9 ms·

From the perspective of someone that has been following the program pretty closely, I think one of the big problems is the USAF has worked quite hard at making

From the perspective of someone that has been following the program pretty closely, I think one of the big problems is the USAF has worked quite hard at making themselves non-credible when it comes to talking publicly about the actual capabilities of the aircraft. While WiB are unabashedly not fans of the F-35 program, this report is pretty much in line with past leaks. It's definitely frustrating that we can't seem to get a straight story about what's going on. I mean, it's gotten to the point where USAF generals thought they could get away with literally telling airmen that speaking to Congress positively about the A-10 is treasonous (this being related because the USAF wants to kill the A-10 to divert the funds to the F-35). http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/04/10/fired-for-treason-comments/25569181/ http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/04/10/fired...

hackuser 11y ago
Try Breaking Defense (http://breakingdefense.com http://breakingdefense.com), who unabashedly are fans, for the other side's stories and leaks. Again, I don't know enough to distinguish. It would be most valuable if someone could map out the insider politics, so we could read people and motives better. The story about suppressing other opinions is bad, but I think that's typical in any workplace: Undermining your boss' and your co-workers' careers will get you in trouble anywhere.
- commandar 11y ago
  I'm honestly not familiar with their coverage, but when the first article in its defense I can find from them can pretty much be summed up as "it's doing great things for the military-industrial complex," I'm somewhat skeptical. http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/5b-and-700-high-tech-jobs-reasons-why-f-35-has-friends/ http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/5b-and-700-high-tech-jobs... I also couldn't help but note that there's a Raytheon sponsorship banner at the top of the page and a conspicuous amount of positive Raytheon coverage when I was looking for articles. They may be a totally credible source, but on the surface it doesn't feel like I'd get a straight story there either.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    Hmmm ... take a closer look at that article. Its title is "$5B And 700 High Tech Jobs: Reasons Why F-35 Has Friends", and says money and jobs are buying political support for the project -- something I'd think you would agree with. EDIT: Anyway, I didn't say you'd get the straight story, I said you'd get the other side. They do provide some very informative defense policy info that I don't see mentioned elsewhere.
    - commandar 11y ago
      It's more the context of the piece I take issue with. e.g., the fact that they call out critics for saying the program is behind schedule by linking to a piece they wrote quoting a civilian contractor saying he's very confident they'll deliver a specific component on time... that was written about a month before Lockheed announced more overall delays. I'll keep an eye on them, but the handful of articles I've read through so far definitely feel like they've been run through a PR filter rather than a reporting one and that's not just limited to the F-35 coverage.
- rkroondotnet 11y ago
  I actually just read through the last dozen or so articles about the F-35 on breadkingdefense, they don't sound like fans of the F-35 so much as they just are enthusiastic in general.

hackuser 11y ago

Try Breaking Defense (http://breakingdefense.com http://breakingdefense.com), who unabashedly are fans, for the other side's stories and leaks. Again, I don't know enough to distinguish. It would be most valuable if someone could map out the insider politics, so we could read people and motives better. The story about suppressing other opinions is bad, but I think that's typical in any workplace: Undermining your boss' and your co-workers' careers will get you in trouble anywhere.

commandar 11y ago
I'm honestly not familiar with their coverage, but when the first article in its defense I can find from them can pretty much be summed up as "it's doing great things for the military-industrial complex," I'm somewhat skeptical. http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/5b-and-700-high-tech-jobs-reasons-why-f-35-has-friends/ http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/5b-and-700-high-tech-jobs... I also couldn't help but note that there's a Raytheon sponsorship banner at the top of the page and a conspicuous amount of positive Raytheon coverage when I was looking for articles. They may be a totally credible source, but on the surface it doesn't feel like I'd get a straight story there either.
- hackuser 11y ago
  Hmmm ... take a closer look at that article. Its title is "$5B And 700 High Tech Jobs: Reasons Why F-35 Has Friends", and says money and jobs are buying political support for the project -- something I'd think you would agree with. EDIT: Anyway, I didn't say you'd get the straight story, I said you'd get the other side. They do provide some very informative defense policy info that I don't see mentioned elsewhere.
  - commandar 11y ago
    It's more the context of the piece I take issue with. e.g., the fact that they call out critics for saying the program is behind schedule by linking to a piece they wrote quoting a civilian contractor saying he's very confident they'll deliver a specific component on time... that was written about a month before Lockheed announced more overall delays. I'll keep an eye on them, but the handful of articles I've read through so far definitely feel like they've been run through a PR filter rather than a reporting one and that's not just limited to the F-35 coverage.
rkroondotnet 11y ago
I actually just read through the last dozen or so articles about the F-35 on breadkingdefense, they don't sound like fans of the F-35 so much as they just are enthusiastic in general.