Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Hmm, I see they are also using wikipedia, one of the last bastions of the truth on the internet.

F-16.net Sponsor

DarthAmerica wrote:

ELP seems not to understand that Lockheed is actually trying to run a business and that businesses have to market their products in order to attract customers. I suppose advertising your products highlights is an evil egregious offense. I mean cmon. Could there be a more juvenille criticism?

If the F-35 is even in the ballpark of it's design goals it's going to be a dramatic leap ahead over legacy platforms. Moreover there in no reason why it can't meets it's key requirements. What it boils down to is ELP doesn't like the F-35 for some reason and can't articulate based on objective criteria why the program won't be successful. "Experts" and defense professionals don't do that.

-DA

Well "Darth" you can always claim an odd name anyway. Running a business is one thing. Making just about any claim possible with little fight testing to back it up is another. Lets see there were supposed to be over 300 flight tests this FY... over 1200 the next. Yeah I can see that when the chips are down some are gullible enough to believe PowerPoint slides.

shep1978 wrote:

Code3 wrote:

My original point still remains though, find me any active duty pilot who is not anxiously awaiting the F-35's arrival.

Opposing nation pilots at a guess Twisted Evil

The same was said about the F-104 .... or..... the V-22. Laughing

elp wrote:

Ah yes. Conan. Everyone's favorite Defence cheerleader.

Nice comeback Eric. Ah yes, the same one we've heard a thousand times. You still can't support your own misguided opinion though, so you resort, as always to cliches.

You can't prove my point wrong, so you duck and weave. When the argument gets a bit tough, you slink back to your moderator enabled website.

Jeremy ruled his world, indeed...

I must have missed a lot of the F-35 bashing from ELP. So that I can catch up, I request that ELP start with five points about the F-35 that he contends are untrue or lies from Lockheed. For each one I would like to see 1) a statement or "untruth" about the F-35 that Lockheed has made 2) the source of this statement 3) why this statement is not true.

Am I looking for a fight? No. I just want to know what statements that Lockheed has made that ELP claims are untrue and where they came from, and why they are untrue. If we get through the first five, then we can continue.

Also, if anyone would like to point me to a post where ELP has posted his biography, I would like to read it to decide for myself what his level of expertise is. Not that everyone does not deserve an opinion, but background and experience mean a great deal to me.

Best Regards,

elp wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

ELP seems not to understand that Lockheed is actually trying to run a business and that businesses have to market their products in order to attract customers. I suppose advertising your products highlights is an evil egregious offense. I mean cmon. Could there be a more juvenille criticism?

If the F-35 is even in the ballpark of it's design goals it's going to be a dramatic leap ahead over legacy platforms. Moreover there in no reason why it can't meets it's key requirements. What it boils down to is ELP doesn't like the F-35 for some reason and can't articulate based on objective criteria why the program won't be successful. "Experts" and defense professionals don't do that.

-DA

Well "Darth" you can always claim an odd name anyway. Running a business is one thing. Making just about any claim possible with little fight testing to back it up is another. Lets see there were supposed to be over 300 flight tests this FY... over 1200 the next. Yeah I can see that when the chips are down some are gullible enough to believe PowerPoint slides.

Basically you are trolling. In essence you are saying that because the F-35 hasn't demonstrated all of it's design goals yet, never mind its still in development/test, it wont. A person with experience, education and/or expertise on the subject matter would not do that. Learn to leave your own biases out of your analysis and then people will take you more seriously. Or do you still wonder why your articles and post draw so much fire?

-DA

JoeSambor: Go to the first page of this thread and scroll down to see ELP respond with bio info:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... r-asc.html
&
ELP latest blog at: http://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/
previously:
http://worldwidewarpigs.blogspot.com/

Thanks, but that's not a biography.

Best Regards,

JoeS, I can see the forum members like to argue about how many angels can fit on a pin head but surely what ELP has written on page 1 of this thread would pass as a 'bio'. Do you want a blow by blow account of his life in book form? BIO = "An account of a person's life written..." For what it is Shirley he has accounted for his time in the USAF. And don't call me Shirley. Smile

spazsinbad wrote:

Do you want a blow by blow account of his life

Perhpas not the best choice of words (i'm saying that in jest!)

All I say is in jest. Rolling Eyes

My jokes should be measured on the RICTUS scale and I have spelt that correctly unlike another thread talking about the Harmonic scale or the whatever logariddle scale or whatever. Razz

Well, if I wanted someone to take seriously what I am talking about this is what I would post for a biography:

Joe Sambor

February 1982 Basic Training Lackland AFB TX
May 1982 Lowry AFB CO Tech School (I was a "six-week wonder")
July 1982 MacDill AFB FL FTD
October 1982 Shaw AFB SC 363rd TFW 19th AMU/FS F-16A Block 10, 15, some F-16C Block 25
March 1987 Misawa AB Japan 432d FW/13th AMU/FS F-16A Block 15, F-16C Block 30
April 1990 MacDill AFB FL 56th FW/61st AMU/FS F-16C Block 30
June 1993 Spangdahlem AB Germany 52d FW/81st FS/480th FS/22d FS F-16 Block 50
June 1996 Cannon AFB NM 27th FW/524th FS/AMU F-16 Block 50
May 1998 Separated from USAF (Weight Management Program) Yes, you read that correctly.
July 1998 Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Palmdale CA Service Engineer (Tech Pubs Writer) F-117A
April 1999 Lockheed Martin Field Service Engineer Chiayi AB ROC F-16 Block 20
January 2001 Lockheed Martin Product Support Engineer Fort Worth TX FLCS/CADC/Air Data/Instruments/Boresight/Weapons Accuracy
November 2005 Lockheed Martin Field Service Engineer Woensdrecht Logistics Center The Netherlands Avionics/APG/Structures

Do I know everything about the F-16? NO!!! But after reading the above do you think I have been around the block? YES!! Are there guys on this forum who have been further around the block than I have? YES!!! Some of them know me personally and some I know from their reputations, or know from their posts that they know what they are talking about.

THOSE are the guys whose posts I read and pay attention to.

One more thing, I use my real name in this forum because I don't understand why anyone would need anonymity in an F-16 forum. The contributors that I respect the most are the ones who use their real names or aliases close enough to their real names so that they are not truly anonymous. Those are the people that I respect.

Sorry if offend anyone but if I do at least you know who to complain to.

Best Regards,

Joe, thanks for your bio then. I can see now what you mean. You have been around. It may not be obvious to you if you have not seen my previous thread (where I have pointed people to HUGE PDFs online that give an overview of my own military experience). It was a long time ago now. The first thing that strikes me is that from November 1972 until March 1973 (approx.) I was at Lowry AFB doing the Photo Interpreter course with a bunch of RAAF chaps (mostly with F-111s and they would not say what an F-111 could do photographically because I was an RAN FAA Skyhawk pilot and did not have a 'need to know'). The A-4G Skyhawk used by the Royal Australian Navy Fleet Air Arm had a Perkin-Elmer Mini Pan camera fitted underwing. The same camera was used the the RNZAF A4K Skyhawks. This camera would be used for BDA (Bomb Damage Assessment) on the front line squadron VF-805, embarked for part of the year on HMAS Melbourne. I had left that squadron earlier in 1972 (after one year) returning to VC-724 at NAS Nowra, where most pilots spent their time if they were otherwise not on a course of some kind; or on the front line squadron. I spent 9.5 years in the RAN (Royal Australian Navy) with most of those years in the Fleet Air Arm (1966 to 1975) although I learnt to fly with the RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) for fifteen months because the RAN had no basic flying training capabilities. This arrangement continues today with only helicopters being flown by the RAN FAA, some deployed on suitable ships. Our aircraft carrier & fixed wing flying ceased in 1984.

Agree - I pay attention to those credible posts. My tendency to joke about even serious topics is just what it is. My name is Phil Thompson. Hi.

Conan wrote:

elp wrote:

Ah yes. Conan. Everyone's favorite Defence cheerleader.

Nice comeback Eric. Ah yes, the same one we've heard a thousand times. You still can't support your own misguided opinion though, so you resort, as always to cliches.

You can't prove my point wrong, so you duck and weave. When the argument gets a bit tough, you slink back to your moderator enabled website.

Jeremy ruled his world, indeed...

Yeah Conan.... Hows that DMO cost analysis on the F-35 going? Laughing

JoeSambor wrote:

I must have missed a lot of the F-35 bashing from ELP. So that I can catch up, I request that ELP start with five points about the F-35 that he contends are untrue or lies from Lockheed. For each one I would like to see 1) a statement or "untruth" about the F-35 that Lockheed has made 2) the source of this statement 3) why this statement is not true.

Am I looking for a fight? No. I just want to know what statements that Lockheed has made that ELP claims are untrue and where they came from, and why they are untrue. If we get through the first five, then we can continue.

Also, if anyone would like to point me to a post where ELP has posted his biography, I would like to read it to decide for myself what his level of expertise is. Not that everyone does not deserve an opinion, but background and experience mean a great deal to me.

Best Regards,

Hi Joe. Good to see you around again.

The quick summary is this. Wild claims in sales briefings sparing no superlative is no substitute for a tested go to war example aircraft. I don't think that is too much to look for when the tax payer is being asked to hand over a very large amount of money.

I'll sign on to the program when I see something more than endless spin.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Who is Eric L. Palmer?