Open note to David.
Dude! I stepped up to defend you when those bubbas at SOFREP were handing you your ass over the statement made by the General in S. Korea when he made a weird statement about missions being run in the North.
I had forgiven you when it came to some pretty obvious school boy follower ship of the Dark Lord Sweetman and his critique of the F-35 program. But this new little ditty is just too much.
Oh sorry. Let me get everyone up to speed. David wrote this article on the F-35...the whole thing is pretty pathetic but his part stood out.
No mention of the JSF program’s years of delays and rising costs, its reliability and performance problems and the fact that the Marines’ slavish dedication to the flawed stealth fighter means the Corps risks losing its ability to fight in the air.Read the whole thing but that verbiage is straight out of the Sweetman, Air Power Australia and ELP playbook. As a matter of fact he can probably get hit with plagiarism cause I'm sure I've read those exact words on one of those websites.
I would like to say that I'm disappointed but that would be a lie. I expect this kind of behavior along with the secondary effect of Aviation Week linking to his site to help them prove that "we're not the only ones that dislike the F-35" theme. Its all bullshit and David's a dumb ass.
UPDATE: I know the F-35 Haters Club like I know the inner workings of an M-16A4. Sure as shit, Sean Meade linked to David Axe's story! Check out the timeline on my blog posting and then go here to see the link for yourself.
My goodness. He's still claiming the F-35 is somehow "cheating", pushing old GAO reliability data with improper conclusions,and implying contested cost figures are etched in stone. STILL a "Punk Journalist" eh? ...but he looks so pensive!
ReplyDeletedude is lost. he's a puppy that can't find his way. pretty funny that a son of a bitch that has never seen any parts of military service has the balls to make that kind of statement. he in essence is calling the PAO, Marine Air, Naval Air, Air Force Test, Air Force Air, Navy Test, HQAF, HQMC, all liars. geez this cocky little bitch is pissing me off.
ReplyDeleteCareful. Sean Meade likes to ban people from Ares who don't stay on message and toe the party line. ;-)
ReplyDeleteSean once was a moderating voice over at that shop but he's gone over to the dark side. I don't know what to say about the guy anymore. I guess you do what you have to if you want to stay on the team but his integrity is taking a major league hit---right along with aviation week/ares blog.
ReplyDeleteYou guys are hilarious.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Government Accountability Office, June 2012:
"Joint Strike Fighter restructuring continued throughout 2011 and into 2012, adding to cost and schedule. The new program baseline projects total acquisition costs of $395.7 billion, an increase of $117.2 billion (42 percent) from the prior 2007 baseline. Full rate production is now planned for 2019, a delay of 6 years from the 2007 baseline. Unit costs per aircraft have doubled since start of development in 2001. Critical dates for delivering warfighter requirements remain unsettled because of program uncertainties. While the total number of aircraft DOD plans to buy has not changed, it has for 3 straight years reduced near-term procurement quantities, deferring aircraft and costs to future years. Since 2002, the total quantity through 2017 has been reduced by three-fourths, from 1,591 to 365. Affordability is a key challenge–annual acquisition funding needs average about $12.5 billion through 2037 and life-cycle operating and support costs are estimated at $1.1 trillion. DOD has not thoroughly analyzed program impacts should funding expectations be unmet.
"Overall performance in 2011 was mixed as the program achieved 6 of 11 important objectives. Developmental flight testing gained momentum and is now about 21 percent complete with the most challenging tasks still ahead. Performance of the short takeoff and vertical landing variant improved this year and its “probation” period to fix deficiencies was ended after 1 year with several fixes temporary and untested. Developing and integrating the more than 24 million lines of software code continues to be of concern. Late software releases and concurrent work on multiple software blocks have delayed testing and training. Development of critical mission systems providing core combat capabilities remains behind schedule and risky. To date, only 4 percent of the mission systems required for full capability have been verified. Deficiencies with the helmet mounted display, integral to mission systems functionality and concepts of operation, are most problematic. The autonomic logistics information system, integral technology for improving aircraft availability and lowering support costs, is not fully developed."
Aaaand regurgitating contested cost numbers and data that was at least seven months stale when it was released,all from a political document and on balance against the program performance since the data for the report was issued....refutes exactly what? It's OK though. I seriously doubt the GAO auditors understand the lines of code info any more than you do. And BTW SLOC isn't as important as "swimlanes" and "threads". So the lines of code concern reflects a rather archaic POV. Yes we still count SLOC. But it isn't the ultimate metric anymore. someday the beancounters will catch up. school's out for now.
ReplyDeleteWhat is it about the F35 that elicits almost religious like zealotry
ReplyDeleteThe simple fact is the F35 is a complex development programme that has had problems like any other complex development programme, whether that is in aeronautics, software, civil engineering or anything bloody else.
These problems are inevitable and if there weren't problems I would be more worried.
But
The F35 programme has the cream of the Western Worlds engineers and aviators beavering away, does anyone seriously think it isn't going to deliver something that is a step change improvement on what it will be replacing, come on!
Of course we should be sceptical, of course we should aspire to a perfectly run programme with no problems whatsoever and of course we have to try and sift through the vested interests and plain bullshit that people are paid to write but I think we should be expending more energy on how they will be used, the priorities of one system or the other in order to meet strategic and operational need and other important stuff.
The number of lines of code it is or isn't behind is trivial, it really is.
It would be great for the general debate if everyone would just be silent for 6 months, see what has happened against the agreed project deliverables and then pass comment.
Sol and Mac, no matter what people write, the programme is going to do whatever it will.
Relax guys
Anyway, the paralympics is due to start, loads of ex service personnel competing from many nations :)