Replies to post #153328 on World Surveillance Group Inc (fka WSGI)

[coastiretired]

I wasn't the one claiming the testing of the wescam. . .that would be the Company. They are the source for the stories and they released the PRs with the claims. Elementary math and the theory of gravity tell the rest of the story. . .

From the current WSGI webpage. . ."integrated payload bay capable of initially carrying up to approximately 30 pounds."

http://www.wsgi.com/argus.html

From the current L-3 webpage. . .MX-10 37 lb turret

http://www.wescam.com/index.php/products-services/airborne-surveillance-and-reconnaissance/mx-10/

And no. . .I don't have "intimate" knowledge of the inner workings of WSGI and have never, to my knowledge, met any of the current management. Although, I do concede that I did pee in a urinal next to Huff during a break at his sentencing hearing. I hope I typed slow enough this time to answer your questions.

[Jetmek_03052]

Bank,

Try sticking with factual info. To try to float the scenario that WSGI had L-3 modify the system weight to be able to fit the payload limit of the Argus(which by the way looks as if it isn't even FLYING at the moment) is purely guesswork and wishful thinking on your part.

The FACT of the matter is that L-3 publishes FACTUAL info about the systems it makes. The FACTS speaks for themselves. None of the systems that L-3 makes will make the grade as far as weight goes.

And (by the way), all this is moot. The companies "relationship", "understanding" or "letter of intent" (or whatever else these wordsmiths want to call their dreamworks) with L-3 ended almost 3 years ago!

Oh - but I'm sure some long here will come out with some statement about how it "Might be still going", "Might be some sort of black ops thing"....you know....all the crutches you guys use to keep the dream alive.

Rubbish.