Forum: F-22A Raptor

Aub wrote:

I maintain that the cause of the problem here is that people with technical backgrounds don't know how to effectivly argue, and therefore can't really discuss things very well. Watch out if a couple of engineers are ever in disagreement.

As he stomps off to his room without any supper. Rolling Eyes

F-16.net Sponsor

I think the cause is certain people, obviously not connected with this, or any other, program not understanding program security guidlines (having never been briefed to a program), the potential harm that seemingly innocent information can cause, and not being able to take no for an answer. My kids learned that last part while still "toddlers". Go find all the public-domain info you want or need.

Was I or was I not right? The way I see it too, is that if pieces of "unclassified" information and lead to classified information, then they were part of the classified whole to begin with. Like I said before, the subject at hand wasn't of the ground-breaking varity, and therefore not really worth worrying about. Innocent information about the avionics and materials can be bad to leak out. You see, know all you want about the maximum throw of the control surfaces and general flight characteristics, but with out knowing how to control them to get the plane to do what you want it to, you're not getting very far. The problem isn't the deflections themselves, it's how to decide which surfaces to deflect, how much, and when. I do know a thing or two about flight control and such, and I do know that with out the right imputs from the flight control computer, a lot of current planes would be unflyable. See now, I think any information about anything electronic in the F-22 should be kept hidden, as those are the real security risks. I really don't think that information about control surface maximum deflections could possibly lead to anything classified. I'll have to do the kiddy thing here again and say, I was right, so eat it! Booya!

Hate to break it to you sferrin, regardless of who agrees with who, you're the one who called me a doo-doo head first, with out even understanding what I was saying, and that is about the worst form of uneducated banter you can have. Way to have no idea, good job.

NO, you were not right. Maybe English is not your first language, or your language skills are still in the developmental stage. My post, about 6 posts back, is quoted from a program sercurity briefing, and clearly explains OPSEC(it is written for the comprehension level of a 7th grader, as most TO's are). If you cannot comprehend that, I guess it is your weakness, not mine. It does not matter the way you see it, or the way I see it, what matters is the way the USG and the SPO see it. The language is pretty clear, and that's the way it is. Again, a bit of information does not have to be classified, secret or top secret, to still be program sensitive and covered by OPSEC. I will agree with you on one point: sometimes I think too many details find their way into a discussion, but the moderators do a pretty good job of monitoring that. The info you have been hounding for certainly seems innocent enough, and I highly doubt that it would be classified or secret, but if the people in this forum that have access to the real data decline to provide it, classified or not, it seems to me that they have taken their security briefings and program security seriously. Good job on their part.

Hang on now. I never hounded for information. I said a piece of information was very unlikely to be classified and probably publicly available, and as it turns out, it was a publicly available tid bit. That there, makes me right. Maybe you should re-read what has been going on, because apparently, you still miss my original point.

Aub,

I don't quite know where to start, so I guess I'll start at the beginning.

Aub wrote:

Sorry parrothead, I just needed to refute the whole childish comment. I guess it was unwise to try to have reasonable discussion(let's not lie, arguement) with technical-type people, as I'm sure a lot of you are. I went through two and a half years of aerospace engineering before deciding that it wasn't really that entertaining. So I know the people aren't really that open to arguements. Now I'm in the decidedly less respectable field of history, but it allows me form decent arguements, and understand other people's arguements. A history major with a technical background is very rare, so watch out, I'll be some kind of crazy later on, being trained in two different types of thinking and all(imagine the grandpa stories I can tell. You all know grandpa stories, but mine will be different man, they'll have everything. The political and historical setting of the time, and some technical tid-bits about the objects involved.). Anyway, try to argue with a history person, he'll argue back by trying to dismantle your arguement, argue with an engneer, and the personal attacks are likely to start. You get a lot of "no, that's stupid"'s out of them. They might be right, but they don't tend to back themselves up very well.

I'll bet you didn't think I was a technical person there from the way that was written. Surprise - I may not work on fighter jets, but I'm a Tier 2 tecnician in the data repair department for a major telecom company. I work on DS3s, T1s, PRIs, Trunks, SDSL, HDSL, G6 voice gateways, central office phone switches (don't want to give the make and model), DSLAMs, enterprise grade (1 per market) routers, and all sorts of customer premise equipment. I have COMPTIA A+, Network+, and Server+ certifications and while my CCNA, MCSE, and MCSE2003 have lapsed, I did earn all three. I also just earned my amateur radio (ham radio) technician license and will have my general level license by next month. I think it's fair to say that I'm a tech guy. I may not have formal training in history, but Dad does and has passed quite a bit down to me.

I find your last post to be insulting, arrogant, egotistical, and frankly disgusting. Take all of your generalizations about technical people and replace the group with any other group and see how it reads and sounds. Stereotyping like that about any group is an indicator of insecurity at the very least in my way of thinking. It's an indicator that I probably don't want to associate with that person. After all, if they're willing to paint one group with such a wide brush, then why not another?

Quoting each paragraph would be too much work, so I'm just going to hit the highlights here.

My part about my friends using the FOIA to get to get the info on the A-12 is entirely true and none of it was sarcasm. My friends are the Road Runners Internationale and are the people who designed, flew, and maintained the U-2, A-12, M-21, D-21, YF-12A, and SR-71. They were those programs. Some of them were also involved in Have Blue and Senior Crown along with Have Donut, Have Ferry, Have Drill, and Constant Peg. They used the FOIA as a means of making specific requests for information which they knew to currently be classified so that it could be reviewed and declassified. I also know that they used it to obtain unclassified info from the CIA as well. Having read your other posts, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you didn't even care enough to take five minutes to check it out (IE google A12 A-12 CIA FOIA).

A key idea for your future consideration would be that making statements from a position of ignorance which can and will be recognized by the other people in a discussion or argument is not a good idea. It will always lower your credibility in all areas. On an internet discussion forum, credibility can only be derived over time from the content of one's posts and messages.

The personal attacks were in very poor taste as well and have been brought to the attention of the admins and moderators. One thing that none of us will stand for is being insulted. Yes, people said you were whining. Yes, they said you were being childish. They were criticizing your actions. Calling someone a "putz" and saying that someone is "not too bright" is an entirely different thing altogether. Notice that nobody called you a crybaby, or a whiner. The didn't attack you as a person as you did to others.

We regulars and long time members on F-16.net are a family. At least that's the way I see it. This is my home away from home. I come here on break and at lunch when I'm at work to de-stress and have fun. Sure, I also go to the Hi Point firearms forum sometimes and I might go over to Gun and Game, read up on Ham radio, or go read some more on the Road Runners site, but this is my main stop. I don't take kindly to someone acting as you have towards my friends on this board. The fact that you're pretty new here (joined June 20, 2008 with all of 24 posts) is why I initially cut you slack. After that, you continued. This not only damaged your image and credibility in my eyes, but I'm sure in many others as well.

And while I was writing this post, you made another one:

Aub wrote:

Was I or was I not right? The way I see it too, is that if pieces of "unclassified" information and lead to classified information, then they were part of the classified whole to begin with. Like I said before, the subject at hand wasn't of the ground-breaking varity, and therefore not really worth worrying about. Innocent information about the avionics and materials can be bad to leak out. You see, know all you want about the maximum throw of the control surfaces and general flight characteristics, but with out knowing how to control them to get the plane to do what you want it to, you're not getting very far. The problem isn't the deflections themselves, it's how to decide which surfaces to deflect, how much, and when. I do know a thing or two about flight control and such, and I do know that with out the right imputs from the flight control computer, a lot of current planes would be unflyable. See now, I think any information about anything electronic in the F-22 should be kept hidden, as those are the real security risks. I really don't think that information about control surface maximum deflections could possibly lead to anything classified. I'll have to do the kiddy thing here again and say, I was right, so eat it! Booya!

Hate to break it to you sferrin, regardless of who agrees with who, you're the one who called me a doo-doo head first, with out even understanding what I was saying, and that is about the worst form of uneducated banter you can have. Way to have no idea, good job.

The first bold statement shows you really haven't been reading the posts, haven't comprehended them (and by your standards should go back for remedial education) and clearly don't grasp the concepts that make up the overall idea of OPSEC.

Bold statement number two continues the demonstration of ignorance and shows just how childish someone can be. Not to mention disrespectful. You need to get it through your head that it doesn't matter what you think is or is not harmful. What matters is what the government and contractors consider to be sensitive and even then, no serviceman or servicewoman should ever be criticized for being uncomfortable with disclosing what the don't know for certain to be harmless info.

Bold statement number three - I'm pretty sure he knew what you were saying when he told you to quit whining and THEN PROVIDED THE ANSWER.

I do have to compliment JetTest on his post - nice one Smile

Yeah, time to lock this one down.

I agree - time to lock this one down.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22 Control Surface Range of Motion