4 ms·

Confident strangers on the Internet are not worth much. Good articles, with references, which go into competing points of view and explain the problems with th

Confident strangers on the Internet are not worth much. Good articles, with references, which go into competing points of view and explain the problems with them, are worth a lot. Like I said, that Sprey person seems like a blowhard who got attention in the USA, I never heard of him before some YouTube videos in the past few months. The critics I remember were war reporters such as David Axe and IT specialists such as Marcus Ranum.

philwelch 4y ago
> The critics I remember were war reporters such as David Axe and IT specialists such as Marcus Ranum. And by what standard did you find them credible when it comes to evaluating fighter jets? It seems like you aren’t applying a consistent standard to ”confident strangers on the Internet”, which is all those guys seem to be. The truth is, anyone with the qualifications and information necessary to make a proper evaluation already works for a military and isn’t allowed to say much.
- pixodaros 4y ago
  I got to know and trust Ranum and Axe on the specific areas of expertise of IT projects and contemporary military affairs for years (have not heard much from them since then). You, on the other hand, are a stranger on the Internet. I live in a democracy, so its my duty to form an opinion about large controversial purchases my government proposes to make. Of course my opinion on most of them can't be an expert opinion, but it can be at least as good as my representatives'.
  - philwelch 4y ago
    > I got to know and trust Ranum and Axe on the specific areas of expertise of IT projects and contemporary military affairs for years Neither of them have the qualifications to evaluate fighter jets. In any case…. Here’s a pretty comprehensive compilation of well-cited information from 2014 you can pore through: https://comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com/ https://comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com/ And here’s a copy of a story originally published by Air & Space Magazine in 2019 with quotes from F-35 pilots: https://www.jsfsim.nl/f-35/f-35-what-the-pilots-say/ https://www.jsfsim.nl/f-35/f-35-what-the-pilots-say/
    - t43562 4y ago
      There's nothing you can really trust. Everyone has some interest or other. Ontop of that the things people consider essential don't always turn out to merit the emphasis (Norden bombsight eg?) I think there's historical evidence that the US used bribery to get aircraft sold in the distant past and no doubt other countries have too so it would be odd to think that political and other pressures are now suddenly non-existent because we're better human beings than before. You cannot really even trust pilots because they will want Raybans and iPhones even when the cheaper generic sunglasses and phones do the job. They are only the top of the pyramid of people that have to look after the system.
      - philwelch 4y ago
        > There's nothing you can really trust. Everyone has some interest or other. I completely agree.
  - jabl 4y ago
    > I live in a democracy, so its my duty to form an opinion about large controversial purchases my government proposes to make. Of course my opinion on most of them can't be an expert opinion, but it can be at least as good as my representatives'. I agree with you that in a democracy it's a citizen duty to be informed of what is happening. Though in the case of fighter jets, or other high-end military systems, they are very complex and the exact capabilities (and how the military intends to make the most of those capabilities, which can vary greatly for different offerings in a tender) are highly classified. And to be fair, I'm quite sure our representatives don't know much if anything of the classified stuff either. At least in the Finnish case, there was a procurement organization setup including, obviously, Air Force personnel but also lots of other expertise. They did a very expensive and thorough evaluation of the various offerings, including access to classified material I'm sure, before ending up at recommending the F-35. The politicians then more or less rubber-stamped the recommendation. That is not to say that politicians couldn't go against that recommendation, ultimately it's their decision. Things like industrial policy (aka jobs programs) related to major military acquisitions matter, and particularly during the cold war Finland tried to stay neutral and one way this was done was that major military acquisitions were divided between Soviet and Western gear (e.g. how Finland ended up with both Mig-21 and Saab Draken fighters). Though today if the politicians would decide to go against the recommendation of the procurement organization I'm sure that would cause quite an uproar and need some pretty hefty justifications.
    - philwelch 4y ago
      > and particularly during the cold war Finland tried to stay neutral and one way this was done was that major military acquisitions were divided between Soviet and Western gear How much of this was down to practicality, though? Being able to pick and choose the best gear from each side?
      - jabl 4y ago
        > How much of this was down to practicality, though? Being able to pick and choose the best gear from each side? I'm not an expert on cold war Finland, but my understanding is that Finland was threading a very fine needle between not provoking the USSR (see Prague 1968) while still maintaining relations with the West in order to not be seen as being part of the Soviet sphere of influence (which, again, can be seen as form of insurance against a Soviet annexation). Foreign trade, and in particular major arms deals, were VERY politicised, and I'd imagine there would be a need for very strong differences in military/technical capabilities to override the political considerations in any particular deal.

philwelch 4y ago

> The critics I remember were war reporters such as David Axe and IT specialists such as Marcus Ranum. And by what standard did you find them credible when it comes to evaluating fighter jets? It seems like you aren’t applying a consistent standard to ”confident strangers on the Internet”, which is all those guys seem to be. The truth is, anyone with the qualifications and information necessary to make a proper evaluation already works for a military and isn’t allowed to say much.

pixodaros 4y ago
I got to know and trust Ranum and Axe on the specific areas of expertise of IT projects and contemporary military affairs for years (have not heard much from them since then). You, on the other hand, are a stranger on the Internet. I live in a democracy, so its my duty to form an opinion about large controversial purchases my government proposes to make. Of course my opinion on most of them can't be an expert opinion, but it can be at least as good as my representatives'.
- philwelch 4y ago
  > I got to know and trust Ranum and Axe on the specific areas of expertise of IT projects and contemporary military affairs for years Neither of them have the qualifications to evaluate fighter jets. In any case…. Here’s a pretty comprehensive compilation of well-cited information from 2014 you can pore through: https://comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com/ https://comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com/ And here’s a copy of a story originally published by Air & Space Magazine in 2019 with quotes from F-35 pilots: https://www.jsfsim.nl/f-35/f-35-what-the-pilots-say/ https://www.jsfsim.nl/f-35/f-35-what-the-pilots-say/
  - t43562 4y ago
    There's nothing you can really trust. Everyone has some interest or other. Ontop of that the things people consider essential don't always turn out to merit the emphasis (Norden bombsight eg?) I think there's historical evidence that the US used bribery to get aircraft sold in the distant past and no doubt other countries have too so it would be odd to think that political and other pressures are now suddenly non-existent because we're better human beings than before. You cannot really even trust pilots because they will want Raybans and iPhones even when the cheaper generic sunglasses and phones do the job. They are only the top of the pyramid of people that have to look after the system.
    - philwelch 4y ago
      > There's nothing you can really trust. Everyone has some interest or other. I completely agree.
- jabl 4y ago
  > I live in a democracy, so its my duty to form an opinion about large controversial purchases my government proposes to make. Of course my opinion on most of them can't be an expert opinion, but it can be at least as good as my representatives'. I agree with you that in a democracy it's a citizen duty to be informed of what is happening. Though in the case of fighter jets, or other high-end military systems, they are very complex and the exact capabilities (and how the military intends to make the most of those capabilities, which can vary greatly for different offerings in a tender) are highly classified. And to be fair, I'm quite sure our representatives don't know much if anything of the classified stuff either. At least in the Finnish case, there was a procurement organization setup including, obviously, Air Force personnel but also lots of other expertise. They did a very expensive and thorough evaluation of the various offerings, including access to classified material I'm sure, before ending up at recommending the F-35. The politicians then more or less rubber-stamped the recommendation. That is not to say that politicians couldn't go against that recommendation, ultimately it's their decision. Things like industrial policy (aka jobs programs) related to major military acquisitions matter, and particularly during the cold war Finland tried to stay neutral and one way this was done was that major military acquisitions were divided between Soviet and Western gear (e.g. how Finland ended up with both Mig-21 and Saab Draken fighters). Though today if the politicians would decide to go against the recommendation of the procurement organization I'm sure that would cause quite an uproar and need some pretty hefty justifications.
  - philwelch 4y ago
    > and particularly during the cold war Finland tried to stay neutral and one way this was done was that major military acquisitions were divided between Soviet and Western gear How much of this was down to practicality, though? Being able to pick and choose the best gear from each side?
    - jabl 4y ago
      > How much of this was down to practicality, though? Being able to pick and choose the best gear from each side? I'm not an expert on cold war Finland, but my understanding is that Finland was threading a very fine needle between not provoking the USSR (see Prague 1968) while still maintaining relations with the West in order to not be seen as being part of the Soviet sphere of influence (which, again, can be seen as form of insurance against a Soviet annexation). Foreign trade, and in particular major arms deals, were VERY politicised, and I'd imagine there would be a need for very strong differences in military/technical capabilities to override the political considerations in any particular deal.