Tag Archives: Boeing

Why Crashed Osprey Did Not Have Nuclear Material Onboard!

A US Marine Osprey aircraft crashed in the California desert, with “early reports” of nuclear material onboard.

Find out what happened, and why there could not have been nuclear materials onboard!

Updated @ 2022-06-10 : Added confirmation of casualties from the crash.
Originally posted @ 2022-06-09


US Marine Osprey Crashed, No Nuclear Material Onboard!

An MV-22B Osprey aircraft belonging to the US Marine crashed in the California desert on 8 June 2022, and “early reports” that it carried nuclear material sparked fear.

The crash was announced and then confirmed by Naval Air Facility El Centro :

EMERGENCY ALERT! #NAFEC has just received reports of a downed aircraft in the vicinity of Coachella Canal Road and the 78. Installation Federal Fire, and Imperial County Fire Department are responding.

We can confirm that an aircraft belonging to 3d Marine Aircraft Wing crashed near Glamis, CA. Military and civilian first responders are on site.

The Osprey belonging to the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing headquartered in Miramar, San Diego, was flying with a Marine unit of five onboard.

It crashed at around 12:25 PM local time in Imperial County, near Highway 78 and the town of Glamis. That’s about 50 km from the Mexican border, and 240 km east of San Diego.

On June 9, 2022, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar announced that all five Marines onboard the MV-22B Osprey were confirmed dead.

Press Release: 5 Marines dead in MV-22B mishap

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION MIRAMAR, Calif. – (June 9. 2022) Five Marines with Marine Aircraft Group (MAG) 39, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW), have been confirmed deceased following an aviation mishap involving an MV-22B Osprey during a training mission near Glams, CA on the afternoon of June 8. 2022.

Maj. Gen. Bradford J. Gering, commanding general of 3rd MAW issued the following statement, “We mourn the loss of our Marines in this tragic mishap. Our hearts go out to their families and friends as they cope with this tragedy.

As a matter of policy, identities of deceased service members are not released until 24-hours after all next-of-kin notifications have been completed.

Equipment recovery efforts have begun and an investigation is underway.

While military service is inherently dangerous, the loss of life is always difficult. 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing is committed to providing support to the families, friends, and fellow service members of the fallen Marines.

While the US Marines has not announced the names of the five dead, family and friends confirmed that 21 year-old Nathan Carlson from Illinois was one of them.


Why Crashed Osprey Would Not Have Nuclear Material Onboard…

It is unknown who started the rumours that the Osprey had nuclear materials onboard, but even content aggregator / fake news websites like Vancouver Times jumped on the bandwagon, claiming “Military aircraft believed to be carrying nuclear material crashes in California, multiple people killed“.

Naval Air Facility El Centro refuted the rumours of nuclear materials on the Osprey, stating :

Contrary to initial reports, there was no nuclear material on board the aircraft. More information will be made available as we receive it.

The Boeing MV-22B Osprey is a tilt-rotor aircraft that can land or take off as a helicopter, and “transform” into a turboprop aircraft once it’s airborne.

The US Marines use the Osprey used primarily to carry troops and supplies, as well as for medevac and rescue missions.

There is no Osprey mission tasking that would involve the transport of nuclear materials, or the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, there is no history of any Osprey in service ever doing so.

The US Marines do not have nuclear weapons in its inventory, and the Osprey has a history of reliability issues resulting in multiple crashes and 46 deaths :

  • July 1992 : Pre-production Osprey crashed after its right engine failed. All seven people onboard died.
  • April 2000 : An Osprey crashed in Arizona, killing all 19 people onboard.
  • December 2000 : An Osprey crashed in North Carolina, killing all four people onboard.
  • April 2010 : An Osprey crashed in Afghanistan, killing four people and injuring 16.
  • April 2012 : An Osprey crashed in Morocco, killing two people and seriously injuring two more.
  • June 2012 : An Osprey crashed in Florida, injuring all five onboard.
  • May 2015 : An Osprey crashed in Hawaii, kill two people and injuring 20 others.
  • December 2016 : An Osprey crashed in Okinawa, injuring two crew members.
  • August 2017 : An Osprey crashed in Australia, killing three people with 23 survivors.
  • March 2022 : An Osprey crashed in Norway, killing all four crew members.

It would not have been safe or prudent to transport nuclear materials using the Osprey, particularly on the continental United States, where there are other safer options.


Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.


Recommended Reading

Go Back To > MilitaryTech ARP


Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Chinese J-16 Fired Flares + Chaff At Australian P-8!

A Chinese J-16 fighter jet not only buzzed an Australian P-8 recon plane, it fired flares and chaff that entered one of its engines!


Chinese J-16 Fighter Fired Flares, Chaff At Australian Plane!

On 5 June 2022, Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles announced that a Chinese J-16 fighter jet put the crew of an Australian P-8 reconnaissance plane at risk during a recent mid-air intercept on 26 May.

The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) P-8 Poseidon was in the South China Sea conducting “routine maritime surveillance” activities in international waters when it was intercepted by a Chinese Shenyang J-16 fighter.

This time though, the J-16 pilot recklessly cut across the Australian recon plane’s flight path at close proximity, and fired flares and chaff.

Some of the chaff – usually aluminium foil or aluminium-coated glass fibres – were ingested by one of the Australian P-8 aircraft’s engines, potentially damaging it.

This was apparently done to forcibly end the recon aircraft’s patrol. Any potential damage to one of the engines would force the crew to return to base, even though the Boeing P-8 Poseidon can operate on a single engine.

What occurred was that the J-16 aircraft flew very close to the side of the P-8 maritime surveillance aircraft. In flying close to the side, it released flares.

The J-16 then accelerated and cut across the nose of the P-8, settling in front of the P-8 at a very close distance.

At that moment it then released a bundle of chaff, which contains small pieces of aluminum, some of which were ingested into the engine of the P-8 aircraft. Quite obviously, this is very dangerous.

The Australian Defense Ministry described the incident as “a dangerous maneuver which posed a safety threat to the P-8 aircraft and its crew”.


Chinese Justified J-16 Firing Flares, Chaff At Australian P-8…

In a statement released on 7 June 2022, Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Tan Kefei justified the J-16’s dangerous intercept by accusing the Australian P-8 aircraft of “approaching Chinese airspace” close to the Paracel Islands.

The Paracel Islands, which the Chinese call “Xisha Islands”, is a disputed archipelago in the South China Sea claimed by China, Vietnam and Taiwan.

While the Vietnamese were in control of the Paracel Islands since 1947, they were taken over by China after the Battle of the Paracel Islands in January 1974.

He also claimed that the Chinese pilot behaved in a “professional, safe, reasonable and lawful way“.

On May 26, an Australian P-8 anti-submarine patrol aircraft conducted close reconnaissance in the neighboring airspace of China’s Xisha Islands and approached the airspace continuously despite repeated warnings from the Chinese side.

The People’s Liberation Army’s Southern Theater Command mobilized naval and air forces to identify the craft and warned it off.

The Chinese military responded in a professional, safe, reasonable and lawful way.

Militaries from other countries should take note of what the Chinese government considers as “professional, safe, reasonable and lawful” conduct, and return the favour.

Perhaps once a Chinese jet or two have ingested chaff into their engines, they will reconsider such “professional, safe, reasonable and lawful” intercepts.

This was also the second time in the same week Chinese aircraft have aggressively intercepted reconnaissance aircraft from other countries.

Just a day earlier, the Canadian government revealed that Chinese fighters repeatedly “buzzed” Canadian CP-140 Aurora maritime patrol aircraft that were monitoring North Korea to enforce United Nations sanctions under Operation NEON.

The Chinese fighters flew so close, their pilots were “very clearly visible”, and the Canadian aircrews had to change course to avoid collisions. Canadian Armed Forces media relations chief Dan Le Bouthillie said :

In these interactions, PLAAF (People’s Liberation Army Air Force) aircraft did not adhere to international air safety norm.

These interactions are unprofessional and/or put the safety of our RCAF (Royal Canadian Air Force) personnel at risk.

The Chinese naturally claimed that their national security was endangered by the Canadian aircraft’s monitoring of a completely different country… Chinese Defense Ministry spokesperson Wu Qian said :

Recently, under the pretext of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions, Canadian warplanes have intensified close-in reconnaissance of China and acted provocatively, endangering Chinese national security and the safety of frontline personnel from both sides.

China urges Canada to face up to the seriousness of the situation, strictly control its frontline troops, and stop taking any risky and provocative actions; otherwise, Canada will have to take all responsibilities for any serious consequences from such actions.

In short, it’s never China’s fault, and everyone is always provoking them. Tut tut….


Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.


Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Military + Aerospace | Tech ARP


Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did Chinese Jamming Attacks Force US Navy To Withdraw?!

Was the US Navy forced to withdraw from the South China Sea after Chinese jamming attacks on their planes?

Find out what’s going on, and what the FACTS really are…


Claim : US Navy Withdraws After Chinese Jamming Attacks!

This was the Chinese article that went viral after the Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao) and netizens promoted it excitedly in July 2020, and again in 2022.

It was allegedly translated into English by Hong Kong-based analyst, Thomas Wing Polin, whose translation was widely circulated on social media

It was this English translation that went viral again social media, after tensions rose between the US and China over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The post is very long, so feel free to skip to the next section for the facts…

Just now, the U.S. fighter plane flew over the South China Sea again.
Unexpectedly, it lost control halfway, and the U.S. finally admitted one thing.

Just now, the US CNBC website reported that several US Growler electronic warplanes were mysteriously attacked when they flew to the South China Sea again.

These warplanes were all out of control midway, but these warplanes were out of control for only a few seconds. Then the US military ordered the request. All fighters over the South China Sea withdrew.


US Navy Withdraws After Jamming : Just A Chinese Fantasy

That Chinese article was given some legitimacy after it was posted in Asia Times by Pepe Escobar.

However, it is COMPLETELY BOGUS, and is yet another example of Chinese propaganda warfare. Here are the facts…

Fact #1 : There Is No Such CNBC Report

A quick check on any search engine will show that CNBC never published a report on US Growler planes being attacked by Chinese jamming.

Fact #2 : No US Growler Planes Ever Lost Control From Chinese Jamming

No US EA-18G Growler planes ever lost control to Chinese jamming.

The Americans first detected Chinese jamming during USS Theodore Roosevelt’s deployment to the Philippines in 2018.

One EA-18G Growler pilot confirmed it in an interview with GMA News Online, but pointed out that they were not in danger :

The mere fact that some of your equipment is not working is already an indication that someone is trying to jam you. And so we have an answer to that.

A EA-18G Growler, XE 573 166857 of the VX-9 “Vampires” cruises over the desert during a mission. Shot 3/11/2009. RMS 227040

Fact #3 : EA-18G Growler Is An Electronics Warfare Aircraft

The Boeing EA-18G Growler is a two-seat electronics warfare aircraft, designed to jam enemy radar and electronics.

While the Growler is still vulnerable to powerful ground jamming, it is the worst aircraft for the Chinese to attack electronically because it’s the American aircraft most able to defend against, and respond to, a jamming attack.

Hence, the pilot’s response – “We have an answer to [Chinese jamming]“.

Fitted with a multitude of jamming pods and electronics, its electronics warfare officer can counter-jam Chinese radar and communications in the area.

And if they are ever in real danger, the pilot can fire an AGM-88 HARM (High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile) to destroy the Chinese jammer.

But perhaps that’s also the reason why the Chinese chose to attack the EA-18G Growler in 2018 – it was the aircraft best able to withstand such an attack.

Fact #4 : It Is Illegal To Jam Any Aircraft In International Airspace

China has the right to jam foreign military aircraft entering its airspace without permission, but the Chinese do not have the right to jam any aircraft, military or civilian, flying in international airspace.

While a jamming attack is not an act of war like firing a missile or shooting shells at the aircraft, it is still a hostile, provocative act that could result in the loss of aircraft and aircrew.

Needless to say – it is illegal for for anyone to electronically interfere with aircraft flying in international space, even if they are EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft.

No nation that claims to be peaceful would behave so recklessly.

Fact #5 : China Pledged Not To Militarise The Spratlys

Back in 2015, Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that China has no intention to militarise the Spratly islands :

Relevant construction activity that China is undertaking in the Nansha Islands does not target or impact any country and there is no intention to militarise.

President Xi Jinping also reiterated that China is “committed to freedom of navigation in the sea” and to “resolving disputes through dialogue“.

The presence of military jamming equipment in 2018 though would suggest that President Xi was lying, or has no control of what really goes on in the South China Sea.

It doesn’t help that the writer specifically pointed out how China has militarised those islands :

Since the construction of China’s island and reef defense began, the living space of US military fighters and warships has been shrinking. If China continues to develop like this, the United States will not have any chance of winning.

Fact #6 : Jammers Are Offensive Weapons

The claim that electronic jammers are defensive weapons is nonsensical. Electronic jamming is an offensive capability.

Imagine if your neighbour uses an electronic jammer to disrupt your Wi-Fi network, claiming that he has the right to defend his own Wi-Fi network. Which court in the world would agree with him?

The Chinese author of that fantasy piece actually debunked his own claim that jammers are defensive weapons, noting that “it is an electronic jamming device that can cut off the enemy’s radio system. The attacked fighter will be out of control. Since it cannot be controlled, these fighters will soon crash.

Does that sound like a defensive weapon to you? Serious lack of logic and common sense.

Russian Krasukha ground jamming system

Fact #7 : Electronic Jammers Do Not Affect Flight Controls

While electronic jammers can suppress or disrupt radar and communications, they cannot render an aircraft uncontrollable.

Airplanes will not crash simply because they lose radar and communications. Planes that lose radar and communications can still fly…

So the claim that Chinese jammers caused the Growler planes to almost crash is ludicrous.

Fact #8 : Chinese Jammers Do Not Cover Half The South China Sea

While the writer claims that the US military acknowledged that China’s electronic jamming system has covered more than half of the South China Sea, this is yet another fantasy.

The Chinese only deployed military jamming equipment to several artificial islands they created on Mischief Reef and Fiery Cross.

And as powerful as ground-based jamming can be, their effectiveness is greatly reduced by range. That’s why China introduced their Xi’an H-6G airborne jamming aircraft in 2018.

These long-range jamming aircraft would not be necessary if China is already capable of jamming electronics across such a vast distance.

Xian H-6G jamming bomber

Fact #9 : The United States Did Not Withdraw

The United States did not withdraw from the South China Sea in July 2020, as claimed by the article.

In fact, they sent two aircraft carriers – USS Nimitz and USS Ronald Reagan – together with their battle groups into the South China Sea just before the Chinese article was published.

It was the first time two carrier groups operated together in the South China Sea since 2009. The third US carrier – USS Theodore Roosevelt – was also nearby, in the Philippine Sea.

The US Navy Chief of Information left no doubt that the two carriers were there to assert that the South China Sea are international waters, not Chinese waters.

Not did it withdraw in April 2021 when the same article went viral again.

In April 2021, the US Navy posted this famous photo of the captain and executive officer of USS Mustin (DDG-89) –  an Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyer watching the Liaoning carrier group in the Philippine Sea.

The photo left no doubt that the US Navy was not going anywhere, and would shadow Chinese naval forces wherever they are in the South China Sea… and beyond.

Neither did they withdraw in 2022 when the same fake story went viral again.

On 20 January 2022, USS Benfold – an Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyer – conducted a Freedom of Navigation operation by sailing past the Paracel Islands (which the Chinese call Xisha Islands).

On 24 January 2022, two US aircraft carrier groups led by USS Carl Vinson and USS Abraham Lincoln entered the South China Sea for training exercises.

This fake story appears to be part of the disinformation campaign conducted by the Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao, 五毛).

Please SHARE this fact check with your family and friends, so they know the truth!


Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.


Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | MilitaryTech ARP


Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Will Russian Sanctions Bankrupt Airbus + Leasing Companies?

Will Russian sanctions bankrupt Airbus and European leasing companies?

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!


Claim : Russian Sanctions Will Bankrupt Airbus + Leasing Companies!

This message is going viral on social media, including WhatsApp and Facebook, claiming that the Russian sanctions will end up killing Airbus and European leasing companies.

It also suggests that the sanctions are being used by the United States to “screw the Europeans again”.

It’s a long post, so feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!

Interesting side effect of european sanctions on russia (as per Phil Seymour – President of the association of European Leasing Companies.

All over the word airlines don’t own their own planes, they lease them.


Truth : Russian Sanctions Will NOT Bankrupt Airbus + Leasing Companies!

This is yet another example of pro-Russian fake news that was created to mislead people about the Russian sanctions, and drive a wedge between the United States and Europe.

Here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : There Is No Association of European Leasing Companies

There is no such thing as an Association of European Leasing Companies.

There is the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading (ISTAT), but it is an international organisation for commercial aviation professionals, and not restricted to leasing companies.

Fact #2 : Phil Seymour Is President Of IBA Group

Phil Seymour (LinkedIn) is the President of the IBA Group, not the President of the non-existent Association of European Leasing Companies.

In case you are wondering, Phil Seymour (left) is not the President of the ISTAT organisation either. That’s Dean Gerber (right).

Fact #3 : IBA Group Is An Aviation Consultancy Firm

The IBA Group is an aviation consultancy firm based in the United Kingdom. It is not an association of leasing companies.

Fact #4 : Airlines Do Not Always Lease Aircraft

Until recent years, airlines generally own most of the aircraft they use.

Aircraft leasing only started in earnest in the 1990s. Even then, it took until 2020 for 50% of commercial aircraft worldwide to be leased, which topped at 51% in 2021.

The claim that airlines do not own their planes, but lease all of them is false.

Fact #5 : Russia Has 515 To 758 Foreign Leased Aircraft

According to Cirium, Russia has 980 commercial aircraft, of which 777 are leased :

  • 515 aircraft leased from foreign companies, and
  • 252 aircraft leased from Russian companies

IBA claims that Russia has 905 leased commercial aircraft, of which :

  • 713 are registered in Bermuda
  • 34 are registered in Ireland
  • 158 are registered in Russia (11 are owned by foreign banks / lessors)

Depending on your definition – owned or registered – Russia has either 515, 747 or 758 foreign leased aircraft.

The figure of 520 foreign leased aircraft attributed to Phil Seymour appears to be made-up.

Fact #5 : Not Only European Leasing Companies Are Affected

Ireland-based AerCap Holdings NV is the most leasing company most affected by the sanctions on Russia with :

  • 96 aircraft leased to Aeroflot, and
  • 17 aircraft leased to Pobeda

However, European companies are not the only ones affected. After AerCap, these companies are most affected (ranked from top to bottom) :

  • SMBC Aviation (Ireland-based leasing arm of Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group of Japan)
  • BOC Aviation Ltd. (based in Singapore)
  • Air Lease Corp. (based in Los Angeles, United States)

Fact #6 : Handover / Repossession Need Not Take Place In Russia

The claim that the Russians are insisting that leasing companies recover their planes in Russia is nonsense. There was no such demand.

While Russian airlines may make it difficult for leasing companies by insisting they recover the planes from Moscow, they will likely fly their leased aircraft to other countries like Dubai, for instance.

As Phil Seymour himself pointed out that, “Russian airlines would likely cooperate to safeguard access to planes in future years.

Only 33 countries banned Russian commercial aircraft from their airspace (as of 2 March 2022) :

  • All 27 European Union countries
  • Albania
  • Canada
  • Norway
  • Switzerland
  • United Kingdom
  • United States of America

Russian airlines can still fly into many other countries to handover their leased aircraft, as this map shows.

Countries that banned Russian aircraft (blue), as of 2 March 2022

Fact #7 : Russia Banned Airlines, Not Leasing Companies

On 28 February 2022, Russian Federal Air Transport Agency (Rosaviation) banned airlines from 36 countries in response to the banning of Russian airlines from their airspace.

The ban only applied to airlines from those 36 countries, with my own emphasis underlined and bold :

In accordance with the norms of international law, as a response to the ban of European states on flights of civil aircraft operated by Russian air carriers and/or registered in Russia, a restriction on flights of air carriers of 36 states has been introduced.

Therefore, leasing companies will have no issue repossessing their aircraft in Moscow and flying them back.

Fact #8 : Leasing Companies Need Not Pay Termination Fines

The claim that leasing companies will have to pay Russian airlines hefty termination fines for cancelling their lease is false.

Phil Seymour himself said that leasing companies are protected by the Material Adverse Change clause.

Plane-rental contracts generally contain a “material adverse change” clause and leasing firms could argue that airspace closures and sanctions imposed on Russian carriers amount to just such a breach. That would allow them to declare default and seize back their aircraft.

In fact, he also pointed out that leasing companies have grounds to repossess their aircraft, regardless of sanctions or ability to pay – as long as they believe that the lease is “compromised by the developing situation” or deem that the “aircraft to be at risk now or in the future”.

Fact #9 : Boeing Aircraft Are Affected Too

The claim that Boeing aircraft are not affected by the sanctions is an outright lie.

The EU sanctions apply to “any plane owned, chartered or otherwise controlled by a Russian legal or natural person“, not just those manufactured by European companies like Airbus.

In fact, the first four aircraft known to be repossessed from Russian airlines are all Boeing 737 planes :

  • Interfax reported that three Boeing 737 aircraft are being recalled from Pobeda (Aeroflot’s low-cost airline).
  • Russian media outlet RBC reported that a Boeing 737 operated by Pobeda was seized from the Havalimani airport in Istanbul, Turkey.

Pobeda Boeing 737 flying in happier times

Fact #10 : Both Boeing + Airbus Suspended Operations In Russia

It is ludicrous to claim that the US will sell Boeing aircraft to Russia, when the United States also imposed sanctions on Russia!

In fact, both Boeing and Airbus announced on 1 March 2022 that they are suspending support for their aircraft in Russia. This includes supply of spare parts, as well as maintenance and technical support.

Fact #11 : Russia Is Not A Very Big Market For Aircraft

It is also ludicrous to claim that Airbus will be bankrupt by the sanctions on Russia.

For one thing – all Airbus aircraft leased to Russian airlines are owned (and paid for) by the leasing companies. So Airbus won’t suffer any financial loss, even if the leasing companies do not get their planes back.

Russia is also not a very big market for commercial aircraft. The complete loss of the Russian market will be painful, no doubt, but it won’t be enough to bankrupt Airbus.

Worldwide fleet of commercial airliners 2019, with 2040 projections

Now that you know the truth, please help us fight fake news by sharing this fact check article with your family and friends!


Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.


Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Travel | Fact Check | Tech ARP


Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

NVIDIA, IBM and Toyota Keynotes For GTC 2016

Singapore, April 4, 2016NVIDIA today announced that the three keynote addresses at its upcoming GPU Technology Conference (GTC) will be webcast live on the NVIDIA blog.

GTC 2016 Keynote Schedule

Day 1: Jen-Hsun Huang, NVIDIA co-founder and CEO, April 6, 12 to 2am (Singapore)
Day 2: Rob High, IBM Watson CTO, April 7, 2 to 3am (Singapore)
Day 3:Gill Pratt, Toyota Research Institute CEO, April 8, 2 to 3 am (Singapore)

GTC 2016 will showcase the vital role GPU technology plays in some of the industry’s biggest trends, including artificial intelligence, virtual reality and self-driving cars. This year’s event will feature more than 500 sessions with speakers from Alibaba, Audi, Baidu, Boeing, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Pixar, Raytheon, Samsung, Siemens, SpaceX and Twitter, among many others.

GTC 2016 also includes a day-long event, the Emerging Companies Summit, on April 6, focused on GPU-based startups. Nearly 100 startups will participate this year, including an onstage competition among a dozen companies vying for US$100,000. Many more startups will show VR, drones, robots, and other advanced technologies in the GTC Expo Hall.

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participate in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donate to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!