Pierre Sprey & Lt. Col David Berke debate

It was a genuine question - don't cry about it jeez.

 

Got any more You Tube troll/flame videos to show us? - if I was modding here you would have been gone a long time ago! even if you are genuine.

 

You have totally embarrassed yourself with your arrogant assumptions, non arguments and behavior.

I'm very glad you are not a mod here then.....

He has not been condescending, you guys just disagree with him.

Seriously.... just take a breath.

You are very resourceful with your background checks and yes you are very much and very badly trying to dismiss my insight by throwing an unreal amount of slides and numbers at me for a gaming message board and you have been doing this from the very first post. Bottom line it's your opinion and I have mine. To be fair your efforts are impressive and mature compared to others. By the way you are echoing the argument that the Navy (dominate voices) had back in the 90s when they decided to go down the JSF route and avoid specialized aircraft.

 

I have no idea what the aero engineer is getting at with his diatribe.

 

Now the F16 bubba I get. I agree with what the F16 pilot says about where pitch bucking is seen because the last aircraft that I had to deal with the phenomenon was indeed the T45A back in the mid-90s.

 

No need to apologize for the harsh language since it's clear I am being presented to them as a fake entity. So I would expect the assumption to show through.

 

Surprised the F16 bubba didn't comment on why the F35 pilot decided to pull then let up then pull again. To me like I said in my original point tells me something is off, either you have a rookie pilot showcasing the demo (highly doubt it) or something is off with the flight computers or control surfaces and the pilot is allowing things to settle before engaging in a follow-on high g maneuver. And if he is following some kind of parameter entry criteria, then this would be a restriction that shouldn't be there (based on a slick , light fuel load configuration at full burner) and clearly shows an unrefined product. But don't take my word for it, just look at that DOD doc again, I don't think the trusted experts can argue the ready state of the aircraft after looking at that doc.

Could I be wrong about the perceived pitch buck, sure, but still there is something off and I doubt it's pilot's experience and rehearsal time.

 

Oh and for the record fly-by-wire can and will fail (or be off), I almost died when my hornet FCS decided to put one of my flaps down and locked at 10k ft, which caused me to depart as I was in a turn with a full bag of gas, I did my recovery procedures and as I was pulling to the horizon it decides to depart again, I finally figured out that I had to deviate from my recovery procedures to keep from departing again and thankfully I leveled off at 5k just barely avoiding ejection criteria for departed flight.

 

Neither Betty nor the FCS page indicated anything wrong during my pre-flight checks with the plane captain on the ground, in fact it wasn't until after I recovered did Betty chime in "Flight controls" and the FCS page indicated a full down flap.

 

All this happened with a tried and true lot 10 F18C that had been working in the fleet for at least 4000hrs and no recent updates to the software to induce a bug etc. My CO had me brief the ready room on how I needed to deviate from NATOPS and why. And let's just say there were a lot of questions and the safety officer was grateful to have me share my experience (and to see me come back in one piece).

 

But here, let me help save you the trouble of trying to continue to prove that I am a fake (and bothering other trusted entities elsewhere) on this message board,

 

I hereby declare that I am a fake F18C pilot with close to 2000 flight hours, with combat missions during operation southern watch and and a fake air war medal. This fake naval officer had the unique experience of two careers in the Navy thanks to a medical condition that took me out of the cockpit and allowed me to learn the other side of the fence in acquisitions and communications technology.

 

I also declare that all my opinions, educated guesses and predictions are 100% fake.

 

There now you don't have to keep trying to get the other real-world experts to go on record declaring that I am fake. :)

 

-fake F18 pilot

Neofightr you are taking what he has been saying too personally. He can't control if other people jump to conclusions.

There are plenty of people on this forum who don't like the F-35 who haven't been ostracized for it. I see no reason to make an exception because someone is an actual pilot.

This whole debate started very interesting to read but now it is just becoming cliche.... don't let people get to ya that badly.

As I have stated from the start, all programs have issues but not at the sheer scale that both the F22 and F35 programs have.

 

As a result we have the F22 program completely shutdown well short of it's original production numbers and the F35 mired in controversy in DC. We have senators already throwing the "too big to fail" moniker at it and a final price tag that is still in the air decades after design.

The F-22 numbers weren't cut due to issues with the plane. They were cut because the Cold War ended. I'd have to look up exact dates I'll admit, but if I recall the USAF lost 200 before 95.

The scaling back post Cold War also contributed to development hiccups as the Air Force scrambled to make the F-22 more attractive (being F/A-22 for however short a time, etc).

I still stand by my opinion that the F-15, save the E, should have been cut from service and replaced by a full size fleet of F-22's.

Already at least one F35 program manager has been fired and all milestones continue to slip to the right.

In any case I think it would be a disaster if the F-35 program was cut now and development of a new aircraft (or aircrafts) started up.

I'm very glad you are not a mod here then.....

He has not been condescending, you guys just disagree with him.

 

Seriously.... just take a breath.

condescending = having or showing an attitude of patronizing superiority.

I can only apologize but quite frankly I have had it up to here with this guy - do we see this from other pros like kirk66.

condescending = having or showing an attitude of patronizing superiority.

 

I can only apologize but quite frankly I have had it up to here with this guy - do we see this from real pros like kirk66?

I came into this thread to defend a publicly known industry professional being attacked by people who had no background whatsoever in the industry he worked in.

If you carefully look at the beginning of the thread someone else provided keen insight with industry-related videos as a courtesy to educate you critics and after that he took off because he didn't want to deal with this nonsense. I decided to stick around to provide insight and opinion thinking you critics would finally get it.

In the other thread which I started, I provided my insight into the aircraft I flew only to have people like you attack my credibility and give me the impression you were trying to disqualify me at every chance you could.

I then begin to show you how you were out of your league criticizing Sprey by highlighting his meaning with the cryptic remarks about the f104 he made after you foolishly tried show he was an idiot for comparing the ancient F104 to the modern F35. And yet you still think you are right in your judgements. Amazing, simply amazing.

You are about as hypocritical as they come talking about patronizing and condescending and I will leave it at that. I already received personal feedback from many who understood where I was coming from and took no condescending offense whatsoever by my remarks to include a fellow Navy pilot.

In the other thread which I started, I provided my insight into the aircraft I flew only to have people like you attack my credibility and give me the impression you were trying to disqualify me at every chance you could.

You are full of it - I didn't even comment in the other thread - any credibility damage in this thread you have done yourself by being shown up by an actual Marine and attacking GaryA for daring to present evidence that contradict your arguments - that you dismissed as his opinions.

I then begin to show you how you were out of your league criticizing Sprey by highlighting his meaning with the cryptic remarks about the f104 he made after you foolishly tried show he was an idiot for comparing the ancient F104 to the modern F35. And yet you still think you are right in your judgements. Amazing, simply amazing.

 

And you still don't get it do you - it was said at the beginning we know he is no idiot - it is the misinformation that the public / media takes from him saying things like that (for years) that is the problem.

Add to that the multiple accounts of people that worked with him means his credibility is zero - it is irrelevant whether we work in the industry or not - that is his public domain image - end of.

The F-22 numbers weren't cut due to issues with the plane. They were cut because the Cold War ended. I'd have to look up exact dates I'll admit, but if I recall the USAF lost 200 before 95.

 

The scaling back post Cold War also contributed to development hiccups as the Air Force scrambled to make the F-22 more attractive (being F/A-22 for however short a time, etc).

 

I still stand by my opinion that the F-15, save the E, should have been cut from service and replaced by a full size fleet of F-22's.

 

We definitely should not simply excuse delays and development problems. However F-35 criticism is overblown in my opinion. I think in part, the scale of the program is part of the issue. One could argue that it would have been better to break the program up into many smaller ones with many aircraft, but there is no guarantee that would have turned out better.

 

In any case I think it would be a disaster if the F-35 program was cut now and development of a new aircraft (or aircrafts) started up.

I agree with you about replacing the F15 with F22s if that was economically feasible. I think the bean counters said no back in the day.

Not sure about the cold war since the full shutdown happened in the 2009 timeframe. The articles I read, keep pointing the finger at rising costs due to the tech (one article stated that the program still hadn't received the adv helmet upgrades just prior to the shutdown),the economy of the country (2009) and the priorities of the AF that forced the shutdown of the program.

I don't think the F35 fiasco is overblown when you compare it to the history of aircraft acquisition for the past 60 years. One can make the argument as already stated earlier by another that this is the true F/A hybrid design therefore this is new territory hence the record setting cost and delays. I feel strongly it was a mistake to have 1 solution for 3 branches.

It's sort of a return to the F-111 idea. Maybe it'll work out a lot better this time.

You are full of it - I didn't even comment in the other thread - any credibility damage in this thread you have done yourself by being shown up by an actual Marine and attacking GaryA for daring to present evidence that contradict your arguments - that you dismissed as his opinions.

 

 

 

And you still don't get it do you - it was said at the beginning we know he is no idiot - it is the misinformation that the public / media takes from him saying things like that (for years) that is the problem.

 

Add to that the multiple accounts of people that worked with him means his credibility is zero - it is irrelevant whether we work in the industry or not - that is his public domain image - end of.

I stand corrected you didn't call him an idiot you just called him retarded

"Originally Posted by Basher54321 View Post

...Sprey makes the claim - not much more maneuverable than an F-104 - obviously Berke pretty much has to restrain himself in the reply at something so retarded.

The only authority on the F-104 is the pilots that flew them - that doesn't include you and doesn't include Sprey. Their testaments are backed up with reams of flight test data and Technical Orders."

Yawn

:music_whistling:

All that Cost Talk,...

Do those Costs include Maintenance, Personnel, and Training?

Maintaining 1 Airframe, Training and Ground Support Personnel for 1 Airframe would surely be les than ground Crew for 3-4 Different Airframes.

I think Garrya forgot to post this link. This is the thread on F-16.net where he asks the opinion of the board what they think about the observations made of the F-35 demo.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53341

Neo,

Im not siding with anyone here, and I don't approve of the personal attacks either, but at this point the only way to turn this around is posting credentials, have to say. If you do this you'll be entitled to an apology, otherwise you'll just be confirming their suspicion.

A PDF by Pierre Sprey.

Hes also got an "opinion" on mil equipment aside from Aviation. ( il just leave it at that)

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/07.pdf

Neo,

 

Im not siding with anyone here, and I don't approve of the personal attacks either, but at this point the only way to turn this around is posting credentials, have to say. If you do this you'll be entitled to an apology, otherwise you'll just be confirming their suspicion.

Let them have their excuse to attack, I prefer my privacy over answering to a bunch of doubters and hate mongers.

Where does it say I have to answer to them anyway.

You don't see me demanding full academic citation and validation to all their claims of bias.

And if I were to post my bio, I guarantee at least two individuals on this board would go out of their to try to attack my reputation, maybe claim I didn't get a medal, or they heard from so and so I failed flight school etc etc.

So far, all the documents I have seen attacking Sprey have been political (conservative vs. liberal mindset nonsense) that I want nothing to do with.

I have already had at least one Navy professional (who I take on face value to be legitimate) confirm their belief in my legitimacy in private so it'e clear those in the know can tell I am not full of it.

-fake F18 pilot

neofightr

Please do not stop giving us your opinions and insights. Ignore doubters. Several years ago, I had someone doubt my law degree and prior service as a US Army officer. I notice that my doubter no longer posts. There are those of us that look forward to your views.

All that Cost Talk,...

 

Do those Costs include Maintenance, Personnel, and Training?

 

Maintaining 1 Airframe, Training and Ground Support Personnel for 1 Airframe would surely be les than ground Crew for 3-4 Different Airframes.

You will find your answers in the latest DOD doc. Already the Navy is seeing greater problems with the F35 engine then they had with the F18 when onboard ship.

Lot's of issues clearly detailed about Support Equipment in the latest op test review.

It's been known for years now that each variant is very different thus requiring unique training for each version. Just look at the F35B vstol design, that alone requires a lot of unique and specialized training and maintenance requirements.

Like I said 1 airframe for 3 services is fine in theory but just does not work as efficiently in real-world operation. It can work but at a cost in extra manpower and resources.

A good example of this would be why the Navy turned down the F16 after the Air Force approved it. The Navy realized that all the modifications necessary for maritime service would have severely hampered the effectiveness of the F16 after it would have been tailored for Air force needs that's why they went with the yF17 prototype because they knew they would be able to tailor fit it (without compromise i.e. F35 with a gunpod) for the Navy needs thus was born the F18.

From these developments of course, was the notion that if a design was started from scratch that would accommodate all 3 services (and other countries like the UK and CA) at the same time, it would lead to an efficient cost effective platform and lo and behold here we are $400M and 25+ years later.

But don't take my fake f18 pilot word for it, go look for yourself:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669619.pdf

neofightr

Please do not stop giving us your opinions and insights. Ignore doubters. Several years ago, I had someone doubt my law degree and prior service as a US Army officer. I notice that my doubter no longer posts. There are those of us that look forward to your views.

Thanks for your words of encouragement, I have high confidence that most of you in this sim-gaming community are professionally open-minded and are willing to hear both sides of the argument. It's the only reason why I continue to post really.

A PDF by Pierre Sprey.

 

Hes also got an "opinion" on mil equipment aside from Aviation. ( il just leave it at that)

 

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/07.pdf

I agree with his assessment. It goes in line with what has been discussed for 20 years now in the acquisition review process.

I think Garrya forgot to post this link. This is the thread on F-16.net where he asks the opinion of the board what they think about the observations made of the F-35 demo.

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53341

Wow, I don't think I have ever seen a more cynical and egotistical thread before. Now I see where the motivation is coming from to attack me. Thanks for providing this link.

For the record, I am here on this site because this company (ED) has produced some of the best simulations I have ever seen and I have seen a lot of them. I am not sure if it's the water their drinking but the programming talent in this part of the world is impressive when it comes to simulations (777 studios, Gaijen, Belsimtek)

ED/Belsimtek's attention to detail is impeccable from what I have seen. The fact the Boeing is willing to work with them on providing authentic sounds says a lot to their reputation as a simulation maker.

And so far what I have seen on their hornet work looks very promising and engaging.

To imply that I am traitorous for being on a .ru based website is simply ignorant. I am no longer in the military and I am a civilian with a right to free speech.

I know a lot of very sensitive highly classified information that I would never ever post on this website nor any website in the US or elsewhere. I do this out of loyalty to my country not because of fear of imprisonment.

The fact that I have been highly critical of the F35 program is because I care about what our country is doing with our resources and where we are going with development mindset and I know Sprey does as well.

He is and has been the loudest squeaky wheel for the sake of getting our acquisition and design mindset back on track. He is being bombastic and broad with his claims because he has to in order to be heard amongst the lobby interest groups of the industry.

He wants to see us go back to a time of robust competition (republic, general dynamics, mcdonnell douglas, lockheed, grumman and vought to name a few) and where creativity knew no bounds. I recently finished a bunch of documentaries focused on all the experimental designs of the 50 and 60s. It was amazing what companies and designers were willing to take a chance on. Truly amazing stuff. And none of that stuff broke the bank neither for the company or the government.

Did you know they successfully designed a turbo-prop jet to almost go supersonic (.9M/670 mph: contested numbers) back in the day? Crazy exciting stuff that needed to happen to see what worked and what didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H

And yet here we are. Where brutally honest critics get lambasted and a very small number of non-competitive corporations get a pass.

The "lol, F-18 pilot on a .ru site, call NCIS!" comments are a laugh, shows they can't be bothered to actually see what this forum is for.

Here is a dated article (decision to move foward already made) that in effect makes a case for branch specific platforms.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a24682/f-35-vs-super-hornet/

You are very resourceful with your background checks and yes you are very much and very badly trying to dismiss my insight Bottom line it's your opinion and I have mine. To be fair your efforts are impressive and mature compared to others. By the way you are echoing the argument that the Navy (dominate voices) had back in the 90s when they decided to go down the JSF route and avoid specialized aircraft.

Iam not trying to dismiss your insight. I merely present what make my view opposite from you such as calculations, others pilots opinion..etc. As i said earlier, the expert opinion argument will be able to stand for itself only if there isn't any other expert of similar or higher skills and experience oppose your view point. In other words, if all experts agree on one thing then the average Joe will happily accept it, even if he don't understand why.

On the other hand, for an issue that has conflicting opinions between experts such as about the F-35, then obviously argument from authority is not enough anymore, you have to actually represent your case, an average person will trust the expert who can present a more reasonable, logical explanation or preferably some number and calculation to prove his point.

This doesn't mean iam attacking you as a person but rather critical thinking and skepticism. .Furthermore, talking about experience argument, Current pilots flying the F-35 will have more experience about it than anyone here. LM engineers and the countries purchase F-35 will obviously have access to more of its classified data than anyone on this board. Wouldn't you agree?.

We have these kind of charts from LM:

a) Early

b) Late

We have these charts from Denmark recent official internal evaluation

a) Mission effectiveness

b) Mission survivability

Without any doubt those are information said by people with the most experience about F-35, having the most access to its classified data. But still, we don't just take their words for it. We are still here discussing F-35 design, discussing whether it would make a good fighter or not. If we take all professional comments as absolute truth then this thread will not even exist in the first place. If we can criticize a product made by a cooperation with thousands of engineers and scientists. If we can criticize the buying decision of dozens of countries with hundreds to thousands technical consultants then why would it be so bad when i discuss with you about the F-35? Why would it be so bad to point out the wrong part in Sprey's assessment? What so terrible about it?

And yet here we are. Where brutally honest critics get lambasted and a very small number of non-competitive corporations get a pass.

So far, all the documents I have seen attacking Sprey have been political (conservative vs. liberal mindset nonsense) that I want nothing to do with.

I strongly disagree with this, LM doesn't get a pass, if they do we would not be here discussing issue of the F-35. Same for Sprey part, every one of his comments that i disagree with, i have presented very clear case of why with source, calculation and manual data, my criticism has nothing to do with who he is as a person but rather the technical accuracy of his statements. I find it really unfair when you call all people who dare to question Sprey based that only on political view. I know at least myself do not, and there are many others who doubt his credibility simply based on technical aspect of it

by throwing an unreal amount of slides and numbers at me for a gaming message board and you have been doing this from the very first post.

Fine, i admitted that i have the tendency to post many charts and numbers. But again, what so bad about it?. I only try to support my case. I already told everyone here that iam not a pilot, if iam not a pilot, without first-hand experience then the only other way i can support my argument is through official sources, calculation, equations, theories, and numbers. I see no problem with that. If no one try to support their case by sources or numbers then the forum will just become a contest of who can shout their opinions louder, or who can thow a better insult which in my opinions will not benefit anyone. Finally, it is not just against you that i posted a huge amount of slides and charts, i used to discuss with humming bird a lot about F-14, F-16, we both posts many of charts and slide ..etc. You shouldn't take it personal because it is not something i do only to you

I have no idea what the aero engineer is getting at with his diatribe.

He basically trying to say that:

1- Pitch bucking is the phenomenon of aircraft at CLmax when they uncommanded going in and out of stall

2- Some moment in video the aircraft nose drop slightly but at very low AoA hence it is not pitch bucking but rather pilot trying to be more precise in his flight path control due to confined space following an exacting regimen

3- To know that F-35 has pitch bucking we would have to know absolutely that the pilot is holding steady aft stick and the nose oscillates out of his control. We simply don't have this information.

Those are his points

And if he is following some kind of parameter entry criteria, then this would be a restriction that shouldn't be there (based on a slick , light fuel load configuration at full burner) and clearly shows an unrefined product.

No offense but as far as i know from others pilots: F-15, F-16, and F-22 demos all list specific entry, execution, and exit criteria for slicked off light fuel load aircraft, i don't think all of them are unrefined products but rather that those requirements are for safety and confined space.

No need to apologize for the harsh language since it's clear I am being presented to them as a fake entity. So I would expect the assumption to show through.

 

But here, let me help save you the trouble of trying to continue to prove that I am a fake (and bothering other trusted entities elsewhere) on this message board,

 

I hereby declare that I am a fake F18C pilot with close to 2000 flight hours, with combat missions during operation southern watch and and a fake air war medal. This fake naval officer had the unique experience of two careers in the Navy thanks to a medical condition that took me out of the cockpit and allowed me to learn the other side of the fence in acquisitions and communications technology.

 

I also declare that all my opinions, educated guesses and predictions are 100% fake.

 

There now you don't have to keep trying to get the other real-world experts to go on record declaring that I am fake. :)

 

-fake F18 pilot

Actually i didn't represent you as fake at all, you can read all my post in the link Tiak provided

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53341&start=15

I only ask a question, it is not within my power to control the skepticism of others. To start with, like i said before, You have to put yourself in the shoe of forum readers, we are on the internet, anyone can claim to be anyone, it is very hard to know for certain if a person is who they claimed to be, so it is perfectly normal for others to have doubt about your occupation. It is healthy skepticism. You shouldn't feel offended with that. It is actually horrible if everyone took everything said on the internet as truth. For example: if i started this discussion by claiming (pretending) that i flew the F-16 and now moved to F-35 and every time you present your arguments, i just brush over it by say :" you don't know anything, you only flew the F-18...etc bla bla" . Then everyone siding with me. How would that make you feel?. What kind of trend would that create?

Furthermore, it is not my intention to try to prove you as fake or anything even remotely similar. As i have stated in the start of this thread and also in F-16.net. If you excuse me i will quote my exact words:

Nevertheless, i don't care that much about pilots or aero engineers generic statement. What important are actual numbers. If someone said something and then able to prove it by equation and calculation or some test data (such as flight manual) then i will believe him regardless of how old he is or what is his occupation. On the other hand, if a famous guy said something, but then the maths or the test data contradict him then i would take these test data over his words any day in the week and twice on sunday

#98

@Steve2267, @neptune, @eloise, @basher5432, @f16adf, @spazsinbad

Iam not saying that iam sure 100% that neofightr is a pilot or vice versa. I only said that what he told us. Nevertheless, i give everyone benefit of the doubt. Moreover, If his assessment is correct, it would be correct regardless of who he is (even if he is a kid) . If the assessment is incorrect then it would be incorrect regardless of who he is (even if he is a pilot). Hence, i wanted to share it here so that i can get some explanation. Once again, thanks a lot Spurt and Smg

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53341&start=15

So as you can see, it is not important for me whether you are an F-18 pilot or not, iam interested in aviation, so i want to discuss from the technical angle with numbers and evidences. I want to know what give you your view point, is that a legitimate problem or not. That what iam interested in. Others aspect like occupations are just like bonus, but not the main factor for me to decide whether to trust a person or not. People can be bias but numbers, physics, maths do not lie. They stay the same, these are what i want to get out of this discussion.

Iam not trying to dismiss your insight.

 

We have these kind of charts from LM:

....

 

We have these charts from Denmark recent official internal evaluation

......

 

I strongly disagree with this, LM doesn't get a pass....,my criticism has nothing to do with who he is as a person but rather the technical accuracy of his statements. I find it really unfair when you call all people who dare to question Sprey based that only on political view. I know at least myself do not, and there are many others who doubt his credibility simply based on technical aspect of it ....

 

...Furthermore, it is not my intention to try to prove you as fake or anything even remotely similar.

 

Not once did I make a statement that all who are questioning Sprey are doing it on political bias. I stated that certain documents after reading them clearly showed a political agenda by labeling conservative vs. liberal mindsets of the past in their historical critique and thereby I dismissed the article.

But of course you are happy to ignore that little detail and claim I am unfairly labeling all Sprey's critics with political bias in order to paint me as the bad guy.

Yes, yes you have been trying to dismiss my insight by constantly throwing charts and numbers at me to prove that I don't know what I am talking about.

You have been watching and parsing every exact word I have stated and ready to pounce on anything that might be erroneous then once you find something (like my guess at pitch buck), you proceed to get back up from others on other boards then gleefully come back here hide behind a thin veil of respect and impartiality to try to discredit me in front of others.

Did it ever occur to you to privately msg me about what others are saying and post something to the effect that I might be off about pitch buck after checking with other sources. Do you really think I would have argued against that type of post? In the end I conceded I could be wrong about pitch buck but I still feel something is off.

(And stop with the all due respect nonsense since it's clear you don't have any).

Of course you continue with your agenda, because your goal is to attempt to embarrass me and discredit me. A private message would have been the respectful and sincere way of handling it if you were being sincere as you say but you are clearly not.

Do you seriously think anyone would believe your line about "apologizing for harsh language on behalf of..." after all your insane amounts of efforts of flooding this thread with synthetic charts and vendor sales pitch slides and constantly questioning if I am a pilot.

And for the record, yes, yes you are giving LM a pass because not once have you ever attempted to show the other side of the argument as to issues of the F35 to balance out your case.

Not once have you tried to balance out all the LM sale propaganda you keep pushing with impartial articles that support the company's outlook and current status of the program.

Meanwhile others on this board have adroitly pointed out issues that other competitors namely the Russians are having with their latest and greatest and you will note I haven't argued those points because they are valid and are presented in such a way as to provide perspective not to discredit or embarrass.

Those slides from Denmark don't mean anything because for all we know they could be from local LM reps working closely with the Denmark govt and created back in 1995.

I have cited DOD and GAO articles and data along with articles w/educated guesses (that I clearly stated are debatable).

I have also said more than once the F35 will be a capable platform at some point in the future but at one hell of a cost in the end both in final production numbers and upkeep.

I mean for pete's sake look at those LM sales pitch slides you posted on acquisition cost, do you really think this program is just as sound as past legacy programs both in terms of cost and current performance? Even after all that has been posted to the contrary on this board? Seriously?

And finally I will remind you that no amount of synthetic performance numbers, sales pitch slides, collection of 2nd and 3rd hand testimonials will ever replace the insight of being in the cockpit of a tactical fighter, understanding the real limitations of a working tactical radar or having a career in acquisitions working side by side with defense analysts like Sprey, seeing the wide spectrum of groupthink and mindsets in that industry first-hand. All that complemented with a Master's degree in acquisitions studying the good, bad and ugly of the huge system that we call acquisitions in the US for the past 70 years. You really need to accept this.

Not once did I make a statement that all who are questioning Sprey are doing it on political bias. I stated that certain documents after reading them clearly showed a political agenda by labeling conservative vs. liberal mindsets of the past in their historical critique and thereby I dismissed the article.

 

But of course you are happy to ignore that little detail and claim I am unfairly labeling all Sprey's critics with political bias in order to paint me as the bad guy.

Your exact words were all documents have read attacking Sprey only done that on political bias

and you repeatedly said that we are uninformed every single time we questioning Sprey and his comments. You repeatedly attack us for not having background in the industry even though i have said many time that we also form our opinions based on what others people in the industries have said.

Yes, yes you have been trying to dismiss my insight by constantly throwing charts and numbers at me to prove that I don't know what I am talking about.

 

You have been watching and parsing every exact word I have stated and ready to pounce on anything that might be erroneous then once you find something (like my guess at pitch buck), you proceed to get back up from others on other boards then gleefully come back here hide behind a thin veil of respect and impartiality to try to discredit me in front of others.

 

Did it ever occur to you to privately msg me about what others are saying and post something to the effect that I might be off about pitch buck after checking with other sources. Do you really think I would have argued against that type of post? In the end I conceded I could be wrong about pitch buck but I still feel something is off.

(And stop with the all due respect nonsense since it's clear you don't have any).

 

Of course you continue with your agenda, because your goal is to attempt to embarrass me and discredit me. A private message would have been the respectful and sincere way of handling it if you were being sincere as you say but you are clearly not.

 

Do you seriously think anyone would believe your line about "apologizing for harsh language on behalf of..." after all your insane amounts of efforts of flooding this thread with synthetic charts and vendor sales pitch slides and constantly questioning if I am a pilot.

You said that you are a pilot. Fine i ok with that. Not once, i demanded you to show evidence for that. Every time, me or anyone present arguments opposed you, you brush over it saying we don't know anything because we are not in the industry. Fine i accept that so i only post comments from others that have experienced and widely known fact. You repeatedly trying to assert total authority and personal attack toward me. Yet i calmly explained exactly why I can't just take your words for it but rather need a detail explanations.

You are free to express your personal opinions, feeling, even insults sometime on this board but iam not even allowed to support my point with data? . You are free to point out where iam wrong or that i lack in experience in public but if i cite others professionals and slides to defend my view in public then that suddenly too disrespectful?. What kind of discussion is that?. If iam defending my view equal me not being respectful then what does that say about your respect of you toward anyone else?.

And for the record, yes, yes you are giving LM a pass because not once have you ever attempted to show the other side of the argument as to issues of the F35 to balance out your case.

Not once have you tried to balance out all the LM sale propaganda you keep pushing with impartial articles that support the company's outlook and current status of the program.

I actually said that the program has delay and multirole have compromises. But that not the point, this board is not included of only me and you, others members on this board already talk about F-35 bugs and delays, why would i waste my time repeat it when it was not even the topic i was trying to argue against you?. The bottom line is: if we can criticize LM, if we can criticize many countries decision in buying the F-35 then we can also criticize Sprey and you. We are not in a church, so no one's opinion is immune from criticism, your is no different. .

Those slides from Denmark don't mean anything because for all we know they could be from local LM reps working closely with the Denmark govt created back in 1995

And for all we know, you could be just a fanboy or alternatively you could be working for Boeing reps. That argument can go both ways. But that not my point, the point is: even though we have those documents from the people who have the most access to F-35 classified data, we don't just take their words as fact. We analyzed the jet anyway. So your comments, whoever you are still subject to questioning and criticism.

I mean for pete's sake look at those LM sales pitch slides you posted on acquisition cost, do you really think this program is just as sound as past legacy programs both in terms of cost and current performance? Even after all that has been posted to the contrary on this board? Seriously?

That depends, i don't know, i don't have the number here yet. But that the point. We don't just take the comments from professional as absolute fact, we examine them carefully before we draw any conclusion.That the whole point of this thread

And finally I will remind you that no amount of synthetic performance numbers, sales pitch slides, collection of 2nd and 3rd hand testimonials will ever replace the insight of being in the cockpit of a tactical fighter, understanding the real limitations of a working tactical radar or having a career in acquisitions working side by side with defense analysts like Sprey, seeing the wide spectrum of groupthink and mindsets in that industry first-hand. You really need to accept this.

And neither you or Sprey flew the F-35 or against it so that argument is moot. Moreover, I will also remind you that there are also many others professionals with opposing opinions with you, so arguments from authority do not in itself enough for this case. You cannot expect people to just take your words for it if you can't represent your case. You need to accept that.