Dragon029 wrote:I sent the editor an email and got a response; ...
We spend quite a bit of time fact-checking claims made by the F-35 enterprise, and rarely find them accurate, as some recent examples show:
.. 1bn-cash-advance-goes-to-lockheed-stockholders.html
... marines-declared-f_35-ioc-despite-deficiencies-that-%E2%80%9Cpreclude-mission-readiness%E2%80%9D.html
... the-real-story-of-the-f_35%E2%80%99s-transatlantic-crossing.html
Today's Editor's Note may not be in the same category, but it is in the same spirit.
Thank you for your interest in Defense-Aerospace.com, and kind regards,
The asserted "inaccuracies" are deeply confused in the apple and oranges realm. I'll pick the last one, and just mention that I have crossed the pond, more than once, with chicks in tow, including through Lajes Field. The editor wouldn''t know which end of the box lunch to open... more importantly, who to ask how. I'm not surprised he got strange answers from the wall. I can see however, how the Program Office has just blown this guy off, based on the answers you received. I might address the questions in a face to face, but I wouldn't waste words on a blog/email where every editor's comment is framed against a false narrative. There is no profit in it.
When trying to press a narrative as he does, the rabbit hole that you go down discovering the lack of basic knowledge on the side subjects gets tedious.
"I'm sorry, I didn't know you were clueless about that side subject, let me take you back to 101, and get you up to speed," .... is not something busy program managers are going to do.
Nor will I in a forum like these. Face to face you can dig through the clutter, but not here.
MHO
BP