F-35

[outontheop]

Your response can be summarised as 'I am right; he is wrong. Period'. But he would undoubtedly beg to differ. But let's suppose you are correct. Effectively telling the other person he is an idiot isn't going to encourage him to calmly consider the points you make - only to dig in and defend his position. It's therefore counter productive - unless, of course, you are actually looking for an argument as opposed to a rational debate. In other words, why use provocative language and a combative style when it's unnecessary?

In fact, I made exactly this error when I wrote: 'Well, this is a perfect example of what's wrong with some people on this forum'. If your reaction was to take offence and not really listen to anything beyond that, you were quite justified; it was a very poor opening sentence and totally counter-productive. So please accept my apologies.

My response was hardly "I am right, you are wrong". It was "Here is what the evidence says. It backs up my earlier assertion. Therefore, if you cannot disprove my assertion, I am right."

I'm not looking for an "argument", but at the same time, I was not looking to change *his* mind. He seems quite set in his opinion anyway. I would, however, like to present the actual evidence, so that *other* people don't fall for the spun tripe the media puts out about the F-35.

Now, to be precise, I said his *argument* was crap (specifically, that a particular comparison was horseshit), and that he appeared, to my perception, to be biased. Neither of those are personal attacks. But you are right that I took a very aggressive tack to my argument, and I will say I did so deliberately: his response to my initial statement was (justified, in the initial case) questioning of the veracity, but was followed by a) ignoring the sources, implying they were invalid (because his opinion invalidates them, I guess?), b) failing to provide any contrary evidence, c) establishing strawmen arguments, in the invalid logic that casting aspersions on pedantic interpretations of individual sentences of my supporting evidence rather than confronting my main thesis, will invalidate the primary claim itself d) building red herrings (the "oh, it's single-engine" : implied low reliability), and e) pretty much blowing off my entire statement as irrelevant. As to people implying someone is an idiot... well, I would say that the part where he essentially went "whatever, I'm not going to even present contrary evidence, but thankfully Canada is smart enough to not buy the F-35" (with the implication anyone who supports the F-35 is an idiot), without actually addressing the relative reliability rates.... well, may not be as direct as just bluntly stating that you perceive bias in someone, but it's a lot more insulting. Might as well say "yeah, well... whatever. You're wrong because I'm smarter than you".

Now, saying that something is "wrong with people" IS a personal attack. It is directed against the person, not against their argument.

You can say my argument is total crap if you want, that's fine. I would expect you to back it up with evidence to that effect, but you're welcome to say whatever you like about my argument.

Fight the argument, not the man.

[Tjay]

Now, saying that something is "wrong with people" IS a personal attack. It is directed against the person, not against their argument.

You are right, and I have already apologised for that. Is there anything else you require?

[Tjay]

My response was hardly "I am right, you are wrong". It was "Here is what the evidence says. It backs up my earlier assertion. Therefore, if you cannot disprove my assertion, I am right."

Are you not aware that 'evidence' can be interpreted in different ways? That, after all, is what legal trials are largely about. What one person sees as damning, another will see as praise.

So, with all due respect, 'Here is what the evidence says' is actually no more than your opinion as to what it says. You are, of course, entitled to say that your interpretation of the evidence is correct and the other person's wrong. I'm just suggesting that you can't expect the other person to accept your word for it when they see things differently. Any barrister will tell you that HOW you present your case is as important as the WHAT - if you wish to carry the jury with you.

Anyway, that's me done. I have the distinct impression that anything I might say is water off the ducks back.

[12Alfa]

So now lets take a look see.

Question-1 Seems like you were not part of the team.

2- Did not use what was asked but I gather NO SOURCE

3- NO SOURCE

4- NO SOURCE

5- This one looks like you can accept that your original statement is false

6- NO SOURCE

7- NO SOURCE

8- Again looks like you can accept that you original statement is false

My conclusion is baised on the above , which you could not even tried to answer in a clear form, but choose again to ramble on to show how one could guess how the test in the link worked.

The fact is, you were not part of the process, can't provide any official data/facts from the test, and can't follow simple directions.

Rather you continue to quote reports on the F-18 from dated sources, and call me names.

I was not the one who called the link into question, it was another ( 08-03-2015, 11:08 PM ). I just posted the link, another started with wild claims, it was then that I asked for some data/facts/sources.

The link has if you read it, a USMC Major Paul Greenberg, a Marine Corps spokesman for the source, now thats what a source is, a official report (MOI/AAR) will follow soon as usual.

Can you see the difference a person with no official position in the test, with no real data from data/fact material?

The stakeholders (USMC/NAVY) and the other stakeholder being the suppler, both doing their best to make this work, and in the end getting a 65% rating in which if you know the process was agreed before the test was started, legal doc's in all ,for a non bias look at the systems performance.

What we got is pretty evident of some internet ramblings on the F-18,

with conjecture and "this is how I see the world and the rest be dammed".

One last question.......When you typed in "Strawman" did you notice the reflection staring back at you in your monitor?

My last comment in this thread, I'm giving myself a 1 week ban, I have more grinding to do

Edited August 6, 2015 by 12Alfa

[outontheop]

LOL ok, Hoss. I con-seed. Yer jus tu smart fer me!

I was not the one who called the link into question, it was another ( 08-03-2015, 11:08 PM ). I just posted the link, another started with wild claims, it was then that I asked for some data/facts/sources.

Quote:

"Originally Posted by outontheop View Post

Operational readiness rate of the F-35 on the test deployment was already better than that of the F/A-18E OR during the first three years of the Superhornet's "fully operational" period.

60% may sound bad... but that's just when taken out of context; if you don't have anything to compare it against. Typical of the media to throw out numbers that *sound* bad, without actually quantifying anything.... Also, it was while deployed on a vessel not really intended to for that class of aircraft, being maintained and handled by personnel new to the airframe."

Source?

Really? You didn't? Not even the part where you implied that my source wasn't "recent enough", like this:

Something more current would have been nice also :c:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a579732.pdf

The link has if you read it, a USMC Major Paul Greenberg, a Marine Corps spokesman for the source, now thats what a source is, a official report (MOI/AAR) will follow soon as usual.

Ah, gotcha, so the opinion of individual Marines are invalid when they refute 12Alfa, but valid when they agree with 12Alfa, except the parts where they disagree with 12Alfa.

Also, the report in the OP link is not WRITTEN by MAJ Greenberg. He is quoted. All of once. And what does he say? Why, "Major Paul Greenberg, a Marine Corps spokesman, offered the estimate of 65 percent reliability and said Gilmore’s 'review and assessment was done with our full cooperation.' " and " 'Although some the report is factually accurate, the Marine Corps does not agree with all of the conclusions and opinions,' Greenberg said in an e-mail. 'In some instances, the report contains statements that do not provide proper context or qualifying information, possibly leading readers to form inaccurate conclusions.' ". So... ok, he claims that the F-35B had a 65% reliability rate, and that some individuals present this information out of context (for example, failing to provide a baseline comparison in the form of average readiness rates of currently deployed fighters, say?), in order to change the conclusions made by the recipients of the report. Wow. Funny, this sounds startlingly familiar to what I've been saying this whole time...

By the way, that report you posted was was for a Naval Postgrad paper; a SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT, not an official report. It ALSO actually agreed with me, despite not actually addressing the period of time which I had referenced- namely, the first three operational years of the F/A-18E. Oh, and the actual thesis of the paper was that there is no statistical linkage between the two methods of measuring readiness; RFT versus FMC. It just so happens to also include even more reinforcing information indicating that yes, indeed, the F/A-18E FMC rate is regularly under 70%. It *also* has information on RFT rates, which are on by-squadron rather than by-airframe basis, and, as the very thesis of the paper states, CANNOT be compared directly to FMC rates.