A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

F/A-22 is needed because the F-35 will be leaked?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 6th 04, 03:30 PM
Henry J Cobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default F/A-22 is needed because the F-35 will be leaked?

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007145
For an operation like Iraqi Freedom, General Moseley told committee
members that the Air Force's ability to strike was in part because of
American presence in the region for nearly 12 years and U.S. access to
nearby bases. In testimony submitted for the record, the general said
that type of access might not always be available to the U.S. military...

Darn permission slips. Never around when you need them.

....One concern of the committee was the possibility of U.S. technology
being leaked to adversaries because of liberal licensing of Joint Strike
Fighter technology to subcontractors. General Moseley said the JSF
program office is aware of the issue.

So the F/A-22 is safer because nobody wants it?

-HJC


  #2  
Old March 6th 04, 05:11 PM
t_mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

So the F/A-22 is safer because nobody wants it?

Yes, nobody "wants" it. That's the reason. Just like China doesn't "want"
an aircraft carrier.


  #3  
Old March 7th 04, 02:29 AM
Thomas Schoene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Henry J Cobb wrote:

...One concern of the committee was the possibility of U.S. technology
being leaked to adversaries because of liberal licensing of Joint
Strike Fighter technology to subcontractors. General Moseley said the
JSF program office is aware of the issue.

So the F/A-22 is safer because nobody wants it?


No, it means the JSF program has to worry about firewalling its key
technology. This is nothing new; we've been worrying about this ever since
the F-16 (if not earlier). It has little to do with F/A-22, except that JSF
uses technology from the older design (such as radar) that has to be
protected.

BTW: Congress's main conern on this is really industry not adversaries. The
main reasons they raise these concerns are pressures form certain suppliers
who want to be protected form foreign second-sourcing. That's why we get
idiotic stuff like the sweeping restrictions on foreign technology
acquisition (under the "buy America" guise) that Congress tried to impose
recently.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)




  #4  
Old March 7th 04, 02:31 AM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article EJn2c.17177$Pc.6782@okepread02, "t_mark"
wrote:

So the F/A-22 is safer because nobody wants it?


Yes, nobody "wants" it. That's the reason. Just like China doesn't "want"
an aircraft carrier.


....or four.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #5  
Old March 7th 04, 03:03 AM
Henry J Cobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thomas Schoene wrote:
Henry J Cobb wrote:
...One concern of the committee was the possibility of U.S. technology
being leaked to adversaries because of liberal licensing of Joint
Strike Fighter technology to subcontractors. General Moseley said the
JSF program office is aware of the issue.

So the F/A-22 is safer because nobody wants it?



No, it means the JSF program has to worry about firewalling its key
technology. This is nothing new; we've been worrying about this ever since
the F-16 (if not earlier). It has little to do with F/A-22, except that JSF
uses technology from the older design (such as radar) that has to be
protected.

BTW: Congress's main conern on this is really industry not adversaries. The
main reasons they raise these concerns are pressures form certain suppliers
who want to be protected form foreign second-sourcing. That's why we get
idiotic stuff like the sweeping restrictions on foreign technology
acquisition (under the "buy America" guise) that Congress tried to impose
recently.


http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/P-38.htm
In March 1940 the British Purchasing Commission ordered 143 of the first
production model of the P-38, but the State Department prohibited export
of the F2 Allison engine. The British aircraft - designated the
"Lightning 1" - was therefore given early C15 engines lacking
turbochargers, and was a failure - the RAF eventually rejecting it.

-HJC

  #6  
Old March 7th 04, 10:57 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Thomas Schoene wrote:
Henry J Cobb wrote:
...One concern of the committee was the possibility of U.S. technology
being leaked to adversaries because of liberal licensing of Joint
Strike Fighter technology to subcontractors. General Moseley said the
JSF program office is aware of the issue.

So the F/A-22 is safer because nobody wants it?



No, it means the JSF program has to worry about firewalling its key
technology. This is nothing new; we've been worrying about this ever

since
the F-16 (if not earlier). It has little to do with F/A-22, except that

JSF
uses technology from the older design (such as radar) that has to be
protected.

BTW: Congress's main conern on this is really industry not adversaries.

The
main reasons they raise these concerns are pressures form certain

suppliers
who want to be protected form foreign second-sourcing. That's why we

get
idiotic stuff like the sweeping restrictions on foreign technology
acquisition (under the "buy America" guise) that Congress tried to

impose
recently.


http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/P-38.htm
In March 1940 the British Purchasing Commission ordered 143 of the first
production model of the P-38, but the State Department prohibited export
of the F2 Allison engine. The British aircraft - designated the
"Lightning 1" - was therefore given early C15 engines lacking
turbochargers, and was a failure - the RAF eventually rejecting it.


An urban legend. The BPC requested that it be supplied with the
same engine as the P-40 so as to allow a single source of spares.

It failed to meet Lockheed's promised perfomance with that
engine which is why it was rejected.

Keith


  #7  
Old March 7th 04, 03:57 PM
Alan Minyard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 07:30:40 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007145
For an operation like Iraqi Freedom, General Moseley told committee
members that the Air Force's ability to strike was in part because of
American presence in the region for nearly 12 years and U.S. access to
nearby bases. In testimony submitted for the record, the general said
that type of access might not always be available to the U.S. military...

Darn permission slips. Never around when you need them.

...One concern of the committee was the possibility of U.S. technology
being leaked to adversaries because of liberal licensing of Joint Strike
Fighter technology to subcontractors. General Moseley said the JSF
program office is aware of the issue.

So the F/A-22 is safer because nobody wants it?

-HJC

No, a lot of countries want it, we will not sell it to them. The technologies
involved are highly secret . The few countries that we could trust with the
F-22 can not afford it.

Al Minyard
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Centennial of Flight Tickets Needed Dudley/Johnson Aviation Marketplace 0 November 24th 03 05:06 AM
Northstar Datacard Needed Bill Zaleski Aviation Marketplace 0 October 29th 03 11:12 AM
Kitty Hawk tickets (needed) [email protected] Aviation Marketplace 0 October 21st 03 07:54 PM
Paraplane prop needed Dan Aviation Marketplace 1 September 27th 03 04:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.