The MOD cancels the F-35B and Lockheed Martin cancels the “rear fuselage” package currently being built by British Aerospace in Samiesbury.

Remember the MOD has already investigated millions in the F-35 program and that will all be lost.

Sounds to me like canceling the F-35B and buying the “cheaper” F-18 is a lose lose situtition for the British taxpayers.

Mr Jimmy Stewart takes the cake here.

Strategic Air Command is nothing less than spectacular and they can never make a movie like that ever again.

B-36’s rumbling through my surround sound….hmmm,…wet dream material !!!

…

When I was about 10 or 12 years old, I was in backyard in Palmdale, California when I heard low rumble, over the next 10 minutes it got louder and louder and the ground begain to shake. Then I saw them three (3) B-36’s in formation at maybe 30,000 feet. It took 10 minutes for them to pass out of sight and and another 10 minutes for the noise to pass. A sight and sound I will never forget.

Airlines routinely ferry aircraft across the Alantic and Pacific for maintence. How would an airline get their aircraft to HAECO in Hong Kong, Abu Dhabi Technoligies in the UAE or Marshall in the UK for maintence, if they don’t have regular flights there?

I believe that the Worldways Canada Tristars (which were used for a couple of summers from LBA amongst other places), also featured a downstairs bar-lounge, which was well frequented on the transatlantic flights. Did they utilise former PSA aircraft

The Worldways Canada L-1011 were previously operated by PSA and Aero Peru. The lower lounges were deactivated before Worldways took delivery.

looks like it may be a sequencing problem,the inner door sure makes a great ‘hook’ for catching the wheel 😀
edit… then again i see the RAT is out !:D

The RAT is out becuse the engines were shut down with one or more landing gear not being compressed. Worked just like advertised!

P-51, F-86 and F-100 were built near Los Angeles International Airport (now office buildings).
P-38, P-80, F-104, F-117 and YF-22 were built in Burbank, California (now a shopping mall and parking lot).
F-104, XB-70, L1011, Space Shuttle, B-1, B-2, X-32, X-35, Global Hawk and F-35 center fuselage were built in Palmdale, California (still factory buildings though many sit vacant).
P-47, F-84 and F-105 were built at the north end of Republic Airport in Farmingdale, New York (now a shopping mall and parking lot).
T-38, F-5 and F-18 aft fuselage were built in Hawthorne, California (still a factory).
U-2A was built in Bakersfield, California (now a trucking company) while U-2R/S were built in Burbank, California (now a parking lot).
F-102, F-106, Tomahawk and Atlas missiles were built in San Diego (facility was sold and I don’t know who owns it now or how it is used).

Mostly correct:

The YF-22 was built in Palmdale Lockheed Plant 10 building 601.
The U-2A was built in Burbank Building 360, trucked to Groom Dry Lake for assembly.
The TR-1 (U-2R/S) were built in Site 7 Air Force Plant 42, in Palmdale.
T-38 and F-5 final assembly was in Palmdale.

Yet another false analogy.

The UK is not asking to be given the technology, in the sense of being given everything needed to make our own copies, & the right to do so. Believe it or not, the USA & UK respect each others intellectual property rights, & neither copies the others products without permission. That’s illegal, in both countries.

What the UK wants is to know what goes on in there so that we can add our own stuff to it, & modify it to work with that stuff if necessary. In normal circumstances, I would expect any modifications to be done by requesting the software maintenance body to do them, but there might be emergencies where we want to do something fast, & to hell with software commonality & compatibility. They can always be backed out later.

In your analogy, we’re asking for enough of the specification to be able to fit our own equipment to the car without having to ask the Americans for help. We want to be able to check for ourselves that it will work, & not cause any problems with the car, or anything fitted to it. What’s wrong with that?

In response to the added Bold Type!

Typical with the British way of doing things. Years ago when I was in product support I got a call from one of out British customers. The functional check of the auto ground spoilers was failing over and over and could I help them meet the functional check requirements.

After going over the check requirements with them step by step, they said, “sure it always works that way, but we added two addtional steps, that will find hidden faults and when we add those steps to the test, the system does not meet the test requirements”.

But Lockheed is developing the technologies on behalf of its customer, who are footing the bill, US and UK governments included.

Your argument might hold water if the decision not to allow access was being made by lockheed and it applied to all purchasers (US included), but as it is, the US govt is simply saying, rightly or wrongly, ‘no’.

You buy an new car, does that give you the right to the softwear for the engine or anti-skid control computer?

Lockheed and the US governmant went through this with overhaul and repair shops working on US government owned C-130’s and P-3’s. They can’t not use Lockheed proprietary data (blueprints/wiring diagrams/etc) without Lockheed’s permission, ie: they must purschase the data from Lockheed.