12 ms·

You got downvoted but I agree with you. Reading engi_nerd's comments in this thread, one can't help but notice that he rigorously defends the F-35 and questions

You got downvoted but I agree with you. Reading engi_nerd's comments in this thread, one can't help but notice that he rigorously defends the F-35 and questions the credibility of anyone (e.g. David Axle) who points out major flaws in the plane's design. Even if he's not a paid shill, I would bet money that he's involved in the military-industrial complex somehow.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
Yup, and comments in other threads. >I currently work as an aircraft telemetry and instrumentation engineer, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9907687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9907687
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Correct. No denying this. But I'm not here to be a jerk or a shill. Just talking about things I have some experience with.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    You've got a connection to the industry, and an apparent emotional response to F-35 criticism. (but who wants to about a subject which they are indifferent to? That's no fun.) For all we know your livelihood may depend in some way upon the F-35. I'm not saying you're always wrong, but I am going to naturally skeptical.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      I have admitted my passion elsewhere in this thread. Is the population of HN not passionate about things? This is, from my years long lurking of the site (I have lurked here since at least 2009 that I can clearly remember) one of the places on the internet where passion can be shared in a responsible way. I do not seek to bash those who doubt the plane on a personal level. What I would hope is that I address their objections from fact. Now, if the facts support their arguments, then I would like to think that I would be the first to admit that. But if the facts are otherwise, then I hope I've done a good job of linking to and explaining public information. And this interaction has sort of confirmed why I am always hesitant to talk about what I do (aside from the obvious reasons why people in this industry are encouraged to not say much), because people see that and make some disparaging remarks. I am not thrilled.
      - nitrogen 11y ago
        I am not thrilled. Only quoting final sentence since I'm typing this on a phone... Without excusing the behavior of your accusers, I think it's probably motivated by the association between the incredibly fascinating engineering work, and the military "work" to which that engineering will later be applied. It's always going to be difficult to converse productively with such an elephant in the room, but your patience in the thread is exemplary.
        engi_nerd 11y ago
        To be blunt: you wind up working on things that are explicitly designed to kill other human beings. That is what you are saying. That's the elephant. Many here would find such a thing immoral and unethical. I know that. I have my own personal reasons for doing what I do. They make sense for my own life. So fnordfnordfnord already linked to a comment where I mention working on sounding rockets (in addition to the aircraft/telemetry) Those are for purely scientific research. I've done the peaeceful engineering thing, I guess. And the program does some good science! But if you look at my comment history more, I have some comments where I talk about working in a really bad environment. Guess what? Same place, the sounding rocket program. So I left and changed jobs. To be honest, I try not to worry about all of this so much, mainly because I'm actually happy to go to work now. I am, however, usually happy to discuss this seeming contradiction of trying to be a moral/ethical person while working in aerospace... Just because I don't think about it every day doesn't mean I haven't examined and reflected upon it.
      - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        >Is the population of HN not passionate about things? Of course. And by the way, my skepticism of your motives isn't meant to be taken personal. Apologies if you're insulted. Maybe it's just me, but I think it's appropriate/proper to disclose in advance that you work in aerospace if you're going to argue pro or against a huge aerospace defense project. Since the disclosure of the existence of things like JTRIG and some of the HB Gary antics I don't think it is too far-fetched that one might encounter some sketchy things in discussion forums. >(aside from the obvious reasons why people in this industry are encouraged to not say much) I'll tell you that a comment you made earlier made my spidey-sense tingle. You mentioned not linking some already-leaked to the public report because it is ITAR controlled, and that pretty much makes you as a person who has a clearance/connection to military/defense work. >because people see that and make some disparaging remarks. I am not thrilled. You can't make everyone like you, especially if your identity is tied to a politically polarizing industry; and you definitely can't make everyone like tremendously expensive weapons projects. Even then, it's not personal. Some of the people who are unabashedly critical of defense/aerospace may well have some very good reasons for it.
- dang 11y ago
  You guys are out of line. You should be grateful that someone with professional expertise is here talking about what they know, not attempting to smear them. Groundless insinuations of shillage and dishonesty are not ok here. They poison the discourse, and you owe greater respect to your fellow HNers. Please don't do this again. All: please flag such comments when you see them in HN threads. engi_nerd likes the F-35, lots of other people don't, that's fine. Have at it with arguments, not cheap shots.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    No, it's absolutely not out of line. Gaslighting, astroturfing, and worse are real things that happen on the internet. Note that I never said shill, though I would if I saw evidence that warranted it. I simply pointed out a relevant post from the commenter's history. If you'll note, I think that engi_nerd and I achieved an amicable understanding of each other at about the same time you were posting your comment.
    - dang 11y ago
      > it's absolutely not out of line It's my job to draw the line. > I never said shill My comment was addressed to the three of you. [I deleted an unfair bit here.] > Gaslighting, astroturfing, and worse are real things that happen on the internet Yes, I spend my days combating those things on HN and my evenings writing code to combat them on HN. Something else that's real on the internet, and poisonous, is commenters groundlessly accusing each other of those things, or insinuating them. That affects civil discourse the way salt affects a slug. We're not letting it become a thing here. See https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=true&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%20astroturfing https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=true&page=0&dateR... for countless further explanations. Anyone with genuine concerns about astroturfing on HN should email them to us at hn@ycombinator.com. We promise to take them seriously. We also promise to look for evidence. > engi_nerd and I achieved an amicable understanding of each other I hope so. I don't believe anyone meant harm or even did anything very harmful, but we've learned that places like HN are vulnerable to tragedies of the commons: small, unintentional slips add up to systemic toxicity. That's the default, so there has to be a countervailing vector. Also, the ganging-up-on spirit that was emerging there was dismaying.
engi_nerd 11y ago
I strive for rigor in facts. Look, the fact is that the plane is kind of stubby looking and is not the quantum leap in maneuverability that, say, generation 4 represented from the previous gen. But I get very, very tired of people taking a poorly researched article that takes major sections of a report out of context (yes, I'm aware that Axe published the whole thing, but he still doesn't draw the correct conclusions from it) and then using that to say, "See? The F-35 sucks after all". The F-35 is a complex answer to a complex question, and it cannot be so simply understood. I wish it could. I love engineering simplicity and elegance and strive for it in my own designs, but anything in the military-industrial complex is hairy and ugly. And yes, I know that from personal experience. Is that a bad thing?
- alkonaut 11y ago
  The F-35 could be the best solution to the complex problem (of making a joint stealth fighter with stovl). No one is arguing it could be done much better, but right from the start it should have been obvious that it's a problem without a good solution at all. The problem just shouldn't have been solved! It should have been two (or even three) different airframes sharing engines, electronics. Some craft wouldn't need full stealth, some wouldn't need stovl. Cramming everything into the same body and adding stealth just made it expensive, heavy, slow and unmaneuverable.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    Well, look at the graphic here: https://i.imgur.com/WdOZcNF.jpg https://i.imgur.com/WdOZcNF.jpg Parts in green are identical across variants. Parts that are similar but require slight changes from one variant to another are called "cousin" parts and are shown in blue. Unique parts are shown in purple. It was originally intended that the three variants share at least 75% of their parts in common. That required a modular kind of construction. That didn't work out so well. A modular construction requires "holes", right? But holes are heavy because you have to reinforce the structure around them to carry structural loads. Now retired test pilot Jon Beesley says this in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ5gmZ74YBY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ5gmZ74YBY at 2:57. It's actually less costly, weight-wise, to build the aircraft structure without holes. For background, the aircraft that he's standing in front of is AA-1, which is the first F-35 aircraft. It represented a design that was 5000 pounds or so overweight. Many changes were done before the next F-35 to roll out, resulting in the current overall config. So in reality we are probably doing much of what you suggested, even though that was not the original intention. They share engines (well, the STOVL variant engine is a different part number because it has to interface with the lift fan, but it's highly similar) and electronics.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
He implied his involvement in this stuff in his own statements. He's clearly got an attachment. That's fine, though, so long as he backs up claims with evidence and we can focus on quality of claims/evidence. An example of that is the F-16 vs F-35 thread we have going on where he's produced useful links.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  I'm a numbers and figures guy, I want to be judged on the quality of what I present. I admit to being passionate about what we're talking about here. But I am trying not to let that cloud my arguments. Apologies if it has been that way.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    I'm judging you on the quality of what you present so no apologies needed. It's the others that are worried about your background. I evaluate what you say and work from there to figure things out.
  - dang 11y ago
    You have nothing to apologize for—on the contrary, the users making insinuations should be apologizing to you. Thank you for being a good sport about it. (This is a procedural comment, not taking sides in the argument.)
nostrademons 11y ago
FWIW, when I read the David Axle piece, my immediate reaction was "This is a PR hit piece" based on the tone and emotional manipulation present in it. I don't know the actual facts behind the F-35 program - I'm about as far from the military-industrial complex as you can get. But I've seen PR spin and know how companies manipulate public opinion, and that piece set off some major alarm bells. I think someone else independently commented to that effect in the HN comments, as well. One should not assume that the first piece you read about a subject is the correct one. It's not abnormal for someone to plant a story with a blogger for political gain, and something like that is actually far more likely than them planting it on a HN commenter (because it reaches a much wider audience and seems a lot more credible). If you're going to be paranoid about shills, astroturfing, and misinformation, at least be paranoid on all sides.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

Yup, and comments in other threads. >I currently work as an aircraft telemetry and instrumentation engineer, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9907687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9907687

engi_nerd 11y ago
Correct. No denying this. But I'm not here to be a jerk or a shill. Just talking about things I have some experience with.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  You've got a connection to the industry, and an apparent emotional response to F-35 criticism. (but who wants to about a subject which they are indifferent to? That's no fun.) For all we know your livelihood may depend in some way upon the F-35. I'm not saying you're always wrong, but I am going to naturally skeptical.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    I have admitted my passion elsewhere in this thread. Is the population of HN not passionate about things? This is, from my years long lurking of the site (I have lurked here since at least 2009 that I can clearly remember) one of the places on the internet where passion can be shared in a responsible way. I do not seek to bash those who doubt the plane on a personal level. What I would hope is that I address their objections from fact. Now, if the facts support their arguments, then I would like to think that I would be the first to admit that. But if the facts are otherwise, then I hope I've done a good job of linking to and explaining public information. And this interaction has sort of confirmed why I am always hesitant to talk about what I do (aside from the obvious reasons why people in this industry are encouraged to not say much), because people see that and make some disparaging remarks. I am not thrilled.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      I am not thrilled. Only quoting final sentence since I'm typing this on a phone... Without excusing the behavior of your accusers, I think it's probably motivated by the association between the incredibly fascinating engineering work, and the military "work" to which that engineering will later be applied. It's always going to be difficult to converse productively with such an elephant in the room, but your patience in the thread is exemplary.
      - engi_nerd 11y ago
        To be blunt: you wind up working on things that are explicitly designed to kill other human beings. That is what you are saying. That's the elephant. Many here would find such a thing immoral and unethical. I know that. I have my own personal reasons for doing what I do. They make sense for my own life. So fnordfnordfnord already linked to a comment where I mention working on sounding rockets (in addition to the aircraft/telemetry) Those are for purely scientific research. I've done the peaeceful engineering thing, I guess. And the program does some good science! But if you look at my comment history more, I have some comments where I talk about working in a really bad environment. Guess what? Same place, the sounding rocket program. So I left and changed jobs. To be honest, I try not to worry about all of this so much, mainly because I'm actually happy to go to work now. I am, however, usually happy to discuss this seeming contradiction of trying to be a moral/ethical person while working in aerospace... Just because I don't think about it every day doesn't mean I haven't examined and reflected upon it.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      >Is the population of HN not passionate about things? Of course. And by the way, my skepticism of your motives isn't meant to be taken personal. Apologies if you're insulted. Maybe it's just me, but I think it's appropriate/proper to disclose in advance that you work in aerospace if you're going to argue pro or against a huge aerospace defense project. Since the disclosure of the existence of things like JTRIG and some of the HB Gary antics I don't think it is too far-fetched that one might encounter some sketchy things in discussion forums. >(aside from the obvious reasons why people in this industry are encouraged to not say much) I'll tell you that a comment you made earlier made my spidey-sense tingle. You mentioned not linking some already-leaked to the public report because it is ITAR controlled, and that pretty much makes you as a person who has a clearance/connection to military/defense work. >because people see that and make some disparaging remarks. I am not thrilled. You can't make everyone like you, especially if your identity is tied to a politically polarizing industry; and you definitely can't make everyone like tremendously expensive weapons projects. Even then, it's not personal. Some of the people who are unabashedly critical of defense/aerospace may well have some very good reasons for it.
dang 11y ago
You guys are out of line. You should be grateful that someone with professional expertise is here talking about what they know, not attempting to smear them. Groundless insinuations of shillage and dishonesty are not ok here. They poison the discourse, and you owe greater respect to your fellow HNers. Please don't do this again. All: please flag such comments when you see them in HN threads. engi_nerd likes the F-35, lots of other people don't, that's fine. Have at it with arguments, not cheap shots.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  No, it's absolutely not out of line. Gaslighting, astroturfing, and worse are real things that happen on the internet. Note that I never said shill, though I would if I saw evidence that warranted it. I simply pointed out a relevant post from the commenter's history. If you'll note, I think that engi_nerd and I achieved an amicable understanding of each other at about the same time you were posting your comment.
  - dang 11y ago
    > it's absolutely not out of line It's my job to draw the line. > I never said shill My comment was addressed to the three of you. [I deleted an unfair bit here.] > Gaslighting, astroturfing, and worse are real things that happen on the internet Yes, I spend my days combating those things on HN and my evenings writing code to combat them on HN. Something else that's real on the internet, and poisonous, is commenters groundlessly accusing each other of those things, or insinuating them. That affects civil discourse the way salt affects a slug. We're not letting it become a thing here. See https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=true&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%20astroturfing https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=true&page=0&dateR... for countless further explanations. Anyone with genuine concerns about astroturfing on HN should email them to us at hn@ycombinator.com. We promise to take them seriously. We also promise to look for evidence. > engi_nerd and I achieved an amicable understanding of each other I hope so. I don't believe anyone meant harm or even did anything very harmful, but we've learned that places like HN are vulnerable to tragedies of the commons: small, unintentional slips add up to systemic toxicity. That's the default, so there has to be a countervailing vector. Also, the ganging-up-on spirit that was emerging there was dismaying.

engi_nerd 11y ago

I strive for rigor in facts. Look, the fact is that the plane is kind of stubby looking and is not the quantum leap in maneuverability that, say, generation 4 represented from the previous gen. But I get very, very tired of people taking a poorly researched article that takes major sections of a report out of context (yes, I'm aware that Axe published the whole thing, but he still doesn't draw the correct conclusions from it) and then using that to say, "See? The F-35 sucks after all". The F-35 is a complex answer to a complex question, and it cannot be so simply understood. I wish it could. I love engineering simplicity and elegance and strive for it in my own designs, but anything in the military-industrial complex is hairy and ugly. And yes, I know that from personal experience. Is that a bad thing?

alkonaut 11y ago
The F-35 could be the best solution to the complex problem (of making a joint stealth fighter with stovl). No one is arguing it could be done much better, but right from the start it should have been obvious that it's a problem without a good solution at all. The problem just shouldn't have been solved! It should have been two (or even three) different airframes sharing engines, electronics. Some craft wouldn't need full stealth, some wouldn't need stovl. Cramming everything into the same body and adding stealth just made it expensive, heavy, slow and unmaneuverable.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Well, look at the graphic here: https://i.imgur.com/WdOZcNF.jpg https://i.imgur.com/WdOZcNF.jpg Parts in green are identical across variants. Parts that are similar but require slight changes from one variant to another are called "cousin" parts and are shown in blue. Unique parts are shown in purple. It was originally intended that the three variants share at least 75% of their parts in common. That required a modular kind of construction. That didn't work out so well. A modular construction requires "holes", right? But holes are heavy because you have to reinforce the structure around them to carry structural loads. Now retired test pilot Jon Beesley says this in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ5gmZ74YBY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ5gmZ74YBY at 2:57. It's actually less costly, weight-wise, to build the aircraft structure without holes. For background, the aircraft that he's standing in front of is AA-1, which is the first F-35 aircraft. It represented a design that was 5000 pounds or so overweight. Many changes were done before the next F-35 to roll out, resulting in the current overall config. So in reality we are probably doing much of what you suggested, even though that was not the original intention. They share engines (well, the STOVL variant engine is a different part number because it has to interface with the lift fan, but it's highly similar) and electronics.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

He implied his involvement in this stuff in his own statements. He's clearly got an attachment. That's fine, though, so long as he backs up claims with evidence and we can focus on quality of claims/evidence. An example of that is the F-16 vs F-35 thread we have going on where he's produced useful links.

engi_nerd 11y ago
I'm a numbers and figures guy, I want to be judged on the quality of what I present. I admit to being passionate about what we're talking about here. But I am trying not to let that cloud my arguments. Apologies if it has been that way.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I'm judging you on the quality of what you present so no apologies needed. It's the others that are worried about your background. I evaluate what you say and work from there to figure things out.
- dang 11y ago
  You have nothing to apologize for—on the contrary, the users making insinuations should be apologizing to you. Thank you for being a good sport about it. (This is a procedural comment, not taking sides in the argument.)

nostrademons 11y ago

FWIW, when I read the David Axle piece, my immediate reaction was "This is a PR hit piece" based on the tone and emotional manipulation present in it. I don't know the actual facts behind the F-35 program - I'm about as far from the military-industrial complex as you can get. But I've seen PR spin and know how companies manipulate public opinion, and that piece set off some major alarm bells. I think someone else independently commented to that effect in the HN comments, as well. One should not assume that the first piece you read about a subject is the correct one. It's not abnormal for someone to plant a story with a blogger for political gain, and something like that is actually far more likely than them planting it on a HN commenter (because it reaches a much wider audience and seems a lot more credible). If you're going to be paranoid about shills, astroturfing, and misinformation, at least be paranoid on all sides.