Military/Weapons in Space

[Stoker]

Remember the most inportant thing is that WEAPONIZATION ISN'T A WORD!! IT'S MILITARIZATION.

I couldn't agree more, by far the most important issue related to BMD is the proper usage of the english language when refering to it...................

I think space should be only used for civilian and exploration purposes. Wars should be fought on the ground, if they need to be fought at all.

Why should they be fought on land? When one enters a war, what is ones goal to achieve in the said war?

To win.

If having space based weapons will help you to ensure victory by giving you an advantage over your foe, why wouldn't you wish to develop them......namely when you are generations ahead of any potentail foe.

Chivalry is a long since dead concept of a bygone era.

[shackwacky]

Now ask yourself, if we say no to BMD, will the United States shut-down the program?

Nope. I have no problem with tilting at windmills.

I like to check the price tag before I buy. Retail thought process.

IMHO.......

I have decided to preface all posts with IMHO. I have participated in a number of forums on the web, and this one is by far the most difficult to post in. It often seems you all are competing here, who can cite the most/relevant/current/wordy links, who can use the biggest words, who can throw out the most statistics and still bend them to fit the scenario. I know, in the forum rules, it does say to make sure that you can back up what you say. But I think that is for the instances where you state something as fact, I am not entirely sure that Greg et al. meant that stipulation to strangle any poster without a degree in political science or economics.

Some of you, instead of having a discussion about an issue, tend towards posting a thesis. Others, when met with a disagreeing post, lean more towards the "I am right you are therefore stupid" response. This is not a discussion, it is a lecture.

IMHO.

I said in my post that I could not prove my opinion. I said I could not provide links. I said it was a gut feeling. The links afterward were to show you that I wasn't entirely alone in this, that there were others who felt the same way. They were like I mentioned, other Canadians who did not wish to take the US at face value on this one. I would like to post a link that backs up my opinion, but I don't have my own website.

Of course I recognize a bloody editorial when I see one. Believe it or not, people are affected by what is written in the papers, whether it be fact based reporting or a tirade by a bad reporter. I used it to point out that my idea wasn't as you suggested, something new or surprising.

Whats that based on? The United States has said other wise, but if you have proof that contradicts this, I'd be very intrested in seeing it........hell, it could change my (and perhaps many others) opinions that are in favor of it.

imho

[Stoker]

I'd also like to ask, why those opposed to BMD have not (to my knowledge) come out and opposed the Russian ballistic missile defence system that they have had deployed for decades in or around Moscow and the new system they are developing?

Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Russia tests anti-missile system

[The Terrible Sweal]

For communications, I think that the military would probably use a network of fast, low-orbit, satellites (technology like the deceased Iridium network) rather than geosynchrous satellites.

You may be right.

I don't think they would be nearly as easy to blow up. One would need a system capable of targetting and intercepting a fast-moving object (a system a lot like BMD?

Somewhat more difficult than a geostationary object, but not that much more. If a spy satelite is in any kind of orbit, unless it adjusts it's vector by some means, it will be completely predictable. Someone targetting it would just need to pick their shot. A balistic missile is harder, because in the time allowed you cannot observe/predict it's flight all that well, and you cannot wait to pick your shot.

[kimmy]

You make a very good point.

-kimmy

[PocketRocket]

Oh boy, lots of stuff here. Where to begin???

First, let's remember how back in the late fifties, our PM (was it Diefenbaker??? don't remember) scrapped the Avro Arrow project based on the urging of the US President (can't remember his name either). The story goes that the Pres convinced Dief that rockets were the weapons of the future and that planes would be obsolete in a matter of months.

So Canada helped to invest in the missile defense of the day. Missiles that would shoot down incoming missiles automatically.

It never happened. The technology simply wasn't up to the task.

What DID happen, was that Canada threw away its best claim to military greatness, and started down the road to becoming a military non-entity.

Now it's 50 years later. 50 years of good ol' American know-how invested in research and development.

Fact: Earlier this week, the USA did a test on its latest missile defense system. A target missile was launched from Alaska.

In the south Pacific, the doors of the anti-Missile silo opened majestically. The defense missile's system carefully tracked the incoming target missile. The defense missile, in a wonderful display of grandeur.........DIDN'T EVEN GET OFF THE LAUNCH PAD.

It seems that the technology STILL isn't up to the task.

The USA, decade after decade, keeps offering truly wonderful weapons technologies that will make their, and our, borders impregnable.

They keep asking Canada to invest in these technologies (read "pipe dreams").

And we keep getting sucked in.

Canada still possesses some of the best scientific minds in the world. If we want military technology, we should be putting some of those minds to work, right here, and developing the technology on our own, Then we can sell it to the USA at a huge profit.

Dual benefits here. First, it would make us a military power again, maybe not one of the biggies, but a contender.

Second, such technology, if sold to the USA, Britain, and other allies, would pay for itself many times over.

[PocketRocket]

  I will declare my colours.  I think Canada should assist the US in developing a space-based protection for North America.  I think our participation should be primarily limited to making our territory accessible.  If the US government wants to hire our technical specialists, so be it.   

If we can benefit by letting the USA play in our backyard, then by all means, let them play, under strict guidelines.

As for development, see my previous post. If we're going to get involved in development, we should be developing on our own, then selling the technology to the US and other allies. Or better yet, leasing it to them. Longer-term benefits that way.

As for the paragraph (deleted for space here) about spy satellites, there's a big difference between the ability to observe, and the ability to attack from the point of observation.

Also, keep in mind exactly how NOT useful spy satellites have proven to be in Iraq (finding WMD's), in Afghanistan (finding Bin Laden) and elsewhere. Everyone talks about how great they are, but when it comes to the crunch, it seems that all they do is take fuzzy photographs.

Another movie I think we should probably discuss is that James Bond movie where there's this big Russian spaceship that flies around in orbit and literally swallow other spaceships and satellites. Do you think that future space-shuttle missions should be equipped with some type of weapon to protect themselves from spaceship-eating spaceships? They could perhaps put a boxing-glove on the CanadArm.

-kimmy

The Bond movie you speak of is "You Only Live Twice", one of my favorites. But the ship-eating-ship was not actually Russian. It was privately owned by one of the usual out-to-take-over-the-world Bond movie megalomaniacs.

Boxing glove on the Canadarm. ROFL. Best line I've heard in years.

What about the cost benifits? Wouldn't it be cheaper to have a converted 747 (armed with a laser) orbating outside of a potentail foes Airspace, 24/7? As opposed to developing space based weapons, then building them?

I don't think this would be feasible on a long term basis. After a while, the guys in the plane simply wouldn't be alert. Automatic systems are not up to the job, at least not yet. Also, we don't have a Star-Wars type laser that would take out a missile in a sudden burst. It would have to stay locked on to the missile for an extended period to burn through. Outside factors come into play. If there are clouds, that would diffuse the laser and eliminate its effectiveness. The power supply would be so heavy the plane wouldn't be able to fly. Lasers as weapons are a VERY long way from becoming a reality.

And if the Americans were to develop offensive space based weapons in the future.......who says we have to take part? We don't have a hand in their nuclear deterent.....

The Americans simply love playing cowboys and indians, and are becoming alarmed that the number of international "Indians" are declining. If they don't have an enemy, then the USA will simply create an enemy. Iraq is a good example. Sounds like they're starting to do the same with N.Korea, Iran, etc.

There's a movie called "Canadian Bacon". It's a satirical, but quite accurate, look into the American mindset vis a vis war and warfare. In the movie, the USA decides it's time to declare war on Canada. In a comedy of errors, Canada wins, the USA surrenders, with not a single life being lost. It's quite funny. Check it out.

And to be clear, I'm in favor of Space based weapons for defence development and any potentail spin-offs that could be developed for any scientific space usage.......sadly, I just don't think it's in the cards any time soon........

I agree on both these points. Science ALWAYS producies spin-off benefits, and yes, it is not in the cards in the near future.

[PocketRocket]

i think we shouldn't put a $ in it, until it can work and only if its neccesary.

This raises two points.

First is that if we wait until it actually works, then we won't have to spend anything for a loooooooong time. That's good.

But if we wait until it's necessary, well, you don't decide to build an army AFTER you've been attacked. Waiting until it's necessary is kind of closing the barn door after the horse has run away. Or in Bush's case, the horse's ass.

I believe that the US and possibly others have 'space- weapons' already in the form of killer-satelites.  Small orbital bombs, basically that can manouever alongside ... say a geosyncronous enemy command/control commsat, and detonate itself.

I remember this idea was reported in the media years ago and it disappeared so quickly I just assumed it had become true.

Anyway, it's such an easy thing to do and so obviously useful I'd be amazed if no-one has done it.

I also remember this being a one-day wonder.

But it was just talk, not developed yet, for a very simplye reason.

Anti-tank mines were developed after the tank.

Anti-ship mines were developed after the ship.

Anti-personel mines, well, that goes without saying.

No one ever developed a weapon to attack another weapon WHICH HAD NOT BEEN INVENTED YET.

There are no dedicated military space stations, and so, there are no anti-space-station mines.

At least not yet.

But you're right. They would be relatively easy to design and build. Far easier than the anti-missile-missiles are proving to be.

For they would be attacking what is in essence a stationary target, sitting duck, if you will.

The missle system doesn't cost us anything anyway.

Not yet, but if we climb aboard we will be expected to pay our share. I thik this would be a bad idea, as apparently there are still a few kinks to work out.

BBC - Defense Shield Fails

You're absolutely right. But these "kinks" have been plaguing them for almost fifty years. See my first post above.

You don't buy a car before it's built, and the missile defense system is a worn-out jalopy whose delivery is almost fifty years past due. By the time they've perfected it, missiles will be obsolete.

BTW, thanks for the link. I didn't provide one, simply mentioned the botched test, which I heard about on CBC radio.

As for the failed test, how many attempts were made at manned (powered) flight before the Wright Brothers?

I don't like this analogy for a couple reasons.

The biggest being simply this, those attempts at manned flight were made by ordinary folk who had little or no scientific knowledge, absolutely no financial backing, and certainly no research and development behind them.

I could be out to lunch, but I don't believe most military satellites would be geosynchrous. They stay in one place (ie, over the equator in parallel with a fixed spot on the ground) which is very useful for broadcasting, but not so great for spying... I think spy satellites have low, fast orbits that go over  the earth at an angle to the equator.  I don't think they would be nearly as easy to blow up. One would need a system capable of targetting and intercepting a fast-moving object (a system a lot like BMD? )

-kimmy

Excellent observation/speculation.

This makes a great deal of sense as a low-orbit satellite could cover far more ground, and thus attack/observe a wider range of areas.

The flipside is that it could only attack/observe a specific area at a specific time in it's orbit.

But such an orbit would not necessarily make the satellite any harder to take out with an anti-satellite-satellite.

The simple reason being that, no matter what your orbit, you are essentially standing still, relatively speaking. Anything else in the same orbital plane, or altitude, simply has to cross paths, which is far easier than, say, one jet fighter attacking another.

Vectors do not have to be a perfect match. The two satellites simply have to be near each other for a split second, then, boom. Fait accomplis.

Complicated to describe, simple to illustrate using even rudimentary pictures.

(I love science. Can you tell)

[PocketRocket]

I see, we should base our foregin policy and defence relationships on "gut feelings" with no adherent evidence, just speculation. 

Now ask yourself, if we say no to BMD, will the United States shut-down the program?

Personally, I'd rather go with a "gut feeling" than with any "proof" as it would be provided by Bush.

After all, he had "proof" that Iraq had huge hoards of WMD's.

Bush and his boys manufacture "proof" as they see fit, whenever they need it to justify whatever action they want to take.

As for the second statement/question, no, the USA will not shut down the BMD program if we refuse to go along.

Remember the most inportant thing is that WEAPONIZATION ISN'T A WORD!! IT'S MILITARIZATION. I think space should be only used for civilian and exploration purposes. Wars should be fought on the ground, if they need to be fought at all.

An admirable thought. But heads of state of militaristic countries will not bow to the wishes of peace-loving types. They will continue to attempt to develop weapons based on how effective they think the weapons will be. If they think a platform in space will be more effective, then they will attempt to develop it. End of story.

Remember the most inportant thing is that WEAPONIZATION ISN'T A WORD!! IT'S MILITARIZATION. I think space should be only used for civilian and exploration purposes. Wars should be fought on the ground, if they need to be fought at all.

An admirable thought. But heads of state of militaristic countries will not bow to the wishes of peace-loving types. They will continue to attempt to develop weapons based on how effective they think the weapons will be. If they think a platform in space will be more effective, then they will attempt to develop it. End of story.

I'd also like to ask, why those opposed to BMD have not (to my knowledge) come out and opposed the Russian ballistic missile defence system that they have had deployed for decades in or around Moscow and the new system they are developing?

Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Russia tests anti-missile system

Well, I haven't been following the Russian BMD development, but the USA has been trying to develop BMD for almost fifty years.

FIFTY YEARS.

And they still haven't got it right. No reason to believe the Russians are any farther ahead, and the Russians are not the ones who are trying to make us go along with a Billion $$$$$ boondoggle.

As for the pot and the kettle, we don't fall into either category as we are not trying to develop such a system, are we???

I don't think they would be nearly as easy to blow up. One would need a system capable of targetting and intercepting a fast-moving object (a system a lot like BMD?

Somewhat more difficult than a geostationary object, but not that much more. If a spy satelite is in any kind of orbit, unless it adjusts it's vector by some means, it will be completely predictable. Someone targetting it would just need to pick their shot. A balistic missile is harder, because in the time allowed you cannot observe/predict it's flight all that well, and you cannot wait to pick your shot.

I didn't see this until after I had replied to Kimmy's post.

Good answer, and accurate.

To elaborate on both our replies, anything in orbit is essentially stationary unless, as you pointed out, it randomly changes vector.

This would be very resource-intensive and expensive and difficult to maintain.

The whole point behind having something in orbit is that it costs nothing to maintain a consitent orbit, no matter whether it's a high or low altitude orbit.

You simply put it up there at the correct vector and velocity, and it essentially continues on under it's own inertia indefinitely.

This makes it a very easy target.

Easy to see, easy to aim at. And, when you consider how fragile these things are, they could be disabled with a very minor hit. Something on the order of a hand grenade, or even smaller explosive.

Better yet, a good, solid, electro-magnetic pulse would take out all of the electronic systems aboard, making it essentially just another piece of orbiting trash.

[PocketRocket]

One other thing no one seems to have caught on to yet.....

GWB is still claimiing the missile defense system is to defend us all against rogue states who have developed nuclear capability.

Here's the problem with that.

Nukes are essentially very easy to build. Anyone with a good high-school level science education, equipped with a few textbooks, and the proper materials, can build a nuclear explosive device. Basically, a nuke is simply two pieces of plutonium, or high-level uranium, each with one surface machined to near-perfect flatness. You arrange for these two flat surfaces to smack against each other REALLY HARD.

Kaboom. Nuclear explosion.

That is a massive oversimplification, but in essence it's an accurate description of how a nuke works.

Here's the tough part; delivering the explosive.

Sixty years ago the USA dropped nukes on Japan from airplanes.

Forty five years ago we had missiles which could, ALLEGEDLY, launch from the USA and hit specific cities in Russia, and vice-versa.

The accuracy of these weapons was never that well tested. How close would they come to their targets???

Developing the bomb is easy. Developing a dependable delivery system is tough, and very VERY expensive.

If a couple of really rich nations, with technological savvy, manage to develop both the bomb, and a delivery system for it, we will simply find ourselves in another version of the cold war.

The difference is that in the new game, there will be more players than in the last cold war.

And God have mercy on the nation that takes the first shot, for they shall surely be turned into a puddle of glass.

As for the BMD system, well, the USA has been consistently trying to perfect it for nearly fifty years, and they still can't get it off the ground.

Why the hell should we invest in something that the USA has wasted this much time and money on???

They may have the resources to throw away. We do not.

My worry is not about any rogue state attacking with a missile. What bothers me is how easily a pocket nuke could be delivered into New York Harbor, or anywhwere else, and set off before the ship it's on is inspected. That would make 9/11 look like a quilting bee by comparison.

[Stoker]

First, let's remember how back in the late fifties, our PM (was it Diefenbaker??? don't remember) scrapped the Avro Arrow project based on the urging of the US President (can't remember his name either). The story goes that the Pres convinced Dief that rockets were the weapons of the future and that planes would be obsolete in a matter of months.

So Canada helped to invest in the missile defense of the day. Missiles that would shoot down incoming missiles automatically.

It never happened. The technology simply wasn't up to the task.

What DID happen, was that Canada threw away its best claim to military greatness, and started down the road to becoming a military non-entity

First off, You are refering to the BOMARC. Second, it wasn't designed to shoot down missiles, but bomber formations. Third, it did work, but it's warhead required a small nuclear device (to be triggered amongest a flight of bombers), and since we didn't acquire nukes for it, it became next to useless. Our fault, not the Americans or the missiles.

Also, the President was Ike and he was not using any "Jedi mind tricks" on Diefenbaker, since the Americans also beleived missiles were the way of the future.......with the proof being, their lack of development in jet aircraft in the mid-late fiffties.

The Americans simply love playing cowboys and indians, and are becoming alarmed that the number of international "Indians" are declining. If they don't have an enemy, then the USA will simply create an enemy. Iraq is a good example. Sounds like they're starting to do the same with N.Korea, Iran, etc.

So you are saying that the United States created the North Korean and Iraninan missile and nuclear weapons programs?

I don't think this would be feasible on a long term basis. After a while, the guys in the plane simply wouldn't be alert. Automatic systems are not up to the job, at least not yet. Also, we don't have a Star-Wars type laser that would take out a missile in a sudden burst. It would have to stay locked on to the missile for an extended period to burn through. Outside factors come into play. If there are clouds, that would diffuse the laser and eliminate its effectiveness. The power supply would be so heavy the plane wouldn't be able to fly. Lasers as weapons are a VERY long way from becoming a reality.

Boeing Airborne Laser

There's a movie called "Canadian Bacon". It's a satirical, but quite accurate, look into the American mindset vis a vis war and warfare. In the movie, the USA decides it's time to declare war on Canada. In a comedy of errors, Canada wins, the USA surrenders, with not a single life being lost. It's quite funny. Check it out.

When you start saying a Micheal Moore movie is quite accurate in a debate, you tend to lose creditablity.......

I don't like this analogy for a couple reasons.

The biggest being simply this, those attempts at manned flight were made by ordinary folk who had little or no scientific knowledge, absolutely no financial backing, and certainly no research and development behind them.

Ok, how about the Space program...........

Well, I haven't been following the Russian BMD development, but the USA has been trying to develop BMD for almost fifty years.

FIFTY YEARS.

No it hasn't.......late sixites, same time as the Russians. Only difference, the Russians seployed a working system.

And they still haven't got it right. No reason to believe the Russians are any farther ahead, and the Russians are not the ones who are trying to make us go along with a Billion $$$$$ boondoggle.

As for the pot and the kettle, we don't fall into either category as we are not trying to develop such a system, are we???

I understand that the Russians are not trying to "make us" go along, but those who say American deployment of BMD will cause a new arms race are hypocritical becasue one could argue that they are only deploying a system that will put them on par with the Russians........

A Defencsive system ffs

[kimmy]

First, let's remember how back in the late fifties, our PM (was it Diefenbaker??? don't remember) scrapped the Avro Arrow project based on the urging of the US President (can't remember his name either). The story goes that the Pres convinced Dief that rockets were the weapons of the future and that planes would be obsolete in a matter of months.

So Canada helped to invest in the missile defense of the day. Missiles that would shoot down incoming missiles automatically.

It never happened. The technology simply wasn't up to the task.

What DID happen, was that Canada threw away its best claim to military greatness, and started down the road to becoming a military non-entity

First off, You are refering to the BOMARC. Second, it wasn't designed to shoot down missiles, but bomber formations. Third, it did work, but it's warhead required a small nuclear device (to be triggered amongest a flight of bombers), and since we didn't acquire nukes for it, it became next to useless. Our fault, not the Americans or the missiles.

Also, the President was Ike and he was not using any "Jedi mind tricks" on Diefenbaker, since the Americans also beleived missiles were the way of the future.......with the proof being, their lack of development in jet aircraft in the mid-late fiffties.

Indeed. At the same time Canada cancelled the Avro Arrow, the Americans were cancelling the F-108 and the B-70.

I recall reading someone comment that the Arrow's fate was sealed when on the same day it rolled out of the hangar for the first time, the Russians put Sputnik in orbit. I think it must have become clear quite quickly what the implications were. As any need to intercept Russian bombers lumbering over the North Pole would quickly disappear, the Americans cancelled their own super high performance interceptor program; they cancelled their Mach 3 bomber as they realized they would themselves soon have a much more efficient means of getting warheads to Moscow.

Jet fighters are no longer needed for attacking bombers, yet they're still very important in modern armies, even 45 years after the Arrow was scrapped. Why is this? What are they used for? I believe for obtaining control of an airspace, and for attacking targets on the ground. Command the sky, and use it to drop stuff on your enemy. But this sort of objective is not something that we as Canadians put a high value on. I believe that some Canadian fighter planes actually dropped stuff on an Iraqi navy ship during Gulf War v1.0, but for the most part I do not believe that maintaining a state of the art flight of jet fighters is something that is key to Canada's well being as a nation. It is not crucial to the kind of capability we expect from our armed forces. The Arrow would have only been useful if we'd chosen a more aggressive role in world affairs-- most Canadians are happy that we didn't.

-kimmy

[Stoker]

To add to Kimmy's post, even though the jet fighter was not replaced with the missile, as Kimmy pointed out, the role in which the Arrow was intended for (Interceptor) was severly diminished with the advent of the ICBM. Whatever capacity was need for the defence of North America could be met with a much cheaper aircraft than the Arrow, such as the Delta Dart and the Voodoo (which we purchased).

[PocketRocket]

Wow. Great reply STOKER. Let me address some of it.

First off, You are refering to the BOMARC. Second, it wasn't designed to shoot down missiles, but bomber formations. Third, it did work, but it's warhead required a small nuclear device (to be triggered amongest a flight of bombers), and since we didn't acquire nukes for it, it became next to useless. Our fault, not the Americans or the missiles. 

BOMARK. That's the one. The point I was making is that co-operation with the USA's defense schemes has not always been in our best interest. Also, your point about the BOMARK needing a nuclear warhead; why would we buy a missile, without buying the warhead required to make it work as intended??? Were we sold only the missile, sans warhead??? If so, why would that be??? Makes no sense, like so many other deals we've had with the USA.

I have no problem with co-operating with the BMD. My problem would be with actually putting Canadian money into it.

It seems that whenever we do so, we get the short end of the stick.

  Also, the President was Ike and he was not using any "Jedi mind tricks" on Diefenbaker, since the Americans also beleived missiles were the way of the future.......with the proof being, their lack of development in jet aircraft in the mid-late fiffties. 

Jedi Mind Tricks. Heh heh heh. I like it.

Ever hear the saying about not putting all your eggs in one basket???

But why, with the rest of the world developing better jetcraft, did we go along with Ike??? Consider the fact that the R&D done on the Arrow project was just beginning to pay dividends, with the sale of engines and housings to France, etc.

Why scrap the whole project??? Why take such a loss??? Why didn't we sell the whole thing??? Sell the technology???

We could have made gazillions. I believe there was more to the deal with Ike than meets the eye.

Can't prove anything, unfortunately, so it's simply one man's opinion.

Maybe it was Jedi mind tricks. Heh heh.

 

The Americans simply love playing cowboys and indians, and are becoming alarmed that the number of international "Indians" are declining. If they don't have an enemy, then the USA will simply create an enemy. Iraq is a good example. Sounds like they're starting to do the same with N.Korea, Iran, etc.

So you are saying that the United States created the North Korean and Iraninan missile and nuclear weapons programs?

No. Both these countries were merely examples of the American attitude. I mean "with us or against us". Gimme a break. How about "disinterested third party".

"There's bad guys out there, we gotta go get 'em"

That seems to be the American attitude.

Doesn't it seem strange to you that the USA gets involved in a war at least once a decade???

If there's a credible enemy, they go after him. If there's not, then they create him with rhetoric.

Show me a country that has been a credible threat to the USA since WWII ended (Russia excepted).

Then, show me why America has NEEDED to go to war so often in the past 50 years.

Automatic systems are not up to the job, at least not yet. Also, we don't have a Star-Wars type laser that would take out a missile in a sudden burst. It would have to stay locked on to the missile for an extended period to burn through. Outside factors come into play. Lasers as weapons are a VERY long way from becoming a reality.

Boeing Airborne Laser

Cool. Good link. In all honesty, I wasn't up on this. Thanks.

But I noticed a few things upon perusing the site, or perhaps the absence of a few things.

First, I didn't find a description of how long it would take the laser to scrap a missile. Five second burn??? Ten???

Second, I notice that they "expect" to complete laser tests in 2004. Any updates??? Have they tested, and if so, how did the tests turn out???

Third, the automations systems. There was a notable absence of their test results as well

Fourth, how many of these things can one country afford to maintain and have in the air all at once??? One?? Ten??

A lot of questions yet, but as a part of a multi-faceted defense, it would definitely be useful if they get it off the ground

Again, thanks for the link.

There's a movie called "Canadian Bacon". It's a satirical, but quite accurate, look into the American mindset vis a vis war and warfare. In the movie, the USA decides it's time to declare war on Canada. In a comedy of errors, Canada wins, the USA surrenders, with not a single life being lost. It's quite funny. Check it out.

When you start saying a Micheal Moore movie is quite accurate in a debate, you tend to lose creditablity.......

That's a Moore movie???? Are you serious???

I first saw the thing about 2 years ago. At the time I didn't even know who Moore was.

The reason it came to mind was I saw the last hour of it on tv a couple weeks ago.

I honestly didn't know that it's a Moore flick.

Still funny, though.

Well, I haven't been following the Russian BMD development, but the USA has been trying to develop BMD for almost fifty years.

FIFTY YEARS.

No it hasn't.......late sixites, same time as the Russians. Only difference, the Russians seployed a working system.

Okay, then. Forty years. I stand corrected. Or, rather, sit corrected, with coffee in hand.

But maybe we should be considering going with the Russian system if it's actually functional.

That'd get GWB's panties in a knot.

I understand that the Russians are not trying to "make us" go along, but those who say American deployment of BMD will cause a new arms race are hypocritical becasue one could argue that they are only deploying a system that will put them on par with the Russians........

I don't think I said that the BMD would start a new arms race. I did allude to something else starting one.

Be that as it may, Russia has theirs. You can bet that sooner or later, the USA will finally get it right, so then they'll have theirs, and everyone will be happy.

My contention is that we should not be pouring any money into helping develop the BMD. Nor should we put money into deployment.

If the USA wants ot have several in northern Canada as a first-line defense, fine.

But they can foot the bill.

STOKER: Thanks for the reply, well researched and intelligent. I'm glad I found this site. If you're typical of the members here, I'm going learn a lot, and enjoy doing it.

[PocketRocket]

Heya KIMMY. Thanks for the elaboration on STOKER's reply. Well reasoned. I like it. But, as with STOKER, I must address a few points.....

  Indeed.  At the same time Canada cancelled the Avro Arrow, the Americans were cancelling the F-108 and the B-70.

And history shows us that this may not have been the wisest of moves for either country.

  I recall reading someone comment that the Arrow's fate was sealed when on the same day it rolled out of the hangar for the first time, the Russians put Sputnik in orbit.  I think it must have become clear quite quickly what the implications were.  As any need to intercept Russian bombers lumbering over the North Pole would quickly disappear, the Americans cancelled their own super high performance interceptor program; they cancelled their Mach 3 bomber as they realized they would themselves soon have a much more efficient means of getting warheads to Moscow.

Warhead delivery, yes. Missiles would be faster. But the justification here is that the development of Russian missiles were to blame for the Arrow's demise.

But then, why use the BOMARK missile, designed for shooting down bombers, as a "replacement" for the Arrow???

According to STOKER's information, the BOMARK would be useless against incoming missiles.

The whole reaction to the Sputnik was not well reasoned. The Arrow was scrapped for political reasons, and little more.

We got sucked in to investing in US defense technology, which turned out to be essentially useless.

  Jet fighters are no longer needed for attacking bombers, yet they're still very important in modern armies, even 45 years after the Arrow was scrapped. Why is this? What are they used for? I believe for obtaining control of an airspace, and for attacking targets on the ground. Command the sky, and use it to drop stuff on your enemy.  But this sort of objective is not something that we as Canadians put a high value on.

Well, agreed. We are not a warlike nation. Nonetheless, it never hurts to walk softly and carry a big stick.

As a nation, we do indeed walk softly. No stick, though.

  I believe that some Canadian fighter planes actually dropped stuff on an Iraqi navy ship during Gulf War v1.0, but for the most part I do not believe that maintaining a state of the art flight of jet fighters is something that is key to Canada's well being as a nation. It is not crucial to the kind of capability we expect from our armed forces.  The Arrow would have only been useful if we'd chosen a more aggressive role in world affairs-- most Canadians are happy that we didn't. 

Back to the Arrow. If we had stuck to our guns, completed development of the Arrow, there is little question that we would be the undisputed leaders in flight technology today. Probably space-technology as well. This would be an immense economic benefit to the country. The technology that went into the Arrow could easily have been applied to civilian aircraft, spacecraft, etc etc.

Why then, was the project completely scrapped, and all blueprints and research information destroyed???

Bad deal. The result of a deal with the USA. The crappy end of the stick.

As a neighbour, I trust the USA not to attack us. As a business partner, I DO NOT trust the USA not to stab us in the back, no matter whether it's NAFTA, or defense systems.

I agree with the last sentence, and am happy we are not one of the world's great aggressors.

But the Arrow technology could have been so much more than just a fighter-interceptor.

And with that technology, the air force that we DO maintain would be among the best in the world, rather than one of the most outdated.

-kimmy 

As I said to STOKER, it's nice to get such well thought-out replies.

Thanks, KIMMY.

[Stoker]

BOMARK. That's the one. The point I was making is that co-operation with the USA's defense schemes has not always been in our best interest. Also, your point about the BOMARK needing a nuclear warhead; why would we buy a missile, without buying the warhead required to make it work as intended??? Were we sold only the missile, sans warhead??? If so, why would that be??? Makes no sense, like so many other deals we've had with the USA.

There are many good books on the BOMARC programs...........google it.

BOMARC divided the ruling Conservative party caucus on the issue of the purchase/use of nuclear weapons and was one of the factors that led Lester B Pearson to win in the next election. When he won, he allowed the use of American nukes on Canadian weapons, such as the Honest John tactical nuke, Genie unguided rockets, the BOMARC and IIRC artillary shells.

Trudeau of course took this apart when he came to power.........

Ever hear the saying about not putting all your eggs in one basket???

But why, with the rest of the world developing better jetcraft, did we go along with Ike??? Consider the fact that the R&D done on the Arrow project was just beginning to pay dividends, with the sale of engines and housings to France, etc.

The rest of the world (sans the UK) was (like today) a generation or so behind the United States..........the United Kingdom scraped a rather large fighter program at time....TSR something.

Why scrap the whole project??? Why take such a loss??? Why didn't we sell the whole thing??? Sell the technology???

We could have made gazillions. I believe there was more to the deal with Ike than meets the eye.

Can't prove anything, unfortunately, so it's simply one man's opinion.

Maybe it was Jedi mind tricks. Heh heh.

Probably the same reasons the United States doesn't sell the technolgoy that it develops and later doesn't produce, from area 51

National serurity.

No. Both these countries were merely examples of the American attitude. I mean "with us or against us". Gimme a break. How about "disinterested third party".

Or, one could note, both of these countries pose a threat to the United States and her some of her close allies, namely Israel, Japan and South Korea.

"There's bad guys out there, we gotta go get 'em"

That seems to be the American attitude.

I guess those "crazy" yanks have got tired of spoting the first punch........

Doesn't it seem strange to you that the USA gets involved in a war at least once a decade???

Not really, they are a Superpower, and as such they have made alot of enemies along the way........

If there's a credible enemy, they go after him. If there's not, then they create him with rhetoric.

Show me a country that the Untied States "created".

Show me a country that has been a credible threat to the USA since WWII ended (Russia excepted).

Then, show me why America has NEEDED to go to war so often in the past 50 years.

The nations that the United States has gone to war with have all threatend (to an extent) the United States proper or US intrests........thats a blanket statement, covers all their wars.

First, I didn't find a description of how long it would take the laser to scrap a missile. Five second burn??? Ten???

I'm not sure, either go through the Boeing site or email them.......

Second, I notice that they "expect" to complete laser tests in 2004. Any updates??? Have they tested, and if so, how did the tests turn out???

2004 Team News Releases

Third, the automations systems. There was a notable absence of their test results as well

Fourth, how many of these things can one country afford to maintain and have in the air all at once??? One?? Ten??

I'm not sure, check the site.

A lot of questions yet, but as a part of a multi-faceted defense, it would definitely be useful if they get it off the ground

Again, thanks for the link.

Sure it would, tis just one part of BMD:

the layerd BMD system...........not the lack of Deathstars

That's a Moore movie???? Are you serious???

Yup.......it's funny, it was on last night, so I did decide to start watching it.....lasted about the first twenty minutes.......all I can say is that I like Alan Alda and John Candy, but they both must have been rather hard-up to make this waste of time.

Okay, then. Forty years. I stand corrected. Or, rather, sit corrected, with coffee in hand.

But maybe we should be considering going with the Russian system if it's actually functional.

That'd get GWB's panties in a knot.

You are joking right? Do you understand basic geography and econmics?

[Stoker]

Warhead delivery, yes. Missiles would be faster. But the justification here is that the development of Russian missiles were to blame for the Arrow's demise.

But then, why use the BOMARK missile, designed for shooting down bombers, as a "replacement" for the Arrow???

The reasons go hand and hand........Sputnik was the "way of the future" with ICBMS, but BOMARC was there to defend against current Soviet threats that were still present (Bombers).

See the trends......it was thought that unmanned misslies were the way of the future.........

The whole reaction to the Sputnik was not well reasoned. The Arrow was scrapped for political reasons, and little more.

We got sucked in to investing in US defense technology, which turned out to be essentially useless.

Sure it was, the need for a high priced interceptor with diminishing threats to intercept, was not polticail feasable.....

Now would you care to explain how we "got sucked in"? Where was this mistake that we made?

The Arrow wasn't needed and wasn't affordable.

Back to the Arrow. If we had stuck to our guns, completed development of the Arrow, there is little question that we would be the undisputed leaders in flight technology today. Probably space-technology as well. This would be an immense economic benefit to the country. The technology that went into the Arrow could easily have been applied to civilian aircraft, spacecraft, etc etc.

Who says we would have been the leader in any of those fields? The CBC movie?

Just because a few Canadian aeropsace designers and workers went to the States doesn't mean we would have been the leaders in aeropace technolgoy............the Americans already had Wernher Von Braun and Kelly Johnston, as the Russians had their German rocket scientists.

Bad deal. The result of a deal with the USA. The crappy end of the stick.

As a neighbour, I trust the USA not to attack us. As a business partner, I DO NOT trust the USA not to stab us in the back, no matter whether it's NAFTA, or defense systems.

I agree with the last sentence, and am happy we are not one of the world's great aggressors.

But the Arrow technology could have been so much more than just a fighter-interceptor.

And with that technology, the air force that we DO maintain would be among the best in the world, rather than one of the most outdated.

The role of the Arrow was obsolete.......it would have been like developing (at a great cost) new horse mounted cavalry tactics during world war one...........

The move was poltical, but the choice was wisly made to not waste Canadian taxpayer money on a obsolete weapon. And was pointed out by Kimmy and myself, the Americans(and Brits) cancelled their programs.

[kimmy]

Heya KIMMY. Thanks for the elaboration on STOKER's reply. Well reasoned. I like it. But, as with STOKER, I must address a few points.....

  Indeed.  At the same time Canada cancelled the Avro Arrow, the Americans were cancelling the F-108 and the B-70.

And history shows us that this may not have been the wisest of moves for either country.

Why?

The B-70 was magnificent, from a technological and aesthetic viewpoint... but it was rendered utterly pointless from a functional viewpoint by rapid advances in missile technology. It yielded some useful research in aerodynamics and manufacturing techniques, so in a sense it was worthwhile... but developing a super high performance strategic bomber once missile technology was off the ground (bad pun?) would be somewhat like developing a super high performance horse-buggy while Mr Ford was rolling his first automobiles off the assembly line.

The F-108 would have been a splendid, high-performance little plane, but like the Arrow, rendered somewhat unnecessary by the advances in missile technology: those dreaded bombers never were going to come lumbering over the north pole.

Warhead delivery, yes. Missiles would be faster. But the justification here is that the development of Russian missiles were to blame for the Arrow's demise.

But then, why use the BOMARK missile, designed for shooting down bombers, as a "replacement" for the Arrow???

According to STOKER's information, the BOMARK would be useless against incoming missiles.

So would the Arrow.

The whole reaction to the Sputnik was not well reasoned. The Arrow was scrapped for political reasons, and little more.

We got sucked in to investing in US defense technology, which turned out to be essentially useless.

The reasons for the cancellation of the Arrow have become oversimplified in the popular imagination... this article, for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Arrow

...discusses a lot of reasons why the Arrow program may have been cancelled, and while some of them are related to the Bomarc, a lot of them are simply related to the cost. The Arrow program was over-budget and so expensive that it was depriving other parts of our military of the money to buy equipment they needed.

Well, agreed. We are not a warlike nation. Nonetheless, it never hurts to walk softly and carry a big stick.

As a nation, we do indeed walk softly. No stick, though.

My personall view is that we should walk softly and carry a stick appropriate to needs and our financial ability to pay for sticks.

Developing and maintaining a state of the art fleet of home-grown fighter-interceptors is a shockingly expensive exercise, especially for a country that has had little need for fighter-interceptors for many decades. Our need for that type of plane is modest; we should spend a modest portion of our defence budget on it. As Stoker pointed out, purchasing less-expensive aircraft is a more sensible approach than spending a massive sum of money developing our own.

Back to the Arrow. If we had stuck to our guns, completed development of the Arrow, there is little question that we would be the undisputed leaders in flight technology today. Probably space-technology as well. This would be an immense economic benefit to the country. The technology that went into the Arrow could easily have been applied to civilian aircraft, spacecraft, etc etc.

Why then, was the project completely scrapped, and all blueprints and research information destroyed???

Bad deal. The result of a deal with the USA. The crappy end of the stick.

It's possible that if the Arrow had been a success and the expertise developed during the project had remained in Canada, we might have a much stronger aerospace industry today. Perhaps Saab in Sweden is an example of what Avro could have been to Canada.

But, I would point out that the aviation industry as a whole is somewhat turbulent. Civilian carriers all over the world seem to be experiencing financial troubles and less able to buy aircraft. Military expenditures are also a risky bet. I think, for instance, that the US forces will generally buy American gear given the chance. That would probably leave Avro in cut-throat competition against a number of companies, both American and European, for whichever smaller contracts pop up from time to time. There are probably more sellers than buyers in the market at any given time.

As a neighbour, I trust the USA not to attack us. As a business partner, I DO NOT trust the USA not to stab us in the back, no matter whether it's NAFTA, or defense systems.

I agree with the last sentence, and am happy we are not one of the world's great aggressors.

But the Arrow technology could have been so much more than just a fighter-interceptor.

And with that technology, the air force that we DO maintain would be among the best in the world, rather than one of the most outdated.

Well, we could also have a better airforce by simply spending money intelligently. Buy the aircraft we need, at a price we can afford, when the opportunity presents itself.

I think that pumping a huge amount of money into a home-grown aviation industry might actually be an obstacle to having a capable armed forces. As Canadians, there's only a certain amount of money we're prepared to spend on a military, and rightly so. We have to get the most out of that money. To me that means buying equipment we need for all branches of the forces. If Avro was dependent on selling X number of planes per year to our forces, I think it would threaten our ability to purchase other equipment our forces need.

As I said to STOKER, it's nice to get such well thought-out replies.

Thanks, KIMMY.

-kimmy

[PocketRocket]

STOKER and KIMMY:

Again, thanks for the great replies. I've learned a fair bit from both of your posts, and to me, that's what these forums are all about.

Only got a minute today, so I can't really address any specifics, except for; yes, STOKER, I was joking.

Thanks again to you both. I'll get back on this in the next couple days when I have some time.

[caesar]

How should Canada respond to the missile defense system; Stay out; the tests they have preformed always fail. A recent low publicized 6 million dollar failure. Let's hope their next failure doesn't land in a populated area of Canada.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

It's possible that if the Arrow had been a success and the expertise developed during the project had remained in Canada, we might have a much stronger aerospace industry today

Indeed, this is my belief. The Arrow would have been a money-maker, as it would have been sold to other countries, not just to the Canadian military. Who knows what other R&D monies, for both military and commercial enterprise, might have come into Canada if they were the leading aerospace developer.

[Big Blue Machine]

The topic is about weapons in space and how canada should respond, not about the long gone Arrow.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Big Blue Machine,

The topic is about weapons in space and how canada should respond, not about the long gone Arrow

You are correct, my apologies.

Canada should tell the USA to stuff their weapons in space program. The USA is becomming a 'pariah' state, making enemies wherever they go. Recent events show that 'conventional warfare' is fast going out the window, and ICBM's are one of the least impending threats the US faces. Canada is one of the least likely countries to face invasion threat, let alone a missle attack. With our vast resources, the greatest threat as of now to Canada is the USA. I'm not too worried about that until they run short of water.

[Argus]

Canada should tell the USA to stuff their weapons in space program. The USA is becomming a 'pariah' state, making enemies wherever they go. Recent events show that 'conventional warfare' is fast going out the window, and ICBM's are one of the least impending threats the US faces. Canada is one of the least likely countries to face invasion threat, let alone a missle attack. With our vast resources, the greatest threat as of now to Canada is the USA. I'm not too worried about that until they run short of water.

The greatest threat, as such, to Canada, actually is the United States. I ponder the possibilty that one day George Bush will get irritated enough at Canadians telling him to "stuff it" and decide to crack down on the border. Some third ranking State Department type will announce with a shrug that as Canada has done absolutely nothing to protect its wide open international borders the US has little choice but to treat our border as it does all others and inspect everyone and every car and truck coming across.

Border waits will stretch into the hours. When complaints that this is hampering the auto industry are made he'll shrug again and suggest that perhaps they auto industry ought to relocate to the United States. The US/Canadian auto agreement is lapsed, I believe, and there is far more of the industry in Canada than the agreement called for anyway. Now with our dollar rising 30% in the last couple of years it's not nearly as economical for them.

It really wouldn't take much more than that to send the TSX into a tail spin and cause an economic crisis.

[August1991]

Frankly, what is it about (English) Canadians and Americans?

We've got Argus saying that the US is going to cut us off and Thelonious saying the US is a threat.

The Americans are completely innocent in this bizarre, invented, one-sided relationship.

Talk about a colonial mentality. Pathetic.