at all, I’ve outlined my thoughts on Canada’s role in the world coupled with foreign intervention………..I can go into greater detail if you’d like.

As for using the above cited precedents as reasoning and justification behind the JSF purchase, I’ll couple them with what our foreign policy has been for decades, the defence treaties we are obligated to, domestic requirements and logistics out to the 2030-40s timeframe.

[Guest Derek L]

it's the very question I posed directly to Derek L... just not the 'royal we'; rather, the degree of his personal desire to 'get it on'!

I think you hold an unfaltering misconception towards me and my “desire to get it on”………

huh! I now recognize your earlier misstep in attempting to leverage a reference to 'peace-keeping'. I'd suggest a short departure for you to review just what Canada's actual and traditional peace-keeping role has been... it most certainly does not include flight sorties into the Gulf, Kosovo or Syria. My complete emphasis has been on a national/continental theme... beef up the Coast Guard, build ice-breakers in aid of sovereignty posturing and scientific endeavour, and provide required support in aid of a legitimate, traditional, ground-based Canadian peace-keeping role - there ya go!

I tend to agree with your thoughts on increasing the capabilities of the Canadian Coast Guard…….Good point all around (I also think they should be garnered a role in maritime law enforcement and take over domestic SAR from DND)

As for “peacekeeping”, here is where we differ………I’ll ask several simple questions of you.

1. Why do we require an army to act as a “go between” for two warring belligerents? We have the RCMP for that here in Canada, wouldn’t it stand to reason that they would be a better choice for maintaining the peace and enforcing cease fire agreements.

2. If you, Waldo, were seating in the big chair during the Rwandan genocide, how would you have changed it’s historic and tragic outcome?

[madmax]

As for “peacekeeping”, here is where we differ………I’ll ask several simple questions of you.

1. Why do we require an army to act as a “go between” for two warring belligerents? We have the RCMP for that here in Canada, wouldn’t it stand to reason that they would be a better choice for maintaining the peace and enforcing cease fire agreements.

Peace Keepers have been an effective measure to protect innocents.. not take sides and behave as a buffer between sides involved in conflict. Any soldier involved in a peacekeeping mission, if involved in a firefight/combat and are injured are not treated in the same regard as a combat peace making mission(This is an injustice on our part). Peacekeeping missions are more difficult in many ways for Military Commanders but the outcomes are often more successful when their is a global community behind the mission. There does not tend to be the Blowback one has when taking a side in a dispute.

Peacemakers or simply Combat Missions are designed soley to achieve an objective and victory for one side over another. This is much easier for Military Commanders but not necessarily the best outcome for long term outcomes.

Peackeeping can and does work

Peacemaking can and does work

There are those who want to get rid of the peacekeeping aspect for simplicity.

Global communities were safer when world powers and world leaders were engaging in PeaceKeeping. Not all conflicts can be prevented but having forces to aid in Peacekeeping means less conflicts.

Peacemaking means the conflict is at hand... No Peace until the conflict is resolved.

Taking sides in war is nothing new. I believe everyone understands that.. no matter what the term. Allies, Axis, Coalition, Peacemakers...

Not taking sides and preventing disputes using a military buffer is relatively modern.. more difficult for those in the middle but the outcomes are better in many cases.

And No the RCMP is NOT prepared, trained or equiped to handle the role of Peacekeepers.

The RCMP could not handle a corrupt gang ridden country like Haiti.. Let alone two countries where societal breakdowns are the norm in times of conflict and human trafficking, money laundering, criminal activity are in the background, but in the foreground is conflict. All criminal activity happens in a vacuum.

I prefer our RCMP remain in Canada.. otherwise the only purpose they could serve is to aid a country in forming their own Police services.. and that can only happen when peace is present and that can be before a conflict escalates.. with Peace Keepers (MILITARY) doing their role or after the fact in a Peace Making engagement where security of person is required.

But those are even more time consuming and difficult as anyone who is aware of the amount of Human Trafficing throughout the Balkans , and where the good guys became corrupted and involved in the human trafficing for profit.

Therefore the one way to prevent a vacuum of power is maintain stability of governments and prevent conflicts. But that too is not always perfect.

Nothing is...

Edited March 22, 2012 by madmax

[Wild Bill]

Lets slow things down... Get the government some training on the basic principles of procurement... then have a competition. Even if the government thinks the F35 is the best plane for the job they should STILL have a competition and put the contract out to tender, because thats how you get the best deal. Make the supplier understand their competitors are placing bids too.

Dr. Dre, for basic procurement the steps you laid out are valid and I would agree with you. However, with modern military aircraft there's a kicker that you don't seem to have considered.

First, let me give you an example of traditional purchasing approaches that were inappropriate to a situation. Back in the early 80's when I was selling integrated circuits and capacitors and stuff the company brought the world's first personal computer into the Canadian market. It was the Osbourne I and for giggles you might want to google it and compare it to what we use today.

Anyhow, within a few years a number of models had hit the market and then IBM brought out the XT and it became obvious that would be the world standard. Everyone fell all over themselves bringing clones and compatible computers to the masses.

Meanwhile, the Ontario government had decided that perhaps these computers were going to catch on. Maybe they should teach about them in our schools?

Now the stores were filled with IBM compatible models and competition was continuously driving down prices while accelerating computing power. One would have expected our schools to ride this wave.

Of course, the moles in the Ministry of Education did nothing of the kind! They held a powwow, being careful to exclude any front line teachers with some computer experience and limiting the group of decision makers to only those at high levels of management, who all had minions to do their computer work for them.

They sacrificed some chickens, read the entrails and decided to have a personal computer of their very own!

They came up with a list of needs and specifications, whomped it into a tender and released it to the market. It was called the Hyperion and it was to be their very own computer for our schools.

Not one company submitted a bid!

To anyone in the real world the reasons were obvious. Ontario was asking for a computer that was totally custom and would require its own custom software. This grievously violated one of the cardinal factors of the new personal computer universe - Economies of Scale!

Personal computers were affordable only because of high manufacturing volumes. There was no way Ontario could possibly buy enough Hyperion computers to make any sort of realistic pricing possible. In fact, the requirements asked for some things that meant totally custom computer chips. In those days, you didn't make a few of those at a time. In fact, you didn't make just a few hundred thousand at a time! "Chips", or integrated circuits, were made by the BAZILLION or not at all!

The Education gnomes were shocked! They had no idea that no one would play in their sandbox but they couldn't ignore the fact that no one would bid.

They then did the usual political attempt at a solution. They found somebody connected to them and gave him money to set up a computer manufacturing company! He became a sole source bidder! At last they got an answer to their ridiculous tender.

The Hyperion never did get built, Dr. Dre. Each unit came in at over $60,000. EACH! Not even those education gnomes dared to spend that kind of tax money. Besides a few more years had passed from this process. The IBM PC world and the compatibles had grown into a mountain that could no longer be ignored.

If you try to google up this history most of the ridiculous acts committed by the gnomes will be hard or even impossible to reference. Gnomes are very experienced at covering their tracks. However, there were hundreds if not thousands of us in all the support industries and working for all their suppliers who were of necessity plugged in and well aware of what went on. If you have older friends in those industries and you ask around you will eventually get an earful!

Now back to a substitute for the F-35. I believe that there is no way in world that Canada could possibly buy enough such planes to have something totally custom to our needs. 65 such aircraft might get built but economies of scale would dictate a price probably several multiples more than that of the F-35s.

That leaves buying another plane that has manufacturing volumes arrived at from multiple countries buying numbers of them. I believe we've chewed this over enough here in MLW to see that at present no other plane of similar capabilities exists.

At this point,we are down to one option - lower our expectations. Stealth is out! We can forget about that. We will have to avoid any confrontation that involves modern anti-aircraft weapons.

After that, I just don't know if we should even bother but for Heaven's Sake, let's hope the feds don't emulate the Hyperion!

Edited March 22, 2012 by Wild Bill

[Moonbox]

You're still going on about usage? Here's a research paper, titled:

EFFECTS OF DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS

Here's an excerpt from chapter two:

Interestingly, it said:

kinetic energy weapons are those for which it is the energy of a moving

projectile, such as a bullet or rocket, which damages the target

which is pretty much what I've been saying.

So there is some other guy on the web talking in “uncommon jargon”?

This guy, whoever he is and wherever you found this, wrote the paper on directed energy weapons, and he acknowledges that his inclusions of kinetic energy weapons in this sphere is out of the ordinary. What that should tell you is that indeed there IS in fact generally accepted terminology and jargon used in the field. Also of note is that his math dealt more or less strictly with trajectory and mass/velocity, aiming, and the effects of such on impact, not of payloads delivered.

Now I’m just going to use some kinetic energy to throw this out there, perhaps, as suggested by Bill, there are some folks out there, that actually do “talk in scientific terms” amongst themselves, and understand the meanings.

and as I responded to Bill, those folks don't redefine narrowly used terms to the point where they're so broad, and so general that they're meaningless, like you have done. There is a reason why people use terms like, Kinetic Energy Missile, Kinetic Energy Penetrator etc, and that's because the weapons themselves are very different from others. A HEAT round or shaped charge, for example, would never be called a kinetic energy penetrator in technical circles. Sure, they penetrate targets. The explosive charges are shaped to direct the resulting kinetic energy to pierce the armor of the target, but even experts don't call them KEP's. When experts are talking about KEP's they're talking about things like APFSDS or LRP's -- just solid projectiles.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Moonbox

[Guest Derek L]

Peace Keepers have been an effective measure to protect innocents.. not take sides and behave as a buffer between sides involved in conflict. Any soldier involved in a peacekeeping mission, if involved in a firefight/combat and are injured are not treated in the same regard as a combat peace making mission(This is an injustice on our part). Peacekeeping missions are more difficult in many ways for Military Commanders but the outcomes are often more successful when their is a global community behind the mission. There does not tend to be the Blowback one has when taking a side in a dispute.

Peacemakers or simply Combat Missions are designed soley to achieve an objective and victory for one side over another. This is much easier for Military Commanders but not necessarily the best outcome for long term outcomes.

Peackeeping can and does work

Peacemaking can and does work

There are those who want to get rid of the peacekeeping aspect for simplicity.

Global communities were safer when world powers and world leaders were engaging in PeaceKeeping. Not all conflicts can be prevented but having forces to aid in Peacekeeping means less conflicts.

Peacemaking means the conflict is at hand... No Peace until the conflict is resolved.

Taking sides in war is nothing new. I believe everyone understands that.. no matter what the term. Allies, Axis, Coalition, Peacemakers...

Not taking sides and preventing disputes using a military buffer is relatively modern.. more difficult for those in the middle but the outcomes are better in many cases.

And No the RCMP is NOT prepared, trained or equiped to handle the role of Peacekeepers.

The RCMP could not handle a corrupt gang ridden country like Haiti.. Let alone two countries where societal breakdowns are the norm in times of conflict and human trafficking, money laundering, criminal activity are in the background, but in the foreground is conflict. All criminal activity happens in a vacuum.

I prefer our RCMP remain in Canada.. otherwise the only purpose they could serve is to aid a country in forming their own Police services.. and that can only happen when peace is present and that can be before a conflict escalates.. with Peace Keepers (MILITARY) doing their role or after the fact in a Peace Making engagement where security of person is required.

But those are even more time consuming and difficult as anyone who is aware of the amount of Human Trafficing throughout the Balkans , and where the good guys became corrupted and involved in the human trafficing for profit.

Therefore the one way to prevent a vacuum of power is maintain stability of governments and prevent conflicts. But that too is not always perfect.

Nothing is...

From that, one can conclude that there is a role for having an effective (In terms of war waging ability) military and that an under equipped agenises does not act as an effective deterrent when “keeping the peace”……….

To add, the RCMP did/do participate, in conjunction with DND, on international and domestic deployments…..

[Guest Derek L]

Interestingly, it said:

kinetic energy weapons are those for which it is the energy of a moving

projectile, such as a bullet or rocket, which damages the target

which is pretty much what I've been saying.

This guy, whoever he is and wherever you found this, wrote the paper on directed energy weapons, and he acknowledges that his inclusions of kinetic energy weapons in this sphere is out of the ordinary. What that should tell you is that indeed there IS in fact generally accepted terminology and jargon used in the field. Also of note is that his math dealt more or less strictly with trajectory and mass/velocity, aiming, and the effects of such on impact, not of payloads delivered.

and as I responded to Bill, those folks don't redefine narrowly used terms to the point where they're so broad, and so general that they're meaningless, like you have done. There is a reason why people use terms like, Kinetic Energy Missile, Kinetic Energy Penetrator etc, and that's because the weapons themselves are very different from others. A HEAT round or shaped charge, for example, would never be called a kinetic energy penetrator in technical circles. Sure, they penetrate targets. The explosive charges are shaped to direct the resulting kinetic energy to pierce the armor of the target, but even experts don't call them KEP's. When experts are talking about KEP's they're talking about things like APFSDS or LRP's -- just solid projectiles.

Ok then, we'll take a different track............How do, in scientific terms, “kinetic energy weapons” and “electromagnetic weapons” differ in terms of “delivery” onto their intended target?