New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 5 Aug 2006 20:28 On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 09:13:37 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >You prefer not to be able to distinguish black from shades of grey from white ? > >I guess having a simple view of the world is quite cosy for those who aren't >comfortable with exercising their brain as opposed to brawn. --- While you're explaining the difference between brain and brawn to someone who's shoving a knife into your heart, do you think they care? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Ken Smith on 5 Aug 2006 20:29 In article <44D4D19B.42823302(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: [....] >http://www.baesystems.com/facts/programmes/airsystems/jsf.htm Thank you for the site. I've copied part of it below because it show that there was a development contract awarded ei: it is tax payers money as I claimed. I do however admit on getting it wrong about who's tax payers. It seems there was money from other governments going into the development so non-US tax payers are also funding it. BAE made an investment that they reasonably assume they will recover from the contract. ***** Following the Concept Demonstration and Assessment competition phase, the Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman JSF Team was awarded an $18.9 billion System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract in October 2001. In parallel, two engine teams - led by Pratt & Whitney and General Electric - were awarded contracts to develop competing, interchangeable F-35 engines. The 11 and-a-half-year SDD phase involves the production of an initial 23 aircraft - 15 flight test aircraft and eight ground test F-35 aircraft to be tested for safety, effectiveness and to validate the proposed design. The 15 flying aircraft are six CTOL, four CV and five STOVL variants. Final assembly of the first test aircraft, an F-35A (CTOL) model, began in May 2005. First flight is planned for 2006. Current stated requirements from the United States and United Kingdom will result in the manufacture of around 2,600 aircraft, with another 2,000 to 3,000 forecast for the international market. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 5 Aug 2006 20:41 In article <44D50900.1223D69E(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: [....] >No it *doesn't*. That would be "still in service use" meaning used by the >services. In service simply means 'operated'. From: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=188 ******** After the war many of these aircraft became surplus to requirements and were sold off at bargain prices. The result was that demilitarised C47s became the standard postwar aircraft of almost all the world's airlines and the backbone of the world airline industry well into the 1950s. Its availability and reliability meant it proved extremely popular. Even today hundreds remain in service. ******** So there are enough still around to give the B-52 a run for its money. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: John Fields on 5 Aug 2006 20:44 On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 12:24:43 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >John Woodgate wrote: >> In message <4ji12eF83vuqU2(a)individual.net>, dated Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Dirk >> Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> writes >>> And it will have to be one with enough teeth and muscle to fire on the >>> Israelis as well as Hezbollah. >> >> Almost certainly it will never need to, in defence. Let us fervently >> hope that it never fires on Israel in aggression. > >Given the number of UN positions attacked by the Israelis in the past, I >expect a serious force to be able to return such fire. --- So you'd like for Israel to be defeated? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Ken Smith on 5 Aug 2006 20:46
In article <44D4D316.2625E7AE(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: [....] >The *concept* phase was funded by the participating companies. The *development* >phase ( prior to production ) was paid for from government funds. Yes, and the companies did the concept phase only because they expected to recover the money from the government when the contract was let. Obviously, the money for that development was taken away from the tax payers who could have used it for some other purpose and thus driven the development of some consumer item. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |