TRAITOR! (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I wonder if this genius had a good maintenance program in tact to take a civilian owned T-2 and start operating under operational conditions (less going aboard a carrier). I do know the Buckeye had several structural modifications over the years to include a re-winging program.
 
I wonder if this genius had a good maintenance program in tact to take a civilian owned T-2 and start operating under operational conditions (less going aboard a carrier). I do know the Buckeye had several structural modifications over the years to include a re-winging program.
i'm not expert but i think keeping 50 years+ old airplane capable for carrier operations is close to impossible - could be it was sneaky plan to reduce manpower of chinese naval aviation :D
 
i'm not expert but i think keeping 50 years+ old airplane capable for carrier operations is close to impossible - could be it was sneaky plan to reduce manpower of chinese naval aviation :D
LOL but maybe you're right, he could be a double agent!

I bet he gave no thought to carrier landing cycles landings. I looked on video clip that showed the specific aircraft for sale and there's a big disparity between the 2 engines in hours. Lot's of red flags!
 
nah - just manageable imperfections... you are oversensitive :D. More seriously i think Uncle Sam's peoples will nail balls of this guy on the gate of barn... and it will be huge crowd of observers and standing ovation when they will finish.
 
Wildcat Wildcat

I actually found Ward Carroll's video and was thinking of posting it myself. He's pretty informative and, while I couldn't place the name at first, he wrote a book I read called "Punk's War".
 
His/his wife's arguments re being an Australian citizen also will get them nowhere as Australia has its own Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 which was put in place as part of the Australia-US Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty back in 2012 that covers ITAR controlled items as well. People also need to remember that this laws also cover what is termed intangibles (thus things such as knowledge transfer without any physical product being transferred/involved). At the end of the day it will be up to him to prove that (or more likely defend) that he did not transfer/share any knowledge that could be controlled information. It's one thing to train about how to fly in general but anything such as tactics or more sensitive knowledge will see him in trouble.
 
I don't care if the technology is 100 years old and the tech manual is available on line for free. You don't share information with another country or beer drinking buddy. Let the Chinese figure it out on a video game like everyone else. I know all kinds of stuff from the 80s and 90s that I will not confirm or denied even after a read about it in the major US new sources. It is back to need to know.
 
LOL but maybe you're right, he could be a double agent!
I don't think so -- I just think he was a particularly flagrant case that would be easy to make an example of. Generally there is a natural tendency to find the worst offender for this purpose, plus the US Federal Courts maintain a high conviction rate through plea-bargains and making sure every single tiny detail is in order before filing charges and the worst offender tends to be the easiest to get a slam-dunk on.
 
I don't think so -- I just think he was a particularly flagrant case that would be easy to make an example of. Generally there is a natural tendency to find the worst offender for this purpose, plus the US Federal Courts maintain a high conviction rate through plea-bargains and making sure every single tiny detail is in order before filing charges and the worst offender tends to be the easiest to get a slam-dunk on.
You took my post too seriously!
 
1672267230354.png
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back