Roper Hints NGAD Could Replace F-35; Why? Life-Cycle Costs

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6986
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post16 Apr 2021, 10:39

How many variations of


probably many as long as you include the first part of your self quoted post:

Need to consider what caused the DoD to decouple joint development testing leading up to the STOVL being placed on probation with a real risk of cancellation back in 2011. Its easy to say "no issue" on hindsight since everything was patched up or like some pundit claims to have been baked in at the outset and expected (as if probation was expected at the outset). Just because the DoD & LM managed to resolve the issues doesn't mean the issues were trivial, did not affect production and weren't material technical issues.


Sweet confirmation bias there, also I love when you call me "some pundit" by the way. :mrgreen: That's hot. I wish I could claim all the credit to the "no issue" part but people with higher ranks already said that. publicly and privately as me and a few others have said and noted already. IF you want to give me all the credit despite the entirety of the USMC brass saying it publicly already and on the record at the time, well shucks, I'll be your huckleberry. And thats my problem with your recent posts in this thread. They're hyperbolic, inflammatory, and ridiculous to the point of almost comedy. almost.

If I quote someone that clearly disproves your argument, then that's me alone "the pundit saying" but when you qoute someone then anyone who disagrees with that is saying your source is lying. geewhiz and you wonder why you have to keep clarifying? EVERYONE says, damn "everyone"? and yet not one of those "EVERYONE"s could give you a line that backed what you originally asserted? you couldn't even find one? I found a few without even trying, torpedoing your original argument, along with the "everyone" claim in one swoop.

I can go on about why the above is troublesome to what you claim-- a lot of people can. one could make an equal and indeed more compelling argument with a bit more actual evidence that the USN/F-35C caused more heartburn than the USMC and F-35B. You act like only the F-35B was trouble, because you think it connects to your NGAD claim and the desire to connect and confirm. There's a helluva lot blame to go around on F-35, and I'm always spellbound when 100 percent of it magically lands on STOVL. That's amazing. F-35C never had issues? The Navy never insisted on requirements no one else wanted?

weasel1962 wrote: to post before someone stops attributing falsehoods to what I'm saying.


one way to help would be to stop posting falsehoods.

Its especially galling considering some other pundit appear to claim I can't prove that NGAD will not exclude STOVL


I don't think NGAD is STOVL -- never did think it was-- just in case you're referring to me, I don't think anyone really does.
As for your other postulations on NGAD I pointed out, --correctly -- that very few people who speak so breathlessly about "what NGAD is" are confusing their opinions with factual information. You had no issue telling us about NGAD range for example.

When I mentioned you have no idea if that's the case if range is as important as you think, and those that do know wouldn't be posting on an internet message board, you doubled-down I'm going to calmly and consistently point that out everytime on this board. When someone makes a big hairy statement about NGAD like its carved in stone and they watched the system do that, I'm going to ask how they know that. I already caught a few people, and there's surely more to come.

Might be useful to clarify again what I don't seem to understand.
[/quote]

Allow me to help:

1. You said NGAD wouldn't be STOVL (probably the safest bet one could make on that program, regardless of JSF history)

2. You ran into trouble when you brought the JSF program into it and repeated debunked claims

3. You dug yourself deeper and bounced your original complaint through several goal post moves of dubious value

4. You dug more, seemingly without realizing the standard you had originally set, and how its basically impossible to prove your JSF claim and others had already disproven in other posts, but you just found whatever you could and posted it as "proof"

5. You then started posting whatever you could fine and then entered into a series of fallacious appeal to authority wherein You implied that anyone that disagreed with your (uninformed) opinions was calling authority figures from the secretary of defense, to congress, to literally "EVERYONE" a liar, despite being presented with evidence that proved otherwise.

6. You seem to even now not be able to separate saying NGAD won't be STOVL from what you claimed about the F-35. These are two separate things but you conflated them. Allow me to attempt to explain.

You tell me "Your sister is a whore who can't drive" and I say "what did you say about my sister?" and you start talking about traffic regulations, stop signs, your opinion on the best car-- thinking this proves she is a whore. These are separate things no matter how much we talk about driving, and no amount of evidence about driving is to be confused with evidence about claims of loose morals.

So yeah.

one can actually go through the thread and re-read it. its pretty straight forward and you refuse to take an iota of responsibility for anything you've postd staring with the congressional research office. When I pointed out that you posted bad information in one of your sources that was verifiably wrong you quickly said that was them and not you. so I guess it was their fault you posted that?

Seeing as you were posting myths that have already been debunked I came to the conclusion you were dishonest and this seemed to send you into a tailspin.

Again I don't know if the plan was to be deliberately obtuse, to refuse to concede on anything, or if you really didn't realize what you were doing or some kind of combination thereof. I even tried giving passes like "lost in translation"

I mean this 100 percent, I can try explaining it more. simply put you could say "I don't think NGAD will be STOVL" which is a solid guess if there ever was one. and leave the F-35--- and what you think happened-- out of it.

Weasel we all know you're the smartest guy in the room, all I'm asking is that you concede perhaps you don't know everything, and there are actually people here posting with a lot more connection to the F-35 program than "some pundit" who actually have some knowledge and information first hand in some cases that contradict what you read about online. Is that possible? Can we concede that perhaps people who were actually there might know a little more than the mighty all seeing all knowing weasel? or is that simply impossible?

I am a US Marine and I stand by my personal service, knowledge, memory and honor. If you want to whip out some credentials that put me and what I did to shame, by all means do so if you were even closer to the F-35B than me, by all means put it out there-- but even then I'm going to tell you, that if you weren't there and are subservient to 3rd hand info and flashy headlines written mostly by hacks to get clicks then on this one, "the pundit" knows more.
Choose Crews
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3266
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post16 Apr 2021, 15:33

The idea that ‘STOVL’ was the principle cause of problems in F-35 SDD is fundamentally flawed. Witness, the F-35 Concurrency Report of 2011 — https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ern-report

‘Decoupling’ of F-35B from testing was largely symbolic but was done to keep the rest of the program viable had the ‘B’ variant failed. The USAF couldn’t afford to lose the program.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25727
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Apr 2021, 20:14

PDF AHERN F-35 report: https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... report.pdf (18Mb) NOW reprinted (PRNed) below.
Attachments
dod-quick-look-ahern-report PRN pp55.pdf
(7.44 MiB) Downloaded 33 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Previous

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pron and 28 guests