Back in 2002, I wrote (regarding the US government’s cybersecurity efforts), “adding money to a disaster doesn’t necessarily help get it done, most of the time you just wind up with bigger, more expensive disasters.”
Military technology has a short life-span; anyone who has an advantage immediately becomes a target for spies and scientists trying to figure out what makes it tick. And archeology shows us that military technology breakthroughs spread extremely rapidly, because they are a matter of literal life and death.
How do you steal intellectual property from a capitalist? Just grab it off the boardroom table.
There is enough F-35 news to justify an entire F-35 blog, except the blog would suffer from severe cost overruns and its first posting would be almost a decade from now. And, naturally, it would consist of a fragmentary paragraph that did not say anything useful. What would we call such a blog? Perhaps “This is going to be great but it will cost a lot.”
If you’re talking to someone and they bring up how the government doesn’t have enough money to X for any given X, you can dismiss them as not serious if they are not putting ‘defense’ spending on the chopping block.
“Loses contact with” is not a good phrase, when used in conjunction with an aircraft. This is really not good.
I’ve set a reminder in my calendar and I’ll do the googling and analysis so you don’t have to. Assuming we all survive, that is.
I wasn’t sure how to approach [stderr]. Serious, or silly? Here’s the silly version:
According to Pagetutor, this is what $1Bn looks like, if you palletize it: [page]
The Register reports, in shock, that British F-35s are going to have their engines serviced in Turkey.