Derek 2.0

Isn’t that along the same lines as what Big Guy posted? ISIS receiving local support and such...

Doesn’t successful capitalism today require pressure put on Government? I’ve no qualms with taxpayer money being used to seed the development of both space and “Green” technology……I see both as a direct investment in ones own national security.

I never said different, but in the context used, that is something new for myself, as I've never heard it put that way.

That’s not what he said……his musings are more along the lines of the victor writing history.

Clearly I didn’t question the report (or you would have quoted said passage by now), I only asked for further details, as such this is clearly acknowledgment of both the civilian and military angle seeking ways to reduce sustainment costs.

Outline where I questioned Kendall's report.......

Or the local population fears them.......remember at the peak of the insurgency against the Americans, it was estimated that the insurgents numbered less than 20k members…..yet they survived and stung the world’s most modern military, as such, the ~5k ISIS "insurgents" should clearly have no problem with the Iraqi army and police services.

So, for example, you would suggest the French and Dutch resistance were “invalid” ? What of the IRA? Good or bad? And in relation to this topic, in your view, with this internal conflict in Iraq, who is in the “right”?

Where did I do that? I said nothing questioning the reports validity, and only commented that your initial link was devoid of details.

Saw this: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/13/tesla-elon-musk-electric-cars-patent-technology This further reaffirms my opinion of Musk…….I hope he does become a zillionaire, and receives the international recognition that he deserves….The next Gates or Jobs perhaps? And this: And this also further reaffirms my other belief that environmental progress will be spearheaded by private industry and seconded when needed, by governmental seeding……

I never suggested otherwise. This is why the press conference had the civilian purchaser (Kendall) to address contractor issues associated with production, and the military head (Lt. General Bogdan) to address changes to improve maintenance. Clearly both avenues have a direct correlation on end user sustainment costs.

Not at all, your link, my link and any other link referencing Thursday’s press conference are referring to the same discussion Waldo……Parts that wear out prematurely are a sustainment cost.

Never heard that one, good point!! The terrorist/freedom fighter nexus is certainly a subjective point of view, well clearly defined by ones own personal politics, dogma, religion etc.

Then in said article, why would Kendall refer to suppliers improving upon production techniques as opposed to the overall design to achieve more durable parts?

This is not true, from antiquity with Roman Legions to modern times with British Paras and SAS, a conventional force can “win” an occupation against an insurgency. What separates victory from defeat is the methods employed by said conventional force.

How would "suppliers improve time between parts failures"? It would seem that improvements to production would be key to such a requirement no?

In the article both operational efficiencies and production techniques (like your link touched upon) leading to greater durability in certain (unmentioned) parts are covered by both Kendall (civilian weapons buyer) and Lt. Gen. Bogdan (Military executive officer of the JSF program).

I would say a response would do two things. First it would help further along the discussion on engine safety by highlighting a contrast between both procedural and technological advancements found in aircraft/engines today versus those found decades ago. Second it would demonstrate yet again that your anecdotal “evidence” is nothing more than the musings of a charlatan.

And here is a more in-depth article: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/485555/dod-af-leaders-look-to-f-35-maintainers-for-help.aspx Finding efficiencies in both production and maintenance only make sense, as does the assumption that they will become successful as further F-35s enter the fleet……..I would assume the same calculus is in play with other technologies…..say for instance Green/renewable.

No reach at all, just follow the natural progression on engine flight safety.

No, it is in relation, especially when discussing the single versus two engine safety debate recently surrounding the F-35 (yet again).

And you avoid a very simple question (yet again), well applying your collective of personal insults and attacks when somebody asks you an actual technical question in relation to your posts………I’d ask you why that is, but in all reality, I’d fully expect continued inane responses as opposed to any validation to your numerous fanciful claims.

Again, what was your response with the collective?

Then how could you have: Several pages ago you stated the only reason to shut an engine down in flight was in response to a engine malfunction and/or concern. ……I stated the other factors, including a malfunction in the fuel control system that could cause a surge of fuel into the engine, creating large flames exiting in the exhaust (akin to a top-fuel dragster)………You then stated you’ve never seen any flames…….I asked how would you see flames from the exhaust, in-flight, from the cockpit.

These are your words right?