New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Phat Bytestard on 5 Aug 2006 15:53 On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 17:15:12 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >Yes, tax dollars were used to develop the aircraft. Tax dollars are also >used in the development phase. Nope. The aircraft contest was funded by the individual companies own research coffers. The finished product is all our boys and the rest of the allies are paying for.
From: Phat Bytestard on 5 Aug 2006 15:55 On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 17:15:12 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >BTW: Even if lockheedmartin had paid for the development, they would have >done so not out of the goodness of their hearts but because they expected >to get more than that much money in return. It would still ultimately >have been tax dollars that got used. I think this argument would be too >complicated for you to follow so I am glad I don't have to use it. Just because a company's profit came from tax dollars for goods which they have sold, does NOT make those 100% earned dollars "tax dollars" when they use it for a new project. You couldn't possibly be that stupid.
From: Phat Bytestard on 5 Aug 2006 16:00 On 5 Aug 2006 11:13:40 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org Gave us: >Yes, yes - of course - but you are late for your appointment at the >Alzheimer's clinic. Again. Funny... my boss seems to like my photographic memory of integrated rack mount gear filling out ten racks just fine. I won't even need to refer to the plans in the next iteration. Sorry chump, but my twilight years are a couple decades off. Yours have obviously already arrived.
From: Phat Bytestard on 5 Aug 2006 16:03 On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 11:47:40 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us: >On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:12:59 +0100, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >>> In article <44D39233.E2E7A513(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >>> [....] >>> >> We are now "after they were developed". They didn't put any money I know >>> >> of into the development pot. >>> note: They included meaning the british. >>> > >>> >F-35 JSF Involvement Across BAE Systems >>> >During the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase, BAE Systems is >>> >involved in two particular areas- airframe and mission systems. A major part of >>> >the UK industrial contribution to JSF will come from BAE Systems aircraft >>> >manufacturing facilities in Warton and Samlesbury, as well as facilities at >>> >Rochester and Edinburgh. BAE Systems North America facilities in Nashua, NH, and >>> >Johnson City, NY, also support a significant amount of F-35 JSF involvement for >>> >BAE Systems. >>> >>> "Will come from" means in the future. A little context on my position may >>> help: A little over a year ago, a well placed airforce person complained >>> in my presents[1] using words to the effect that it was supposed to be a >>> effort but the airforce was covering almost all of it. >>> >>> [1] It was intended for the ears of someone else. >>> >>> > >>> >The aft fuselage and empennage (tails and fins) for each F-35 JSF are being >>> >designed, engineered and built at the BAE Systems Samlesbury site, using the >>> >latest in advanced design and manufacturing technology. >>> >>> Score one for the other side of the argument, almost. Was this technology >>> developed because of the spending on the joint fighter or was it something >>> developed for anotehr purpose? The basic argument here is about driving >>> the advances not using them. >>> >>> >The aft-fuselage and empennage will be shipped to Lockheed Martin?s Fort Worth >>> >plant in the summer of 2005, where they will be joined with the wing and forward >>> >fuselage from Lockheed Martin and the centre fuselage from Northrop Grumman. >>> >Assembly of the initial F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant is >>> >expected to be completed at the end of the year. The first flight of the CTOL >>> >aircraft is scheduled for mid-2006. >>> >>> Since this is their own site. I find it odd that this says "will be" not >>> was. >> >>More for you.... >> >>BAE Systems - A Key Partner on the F-35 JSF Program............................ >> >>BAE Systems is a major UK industrial participant, investing $72M upfront in the >>Concept Development Phase (CDP) and $65M in UK JSF facilities during SDD [ System >>Development and Demonstration Phase ] >> >>http://www.baesystems.com/facts/programmes/airsystems/jsf.htm >> >>Graham > >BAE has fairly extensive operations in the US, too. We work with one >group that's doing B-52 radar upgrades; they were Sanders Associates >before being acquired by BAE. They tell me that, because of security >rules, they can tell me stuff they aren't allowed to communicate to >the home office in Europe. > >The B-52's are scheduled to be retired in 2040, at which time they'll >be 80 years old. > As the oldest still in service airframe in history.
From: Phat Bytestard on 5 Aug 2006 16:04
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 12:07:49 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us: >The cool new semiconductor is GaN on diamond. The ultimate would be an >AlN fet on isotopically pure diamond, but I hear there are materials >problems to be resolved. > >GaN on silicon ain't bad, though. We've been blowing up\\\\\\\\ >evaluating some impressive parts lately. Where is that link on those 50W devices you posted once? |